Official Vote Tally on Ohio's Pot Issue Deemed "Statistically Impossible"

[HomerRamone]

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/33656-official-vote-tally-on-ohios-pot-issue-deemed-qstatistically-impossibleq

The "stolen election” controversy over this month’s officially defeated Ohio pot legalization referendum has gone to a new level.

“The results are not only impossible but unfathomable,” stated Ron Baiman, Assistant Professor of Graduate Business Administration at Benedictine University, where he teaches economics and statistics.

The Columbus Free Press asked Baiman to calculate the odds of the official vote count of Ohio’s Issue 3, to legalize marijuana, being correct – compared to the tracking polls charting voter preference leading up to this year’s November election. The Free Press supplied Baiman with poll results taken prior to the election by noted pollster Jon Zogby.

The polls leading into the November 3 vote showed the referendum passing. But the official results claim it lost by 2:1.

The standard assumption with such polling is that the undecided voters in the poll would have potentially gone 50-50. Thus half of them would be voting no and the other half would be voting yes on Issue 3. Baiman pointed out that with such an assumption being probable, the odds against the referendum losing 2:1 go through the roof. They are, he said, “one in a trillion.”

The analysis showed that even if the most illogical outcome is assumed – that every single undecided voter in the polls voted against Issue 3 – it is still statistically impossible to accept Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s official tally as being credible.

If the Zogby poll was accurate, says Baiman, one would expect the official outcome as reported by the state once in every 105,000 elections.

As general rule, undecided voters do not tend to split more than 60-40 percent in favor of one side or the other.

Pre-election tracking polls are performed using a random and representative sample. They accurately reflect how voters of various demographics are likely to vote. All such polls do contain a margin of error. The Zogby poll has a 4.9 percent margin of error, which leaves the official outcome of the Issue 3 vote still very far out of the realm of reasonable statistical probability.

Another Issue 3 poll done by the Kitchen Group showed a closer split between the yes and no vote. It was conducted one week before Election Day, with a random survey of more than over 1000 Ohioans. The odds that Husted’s official tally is correct based on the Kitchen poll are even heavier than with the Zogby poll…in this case yielding a result that would be expected only once in once in every 799,000,000 elections. [see attachments]

There can be only two explanations for this.

Ohioans can assume that the well-funded corporate multimillionaire growers backing Issue 3 who hired highly-regarded pollsters were given made-up drivel as the poll results. Or, Ohio’s notoriously corrupt, antiquated and highly-vulnerable voting system was hacked or manipulated by partisans like Ohio’s Secretary of State Husted.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

[hobbit709]

1. Maybe a lot of voters that wanted legal pot didn't want a monopoly on it

And figured that out by the election.

[daybranch]

24. Bingo- we hate monopolies which buy and support politicians.

Is it any wonder with a great candidate like Bernie expounding on the crony capitalism, that we take this path? All I can say is, look out Hillary when the people hate corporate control of government and crony capitalism, you may be in for a shocker soon.

[HomerRamone]

41. I probably would have voted against the monopoly if I were in that state

but I don't believe that my, or anyone else's reasonable reasoning, confirms results AT ALL. Hand counted paper ballots would (oh yes, there COULD be fraud but compared to non-transparent machines? Please...)

[jwirr]

48. I am another one who would have voted no when I read

about the monopoly issue.

[underpants]

2. Dude, I thought it was Yes on 1 and 2 but No on 3

No no man it was Yes on all three
So, two No's and a Yes?
Three Yeses
Oh dude!!!!

[Marthe48]

44. Yes No Yes

I checked several election sites to read about the issues. Issue #2 was to establish a monopoly for growing pot. Issue#3 waslegalizing pot for medical and recreational use.

[Travis_0004]

3. Could it be that a poll with 1000 people was flawed

Issue 3 had 3.1 million votes. 1,000 is a small sample size, so if the polling was flawed either how they asked tge question, or who they asked the question to, the results could be way off.

[central scrutinizer]

59. No, 1000 is a fine sample size

It will get you a margin of error of 3% with 95% confidence. The math is solid. The size of the population is irrelevant as long as the sampling method is free of bias.

[pnwmom]

60. That is a typical sample size and it had a margin of error of less than 5%. So it makes no sense

that the bill lost by 2 to 1.

[jeff47]

4. "If the Zogby poll was accurate"

Kinda the crux of the argument right there.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. While I'm fine with the way it turned out, I welcome any investigation into Ohio voting.

I live here, and I'm damned suspicious of it. I wish when you voted, they gave you an MD5 sum (unique ID) with which anyone could go on a public (government run) website and check your votes, and you could register how you voted on other non-government sites, so that if the two didn't match, people would know there was chicanery going on.

[appal_jack]

6. Excellent suggestion.

I think that every state with any electronic component of the voting process needs this.

K&R for elections integrity across the USA.

-app

[SoapBox]

14. Erich...THAT should be implemented nationwide!

Good post!

[GoneFishin]

25. Sounds great! Better, come up with a system not relying on the cheaters' cooperation, like a site

where people voting on one side of an issue could voluntarily record their vote and leave some identifying information that could be verified?

[Jim Lane]

42. We need voting that's verifiable but not too verifiable.

If each voter were given a unique ID and a way to check his or her votes, it would facilitate vote buying. "After you vote, come around here and give me the paper with your MD5 sum on it. When results are released, if you voted the way you promised, I'll give you your money."

It would also facilitate intimidation by employers and others in a position to exercise power over voters' choices.

The voluntary registering on non-government sites wouldn't have that problem, but unfortunately the vast majority of people wouldn't bother to do it.

[Marthe48]

46. If they can itemize random rec'ts

at the grocery, hardware, big box and other stores, there is no reason we can't get a paper trail of our ballot. I never get tired of pointing out the extreme detail of a grocery store receipt, which is itemized and printed in seconds! And they include coupons, discounts, add up fuel points and other bonuses. There are so many fewer choices on a ballot, that it would be absolutely possible to have a paper receipt of your vote. Just asking, but isn't our driver's license number a unique ID?

[kristopher]

50. That sounds like an invitation to manipulate by minority voters.

If you know your position is a minority one, what better way to have your way than to obstruct passage by creating the appearance of cheating?

[valerief]

7. Yes, but probability is science, and we all know Jeebus guided the votes.

[Botany]

8. many of our elections are way dirty .... end of story

http://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article32685087.html

and Ohio has "a history" of this crap

screen captures from Ohio's Sec. of State web site in 2004 Cincinnati and Toledo

[HomerRamone]

9. People, including those here, are SO eager to discredit poll after poll year after year

so as to believe machines which could output *anything*. WHY? I can understand it from pundits, whose livelihood depends on their post-election pontifications seeming indispensable, but the supposedly media (and government)-skeptical public?

[Marthe48]

47. MSM stopped their exit polls in 2004

Why? It was the most ACCURATE poll indicating the results of elections. The electronic vote is so gd crooked, it would be obvious when poll after poll contraindicated the 'official' results. We have been voting absentee, but I wouldn't be surprised if those paper ballots got tossed rather than counted. I've lived in Ohio all my life and it is a damn shame how Republicans have degraded the state.

[Punx]

10. Be prepared for a repeat during the presidential election

If you trust electronic voting, you will get what you deserve.

Especially if republicans are running the show.

[NorthCarolina]

11. That vote was a test of the system, a dry-run. Next up, the primary.

Wall St wants Hillary and Jeb, and they damn sure are gonna make it so.

[Renew Deal]

15. I wondered about the dry run thing too

If Jeb wins you might have a point. But Hillary is the front runner and leading in almost all the polls. It's no surprise if she wins. Republicans have been generally supportive of Bernies run (for obvious reasons). I'd like look at the machines too if he suddenly won.

[NorthCarolina]

18. probably why the polls

by all the controlled sources showing a Hillary blowout don't seem to reflect evidence on the ground, or on the web. Plausible evidence for validating a stolen election. The polling data being put out are total crap, where the results of the polling is a known quantity before the poll is even conducted.

[Renew Deal]

20. There is another possibility

Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2015, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

That you are insulated from the broader voting public. I know many people "on the ground" that support Hillary. I know some that support Bernie. Still haven't met any O'Malley supporters, but that's a different story. My area is favorable to Hillary. Most people I know agree with yesterday's poll about Hillary being the best on terrorism.

But both of our experiences are anecdotal.

[NorthCarolina]

21. Well not really. In my job I am FAR

from "insulated" from the voting public since I work with regular folks every day. My experiences are pretty much the mirror opposite of yours. But, whatever. Time will tell and we'll take it from there.

[ToxMarz]

16. I honestly don't think the results would need to be rigged

For Hillary to win the Ohio primary. But let's put that out there anyway just for yuks.

[Renew Deal]

13. I haven't followed this closely but...

There is an assumption that the polls are accurate
I saw posts from several otherwise supportive DUers that were against it
That people didn't change their minds when they went to vote

[usaf-vet]

17. Elections ARE being stolen... believe it!

It is NOT who votes that counts it's WHO COUNTS the vote. Wake up people. With each stolen election your democracy is being dismantled.

[lobodons]

19. Polling was more accurate before Deibold.

Just saying.

[RoverSuswade]

22. Ask President Kerry about stolen elections in Ohio.

.

[Omaha Steve]

23. Just like W in 04!

Remember that mess?

[yurbud]

26. that second to last paragraph explains it all. They should really save those tricks for bigger

stakes.

If they do it for everything, it might get hard for people not to notice.

[maindawg]

27. 45 percent of the electorate voted

The norm is 32percent. So fully a third more of the electorate was motivated to vote. These are new voters and people who do not normally vote. They switched the votes. I believe that the actual result was 2 to 1 in favor. I hope that the people who have the resources to challenge the election do so with alacrity. Further we need to get rid of computer voting.

[JohnnyRingo]

32. I work a precinct here in Ohio

Turnout was indeed high, nearly that of the '08 election, but the new faces weren't young people. They were considerably older than the median, spurred to vote because of the multi million dollar propaganda campaign brought by our Republican Sec of State. That money spent proved far more effective than ridiculously far fetched hacking theories.

Husted included Issue 3, a safety measure that would have negated the pot issue entirely. It spuriously prohibited "monopolies" like the group of investors that were the growers and vendors. That issue passed by an even larger margin than Issue 3's failing, proving that most voters really are as gullible as expected.

This is just another case of crying fraud when a vote doesn't go the way one wants. If the investors want to, they can subpoena the paper trail that is viewed by the voters and locked under tamper-proof seal at the end of the night, and compare that to the electronic tally. I can bet that won't happen.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. Did they change the numbers several days after the vote?

Because I was watching the numbers on the day and the next day, and issue 2, the anti-monopoly one, actually won by a fairly narrow margin, not 'an even larger margin than Issue 3's failing'. It was like 52-48 from pretty much the time votes started rolling in til the votes were all in. Nowhere near the vote margin on 3.

[JohnnyRingo]

55. You're correct.

After some thought, I recall that Issue 2 did indeed pass by a narrower margin. I was mistaken.
Perhaps that's testament that voters weren't as easily misled by Husted's backdoor strategy to derail the initiative.

[jalan48]

28. Get ready for 2016. It's going to be a crazy ride.

[JohnnyRingo]

29. Our voting machines are not "antiquated".

They are state of the art, such as it is, and includes a printed paper back-up that is removed at the end of the night, signed by all four poll workers, sealed with tamper-proof tape, then locked into a box with a numbered and recorded snap lock. With tens of thousands of machines spread over 88 counties, they aren't likely to be 'hacked" overnight by Jon Husted.

The voters at the precinct I worked showed a surprising number of new faces that were considerable older than the median. Issue 2, which was a safety measure placed on the ballot by our republican Sec of State, passed by an even larger margin. It prohibited so called "monopolies", specifying the growers and distributors, and would have negated Issue 3 had it passed.

This article is just another example of crying foul when a vote doesn't go the way one wants. If the investors want to check the paper trail vs the electronic count, there are procedures they can follow, but I bet they don't.

[OnyxCollie]

33. Maybe not in your county,

but in Portage County I saw old voting machines and thought, "That's obsolete laptop technology. I wonder when they were last maintained?"

The next day the front page of the local rag had "Voting Machine Malfunction. Unable to Process Ballots."

I voted on paper. (Threw the poll workers for a loop, though.)

[JohnnyRingo]

36. I'm sure your machines print a secure paper trail...

...it's my understanding they all do as required in a law put forth and passed by Democratic governor Ted Strickland in 2005.

I don't see why a paper ballot would "throw" any poll worker though. Every precinct has a certain number of voters who prefer such a ballot and we're well prepared to accommodate them. What amuses me is that the paper ballot is just fed through and scanned by a computer at the local county elections board. That's why you had to completely fill in the dot next to your choice.

[OnyxCollie]

38. Nobody asks for a paper ballot.

Three poll workers had to consult with each to figure out what to do.

They were all ready to hand me a voting machine card, though.

[JohnnyRingo]

40. I'm not going to argue the point...

... but you unwittingly voted by computer anyway. As long as you feel secure in the security of your ballot, that's all that matters.

[OnyxCollie]

45. I'm aware that I voted by computer.

The paper ballot was read by an OptiScan reader. (Not that I feel much better about it.)

What is it that you're arguing?

[JohnnyRingo]

54. I didn't want to argue that poll workers are "thrown".

I don't know how experienced your precinct workers are, but certainly the precinct captain is well aware of how to handle a paper ballot. It's not a too difficult procedure.

Perhaps they consulted one another because such a ballot has to be dealt with by a worker from each party and properly recorded and accounted for in the books. That may have given the mistaken impression that they were somehow overwhelmed by your request.

[OnyxCollie]

61. Considering that the same confusion occurs

every time I vote (I kicked myself for not announcing, "I'm voting on paper!" when I approached the table.), I have to conclude that it's because no one asks for a paper ballot. I doubt most people are even aware they can ask for a paper ballot.

Electronic voting is the default.

The poll workers appeared confused because I was the first person to ask for a paper ballot.

[jwirr]

51. I have always voted in a small precinct in MN. We have a

choice of paper or machine. I always take paper but you are correct I then walk over and place my paper ballot into a counting machine. The reason I vote paper is not because I think it eliminates the machine but because as an elderly voter I am afraid of making a mistake on the machine.

[Gman]

30. John Kerry probably won Ohio in 04

For the same reasons this referendum probably passed

[Ford_Prefect]

31. So it's true in Ohio, but not in Kentucky? Polls do, errrr, do not, em, ...lie, except????

Never mind places like Kansas where math is based on scriptural interpretation rather than proven theory and fact. How loud must the statement be made?

Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote!

Flip not this vote!

Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote!

Flip the next vote!

Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote! Flip the vote!

In the dialogue of power those who can do it will do it whenever they can, because it works for them and precisely because they can do it.
The evidence is that without a doubt they have already done it; it is relatively easy to do especially from inside the system; It is likewise very easy to hide the traces of the method used from anyone looking for it; Polls have had a relatively high and consistent level of accuracy in these matters.

...And for the record it can happen almost anywhere there is any kind of electronic tallying of votes which excludes, by whatever reasoning, factual and complete recounting of original ballot documents. It can happen at any level of electronic vote counting: from individual voting machines to card counters and precinct tabulators to county and state level tabulation systems. ...And it can be done very, very quickly with no evidence that it has happened.

My question is why do so many people insist that it cannot or did not happen Rather than examining the vote to see if it did? With so much riding on the outcome why not be careful enough to see that it is not happening? Why trust machines that were built to be vulnerable on so many levels???

[JEB]

34. Ohio needs to upgrade its election process

to include the best technology: pencil on paper and hand count before cameras.

[Holly_Hobby]

35. I'm not positive it was stolen -

between the people who don't want legal pot at all and the people who want pot, but don't want a monopoly, if they all voted against it, it would be shot down.

But what do I know.

[JohnnyRingo]

39. I'm a user and I voted against it.

As did many of my friends. I may be a social liberal, but I'm a pot libertarian.

Right now in Ohio weed is decriminalized to a $100 fine for possession of up to 100 grams, so it's barely on the radar of law enforcement. With the current heroin epidemic they certainly have bigger fish to fry.

If Issue 3 had passed there would undoubtably have been a black market of untaxed pot that the state would have attacked with ultimate aggression. The end result would have been more property seizures for tax evasion with more people in prison.

[Holly_Hobby]

57. I voted against it too

I'm not a user, but was back in the day. I do not care if people use it and I see no need for making it a crime and a criminal out of the user. Some people are helped by it's medicinal qualities.

I sure as Hell don't want Nick Lachey or some athlete that I never heard of to get obscenely rich off it.

I live in Toledo. In Sept., we voted for legal weed. Ha. Come here and try it. The will of the people means nothing anymore.

[JohnnyRingo]

58. I think they bit off more than the voters could chew.

They should have just gone for medicinal use to get a foot in the door. Then, after a network of suppliers and distributors had been set up, legalization for private use would have been the next logical step.

Again, I only want assurance that no one go to prison, but one cannot underestimate the fears voters have for drug abuse.

[ananda]

37. OK, anonymous.

Fix this.

[CincyDem]

43. This was a monopoly issue, not a Pot issue

During the final weekend before the election, virtually 100% of all advertising on TV (and much on radio) was about issue 2/3.

The overwhelming message was "vote against a monopoly for a few wealthy individuals". It was also noted that the only pro-3 ads were delivered by celebrities who were part of the monopoly pool.

I'm not saying that Ohio elections don't get stolen - God knows they do.

But I think the issue here is that the polls asked the question about legalizing POT and the ballot became a question of legalizing a MONOPOLY

And it was easy to see. The first words of the initiative on the ballot were something like "Authorize a monopoly to..." You didn't get to POT until the 5-6 line of the ballot (as I recall).

[blackspade]

49. The the drug warriors will break the law to uphold the law.

Simply shocking!

These people are the true criminals.

[L. Coyote]

52. Maybe the supporters smoked one in the morning,

and never made it out of the house.

[diane in sf]

56. Another election stolen by Republicans in Ohio

I wonder if they are still running the vote tallying thru the Republican, privately owned, server farm like they did in 2004. It's time to start prosecuting election fraud and/or getting the UN in to monitor our increasingly third would election apparatus.