UC Berkely Report - Is It Just Me Or Is This Huge?

[sabra]

All of a sudden my heart started beating faster after reading their discoveries.

This was a report from a dedicated highly regarded university department, not some "conspiracy theory" that the media has labeled this so far....

My question is, is this as big as it seems? Are they essentially saying that there should be an instant ~260k votes switch in Florida?

Will this finally open the eyes of the media?

I don't know about you, but this has made my day...

[whistle]

1. link???

[sabra]

5. link

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/index.html

[Sam07]

8. Link

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/

Happy to provide THIS as my very first post! :bounce:

Sam

[pk_du]

13. Welcome Sam!

[indy_azcat]

Welcome to DU!

May many more follow!

:toast:

[Turn CO Blue]

58. A fellow newbie welcomes you to DU! n/t

[Rambis]

2. Forgetabouit ,no one trusts liberal commie pinko berkies

WTF are you thinking? It won't make a bit of difference they have the power and we will have to pry it from their cold dead fingers.

[jsamuel]

4. And so we will

[ewagner]

3. I think

it's circumstantial evidence and so do they...they are calling for Florida election officials to investigate a very serious piece of circumstantial evidence.....don't know where it will go.......

[jsamuel]

9. Circumstancial evidence only isn't "good" in COURT, But in public opinion

It is everything...

[merh]

28. Okay, let's get this straight

In civil cases, the burden of proof is not as high as in criminal cases.

In criminal cases it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil, it is "a preponderance of the evidence". If you will recall, the evidence in OJ's criminal case did not rise to beyond a reaonsable doubt and he was acquitted. In the civil, wrongful death action, he was found responsible or liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole & Ron.

If criminal prosecutions are sought for the election irregularities, then reasonable doubt would be the standard.

The election fraud civil cases or lawsuits would be a lower burden of proof.

[Edie]

78. Not quite that simple

I don't think that is necessarily true for civil cases. In some states, you must prove election fraud by "clear and convincing evidence," which is a middle standard of proof between the traditional civil preponderance standard, and the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Ohio is one such state.

In federal cases, the burden of proof may vary depending on the right claimed to be infringed.

[merh]

81. Thank you for correcting me, I didn't realize that ohio had the

"clear and convincing standard". I knew that beyond a reasonable doubt couldn't be the standard. Welcome to DU Edie and thanks again. :hi:

Enjoy the discourse, but I warn you, DU is very addicting.
My name is merh and I am a DUalolic!

:toast:

[AmyCrat]

33. Scott Peterson was convincted almost entirely on circumstancial evidence

n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

51. The big difference being: the media WANTED to talk about Scott Peterson...

...endlessly.

[Wordie]

71. I think that there is a sort of "forensic" statistics that IS acceptable

in court, but I'm not positive. Does anyone else know? Because if it is allowable, that would make it possible to contest FL!

[jsamuel]

72. You are indeed right.

[flowomo]

6. it seems very interesting.... but...

I also noticed that even if you take their high figure of 260,000 (their range is 130,000-260,000) keep in mind that Bush won by something like 367,000. Still, if it stands up as proof of fraud or maniuplation, heads will roll.

[shaggy briard]

12. Yes but

if we get it closer, then we can start to look at undervotes, chads and double votes for the chimp -- showing that the margin is nothing like it was thought to be is important -- also, since the senate race was decided by 80K, these patterns might influence that contest as well

[flowomo]

15. I wondered if they had crunched the Senate numbers too....

anyone know?

[jsamuel]

14. That is only evoting counties and based on non-evoting counties, so

if the optical scanner counties gave Bush more than he should have gotten also, then that increases that number of wrong votes from evoting counties. Plus add in the change from the optical scanner counties and you have well over 400,000 change.

[flowomo]

18. I may be wrong but I thought the study excluded opticals

as a source of anomalous results. I could have misread it.

[jsamuel]

24. It does, but they base their results on the opticals

they looked at the opticals, compaired them with the evoting and came up with a number for evoting being wrong. You see, so if they lower the number of opticals, then the number of evoting would also decrease.

Which could take away votes from Bush in excess of 400,000.

[flowomo]

27. ok... maybe they'll crunch that set too....

couldn't hurt... though it would involve another layer of speculation.

[Eloriel]

50. Correction

I haven't read the study yet, but your use of the term "evoting" and esp. contrasting it with optical scan is confusing and misleading, IMO.

DREs (Direct Recording E-something or other) refers to touchscreens, which are computerized.

Optical Scan machines are also computerized, both in their optical scanning capabilities and counting the votes there and in their central tabulation software.

AFAIC, they're BOTH "evoting" tho I don't use that term. They're definitely both compuerized, they definitely share ALL the identified vulnerabilities including riggability, hackability, potential for malicious code and errors, power outages (tho that may not be too big an issue given a "backup battery," electronic/computer sneezes of various sorts and Keith Olbermann's favorite, static cling.

[jsamuel]

53. The way the study uses the term "evoting" means touch screen only

Look this is how it worked.

The study compared "DRE" counties to "op-scan" counties. They found that the DRE counties had 130,000 to 260,000 or more extra votes for Bush. BUT ONLY THE DRE COUNTIES. THEY DID NOT ADDRESS THE OP-SCAN COUNTIES.


Look here...

http://uscountvotes.org /

As you can see, only 15 counties used e-voting.
53 used op-scan, one of which is Volusia...

It shows 15 Counties with evoting (Green), 1 county mixed (Purple), and 52 which are op-scan (Red, like Volusia).



By the way "evoting" has nothing to do with they way the votes are counted, but with they way they are recorded. (Touchscreen = evoting, paper counted with op-scan does not equal evoting)

I definitely agree that BOTH types have serious security flaws due to the cental tabulators being used for BOTH types. That is why my conclusion says that there are at least 130,000 in those 15 counties ALONE. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE VOLUSIA OR COUNTIES LIKE IT.

[nolabels]

92. Thank you, you tireless person you, your GREAT

Tony the Tiger style no less. I listen to several persons on the radio today that referred to this study. Mostly they were college Professors with PhD’s. The last one I listened to explained the model that was used to make this study. I am not math wiz so when people start talking nuts and bolts on how this stuff works my ears go into high gear. This last Professor said the model that was used is one of the variations many sciences use in predictions of probabilities. It was standard stuff used all the time with great reliablity

It was said studies indicating a 5% error rate meaned it would be a given but this rate of .005% chance or error rate make the variable rate for this not being correct just about a hammer lock. I like to question everything but this rate of .005% after factoring all the data except religion (which they have no data on anyway) means it was either a miracle or George W. Bush was not elected this time either. Many people knew instinctively, but were waiting for numbers from places like this to come out.

I guess is why there is so many that hate real science and love junk science

[ahyums]

16. yes but that refers to potentially 260,000 extra votes for Bush -

- which might have been cast for Kerry - in other words potentially it spans a 520,000 vote gap which would be more than enough to close the gap and give the state to Kerry.

[flowomo]

21. no.... the 260K takes that into account. Check the study.

[smartvoter]

17. Depends on How the Extra Went to Bush

If they are extra votes that would not have gone to Kerry, you are right, it doesn't change the outcome. If they are Kerry votes, you add to Kerry and subtract from Bush at the same time -- Kerry wins.

[flowomo]

22. no.... that's how they got 260K...

they doubled 130K to account for it. Read the study.

[sabra]

26. Thanks, I see it now

[smartvoter]

32. You're right.

I had read the summary page only -- you are right. Would still be nearly 130,000 short.

[sabra]

19. It all depends

If you are taking those votes away from Bush, then 260k(high end of range) * 2 = 520k, which would means...

[flowomo]

23. no... see above

[CAcyclist]

30. At Minimum, We Have A Stronger Case for Verified Voting

and it could open a criminal investigation

[flowomo]

31. yes! That's the positive... and it's a good piece of evidence...

I just didn't want people getting too excited about its potential to overturn the election. It may, if it helps unravel the whole system, but by itself, it does not.

[Kralizec]

35. It was more like a min of 130,000 with an open limit

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Every authority that can cast doubt on the results

is further indictment of the process.
None of this is bad.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. The MSM will dismiss it as having been written in a hot tub

mark my words

[Tace]

36. Not Only That, But SCIENCE & ARITHMETIC Are Involved

We all know what Bushco and his followers think about science and arithmetic.

[99Pancakes]

54. That got huge laugh out of me!! (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Every little bit that puts this election in doubt is A GOOD THING

[s-cubed]

43. Credibility is everything!

Remember that appalling NYT magazine article about reality not meaning anything? This is the kind of reality that speaks volumes to some people who might otherwise dismiss allegations as due to internet nuts. It also counters the CalTechMIT rebuttal of earlier work. We need people like these berkeley folks and Steve Freeman to take the evidence to certain kinds of people, who can become valuable allies because they are smart, independent thinkers who are educated/educators and will lend credibility.
sss

[jsascj]

20. I'm sure that nothing will change

They'll just chalk it up to all those elite academics at it again.

When did education become a thing of scorn? 'Thinking' something to be ashamed of? Actually using your brain as a waste of time?

Oh yea, in 2000 when we were presented the dumbest pile crap to ever occupy the WH

[Horse with no Name]

88. Bush's New Punchline

A mind is a terrible thing to use.

[tbuddha]

25. BUSH won FLA by less than 400,000, so....

If 266,000 votes go to Kerry instead of Bush, we have a new president.

[sabra]

29. See post #21

[crispini]

34. aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!

yes, this is huge, but will people pay attention?

"We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[woodstein]

39. Is this huge???

Better believe it!!!

[tex-wyo-dem]

37. Is Bev aware of this?

"Statistical patterns in counties that did not have e-touch
voting machines predict a 28,000 vote decrease in President Bush's support in Broward County; machines tallied an increase of 51,000 votes - a net gain of 81,000 for the incumbent. President Bush should have lost 8,900 votes in Palm Beach County, but instead gained 41,000 - a difference of 49,900. He should have gained only 18,400 votes in Miami-Dade County but saw a gain of 37,000 - a difference of 19,300 votes."

I wonder if BBV is keeping track of this. Last I heard they were still in FL to audit other counties. They should attempt to look at some of the counties listed above. If they were to discover the same patterns as listed above it could help with validation of Berkley's report and be validation for more through investigation.

[lawladyprof]

38. Why didn't they do Ohio--where the margin was so much smaller?

Granted Ohio did not use E-voting to the same extent (at all?), but if you could peel away say 50,000 e-voting Bush votes then, you might stand a chance of getting the rest through provisionals and recounts. Of course, this strengthens every challenge to the accuracy in every state. No? Yes?

[tandem5]

41. they do talk about ohio in their paper...

"We also examined the effect of electronic voting machines and
baseline support for Bush on change in percent voting for Bush in Ohio."

snip

"Without controlling for change in voter turnout, size, median income, Hispanic population, or percent voting for Dole in 1996, we found no effect of electronic voting on change in percent voting for Bush from 2000 to 2004 in Ohio."

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_WP.pdf

[Mike Nelson]

40. IMO

Well, Sabra, it should be HUGE, but it isn't... I believe the media will dismiss it as "liberal" wishfulthinking. If only we could connect the study to Lacy Peterson and Baby Conner... THAT WOULD MAKE IT HUGE!

[Woo]

42. If they could connect it with Laci Peterson

and Baby Connor -- you would have essentially screwed Larry King's guest schedule up for two months -- he would have to find something else that's NOT relevant to the everyday lives of people -- can't have that.

[sabra]

44. Reports starting to pop up

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i22berkeley.htm

But which larger media circuit will cross over first, if any? MSNBC???

[Broken Acorn]

46. Wired Article: Fishy in Florida

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

The only problem though with Touch Screens is that they have NO paper trail...this sucks because you can't recount it.

[organik]

45. why isn't this all over the msm?

Soooo frustrating.

I did notice the ohio double count story on AP this morning...perhaps by reporting a small irregularity they can cover up one big giant FRAUD.

[lostnfound]

57. It has A) No sex and B) No corporate advertising behind it. nt

[distantearlywarning]

47. In my professional opinion (tm) as a part-time stats person

this is EXTREMELY damning evidence. Very well done study with clear results pointing to fraud.

Will the MSM pick it up? Who knows. *crossing my fingers*

[JudyM]

70. Is it necessarily fraud or might they claim computer or operator error?

[Shalom]

48. HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE n/t

[BamaBecky]

49. That's what I think also - I got real excited when I heard about it!

:nuke:

[99Pancakes]

52. Wow!

This is as exciting as some of the other great posts today!! Merrily, merrily we roll along........:bounce:

[ahyums]

55. the thing is, it is huge it should be huge in the wider media

but at the moment all I seem to see is everyone (metaphorically) screaming this is huge at each other. This really should be the story that breaks this whole into the open for once and for all but I don't see it happening yet, hopefully its just a case of being slow off the mark. Time is critical here. Florida has to be brought under serious scrutiny right now or it will be too late - for this cycle at least.

[blitzburgh55]

56. Wired news picked up the story

sorry if it's been posted already, can't keep up with all the posts. :toast:

Researchers: Florida Vote Fishy


By Kim Zetter | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1

12:18 PM Nov. 18, 2004 PT

Electronic voting machines in Florida may have awarded George W. Bush up to 260,000 more votes than he should have received, according to statistical analysis conducted by University of California, Berkeley graduate students and a professor, who released a study on Thursday.

The researchers likened their report to a beeping smoke alarm and called on Florida officials to examine the data and the voting systems in counties that used touch-screen voting machines to provide an explanation for the anomalies. The researchers examined the same numbers and variables in Ohio, but found no discrepancies there.

Their aim in releasing the report, the researchers said, was not to attack the results of the 2004 election in Florida, where Bush won by 350,000 votes, but to prompt election officials and the public to examine the e-voting systems and address the fact that there is no way to conduct a meaningful recount on the paperless machines.

The analysis -- which hasn't been formally peer-reviewed, but was examined by seven professors -- showed a discrepancy in the number of votes Bush received in counties that used the touch-screen machines and counties that used other types of voting equipment. The researchers examined numerous variables that might have affected the vote outcome. These included the number of voters, their median income, racial and age makeup and the change in voter turnout between the 2000 and 2004 elections. Using this information, they examined election results for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in the state in 1996, 2000 and 2004 to see how support for those candidates and parties measured over eight years in Florida's 67 counties.

They discovered that in the 15 counties using touch-screen voting systems, the number of votes granted to Bush far exceeded the number of votes Bush should have received -- given all of the other variables -- while the number of votes that Bush received in counties using other types of voting equipment lined up perfectly with what the variables would have predicted for those counties.

The total number of excessive votes ranged between 130,000 and 260,000, depending on what kind of problem caused the excess votes. The counties most affected by the anomaly were heavily Democratic.

Sociology professor Michael Hout, who chairs the university's graduate Sociology and Demography group, said the chance for such a discrepancy to occur was less than 1 in 1,000.

"No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained," he said in a statement. "There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero -- less than once in a thousand chances."

The three counties where anomalies were most prevalent were Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade. In Broward, statistical analysis showed that Bush should have received 28,000 fewer votes this year than in 2000. In fact, he received 51,000 more votes than expected, for a net gain of 81,000 votes. In Palm Beach county, analysis showed that Bush should have received 8,900 fewer votes. But instead he gained 41,000. In Miami-Dade county he was expected to gain votes, but by much less than he actually did. According to the researchers he should have received only 18,400 more votes, but he actually received 37,000, a gain of 19,300 beyond the expectation.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html?tw=wn_1polihead

[Helga Scow Stern]

61. This is a good, honest reporter.

I always thank her for her stories about this.

[masshole1979]

64. They're saying the op-scan machines are OK???

Someone explain this to me...we've been saying all along the statistical evidence both from historical trends and exit polls showed that the op-scan counties in Fla., more so than the touch-screens, were aberrant. They seem to be contradicting this. What was the evidence for op-scan fraud in Fla.?

And may I remind you that op-scan machines are the ones that are being recounted in New Hampshire--so if the op-scan machines are somehow kosher (and how can they be with the results in NH being so weird?), we are in for a big setback in NH.

"
They discovered that in the 15 counties using touch-screen voting systems, the number of votes granted to Bush far exceeded the number of votes Bush should have received -- given all of the other variables -- while <b>the number of votes that Bush received in counties using other types of voting equipment lined up perfectly with what the variables would have predicted for those counties.</b>
"

[genieroze]

77. Maybe Ohio is the red herring

Keep your eyes on Ohio and off FraudiDUH. MSM, Ohio will be the deciding state this year....bla bla bla

[caligirl]

59. UCBerkley report story on at 6pm KGO7 in San Fran. tonight

Just confoirmed it with channel 7(KGO) news dept. They are doing a story on Cal Berkley report at 6 pm tonight.:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[caligirl]

60. KGO is the ABC affiliate news channel, checking other stations now.n/t

[caligirl]

66. KGO ABC affliate is the only station covering this.

KPIX wouldn't say, KRON and KTVU did not attend the press conference.
I told them this was a bigger story than they know and hoped they changed their mind.

[momzno1]

67. Salon reported it, but seems biased in the "War Room" not bad

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html


It’s not proof of voter fraud -- at least not yet -- but it seems that somebody has some explaining to do about the election results from Florida. In a report released this morning, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, say that George W. Bush received 130,000 more votes in Florida in 2004 than he should have received, and that the only real explanation has something to do with electronic voting machines.

Through multiple-regression analysis, the Berkeley researchers examined the increase in Bush’s support, on a county-by-county basis, between 2000 and 2004. Their conclusion: A county’s use of electronic voting machines resulted in a "disproportionate increase" in votes for Bush which "cannot be explained away by other factors."

The disparity between the votes Bush received and the votes statistical models said he should have received was largest in those e-voting counties where Al Gore was strongest in 2000: Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade. Michael Hout, the Berkeley sociology professor who presented the researchers' findings today, said that he could not explain why the disparity was so high in counties that favored Gore in 2000, nor could he explain how the electronic voting machines might have over-counted Bush votes. But he said that there’s virtually no possibility -- a one in 1,000 chance that he called "trivial" -- that the voting disparities arose by chance.

"Our approach is like a smoke alarm, and it’s beeping," Hout said on a call with reporters this morning. "We're calling on officials in Florida to investigate to see if there's a fire."

Hout said the researchers applied their same tests to electronic voting in Ohio and discovered no such disparities. And even if the Berkeley researchers are right about Florida, their numbers don't change the overall result of the election there. As things stand now, Bush won Florida by about 311,000 votes. If the 130,000 "extra" votes the Berkeley researchers have found were "ghost votes" – that is, votes that were never cast but simply added to Bush’s total – then Bush's margin would drop to about 181,000 votes. But if the 130,000 votes were Kerry votes that somehow got switched to Bush votes, then Bush’s margin in Florida would drop to 51,000.

[momzno1]

68. I didn't think that Salon said enough so I blew a gasket on them.

Here is my angry letter to Salon

I cannot believe that I am finding such shabby reporting on Salon! I am
considering requesting a refund of my membership fee for this year. Your
report states that Bush may have been credited with 130, 000 extra votes by
evoting, but that it wouldn't change the results of the election - implied
in that is "who cares"!!! This gives the reader the mistaken impression
that this kind of FRAUD does not matter.

I am OUTRAGED! First of all, if your writer had READ the report, it was
between 130,000 and 260,000 - big difference, and secondly this is in only15
counties!!!! This is indicative of FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, further
possibilities of FRAUD must be investigated in the other counties. I
thought Salon was better than Fox network, but perhaps you are owned by the
corporations as much as the Fox network. Shame on you.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

[mother earth]

62. ITS HUGE, HUGE, HUGE...

My heart is uplifted again....does this mean good shall triumph over evil? Or...stay tuned....don't change that dial....the show has only begun!!!!!!

[deansyawp]

63. Florida Recount?

Is anybody raising money for a potential Florida recount? Since the vote was certified, time is ticking. Since Nader and Cobb were both on the ballot, perhaps one of them would sponsor it? Could someone at DU with more experience and clout than me get the ball rolling?

Because you know that the SCLM won't do much more than mention this study, and the wingnuts will have no problem dismissing it as just a bunch of librul perfessers -- and from the People's Republic of Berkeley, no less ...

[ahyums]

65. that's exactly true the vote had been certified there's not much time

there needs to be a recount based on this

[Wordie]

73. You're right about the "liberal" dissing. It will happen for sure. Someone

should certainly find out about the time left and regulations for requesting a recount. Time is short!

I can't believe this! :)

[leftchick]

69. sadly there is a precident set here for the attention of MSM to...

HUGE news adversly affecting the * administration. Actually there are many unrepoterted stories but the one that sticks out in my mind most is all of the WMD 'evidence' from the * administration before the invasion and we here on DU read daily foreign press reports debunking them all. The US has STATE RUN MEDIA. A very tough coconut to crack.
:(

[Cookie wookie]

74. This is huge

This is wonderful news. Thank you Berkeley. It's the opening we need to get a Florida recount. That has to be demanded for the entire state. Nader said if the results in NH indicated problems he'd consider going elsewhere for recounts, didn't he? We need to get him or Cobb to turn to Florida now. I'm up for it -- thinking now how I can tell all my family that their Christmas presents were donations for a recount in Florida.

Hooray!

[liam97]

75. The problem though

is you can't recount evotes w/out paper trails - you can, but that would not be a verification. So revote would be the only option.

[shraby]

76. With that report and the mess coming out of

North Carolina, it looks like both states should revote. Paper ballots and pen.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

79. Jeff Fisher has something up on his website (he just

put it up) about a recount - supposedly Nader has decided to go through w/one?
"Kevin Zeese, Ralph Nader's media spokesman, was in contact with Al Rogers via phone and informed him that Mr. Nader was onboard as long as we could provide the financing. Mr. Rogers informed him that we had located a financial source to fund his efforts. At the time of that phone call Mr. Zeese said he would relay that message to Mr. Nader. Mr. Rogers asked him again if this meant that Mr. Nader was on board? Mr. Zeese responded by saying that the answer was that as long as the financing was in place then Mr. Nader would continue his effort to get a recount in Florida."
http://www.jefffisherforcongress.com/Campaign2006/indexletterRalphNader111504.htm#nader1a

I don't know ...take it how you will

[99Pancakes]

83. somebody still needs to explain

to me how it was that in the Greatest Democracy on Earth, machines with no accountabilty factor were allowed into an election that EVERYBODY knew was CRUCIAL. I like best the person who reminded us about those near flawless ATMs with receipts. If we can keep an eagle eye on our money, then why not on our elections?

[Baja Margie]

80. Kick

[liquiduniverse]

82. The Berkeley numbers were based on the idea ...

that the numbers were accurate in the optical scan counties. However, in the counties that used optical scanners, we've already seen some reports that could indicate fraud and lost votes for Kerry - especially in Volusia. If a number of the optical scan counties posted innaccurate voting numbers favoring Bush, then based on this report, the number of votes Kerry should have received would be higher, not only because of the lost votes in the optical scan counties, but after re-interpolating the numbers, a great deal more votes would be assumed in the touchscreen counties as well.

In south Pinellas County (touchscreen), Kerry signs and bumper stickers seemed to outnumber Bush signs about 2-1. Now I know there is a greater concentration of Bush supporters in the north part of the county, but there is a larger population base in south Pinellas and I have a hard time believing that Bush won Pinellas by a few hundred votes.

[jsamuel]

84. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[liquiduniverse]

85. This story has made it to the Google News US section

http://news.google.com/nwshp?gl=us&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&ncl=http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118650,00.asp

Hope it keeps growing ...

[sabra]

86. But none of them thus far big players...

Maybe KO @ MSNBC will force them to look at this?

[Duncan]

98. Its not there now.

I swear google news "algorithm" is Bush biased.

[masshole1979]

87. still scared by this study...

...it's basically saying the opscan results are OK--or is it just assuming this? If so, that's not good news for the recount in Ohio or NH. In fact, according to boston.com, the two precincts where the recount was finished showed "little change" from the official tallies.

Of course, if there were any chage at all, it would be worth mentioning and studying--all it would take are a few dozen votes per precinct in Ohio to swing the state (assuming provisionals and absentees also narrrow the gap).

What consistently worries me is that this study and the others are all looking for huge swings like the ones that have caught the MSM's attention so easily. But all it would take are small but widespread changes.

[KeireG]

89. Well...

I am confident this report will give our cause traction, and the media will be forced to pick it up. Remember, as long as we have Olbermann and he reports something forced the other networks are forced to report on the same thing to avoid missing something. Maybe not in as much detail, but a 30 second blurb is better than nothing.

[ISUGRADIA]

90. Doubting Thomas here

There are a lot of variables that these researcher have not take into account in this paper. And it looks like their area is sociology rather than poli sci.

Some possible key variables effecting a county's turnout:
1) Population growth in the 2000-2004 period, this can effect partisan turnout and if there is a state with high growth it's Florida.

2) Media buys, local candidate efforts, inter-party feuding, other variables which could effect turnout in a county/city.

3)Issue impact- some issues resonate more in one part of a state than others.

These are just a few varibles that can impact election turnout, turnout is not a constant factor in every county. I'd love to see this paper peer reviewed by some political scientists to examine its claims.

You cannot take election results out of their context. I'm sure since Tennesee has a larger than average Bush increase from 2000 it would look suspicious in any stat examination of votes. Until a key factor, native son Al Gore not being on the ticket, is brought in as a variable.

[badc0der]

91. you are somewhat right

The study doesn’t conclude that there was fraud it concludes that there are questions that need to be answered. It does two things for us. First it will hopefully get us some traction in the MSM. Second it's a blow to the "plausible deniability" the election officials in Florida have if they do nothing.

Neither of these things is diminished by the fact that there are other explanations other than fraud.

[gandalf]

93. "their area is sociology". So what? Sociologists are statisticians.

It's their job to set up hypotheses and test them empirically with statistically rigorous methods. That is what they have done here.

A social science researcher almost never can take into account all possible influence factors, because there are so many, and not all of them are even known. Thus, the goal is not to explain all of the variance in the data, but a "reasonable" part (expressed by "R-squared"). They report R-squared values of around 50% (their model explains half of the observed effect), which is quite good.

[gandalf]

94. The US midterm elections 2002 showed irregularities as well

as reported in The Independent (UK), such as unexplainable last-minute swings towards the Republicans in battle ground counties with voting machines.

http://www.votescam.com/electoralchaos.php

[Donailin]

95. thats how I felt yesterday

but today is another day and I still don't hear a peep or see one raised eyebrow coming from the DNC or Kerry. If they're staying low, then this is the best bluff I've ever seen. I remember before the election Bush went to Jersey to campaign trying to worry Kerry, and Kerry went to Florida not taking the bait. He (Kerry) said something like, "I'm not biting, enjoy your day in Jersey, Boys" and I thought, he's one cool customer, he definitely is capable of seeing through their bullshit. But is he seeing anything now? Is he even paying attention, or has he written this off?


This is all so maddening.

[Duncan]

96. Caltech-MIT researcher corroborates UC berkely report

Snip:

The UC Berkeley report has not been peer-reviewed, but a reputable MIT political scientist

succeeded in replicating the analysis Thursday at the request of the Herald and The Associated Press. He said an investigation is warranted.

"There is an interesting pattern here that I hope someone looks into," said MIT Arts and Social Sciences Dean Charles Stewart III, a researcher in the MIT-Caltech Voting Technology Project

http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2545298,00.html

[sabra]

97. Excellent article! n/t

[sabra]

An Assistant Professor of Molecular Biology At Princeton University Does 2

<<
http://news.com.com/Report+Florida+data+suggests+e-voting+machine+problems/2100-7348_3-5459186.html

However, Samuel Wang, an assistant professor of molecular biology at Princeton University who published extensive analysis of election data running up to the November primary, said he believed the latest analysis, unlike previous ones, does a credible job of explaining the statistically odd behavior of Florida voters.

"I am not prone to conspiracy theories," he said in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "For instance, I think allegations about Ohio are false, and theories based on exit polls are highly misguided. But the Berkeley group's evidence is more convincing to me."

The Berkeley analysis uses voting patterns by county from 2000 and 1996, income by county, total population, and Hispanic population to try to explain voting patterns in 2004, all factors used in an attempt to explain Florida voters' propensity to vote Republican far more frequently than voter registration records might otherwise indicate.

"Their analysis indicates that even when all these variables are accounted for, a significant difference remains between counties that used electronic voting and counties that used optical scanning or paper ballots," he said.

Wang's own analysis, using different methods, estimated that e-voting machines inexplicitly favored Bush by 270,000 votes, he said.

>>

[Her Blondness]

99. Palm Beach County - It's %@#$! Theresa LePore again!!!

Theresa LePore, designer of the butterfly ballot and hence architect of the world's destruction, was the one who proudly acquired those shiny new e-voting machines.

She has done it to us again!!!

She actually lives in my neighborhood. I see her at the Publix, at the mall, at the town picnic, and I think here is the woman who singlehandedly changed history and unleashed horror on the world.