New Hampshire Voter (Fraud) Analysis

[IdaBriggs]

This information is posted on the website: http://www.invisibleida.com/New_Hampshire.htm

DU SUMMARY: I need to get a manual (hand) recount of the New Hampshire 2004 election results, as it appears there is a computer bug somewhere that may be MIS-apportioning vote totals. New Hampshire law require this request be turned in within 72 hours and I do not have the standings to do so. If FRAUD or ERROR is proven by comparing RAW DATA to REPORTED DATA, this SHOULD trigger a manual recount NATIONWIDE.

I've been trying to get a hold of someone from the Kerry campaign to discuss this all day, but so far I haven't reached anyone. ARGH!!

Enjoy!

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As of November 4, 2004 @ 9:45 p.m. EST

INTRODUCTION:

This study was completed using actual voter totals from the New Hampshire Presidential Elections of 2000 and 2004 from the New Hampshire Secretary of State website (http://www.sos.nh.gov/) as of Thursday, November 4, 2004 a.m.

New Hampshire was chosen for the study due to the relatively small sample size, as well as the allegations that “voter exit polls” were “wrong” in numbers varying between 5% and 15%.

METHOD:

All third party candidate vote totals were lumped together by precinct.

“Rochester” precinct totals were lumped together due to an increase in number of wards from five (5) in 2000 to six (6) in 2004.

SUMMARY:

VOTER TURNOUT: Voter turnout INCREASED on average 19.3% from 567,805 in the 2000 presidential election to 677,563 in the 2004 election. Only five (5) precincts (1.7%) did NOT show an increase in voter turnout, accounting for a mere 9,122 (1.3%) of the total 2004 votes, which is NOT statistically relevant.

CONCLUSION: Increased Voter Turnout is factual.

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES: Actual votes cast for third party candidates DECREASED from 27,898 in 2000 (an overall 5% of all votes cast) to 5,930 (an overall 1% of all votes cast). Only five precincts showed an “increase” in actual votes cast, but since this was ten (10) in 2000 and twenty-four (24) in 2004, the amount is NOT statistically relevant.

CONCLUSION: With an INCREASED number of voters in DECREASING numbers for third party candidates, the third party candidate vote was NOT a relevant factor in the 2004 election.

VOTER TREND: When analyzing the “Bush/Gore” difference versus “Bush/Kerry” numbers, and taking into account exit polls that show a 5% to 15% lead for Kerry, the expected trend would be for an INCREASED PERCENTAGE of votes for Kerry. This trend holds true 229 out of 300 times (76%), with 71 instances (24%) where the precinct does NOT follow trend.

CONCLUSION: 76% of precincts follow expected trend; some variance is to be expected, and requires a closer look at sub-groupings to determine cause.

VOTER SUB-GROUP SIZE ANALYSIS: Precincts were subdivided by 2004 vote totals into seven (7) groupings,with the following results:

(go look at the website for the pretty chart)

The INCREASE in Non-Trend precincts in Category E (36%), Category F (40%) and Category G (71%/83%) implies that voters in small and rural precincts in New Hampshire are MORE LIBERAL than their “big city” counterparts which is contrary to anecdotal evidence and nationwide trends. Coincidentally, the increase appears to occur in areas where “more sophisticated” means of vote counting are employed.

CONCLUSION: These numbers are NOT within a reasonable margin of error, and further investigation is required.


RECOMMENDATION:

At a minimum, a MANUAL (hand) re-count where paper trails are available in a sampling of each category where Non-Trending occurs is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. No vote total should be accepted by any candidate without this basic verification of raw data versus reported data, as “assigned votes” may be misapplied based upon candidate name ballot placement as opposed to actual votes received.