Edited on Tue Feb-27-07 12:36 PM by L. Coyote
http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2290&Itemid=113"The report shows that in predominantly Native American and predominantly Hispanic precincts, undervote rates were abnormally high (7.61% and 6.33% respectively) in the 2004 presidential race, when the votes were cast on DREs. In 2006, after the state changed to all optically scanned paper ballots, the undervote rates for Governor in those same precincts plummeted by 85% in Native American areas and by 69% in predominantly Hispanic precincts....."
MORE.
===========
New Mexico led the nation in “percentage of undervotes” reported in 2004. NM had 2.417% undervotes in 2004, and 2.762% in 2000. This was a known problem, and in both the NM 2000 and NM 2004 elections, it may have changed the NM outcomes.
Not all NM counties had the same undervote rate, and the difference is dramatically machine biased (chart below), with one exception. The only ES&S County reporting over 1.0%, small, heavily Democratic Del Baca County reported the highest rate in the state. Del Baca reported overwhelming Bush voting and over 8% undervoting.
FROM: 2004 New Mexico Presidential Election Results
# Pres. # Non-Vote % Non-Vote % Kerry % Bush % 3rd
756,363 18,731 2.42 47.86 48.64 1.09
2.42% of NM ballots are undervotes, triple Bush’s 6,000 vote margin. If New Mexico had Nevada’s undervote rate and 3/4 of the remaining undervotes are uncounted Kerry votes, Kerry wins New Mexico.
Kerry Bush
370,946 376,975
9,366 3,122
380,312 380,097
This then leads into “WHERE” votes went uncounted. Taos had way, way over 3/4 Kerry support. The Native Americans vote like the inner-city precincts, is about 90% Dems. A clear understanding of “Which candidate’s votes are uncounted” is important in terms of accomplishing “stealing” votes. Precinct level under voting rate can determines how much the uncounted presidential votes would have changed outcome. County level statistics average out localized under voting rates.
Undervotes.
I wrote, “If New Mexico had Nevada’s undervote rate and 3/4 of the remaining undervotes are uncounted Kerry votes, Kerry wins New Mexico.” This comparison can be made using, instead, the NM counties with normal undervotes. All the counties below the 1% line on the graph below average, at 0.45%, even lower than Nevada’s county average. Such a comparison also emphasizes the unfair NM machine bias (or whatever this was). I just studied this further, and here is a new statistical summary of the vote counting disparities in NM, comparing the two very obvious NM groups:
In the low undervote group of 12 counties, Bush has 19% higher support, and all 12 of the normal undervote counties reported favoring Bush.
In 12 NM Bush counties (15% of votes) non-voting is below 0.78%, averaging 0.45%.
In 21 NM counties (85% of votes) non-voting ranges from 2.03% to 8.4%, at 2.76% of voters.
The Kerry support correlation to undervoting is equally explicit in Cuyahoga County. The % Kerry to % non-vote correlation for 33 NM counties is 0.454, the Cuyahoga County correlation for 1432 precincts is 0.423. Bush’s vote has a -0.562 correlation non-vote percentages for NM counties, -0.500% in Cuyahoga precincts. The big difference between Ohio and NM seems to be which minority is being robbed of votes.
If the Ohio e-vote counties’ percentage of non-votes is applied to Cuyahoga County precincts, and if the excess non-votes over that percentage are counted according to the reported precinct voting, these voters would add 4,833 Kerry and 1,284 Bush votes. The 11.0% of Cuyahoga precincts with over 3.6% non-votes have 27.7% of the non-votes and a mean of 10.25% Bush voting. Kerry’s support county wide is 65.66% while 79.01% of excess non-votes are undertallied Kerry supporters. The Bush vote was reported to be 32.00% while only 20.99% of the undertallied are Bush supporters. In NM, this proportion, 79% Kerry to 21% Bush, would give Kerry the victory. Simply put, “While Cuyahoga reported 2/3 Kerry voters, 4/5 of excess non-votes are probable Kerry supporters.”
Why is undervoting focused in Kerry areas? In Cuyahoga, part of the non-vote is punch card cross-voting. In NM, punch cards cannot be blamed and the correlation to voting machines is far beyond credibly coincidence. It is very difficult to not conclude that Kerry votes are the target of the irregularity. Note the smooth pattern in Cuyahoga non-vote rates when precincts are sorted by Kerry support (after vote theft results, of course).
Source:
http://jqjacobs.net/politics/