Cleveland Audit Reveals Vote Count Discrepancy in Bush’s Favor–Need Help!

[Time for change]

We are requesting help in attempting to confirm vote count discrepancies in Cuyahoga County, which could prove election fraud in the 2004 Presidential election. Here is the background to this effort, the current status of our efforts to audit the Cuyahoga County election returns, and details of our future plans and request for help.


Background

It was well known in the days prior to the 2004 Presidential election that a Kerry/Edwards victory was almost certain if they carried either Ohio or Florida. Central to Kerry’s chances of carrying Ohio was a good turnout in Cuyahoga County, and especially in Cleveland, the most heavily Democratic city in the state.

Therefore, Cleveland was very heavily targeted by Democrats, with a massive voter registration drive and an intense voter turnout effort on Election Day. And these efforts appeared to be highly successful by Election Day, with 230 thousand new voters registered in Cuyahoga County in 2004, the success of the voter turnout effort evidenced by the presence of impressively long voting lines throughout Cleveland, and the Ohio exit poll showing a comfortable Kerry lead throughout the day. Even CNN’s right wing hack, Robert Novak, acknowledged that it would be an uphill climb for Bush.

But disappointing returns throughout the evening meant that by late evening, despite the exit poll continuing to show a comfortable Kerry lead, the hope for a Kerry victory depended on Cuyahoga County. But this remaining hope soon faded, as it became clear that the voter turnout from Cleveland was in fact miserably low, and by noon the next day John Kerry conceded the election.

What went wrong in Cuyahoga County?
The Democrats were not the only major Party that heavily targeted Cleveland. The Republicans also appear to have targeted it – but in a different manner. The 230 thousand new voters registered in Cuyahoga County did not show up in the final official voter registration figures because of massive, apparently illegal purging of the voter roles, which was apparently targeted at Democrats, as discussed in detail in this thread.

But that wouldn’t explain the low “voter turnout”, which is calculated as the percent of registered voters who vote. The low voter turnout could have been caused by central tabulator fraud, whereby the Cuyahoga County central tabulator deleted votes, especially from highly Democratic precincts. There is a good amount of evidence to support this possibility, including the following:

1) Surprisingly low voter turnout despite the presence of long voting lines throughout the city, as explained in this thread

2) Reversal of the normal positive association between number of voting machines per population and voter turnout, as explained in Section IV, page 3, of the Democratic National Committee report on the Ohio Election

3) Numerous anomalies noted by the Green Party observer to the official recount

4) Failure of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections to conduct the official recount according to the rules, including their non-random selection of precincts to be recounted, resulting in the indictment of two election workers.


Status of the current effort to audit the Cuyahoga County results

In the absence of a full hand recount of Cuyahoga County, one thing that could shed light on the theory that the central tabulator deleted votes would be a comparison of pre-tabulator vote counts with official (post-tabulator) vote counts. If the official post-tabulator counts are substantially less than the pre-tabulator counts, that could indicate fraudulent deletion of votes by the county’s central tabulator.

After making numerous requests to the Director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, Michael Vu, to provide those counts, and having received promises but no action from him, I sought help from Ray Beckerman’s Ohio Project. Consequently, Ron, a computer science professional and one of the Project’s most active volunteers, made an initial attempt to audit the pre-tabulator vote counts. What he has found so far is quite interesting IMO.

Ron has so far gathered data from 15 Cleveland precincts, all which voted heavily for Kerry. Of those 15 precincts, 11 demonstrated either very small or no discrepancies between pre- and post-tabulator vote counts, but the other four demonstrated substantial discrepancies. In all four of those precincts the post-tabulator (official) vote count is LESS than the pre-tabulator count, as indicated in the poll book summaries. The total discrepancy (i.e., lost votes) for the 15 precincts (almost all of that attributed to four precincts) is 163 votes. Since those precincts voted heavily for Kerry (over 90% on average), this vote loss favors Bush by a net of about 140 votes.


Future plans and request for help

Though data from the 15 precincts suggest a more widespread problem, the sample size is too small to base solid conclusions on it. Ron’s plan now is to obtain similar data (i.e., pre-tabulator counts) on about 200 additional, randomly selected precincts in Cuyahoga County, and then to compare those counts with the official post-tabulator counts.

If he continues to find large discrepancies between pre- and post-tabulator counts and is able to confirm the legal basis for those counts, and especially if Bush leaning precincts fail to show the same pattern (or show an opposite pattern), then we will have identified a very interesting situation that could be highly suggestive of fraud.

If that turns out to be the case, we would then make efforts to publicize this information as widely as possible, as well as consider what legal measures are available to pursue. The official recount of a three percent Cuyahoga County sample of precincts failed to find any vote discrepancy. How a fair recount could have failed to identify a single vote discrepancy is difficult to fathom, given the substantial discrepancies that Ron has already identified after looking at only 15 precincts. The precincts used in the official recount were not chosen randomly, but rather were chosen by the Cuyahoga County BOE. If election fraud was rampant in Cuyahoga County, they probably would have known what precincts they could safely use for the official recount.

Ron is seeking help with this effort. With helpers available to him the process can be made much more efficient and completed much faster. Also, it would be great to have witnesses available in case the BOE gives him any trouble.

If anyone who lives around the Cleveland area (The investigation will take place at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in downtown Cleveland) is willing to help out in this effort, please let me know. Whatever time you are willing to donate could be very helpful in unraveling the mystery of the Ohio 2004 Presidential election.


Note: Ron just joined DU, so he will be able to answer questions that I am unable to answer. Since he just joined this evening, it will be a few hours before he is allowed to post. His screen name is adagiopop.

[blm]

1. Have you contacted Dennis Kucinich's office?

I would think this would be right up his alley. He knows about the machines and this is his backyard.

[Time for change]

14. Thank you -- I contacted his office a few months ago

It was about something similar, but I can't remember if it was the same issue.

Anyhow, that's a good idea to keep in mind, and it would probably be worth doing again, though I'm not sure if it would be better to do that before or after this investigation in completed.

[mom cat]

2. K&R

[MsMagnificent]

3. I can help

I live in Trumbull County, though, if that means anything.
Email me with details through DU, please.

[bleever]

5. K&R for TfC and the heroes who continue to use their shovels

to dig up the evidence that's waiting, under the dirt.

:thumbsup:



ed: sp

[Time for change]

9. I will do that, thank -- n/t

[Melissa G]

4. kick and R for TfC!

[OzarkDem]

6. I'll help

Shall I pm you?

[Time for change]

11. That would be great. Thank you n/t

[joeunderdog]

7. Please don't wake John Kerry about this.

There are far more important issues than election fraud. I mean, how would the world be different right now if the Presidents who actually won our last 2 elections were actually serving their terms?

sigh.

[EFerrari]

8. Ron needs to PM Land Shark or Guv World. or just go to the Elections

Forum.

Thank you, our awesome DUers. :loveya:

:)

[understandinglife]

10. I'm emailing the URL to this OP to Land Shark ...

Peace.

[EFerrari]

15. Great. Thank you, UL. n/t

[Time for change]

32. Thank you ul -- It looks like Land Shark has already responded with

a lot of complex information.

I'll have to spend some time digesting that before getting back with him later today.

[WCGreen]

12. Remember one thing before you go into this....

That some of the precincts in Cleveland have high density elder populations...

Most notably Ward 6, Ward 14 and Ward 15...

The absentee ballots are not rolled into the precinct totals but are kept seperate...

They do, however, show up on individual voting records as that person having voted...

So remember, to account for outside factors that could effect the results of your research...

How do I know this...

I know because I organized and help implement several GOVT votes in Cuyahoga County during the mid 90's to 2000...

I also served on the BOE for about nine months...

I also used the data all the time and discovered these discrepancies but then was able to see why they happened...

Factor in outside stuff before you make your final conclusions....

[Time for change]

19. Thank you -- Yes, we're trying to get a handle on the absentee ballot

issue.

We have been told that neither the pre-tabulator counts which Ron is getting from the poll books, nor the official post-tabulator counts that we have include absentee ballots -- i.e., that they are counted separately. Ron can add to that statement I think, once he comes on line.

Anyhow, we will be very careful to be sure that we have it right before making final conclusions. May even post the conclusions on DU to get feedback before reporting them elsewhere.

[WCGreen]

20. PM me... I know the lay of the political land....

I just can;t get involved now because I am working on a statewide campaign at the moment...

[Time for change]

30. Will do -- thank you n/t

[Land Shark]

13. A few quick comments and observations from LandShark

1. There are a few things that change elections but don't show up at all in exit polls, one is voter suppression, because only those who actually think they voted get polled in an exit poll. But beyond that, there are technical reasons why stealing in high percentage Bush or Kerry precincts will not show up on the exit polls as "red shift". So, such precincts are good targets for the criminally inclined.

2. I'd have to have more clarity about what pretabulator and post-tabulator totals, how they are arrived at etc.

3. You may find some very useful discussion between myself and some other people like Febble (a statistician who has also done consulting work for Mitofsky) under an election forum thread I wrote called something like "How I Personally Stole the 2004 Election and Got Everyone to Help Me." It's written as a "how to" and is attempting to show methods that escape exit poll detection.

4. Of course, then you've got your methods that *don't* escape exit poll detection, as well.

[EFerrari]

18. Thank you.

:)

[Time for change]

41. Thank you for the observations Land Shark

First, I'll try to clarify the meaning of pre- and post-tabulator vote counts.

The pre-tabulator vote counts are marked down in each individual precinct "poll book", at the time of poll closing, I believe. I suppose that these are obtained by the electronic tabulation from each of the individual machines at each precinct. I don't know if they are computed by hand or electronically, or if these vary. I also am not clear about the legal standing of these numbers. I do know that they are supposed to serve as a check on the accuracy of the final counts.

The pre-tabulator counts are then sent to the county's central tabulator, which then comes up with a total (post-tabulator) count. So each county reports not only a total (post-tabulator) count for the county, but also the official (post-tabulator) count for each precinct. These are the official results.

Obviously, the pre-tabulator and post-tabulator counts for each county should be equivalent. How is it that one would find post-tabulator counts to be systematically less than the pre-tabulator counts? Fraud would be at the top of MY list. In fact, when I initially proposed that the central tabulator may be deleting votes, some people told me that they thought that would be unlikely because then the pre- and post-tabulator results wouldn't match. My thought in response to that was, "How do we know that they DO match?"


The issue of the relationship of all this to the exit polls is complex (and I have discussed this with Febble). This type of fraud would cause a discrepancy between the official vote and the state exit polls (and in fact, we do have a discrepancy of 4.2%), but it would NOT cause a red shift in the WPE. The reason it wouldn't cause a red shift in WPE is that the relative percentages (vote share) within any individual precinct would NOT be changed, since votes would be deleted in proportion to the relative vote shares of each candidate). BUT, if this was done disproportionately in Kerry precincts (which I believe it was, and which our initial investigation suggest was the case), then it would cause a discrepancy between the state exit poll and the official results.

Another interesting thing about this type of fraud is that it would escape the kind of detection that the Mebane and ESI analyses were meant to show, since those analyses were based on within precinct analyses. So, when those two studies came to the conclusion of "no widespread election fraud" they totally failed to consider the possibility of this type of fraud.

Very interesting.

[Land Shark]

61. thanks that is interesting... nt

[Nothing Without Hope]

68. The Mebanes analysis in the "official" DNC investigation of the 2004

Ohio vote clearly drew a sweeping conclusion - "no evidence of widespread election fraud" - that was not based on deep examination of the situation. I have always strongly suspected that this was the conclusion that it was INTENDED to get. In any case, they certainly didn't work very hard at getting real, raw numbers. In fact, they ddn't go out looking for real data at all - they just accepted what Blackwell's office gave them and ignored everything else, it would appear.

To this day, all too many Democrats (and of course Republicans) use that very damaging conclusion to "prove" that we should all move along, that there is no real evidence of election fraud at all.

Thank you so very much for your initiative, imagination, steady purpose, and courage in pursuing this. :yourock: :patriot:

[Time for change]

72. Yes, I remember that

You were the one who picked up on the fact that all of Mebane's numbers came from Blackwell. :toast:

Well, that's what we hope will be corrected by this investigation. Blackwell's numbers (the official election returns) are those that have been run through the central tabulator (post-tabulator results). We'll see how those compare with the pre-tabulator results after Ron and his helpers complete their investigation of hopefully about 200 precincts in Cuyahoga County.

[Nothing Without Hope]

74. I wasn't the only one. What a chill to discover that. HERE's A REPOST:

I posted a thread when I first read the DNC report on the election and saw this screamer. Here's the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x381676
thread title (6-30-05 Election Reform): "DNC Ohio Election Report data were obtained from BLACKWELL!!! Hmmm..."

Some "high" points from the DNC Report we would do well to remember when we hear the DNC talking points STILL being chanted:

Excerpt from the Appendix to the voting data chapter, Chapter VI, on page 96 of 108 of the long Chapter VI pdf file:
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/section06.pdf

(snip)

For the most part we take as given the accuracy of data supplied to us by the Ohio Secretary of State and by various county BoEs. In some cases we have verified data with multiple sources, and where discrepancies were found we have resolved them to the extent that we have been able. All of our election data is public.

Data regarding precinct racial composition are proprietary data prepared under contract for the DNC.

The condition of Ohio election data has both contributed to and been an impediment to our work. With respect to the former, we appreciate and have benefited greatly from the efforts that the Ohio Secretary of State makes in assembling precinct-level election returns for the entire state. The availability of these returns has obviated the need for us to collect and process a large number of different precinct canvasses. We have caught only a few errors in Secretary of State data, and the Secretary of State has resolved these problems immediately upon being informed of them. Data collected by the Ohio Secretary of State ignore presidential write-in candidates; we do the same.

On the other hand, the lack of uniformity in data formats and availability across Ohio's 88 counties has complicated our task considerably. For instance, some counties do not have records on the number of voting machines at each precinct; others sent us hand-written information with machine counts; and still others were able to send us electronic spreadsheets with machine counts. Similarly, some counties have consistent precinct naming conventions that correspond to codes used by the Ohio Secretary of State; others employ two or three naming conventions across their own records and do not link their data to Secretary of State codes.

(snip)

...and of course, using this thoroughly massaged data from Blackwell and applying blinders on any other possibilities led them to what I suspect are actually the INTENDED conclusions.

Here's what I wrote at the time (last June) and an excerpt from the Executive Summary of the DNC report:

"And for anyone who hasn't seen it, here's the last conclusion from the Executive Summary. As long as the Dem leadership is allowed to cling to this statement, there will be no serious effort to remove the machinery of electronic election fraud. Yes, getting more machines in the districts that were denied them is important, but it won't matter a damn if the votes cast on them can be manipulated electronically."

(page 10 of the second chapter - http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/section02.pdf

(snip)

The statistical study of precinct-level data does not suggest the occurrence of widespread fraud that systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.

• The tendency to vote for Kerry in 2004 was the same as the tendency to vote for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 (Hagan). That the pattern of voting for Kerry is so similar to the pattern of voting for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 is, in the opinion of the team’s political science experts, strong evidence against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.
  
• Kerry’s support across precincts also increased with the support for Eric Fingerhut, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, and decreased with the support for Issue 1 (ballot initiative opposing same-sex marriage) and increased with the proportion of African American votes. Again this is the pattern that would be expected and is not consistent with claims of widespread fraud that misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.

Now we know, largely from work you've been involved with, that SECRET VOTER REGISTRATION PURGES also appear to have been a big part of what happened in Ohio (and probably elsewhere, since it worked so well in Florida in 2000), and your new Cleveland Audit project has promise of getting REAL data that hasn't been through the soiling hands of Kenneth Blackwell.

For you, TfC: :toast: :patriot: :yourock:

[Time for change]

76. Thank you Hope

:blush:

[TayTay]

16. Kick n/t

[rucky]

17. Have you contacted Bob Fitrakis?

he's been through this in Franklin County already.

[Time for change]

37. It's possible that I contacted him at an earlier stage of this work

but I'm not sure.

Anyhow, that is a good idea, and we will certainly keep him in mind. It may be though that we will want to pursue the investigation a little further and get some more results before we notify a lot of people.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Nothing Without Hope]

21. Well done!!!! And people should be aware that the illegal purging issue

is also very important - see the thread on this subject linked to in the opening post.

It may not be the exit polls, or at least not the exit polls alone, that hold the answers for proving fraud.

K & R and welcome to DU, Ron/adagiopop!!! :applause:

[Time for change]

47. Thank you Hope -- I'm very excited about pursuing this investigation

[troubleinwinter]

22. K & R

[Wilms]

23. K&R n/t

[nicknameless]

24. Recommended

[tom_paine]

25. K & R

:thumbsup: :patriot:

[ClayZ]

26. K and R

:kick:

[drm604]

27. K&R

I'm in eastern PA so I can't be of much help but this definitely deserves a K&R.
:kick:

[eomer]

28. K&R (eom)

[Time for change]

29. I forgot to mention: Thank you to

OTOH, kiwi_expat, liam_laddie, and Bill Bored for their help and advice on how to proceed with this project.

[mod mom]

31. K+R. Good luck. btw..we just got the ok to recount issue 2 of Nov 05 in

Franklin. Are you working w Victoria @ Ohio Vigilance?

[Time for change]

44. That's great mod mom --Thanks for all your work on this and good luck.

I correspond with Vickie occasionally on this stuff, but she is very busy and sometimes doesn't answer my e-mails.

Her work on the voter registration fraud issue has been invaluable IMO. I don't know quite where she is with this now though.

[DirtyDawg]

33. Two things....

...While it too late to overturn a stolen election, in my mind there are two - at least - things that I believe that should come out of this that are good for Dems now. First, and most obvious, prove the cheating and deceit beyond a shadow of a doubt and use the outrage to prompt massive voter turnout and, more importantly, complete commitment to voting against every Republican in sight...take over the House and the Senate and get the Impeachment process rolling. The second thing, is to introduce our own personal wedge issue across the country, namely increased, even draconian, penalties for being found guilty of election fraud. I'm talking 25-Life, or for extreme examples like getting caught red-handed stealing a Presidential election, the Death Penalty.

I don't believe anybody will disagree that elections should be fair and honest...repigs, demos, rightwing, liberals, nobody. And even those that are cheating wouldn't openly oppose legislation designed to ensure the most honest elections possible. I say go for it...probably too late for this year's state legislative sessions, but at least we could have a public debate and see how the repigs would squirm under the hot light of answering a direct question.

[cascadiance]

51. Great! Thanks a lot!

If you can prove something's wrong before April, it could help us get Diebold thrown out before we have them pushed onto us here in California in the special election to replace Cunningham (I'm in that district by the way!). Would love to have them thrown out to give Francine Busby a better shot at winning this seat.

One other question... Did the pre-tabulator count also include provisional ballots whereas the post-tabulator count had some or all of them not counted? That also might account for discrepancies along with the absentee ballots.

Note that even with provisional ballots accounting for this discrepancy, it still might be worth chasing down. If that many provisional ballots aren't being "validated", it might validate your concern about voter rolls being purged improperly which lead to a lot of these ballots being filed but not being "validated".

We want to make sure that we have all of our ducks in order before doing any official challenge. We tried to have a parallel election here in San Diego for the special mayoral election, which fueled a recount, but that one didn't help overturn it. I think partly because the race was decided a lot more with the absentee ballots that were counted up front.

[Time for change]

53. Good point about provisional ballotts

The provisional ballots are noted in the poll book, the number accepted and the number rejected. Ron substracted the rejected provisional ballots from the total of provisional plus voted ballots, to come up with the pre-tabulator count. We assume that the post-tabulator (official) count includes the provisional ballots in it, which must be the case because the totals (plus the absentee ballots, which are counted separately) equal the total vote margin that Bush is officially credited with.

[Time for change]

52. I basically agree with you

We need to demonstrate what happened in 04.

And then we need to make sure it doesn't happen again.

True, nobody will disagree publicly that we should have fair and honest elections. But the Republicans fight tooth and nail for their DRE machines, and tell us we don't need paper trails to keep our elections honest.

How do they get away with that? Their corporate media covers for them.

[Twist_U_Up]

34. I thought were told to "Get Over IT!" haha NOT !!

conspiracy theorists huh

[Time for change]

58. "Conspiracy theorist" is their most important label

Anyone who doesn't passively accept whatever we are dished out by the CM are "conspiracy theorists".

:tinfoilhat:

[klook]

35. Great work -- THANK YOU!!

Those of us in the rest of the country are really encouraged by what you're doing.

Does the data analysis have to be done in person? Or do you have to do a "stare and compare" of physical paper records? If there's any way for non-Ohioans to help remotely, let us know.

[Time for change]

59. Thank you for the offer - we will keep you in mind

But right now all the work that needs to be done in Ohio to further this particular investigation needs to be done on site at the Cuyahoga County BOE.

I tried several times to get the BOE Director, Michael Vu, to provide the information to me electronically, and I got nowhere with that.

[On the Road]

36. Dale, You Asked for Help from Cleveland Residents

Is there anything those of us out of state can do? I would be glad to be part of an effort to sift through raw data, for example.

What I admire about your efforts is not only your persistence, but your insistence on weeding out even the most tempting claims without solid data and reasoning. This is the kind of study that's going to stand up and go into the history books.

[Time for change]

50. Thank you very much Jack -- Let's hope that it stands up

As far as what you can do, I'm not sure at this point. I think at this point the work that needs to be done is one the ground in Ohio.

But it's very good to know that you're available. Ron and I will discuss it, and we'll let you know if there's anything you can do.

[november3rd]

38. thanks

this is the stuff democracies are made of. we appreciate your hard work and keeping us posted.

[oneold1-4u]

39. "get over it"

Will never happen because a nation knows that, what was once called a democracy of the people, was destroyed by a few criminals with more money than the gold in Fort Knox. They will never again allow the people to have control! The election in Nov. will be thrown out if the power structure is threatened, by the voting citizens, with any change.
After that there won't be any elections even allowed. How many nations will it take to help the people of the US to regain anything resembling democracy?
We had better begin thinking of allies like China, Japan, Venezuela, Canada, Great Britain and even Russia. It is going to take a lot of help to remove this bunch that is in power today and do it right. They must be removed and we now know that the power of the people has been destroyed as far as any type of one for one vote!
Be prepared, because if we don't ask for help, they will come anyway to get whatever they can from the destruction!
Every dictatorship and most monarchies must have some controls or be destroyed!
This one is out of control!

[Time for change]

60. "It is going to take a lot of help to remove this bunch that is in power

today and do it right. They must be removed and we now know that the power of the people has been destroyed as far as any type of one for one vote!"

I certainly agree with that! It's not only our elections. Bush has essentially appointed himself dictator. It isn't beyond possibility that he'll appoint himself to be installed as President for a third term -- for national security reasons of course. Or maybe they'll just fix the election to install his brother.

[jsamuel]

40. i have screen shots from Ohio's official website that night

If someone was fooling with the tabulator, then these are the kinds of errors one would see.

[abbiehoff]

45. My, my. Cobb certainly seems to have been doing well.

[Up2Late]

67. Wow, How many of those do you have?

Those Cobb doing well, Kerry getting nothing shots might be enough votes to flip the Ohio Election!

[Time for change]

69. Keep in mind though that these are not final returns

They were somehow corrected before the returns became final.

What they do indicate is problems with the machines that do NOT inspire confidence.

[mod mom]

82. Just like the Gahanna OH incident with the 3,800+ * votes in

a 600 person precinct. Makes you wonder what wasn't caught.

[Time for change]

84. Yes, it certainly does -- good point

I think that there was a lot of stuff that wasn't caught.

[mod mom]

81. And we salute you for those screensaver!

:patriot:

:yourock:

[mod mom]

42. TFC, also I don't know the precinct turnouts for Cuyahoga, but if you have

precincts with over 90% TURNOUT (regardless of who they favored) consider them suspicious:

RIGGING THE VOTE IN LUCAS COUNTY

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
Revised December 24, 2004

-snip-

The very first thing we all noticed when examining the precinct
canvass records for Lucas County was the distribution of turnout.
The range is striking, and turnout is distinctly higher in the
Bush precincts than in the Kerry precincts. In some precincts
the reported turnout is too high to be credible.


PRECINCTS WITH HIGHEST TURNOUT, TOLEDO SUBURBS

Precinct Turnout Bush Kerry

MONCLOVA TOWNSHIP 10 92.67 217 161
MONCLOVA TOWNSHIP 11 92.46 424 298
SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP J 91.97 84 40
OREGON 16 89.46 186 210
MAUMEE 18 89.44 205 190
MONCLOVA TOWNSHIP 7 87.78 285 151
MONCLOVA TOWNSHIP 9 87.58 195 78
RICHFIELD TOWNSHIP 2 86.76 105 83
SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP K 86.74 338 177
SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP I 86.48 270 184
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP 25 86.17 230 116
OREGON 5 86.09 382 390
MONCLOVA TOWNSHIP 5 85.96 365 181
MAUMEE 12 85.48 197 262
WATERVILLE TOWNSHIP 7 85.36 328 189
OREGON 15 85.23 189 287
YLVANIA CITY 18 85.05 434 214
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP 9 84.98 297 147
SYLVANIA CITY 10 84.87 254 157
SYLVANIA CITY 21 84.87 516 295
SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP H 84.85 211 122
WATERVILLE TOWNSHIP 3 84.56 356 304
WATERVILLE TOWNSHIP 6 84.48 293 183
WATERVILLE TOWNSHIP 9 84.31 542 260
SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP CC 84.21 262 194


Turnout above 90% is almost unheard of. I have examined the
canvass records in eight other Ohio counties and have seen
reported turnout above 90% only in two precincts in Miami County
where, in my professional opinion, the election was hacked.
Miami and Lucas counties are also the only two counties whose
records I have examined that used optical scanning machines, as
confirmed by the map posted at

verifiedvoting.org/verifier/map.php?&topic_string=5std&state=Ohio

[Time for change]

46. I'm not inclined to think that too large a turnout in some Cuyahoga County

precincts is a problem, but I could be wrong.

The highest turnouts are not too far out of line. We only have two precincts with over 80% (82% and 87%).

But on the other hand, the four top turnout precincts are all Bush precincts, and furthermore, regression analysis shows that Bush voting for the county in general is strongly correlated with "increased turnout" (r squared = 0.21 p<.001).

I don't know what that means. I think that if we look at those precincts and the pre-tabulator vote actually is LESS than the post-tabulator vote, that would be VERY suspicious -- close to conclusive proof of fraud IMO, assuming that the rest of our analysis was consistent with that.

[kittenpants]

85. Tom Noe's (coingate guy) wife was running the Lucas Co board of elections

And I'm sure she's just as ethical as her husband.

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

43. Effin GOPologists

They know they can't win fairly so they pull this stunt.

[Cogito_ergo_Democrat]

48. 140 votes?

I have no doubt the GOP stole the 2004 election, and the 2000 for that matter, but considering that they also control the courts and the media, how in the heck do you expect to sway ANYONE with 140 votes? I mean, didn't Bush "win" Ohio by a few hundred thousand votes? You bring up 140 votes and EVERYONE will poo poo you and say "so what?".

[Time for change]

49. The 140 votes is a discrepancy based on a sampling of only 15 precincts

It does not constitute a complete investigation, but only a start.

We are thinking that it very well might represent the tip of an iceberg.

For one thing, consider that all four discrepancies that have been identified in this audit so far have worked in Bush's favor. Also consider the prior reasons for suspecting fraud, as noted in the OP. Consider that all over Ohio and all over the country, the vast majority of "irregularities" that have been found have worked in Bush's favor.

And most of all, consider this: When the official recount was conducted in December of 2004, the rules were that if any discrepancy at all was found, the whole county was supposed to be recounted. The Cuyahoga County BOE, against the rules, picked out what precincts were to be included in the initial recount, and they found no disrepancy at all. Two election workers were indicted for election fraud on the basis of their disregarding the rules for conducting of the recount. How was it that they found no discrepancy at all, when we are finding large discrepancies after looking at only 4 precincts?

Anyhow, we are not trying to convince anybody of anything based on a sampling of 15 precincts. What we want to do is pursue this investigation, and then if the results continue to indicate the type of discrepancies that we found in these 15 precincts, we think that that should be grounds for recounting the whole county. We think that a full recount of the county will show a very large discrepancy -- in Bush's favor.

[Higans]

54. Thank you.

Thank you so much for pursuing this issue. Even if we do have to put up with Bush for the rest of this term, the goal that needs to be obtained is voter verifiable elections. Ware is the democracy if the only vote that matters is the vote of the one person in control of the central tabulator? Where is the voice of the governed?

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for pursuing this issue.

[Time for change]

62. You're welcome -- My guess is that there are 100s of DUers and

thousands of others working on this.

Together we can make a difference!

[Wilms]

55. Kick

[Vektor]

56. K&R - thank you, great work.

:-)

[Chi]

57. K&R Thanx...as always, Tfc n/t

[mod mom]

63. TFC, MCM just posted this on one of the E R listservs! Way to go!

[Time for change]

64. That's great -- Thanks for letting me know

:)

[Nothing Without Hope]

78. Great! I hope that brings in more Ohio people to help with the audit n/t

[mod mom]

80. It will go through participant's network's, but this is a national ER list

I hope TFC, and others realize there are other audits going on in Ohio (and more in the planning phase) while there are a limited number of ER volunteers to do them. We all feel understaffed and sometimes overwhelmed, but we keep focused, regardless. Thanks for all those unsung heroes doing the unglamorous, unpaid work of auditing.


:patriot:

[2QT2BSTR8]

65. Thank you for all of your hard work to get this out.....

I hope that one day in at least my lifetime, my home state of Texas will be the next Ohio. Who knows....it could happen....

[Time for change]

66. That would be nice

Welcome to DU 2QT
:toast:

[adagiopop]

70. Thanks for all the support

If you can help at the Cuyahoga BOE, email me through DU or directly at [e-mail] .
Help outside of Cleveland might be useful at some point.

Brief responses to some questions/points

1. I agree that voter suppression and purging are huge problems as well.
2. Contacting Kuchinich and Fitrakis are good ideas.
3. I do not think absentee ballots need to be accounted for in what I am doing now. The counts I have are of ballots submitted at the polling place.


The discrepancies I found could be misunderstandings on my part or poll worker mistakes.

I sent an example of discrepancies in one precinct to the BOE on 2/7, but have not heard back (despite a number of reminders via phone and email). I pasted it in below if you are interested or can answer my questions. If the BOE does not answer soon, I will ask to come in anyway.

My plan for the next visit is take digital pictures of the key numbers on each poll book. PB information might be photographed or manually counted. Absentee ballot information is not relevant to this narrow investigation, but it would not hurt to photograph that as well. This is where I could use onsite help, but turning this in to a mini assembly line. I have a digital camera, but another one would help.

The pictures would both gather permanent evidence and make the time at the BOE shorter.

Here is the example & questions I sent to the BOE. If anyone with detailed knowledge of Cuyahoga County processes can help, please let me know..

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me use Cleveland 10-Q as an example. I should add that I could
have easily made mistakes in recording numbers or counting and realize
that poll workers make mistakes too. I recorded the following

1-Highest Ballot Rcvd - 860
2-Soiled/Defaced - 8
3-Voted Ballots - 458
4-PB Envelopes - 48
5-Total of 3, 4 - 514
6-Voter Signatures - 346
7-Unused Ballots - 750

I also counted the signatures that came after the computer printed
names. I assume those are for provisional ballots (PB).

I assumed that PB signatures with "cannot locate" or "wrong precinct"
were rejected PB's and PB signatures with a number (voter ID?) were
accepted.

I counted (total for both books)

PB accepted: 27
PB rejected: 17

From the BOE recount canvas, there were 441 votes cast for 10Q.

Here are my questions.

1. Did I interpret the PB acceptances/rejections correctly?

2. Am I correct that Line 5 is wrong? It should have been 506 (minor
math error).

3a. Is the Line 6 a manual count of signatures in the poll book?

3b. Does it include signatures by computer printed names, accepted
PB's, and rejected PB's?

3c. Should line 6 match line 5?

3d. I fully realize how easy it is to mis-count signatures, but 346
is quite different from 514. Should a poll worker recheck the manual
count when the number is so different?

4a. Should "7-unused ballots" be equal to #1 minus #2 minus #5?

4b. If my formula in 4a is correct, there should have been 338 unused
ballots, but the certificate says 750. Should (or was) that
discrepancy
be checked?

5. Should the votes cast in canvas match #5 minus PB's rejected? If
so, there should have been 497 votes cast in 10Q, but the canvas only
has 441.

Thanks for your time,

Ron

[Time for change]

71. We very much appreciate all the work you've done on this Ron

And welcome to DU! :toast:

[Nothing Without Hope]

75. Thank you, Ron, and welcome to DU!!!

I'd sure help if I lived in Ohio.

And may this project bear some fruit that will finally show the US public that the Bush cabal was never elected at all.

[Wilms]

73. kick

[Nothing Without Hope]

77. KICK and a reminder of the outrageous "official" DNC report on Ohio:

We need to see how far away from a thorough, unbiased analysis the "official" DNC report really was - and THAT is what is still used to claim that "there was no evidence widespread election fraud in the 2004 presidential election."

I've posted this upthread, but for more people to see it and be reminded, I'm reposting here instead of just a bare kick.

I posted a thread when I first read the DNC report on the election last summer and saw this screamer. Here's the thread I posted then:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x381676
thread title (6-30-05 Election Reform): "DNC Ohio Election Report data were obtained from BLACKWELL!!! Hmmm..."

Some "high" points from the DNC Report we would do well to remember when we hear the DNC talking points STILL being chanted:

Excerpt from the Appendix to the voting data chapter, Chapter VI, on page 96 of 108 of the long Chapter VI pdf file:
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/section06.pdf

(snip)

For the most part we take as given the accuracy of data supplied to us by the Ohio Secretary of State and by various county BoEs. In some cases we have verified data with multiple sources, and where discrepancies were found we have resolved them to the extent that we have been able. All of our election data is public.

Data regarding precinct racial composition are proprietary data prepared under contract for the DNC.

The condition of Ohio election data has both contributed to and been an impediment to our work. With respect to the former, we appreciate and have benefited greatly from the efforts that the Ohio Secretary of State makes in assembling precinct-level election returns for the entire state. The availability of these returns has obviated the need for us to collect and process a large number of different precinct canvasses. We have caught only a few errors in Secretary of State data, and the Secretary of State has resolved these problems immediately upon being informed of them. Data collected by the Ohio Secretary of State ignore presidential write-in candidates; we do the same.

On the other hand, the lack of uniformity in data formats and availability across Ohio's 88 counties has complicated our task considerably. For instance, some counties do not have records on the number of voting machines at each precinct; others sent us hand-written information with machine counts; and still others were able to send us electronic spreadsheets with machine counts. Similarly, some counties have consistent precinct naming conventions that correspond to codes used by the Ohio Secretary of State; others employ two or three naming conventions across their own records and do not link their data to Secretary of State codes.

(snip)

...and of course, using this thoroughly massaged data from Blackwell and applying blinders on any other possibilities led them to what I suspect are actually the INTENDED conclusions.

Here's what I wrote at the time (last June) and an excerpt from the Executive Summary of the DNC report:

"And for anyone who hasn't seen it, here's the last conclusion from the Executive Summary. As long as the Dem leadership is allowed to cling to this statement, there will be no serious effort to remove the machinery of electronic election fraud. Yes, getting more machines in the districts that were denied them is important, but it won't matter a damn if the votes cast on them can be manipulated electronically.”

(page 10 of the second chapter - http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/section02.pdf

(snip)

The statistical study of precinct-level data does not suggest the occurrence of widespread fraud that systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.

• The tendency to vote for Kerry in 2004 was the same as the tendency to vote for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 (Hagan). That the pattern of voting for Kerry is so similar to the pattern of voting for the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 is, in the opinion of the team’s political science experts, strong evidence against the claim that widespread fraud systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.
  
  
• Kerry’s support across precincts also increased with the support for Eric Fingerhut, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, and decreased with the support for Issue 1 (ballot initiative opposing same-sex marriage) and increased with the proportion of African American votes. Again this is the pattern that would be expected and is not consistent with claims of widespread fraud that misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.

This DNC analysis took its primary data from Blackwell’s hands and ASSUMED it was clean and unmanipulated. They did nothing to assess the possibility of secret Dem voter purging, though that had been a key deciding factor in Florida in the stolen 2000 election. In short, the DNC analysis was an empty exercise and ever since the release of that report the DNC (and of course the Repubs) could use it as “proof” that the 2004 election results should not be disputed and that electronic election fraud is not an urgent concern.

The massive secret voter purges (see the thread linked to in the opening post) and the electronic election fraud are machines that are still in place for the NEXT election, and few congressional Democrats (with some loud and courageous exceptions) have objected.

THIS MUST CHANGE.

[mod mom]

83. The OH Dems have ignored all information sent to them regarding the purges

and have done nothing to protect their base against future purges or to address those purged at the hands of Blackwell in the past. This issue, coupled with the effects of OH HB 3 "The GOP Voter Suppression" Law, called the modern day equivalent to "Jim Crow" IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER IN THE '06 MIDTERMS!!!!

[Nothing Without Hope]

86. Ignoring the evidence of purges and fraud is evidence of complicity IMO.

There is more than enough corruption to go around, and some of the Dems are in bed with the e-voting machine makers too. There's a lot of money in it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340
thread title (6-24-05 Election Reform): ACTION! Election officials for sale to the highest bidder. Speak out!

And then there is the behind-the-scenes collusion with the GOPs, which I believe is all too common.

ed:typo

[Wilms]

79. .

[Wilms]

87. .

[Time for change]

88. We're still looking for some more help

:)

[upi402]

89. Kerry will help you out

...or is that -help HIM out?
:rofl:
Oh the spilled milk, it's stinking to high heaven by now!

These dirty betrayers of democracy must be stood up to. Too bad so many Dems just love to make-nice to these crooks.

[Time for change]

90. I think we'll have to do this one without his help n/t

[adagiopop]

91. offers of assistance

A number of you who indicated an interest in helping asked for a PM.

As a new DU member, I cannot send private messages yet (not enough posts).

If you can help at the Cuyahoga BOE, email me directly at [e-mail] .

Help outside of Cleveland might be useful at some point.

Thanks,

Ron

[Time for change]

92. Kick