THE UNCANNY FOUL SHOOTER: 86 OF 88 (97%) PRESSED KERRY, CAME UP BUSH

[TruthIsAll]

The numbers are 86 of 91, NOT the 84 of 89 as shown in the following thread title line (see link below).

He only missed two.
Three shots didn't count.

The best NBA foul shooters can only sink 92% of their shots.
Bet on Bush to always make his foul shots.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x126395

It's not nitpicking. I'm anal when it comes to numbers.

[Warpy]

1. The real story is that 0% of votes for any other candidate

came up for Kerry. 100% of the vote irregularities involved votes for Kerry being shunted to another candidate, 95% to Bush, the other 5% to Peroutka or Badnarik.

That's the real story. That's how we know it's blatant fraud.

[VTGold]

2. In all of these "anomolies" I've yet to hear one going Kerry's way.... nt

[Old and In the Way]

3. I'll bet there was some little sub-routine embedded in the software

* On every _X_ votes, make Kerry = Bush.
* If reset, make Kerry = Kerry, else Bush

I'll bet for every complaint, there were 100 that noticed the error, but assumed that it was a "glitch" of the software that corrected itself on retry....so they didn't report it. Many others probably didn't even notice the fraud.

[s-cubed]

4. I'm surprised at how low your numbers are: I thought that

someone reported that a machine in the Akron area (I think) had been doing that all day, and they didn't take it out of service.

[Chasing Dreams]

5. Another Nice Job, TIA. When do you think

Kerry will jump into the fray with everything he's got, if at all?

I still think your AWOL post a couple of weeks back is correct, despite appearances of recount support by the candidate and campaign. Kerry definitely has more than enough facts on his side, including this latest analysis of yours. How much fucking ammo does the guy need before he has that major press conference screaming fraud!?

[meatsack]

6. Here's what I think

A couple of points...

If this is malicious programming, they were pretty stupid about it. It's only 1 or 2 more lines of code to put 'Kerry' in a temporary field, to be used for display purposes, while changing the actual vote to Bush. There is no reason to let the person see that you switched their vote.

I'm not completely ruling out malicious programming, just that it seems like an exceedingly stupid thing to do. I think the problem is probably with calibration of the touch screens, or more to the point, lack of calibration.

The reason these glitches overwhelmingly affected Kerry voters could be because most of these problems were reported in Democratic strongholds. So most of the voters were Kerry voters.

If we have 1000 voters 70% Kerry / 30% Bush and a voting machine that glitches 1% of the time, it's probably going to catch 7 Kerry voters and 3 Bush voters.

The question then is 'were 97% of voters for Kerry?', certainly not! So the numbers are still troubling. I'm just saying the '97%' figure is probably a little inflated.

So there are several possible conclusions:
* It was a random glitch, more Kerry voters were affected because there were more Kerry voters. (Think of this as a mini- exit poll). This conclusion can't be right as Kerry didn't win with 97% of the vote

*Democrats care more about Democracy than Republicans, and were more likely to report any problems. (This is where I'd put my money). Don't let anyone tell you 'we only care because we lost'. Most of these reports were logged during election day before a winner was called.

*There was a poorly implemented vote stealing program loaded onto these machines.

[newyawker99]

7. Hi meatsack!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: