Copy of: NC: The Full Unofficial Audit: The Case for Tampering

[BeFree]

Mods, that other thread is too large for most folks, so if it's ok I'm starting it again, Ok?

ignatzmouse Fri Nov-12-04 12:41 PM
Original message
NC: The Full Unofficial Audit: The Case for Tampering


Sorry for the numbers. This is a long and comprehensive report, so please stay with me -- it offers what I believe to be a strong case that election tampering took place, and I want to carefully establish the facts. I think it may be the first deep examination inside the numbers of a given state -- not just speculation -- but real data collection and questionable results put to the test.

***** asked me a few days ago to look over the North Carolina election returns. Things looked funny. They were way out of sync with the exit polls and no one could believe that Erskine Bowles had lost in the Senate race. The deeper I looked at the figures, the more things began to look disturbing. I downloaded the precinct data and began to pour through it for clues. Then I saw that the absentee vote (which apparently also includes the early voting data) was huge, comprising more than *a million votes* and nearly a full third of the total vote (30%). It offered the chance to compare an unadulterated voting pattern against the strange results of election day. I reasoned with an early vote that large, it is no longer a sample but a benchmark. The nearer one approaches 100%, the more accurate the picture of the whole. At one third, any inconsistencies should even out -- even if more white suburban Republicans voted by absentee (as has been charged in the past with smaller samples) or if the Democratic GOTV pushed our early numbers (as has been assumed for this election). In that respect, I was lucky to have looked at North Carolina -- it's not as crazed as the battleground states and the electorate is nicely split between parties. Any inconsistencies of one side dominating the early vote would have showed up in the data -- they didn't.

With that in mind, I began an informal review of the NC absentee vote. What I found was stunning, and I believe it should have national implications. I have little doubt that we will find the same thing elsewhere by using benchmark absentee data against election day returns. It not only reflects the pattern of exit poll discrepancy we saw throughout the country, but it also makes a compelling case for purposeful tampering with the electronic data. I also think it reveals the three objectives of the Bush re-election campaign: 1) re-election 2) mandate 3) strong Senate majority.

All of the absentee information was buried in the precinct data, hundreds of thousands of lines worth, and had to be pulled out before a comparison could be made. Before we look inside the numbers, note that of the 102 North Carolina counties, 2 have not yet posted absentee data, Catawba and Lee. It may well be in the precinct data but mislabeled or combined in some way. The NC Board of Elections said that both counties have reported, but weren't sure where it was recorded -- I'm awaiting a call back with the information. My estimate based on Catawba's demographic similarity to Davidson would shift the absentee percentages by 0.6% in the Republican's favor, so bear in mind that I've not incorporated it into the data and the consistency is going to be even better than represented. Catawba has a strong Republican base (47,923 to 33,024 registered Republicans to Democrats) and is heavily White (91,141 white to 7619 black registrants). As it is now, the absentee/early vote is almost precisely balanced statistically with the final results. Lee county is much smaller and has 16,391 Democrats to 9149 Republicans (again mostly white) -- it likely would have little impact on the percentages.

Now, here is the absentee data for all the statewide offices, followed by the overall vote, and then the poll-only results (obtained by subtracting the absentee data from the overall figures). The poll-only data is important as it gives us an isolated snapshot of the results that were returned on election day.

GOVERNOR (Absentee)
Mike Easley (DEM): 573,120 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 445,505 (43.2%) -12.4
Other: 12,490 (1.2%)

GOVERNOR (Overall)
Mike Easley (DEM): 1,939,137 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,495,032 (42.9%) -12.7
Other: 52,512 (1.5%)

GOVERNOR (Poll only)
Mike Easley (DEM): 1,366,017 (55.6%)
Patrick J. Ballantine (REP): 1,049,527 (42.7%) -12.9
Other: 40,022 (1.6%)

Already we notice that the Democrat, Easley, ran consistently at 55.6% at the polls, in the absentee, and in the poll-only vote. The Republican, Ballantine, actually did very slightly better in the absentee. But this is the overall pattern of consistency in all the statewide races (except for Senate and President which I'll hold till last). There is one other important hidden benchmark we can measure here, percentage of turnout. Perhaps the Democrats had more early/absentee voters and the Republicans had a bigger election day turnout? Well, we can figure that by dividing Easley's absentees by his overall votes (573,120 divided by 1,939,137) to find a ratio of 30% for the Democrat. And then do the same for the Republican Ballantine to also get a ratio of 30%. Both Democrats and Republicans turned out in equal numbers in early voting and at the polls. Thank you, North Carolina.

To establish the point of consistency, here are the comparisons of all the other statewide races. It's a lot of numbers, most all of them in the same percentile range, but it was important to establish that there was a clear, obvious, and unaccounted diversion from the norm in both the Senate and Presidential races, so I spent a couple of twelve hour days and went through all the statewide numbers including the amendment votes.

MAJOR RACES

*******************
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Absentee)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 561,584 (55.7%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 433,112 (43.0%)
Other: 13,217 (1.3%)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Overall)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,888,382 (55.6%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 1,453,711 (42.8%)
Other: 56,367 (1.6%)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Poll Only)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,326,798 (55.5%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 1,020,599 (42.7%)
Other: 43,150 (1.8%)

*******************
SECRETARY OF STATE (Absentee)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 575,045 (58.0%)
Jay Rao (REP): 416,145 (42.0%)

SECRETARY OF STATE (Overall)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,911,570 (57.3%)
Jay Rao (REP) 1,423,115 (42.7%)

SECRETARY OF STATE (Poll Only)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,336,525 (57.0%)
Jay Rao (REP): 1,006,970 (43.0%)

******************
ATTORNEY GENERAL (absentee)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 546,477 (56.7%)
Joe Knott (REP): 417,824 (43.3%)

ATTORNEY GENERAL (overall)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,869,699 (55.6%)
Joe Knott (REP): 1,493,061 (44.4%)


ATTORNEY GENERAL (poll-only)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,323,222 (55.2%)
Joe Knott (REP): 1,075,237 (44.8%)

******************

OTHER STATEWIDE RACES:


******************
AUDITOR (absentee)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 476,257 (48.6%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 503,250 (51.4%)

AUDITOR (overall)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 1,662,361 (50.4%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 1,633,622 (49.6%)

AUDITOR (poll-only)
Leslie Merritt (REP): 1,186,104 (51.2%)
Ralph Campbell (DEM): 1,130,372 (48.8%)

*********************
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (absentee)
Steve Troxler (REP): 478,794 (48.6%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 506,613 (51.4%)

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (overall)
Steve Troxler (REP): 1,665,678 (50.04%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 1,663,022 (49.96%)

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE (poll-only)
Steve Troxler (REP): 1,186,884 (50.7%)
Britt Cobb (DEM): 1,156,409 (49.3%)

**********************
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (absentee)
Jim Long (DEM): 582,238 (58.4%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 414,204 (41.6%)

COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (overall)
Jim Long (DEM): 1,934,061 (57.6%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 1,421,404 (42.4%)

COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE (poll only)
Jim Long (DEM): 1,351,823 (57.3%)
C. Robert Brawley (REP): 1,007,200 (42.7%)

**************************
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (absentee)
Cherie Berry (REP): 475,570 (50.2%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 472,632 (49.8%)

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (overall)
Cherie Berry (REP): 1,721,841 (52.1%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 1,582,253 (47.9%)

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR (poll only)
Cherie Berry (REP): 1,246,271 (52.9%)
Wayne Goodwin (DEM): 1,109,621 (47.1%)

***********************
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (absentee)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 507,523 (51.7%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 473,991 (48.3%)

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (overall)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 1,656,092 (50.1%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 1,646,838 (49.9%)

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (poll only)
June S. Atkinson (DEM): 1,148,569 (49.5%)
Bill Fletcher (REP): 1,172,847 (50.5%)

**************************
TREASURER (absentee)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 546,160 (55.3%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 440,871 (44.7%)

TREASURER (overall)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 1,812,182 (54.5%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 1,512,628 (45.5%)

TREASURER (poll only)
Richard H. Moore (DEM): 1,266,022 (54.2%)
Edward A. Meyer (REP): 1,071,757 (45.8%)

*******************************
NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (absentee)
FOR: 432,697 (51.7%)
AGAINST: 403,475 (48.3%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (overall)
FOR: 1,494,789 (51.2%)
AGAINST: 1,423,195 (48.8%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 1 (poll only)
FOR: 1,062,092 (51.0%)
AGAINST: 1,019,720 (49.0%)

****************************
NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (absentee)
FOR: 679,434 (78.6%)
AGAINST: 185,101 (21.4%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (overall)
FOR: 2,334,683 (78.0%)
AGAINST: 659,532 (22.0%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 2 (poll only)
FOR: 1,655,249 (77.7%)
AGAINST: 474,431 (22.3%)

****************************
NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (absentee)
FOR: 591,122 (68.7%)
AGAINST: 269,641 (31.3%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (overall)
FOR: 1,984,151 (68.0%)
AGAINST: 933,021 (32.0%)

NC Constitutional Amendment 3 (poll only)
FOR: 1,393,029 (67.7%)
AGAINST: 663,380 (32.3%)

****************************

Of all the statewide races, the only other votes that may raise red flags are the Labor and Agriculture Commissioners, though likely the Catawba data will pull them into line. But none of the races showed anywhere near the unexplained swing of the Senate race.

*************************
SENATOR (absentee)
Richard Burr (REP): 492,166 49.48%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 492,536 49.52% .04
Other: 9,917 1%

SENATOR (overall)
Richard Burr (REP): 1,791,460 51.6%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 1,632,509 47.0% -4.6
Other: 48,103 1.4%

SENATOR (poll only)
Richard Burr (REP): 1,299,294 52.4%
Erskine Bowles (DEM): 1,139,973 46.0% -6.4
Others: 38,186 1.5%


*************************

WOW. With essentially the same vote demographics in the absentee and the poll, there was a sudden shift of 6.4% of the vote toward the Republican. That's more than a little alarming and is in itself enough to call into question the legitimacy of the election day vote. North Carolinians in this forum can speak to this, but Bowles is generally well liked. There is absolutely nothing to account for the bizarre drop of support in the electorate by 6.4% between the early voting (mostly the week prior) and election day. But when we compare it to the Presidential race, it is dwarfed by absurdity.

*************************
PRESIDENT (absentee)
George W. Bush: 529,755 52.9%
John F. Kerry: 469,522 46.9% -6.0
Others: 2749 0.2%

PRESIDENT (overall)
George W. Bush: 1,961,188 56.0%
John F. Kerry: 1,525,821 43.6% -12.4
Others: 13,989 0.4%

PRESIDENT (poll only)
George W. Bush: 1,431,433 57.3%
John F. Kerry: 1,056,299 42.3% -15.0
Others: 11,240 0.4%

**************************

So what the heck is going on here??? Kerry was behind by 6 points in the absentee/early voting. The result is consistent with the pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of November 2nd. THE EXIT POLLS TELL US THAT PEOPLE VOTED IDENTICALLY TO THE OTHER THIRD OF THE ELECTORATE. By all standards of reason, the other two-thirds of the vote should be very close to the same result. But look at what happens -- a sudden and unexplained plummet in the very same electorate of NINE POINTS at the election day polls, more than doubling Kerry's overall margin of defeat. A 15 point edge for Bush in North Carolina on election day??? Come on -- I'm not that gullible. I honestly don't know how to account for that outside of computer programming -- and if it's there, there's a damn good case with the nationwide inconsistencies between exit polls and results on election day to say that it follows everywhere electronic tabulation goes. My gut tells me that this is why there is a reluctance in Florida and Ohio to push the absentee counting and that the ballots and counts had best be watched very damn closely. They present a paper trail challenge that if understood will provide a key benchmark for election day fraud. I also want to point out that the differential was not there prior to election day -- meaning there either had to be a *date specific* alteration in the software, a hack, or a specific activation just prior to the election. And lastly, it is not only the Presidential election day vote that is spurious -- the close Senate races also bear close scrutiny.

[Florida_Geek]

1. I love this thread and the

work you did on it :)

[Spazito]

2. Thanks Be Free! I am glad we have a new thread on this...

it is too important to be lost under the weight of too many posts that can make it difficult for those on dial-up to access.

[Election Mess]

25. Please see online report:

Please see online report: http://www.passinglane.com/elections/

Recently I've started paying more attention to the mounting discourse on the internet and in some media outlets about recent election irregularities.

While mainstream media has been showing lots of coverage of democrats beating themselves up over what they could have done differently and their underestimation of the sheer number of passionate and mobile conservatives, very few have been covering the increasing accounts of election tally irregularities. It seems that each day the election passes there are more legitimate questions being asked, and circumstantial evidence revealed, that raises serious question of whether this election was called accurately at all.

In Florida there are 29 counties out of 67 (over 43% of the counties in the state) that have a direct inverse relationship between the percentage of people registered to a party and the percentage of votes received by that party. Examples: Hardy County registrations are 5:2 democratic, results are nearly 2:5 republican; Washington County registrations are 3:1 democratic, results are nearly 3:1 republican; Suwannee County registrations are a bit over 2:1 democratic, results are a bit over 2:1 republican; Bradford County registrations are a bit over 2:1 democratic, results are a bit over 2:1 republican; Holmes County registrations are 4:1 democratic, results are 3:1 republican.

The larger the disparity in registrant affiliation, the larger the reverse disparity of the results. I can't see how anyone can claim that this is due to disproportionately huge voting shifts in the most democratic counties. That would mean, in a county like Lafayette (with only 570 registered republicans) every registered republican voted; every undeclared voter voted republican (169); and of the 3,570 registered democrats, 1,004 did not vote; and of those who did, registered democrats voted republican by more than 2 to 1 (1,721 to 845).

Increasingly, my theory is that counts were reversed in the less populated, heavily democratic Florida counties. These counties all used Optical Scanning machines to read paper ballots. If the wrong candidate was associated with the wrong hole in the punch card (Kerry and Bush were reversed) we would see results exactly consistent with what we received.

Furthermore, If we look at just the Touch-Screen machines in Florida, 8 out of 15 counties using these machines showed more voters moving toward Kerry and away from Bush as compared to the ratios of registered democrats and republicans. As a mater of fact, in each of these 8 counties Kerry/Edwards votes exceeded the number of registered democratic voters, while the number of republican votes were less than the total number of registered republicans in those counties.

I based my comparisons on a table originally constructed and published by Kathy Dopp at: http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm (listed on the legend page as a data source). I used the State of Florida's election website at: http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/ to spot check the accuracy of Kathy Dopp's table. In my analysis I modeled reversing the vote tallies in the 29 counties that had the largest inverse relationship between election results and the party affiliation of voters.

In the report (http://www.passinglane.com/elections/index.htm) Florida election results are compared, county by county, with voter party affiliation. It appears there is very clear evidence of serious fraud, or at the very least, coincidental errors beyond anyone's imagination. I have attempted to lay this information out as clearly as possible. Please take a look and decide for yourself.

Additional Links of Interest:

Subsequent to my publishing these pages I discovered another great analysis by Kathy Dopp titled, "Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results" (http://uscountvotes.org/). This page further breaks down the vendor of voting machines in each county (I did not see any correlation between manufacturers of optical scanning machines and voting disparity). This page also provides great off-site links, including a document by Steven F. Freeman, PhD at the University of Pennsylvania, entitled "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy" ( http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/The_unexplained_exit_poll_discrepancy_v00k.pdf ) that examines the issues surrounding the surprising discrepancies between election results and exit polls.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is one mainstream reporter covering some of the irregularities. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

Dick Morris, conservative writer for 'The Hill,' writes (http://www.thehill.com/morris/110404.aspx), "Exit polls are almost never wrong. They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will..." Morris goes on to write, "So, according to ABC-TV’s exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa..." "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play." Morris suggests there was foul play amongst the hundreds, if not thousands of exit pollsters on the ground. Many others would suggest that the foul play was perpetrated, not by the pollsters, rather by those in charge of the machinery doing the counting.

For more in depth reporting also see Thom Hartmann's article published at http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm

For a revealing documentary on potential election tampering by way of voting system manipulation please visit the VoterGate website at: http://www.votergate.tv/


To respond to the contents of this site, or share your own evidence of election irregularity or fraud, please email: [e-mail]

[rjbny62]

3. i think ignatzmouse is doing more number crunching

looking forward to seeing what he comes up with

[rhosgobel]

4. Data graphs

Here are the graphs I made of these data ... they should help people visualize the pattern:

http://home.comcast.net/~rhosgobel/DU/NC-DU-data.html

[idiosyncratic]

7. Thank you for those graphs. That should open some eyes.

at least I hope so . . .

[BeFree]

10. Nice Graphs

Visual is good. Thanks and welcome to DU, rhosgobel.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RevCheesehead]

14. Shouldn't you label the senate race "US Senate?"

In Wisconsin, state senators are a state-wide office (along with members of the assembly). US Senators are the 2 elected officials who represent the state in the United States Senate.

But I loved your graphs! Good work!

[rhosgobel]

15. Thanks! Graphs are updated.

Any other suggestions are welcome.

[BeFree]

16. Request

For a graph showing the total amount of votes in each race: Pres, US Senate, State offices, amendments. Thanks.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi rhosgobel!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LisaLynne]

5. Wow! Thanks for crunching the numbers ...

and explaining it so well! It's very interesting!!

[idiosyncratic]

6. Thank you for reposting this. I am on very slow dialup

so those really, really long threads are difficult to keep up with.

This is very important information.

[The Bear]

8. Anyone working on South Dakota?

I'm no statistician but this seems to be an excellent analysis of the NC data. Is anyone doing anything similar with other states, such as South Dakota? I'm curious to know if Tom Daschle lost honestly or to fraud.

[newyawker99]

13. Hi BethP!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[scurvy_n_disastrous]

21. Daschle's loss? excellent question n/t

[ignatzmouse]

26. South Dakota equipment

It's an excellent question and certainly has crossed my mind. I've no doubt that Daschle would be targeted. I know that a chunk of the state uses paper ballots which would preclude tampering, but also a good deal of the rest of the state is ES&S optical scan. The Verified Voting site is unclear about which counties are which, and this really needs to be nailed down with SD election officials before a comparitive analysis can begin. I think it is definitely worth the effort.

[Eloriel]

34. Have you checked this out?

Perhaps you know all about it, but you can choose "Voting System Used" from the drop down menu, then click on the state you want and it will display the voting systems by county:

ElectionLine.org Interactive Map:
http://electionline.org/interactiveMap.jsp?page=Interactive+Map

And don't be so quick to dismiss "paper ballots." Those punchcard readers aren't just mechanical you know. Further, some people consider optical scan systems "paper ballots" and while they are, the systems are heavily computerized and capable of every bit the same time of mischief as touchscreens -- with the sole saving grace is that the vote is first recorded on paper and kept separately.

[truehawk]

9. kick

[ahimsa]

11. Well, it's obvious!

Osama Bin Roven sent a memo on election day morning to all registered voters threatening to crash an SUV into their house if they voted for Kerry or Bowles or told anyone about the memo.

:eyes:

[Lil]

17. kick

[Lil]

18. kick

[Lil]

19. kick

[Lil]

20. "State Board of Elections to consider how best to resolve the issue. "

From Clinton Crusader URL:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x67711>


<http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=27422&Section=News>

Warning light came on, state tests reveal
<long article>
. . .Bartlett said all information will be presented to the state Board of Elections to consider how best to resolve the issue.

[Ms. Toad]

22. Were all variables have taken into account?.

In crunching the numbers, did you take into account that Dems and allies were strongly pushing our identified voters to vote (1) early (2) absentee, or if that was not possible (3) first thing on election day. (Those were the specific instructions I was given as a precinct leader for MoveOn, and I am aware that similar instructions were given to other allied groups).

I am not aware of a similar push with the republican voters. I am also not aware that it was done with democratic voters prior to this year (which makes it difficult to compare this year's early/absentee voting patterns with other years).

That would account for early/absentee/and early day polls matching and being more heavily Kerry. (It also matches with my experience standing from 6:30 AM to 7:30 PM on election day at three precincts in Ohio - before around 1 PM we got approximately 3 thumbs up signals for every republican thumbs up (to the guy across the driveway). By mid-afternoon the voter flow had slowed somewhat, and almost no one was giving us a thumbs up and we were being harassed much more frequently for being present at all).

I agree that there is a statistical anomaly - but whether it indicates screwy tabulation or some other explanation needs to be specifically addressed (as in, yes it was taken into account - here is how the adjustment was made/no adjustment is needed because.../etc.) in order to have any traction outside this community.

This is actually a concern I predicted before the election when I first heard of the early/absentee voting push by MoveOn, although my prediction had a slightly different outcome. My prediction was that Bush would appear to win based on election day votes - given that a higher preponderance of democrats had already voted - but would later be reversed when all of the early/absentee heavily democratic votes were tallied. Not exactly the same flavor of outcome, but it is the same underlying dynamic. A push to have dems vote early (in the absence of a similar republican push) might create a time based disparity in the results.

[BeFree]

24. From the main post

As you can see, in all the other major races, the voting was pretty well even throughout the two phases of voting, so the Presidential and Senate races ARE an anomaly. There is no evidence of major changes in voting patterns except for the two federal races. BeFree

MAJOR RACES

*******************
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Absentee)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 561,584 (55.7%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 433,112 (43.0%)
Other: 13,217 (1.3%)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Overall)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,888,382 (55.6%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 1,453,711 (42.8%)
Other: 56,367 (1.6%)

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Poll Only)
Beverly Eaves Perdue (DEM): 1,326,798 (55.5%)
Jim Snyder (REP): 1,020,599 (42.7%)
Other: 43,150 (1.8%)

*******************
SECRETARY OF STATE (Absentee)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 575,045 (58.0%)
Jay Rao (REP): 416,145 (42.0%)

SECRETARY OF STATE (Overall)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,911,570 (57.3%)
Jay Rao (REP) 1,423,115 (42.7%)

SECRETARY OF STATE (Poll Only)
Elaine F. Marshall (DEM): 1,336,525 (57.0%)
Jay Rao (REP): 1,006,970 (43.0%)

******************
ATTORNEY GENERAL (absentee)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 546,477 (56.7%)
Joe Knott (REP): 417,824 (43.3%)

ATTORNEY GENERAL (overall)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,869,699 (55.6%)
Joe Knott (REP): 1,493,061 (44.4%)


ATTORNEY GENERAL (poll-only)
Roy Cooper (DEM): 1,323,222 (55.2%)
Joe Knott (REP): 1,075,237 (44.8%)

******************

[SaveAmerica]

27. It's my understanding...

that this election was considered "the most important election of our lifetime" by both sides. Everyone was getting the message out to get to the polls early. I'm in NC and when we voted early the lines were surprisingly long and our county is heavy republican. By listening in on conversations I could tell it wasn't only democrats in the line (hey, I wasn't eavesdropping, people on cell phones think they're at home and talk loudly!).

To the person who was working the polls in the Raleigh area and saw so many democrats vote early, that's going to balance out in the areas that are heavy Republican and they got out to the polls early, too.

(I just want to clarify that Raleigh (wake co.) is heavy democrat, that's why you'd see more dems voting early, because there are more).

[andym]

28. Interesting, Also Auditor shows 5.2% differential

Interesting analysis.

Btw there is one statewide office in your data that shows a 5.2% shift between absentee and election day, and the difference swings the election for the republican: Auditor. The Democrat has a 2.8% lead in the absentees, but loses the election because on election day 2.4% vote for the Republican (and there are more votes on election day.

Does the auditor audit elections in NC? Why the red-shift?

[MandateThis]

29. Have you sent this to bev harris?

Didn't I notice on MSNBC that at first N. Carolina was blue? Can we get this state challenged too? Anybody here in NC? I belive the vote is really messed up. The pollsters think that Kerry won in NM, Florida, Ohio, Nevada and maybe more. I think they said he had the majority of the battleground states.

[Lil]

30. kick

[ignatzmouse]

31. Link to Part 2 of the analysis

Links to Part Two of the analysis and the summary:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=69829&mesg_id=69829

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=72483&mesg_id=72483


Part Two goes into the county by county data to compare results by type of voting equipment, equipment vendors, and different sides of the election with some interesting results...

[BeFree]

32. Ignatzmouse, look at this...

In my ham handed way of playing mathematician, I came up with another probably cock-eyed theory. Here's where it began:

Come up w/ratio needed, divide into the total of final day votes= number, in Swain county case the ratio is 5:6, the number is 327. 5:6 comes from this theory... for every 5 K votes, 6 need to be counted for B

3600 (rounded from 3601) divided by 11(5/6 ratio)=327
5x327=1635 (+4= 1639 K votes)
6x327=1962 B votes

(+4 because it was less than 5, if five to ten, six more votes would have been added to B )


04 final total 5007
final day 3601 votes
B 1962 54.48%
K 1639 45.51%

Swain was used because it has small #'s and used a DRE.

I may have just gotten lucky with that 327 number, but it works with that 5:6 ratio.

[ignatzmouse]

33. Flipping Ratios

It's an immensely complex problem. With the number of systems and vendors in NC, I start scratching my head over possible ratios. I think you may have something conceptually because in a 50/50 election, it only takes flipping one vote in a hundred to create our apparent "mandate" of 51/49. Some type of vote flipping scheme is the most likely DRE scenario in my mind.


PS: I have Swain using a Sequoia lever system.

[Lil]

35. The "norm" in 2004 was fraud & error. This is more that about Kerry! n/t