Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:30 PM Jul 2016

Cleveland, where Republicans switched minority votes from Kerry to Bush. Good choice Rs!

Hold a convention in the very place where so many votes were switched? Put an exclamation point on stealing minority votes? No place epitomizes the 2004 election irregularities and the racism in election theft like Cuyahoga County, OH. Maybe they just want to make sure we don't forget?
[center]
The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election: Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched To Bush Votes


In a subset of 166,953 votes, one of every 34 Ohio voters, the Kerry-Bush margin
shifts six percent when the population is sorted by outcomes of wrong-precinct voting.


Seven-eights of voters in heavily-Democratic Cuyahoga County, more than one of every eight
Ohio Kerry voters, could have cross-voted at an adjacent precinct using the wrong ballot order.


The first question I tried to answer was, "How many votes were switched?" Cuyahoga County reported, for the 1432 of 1435 precincts included in this study, 1,003,435 registered voters cast 600,467 votes at precincts, 10.76% of the Ohio vote. Since John Kerry received 65.67 percent of these (394,354 votes), on average Kerry would lose two votes to wrong-precinct voting for every vote Bush loses. This, of course, assumes random distribution of ballot order combinations, cross-voting, and vote-switching in relation to candidate support and other variables. It also assumes ballots were counted in precinct as cast, not switched between precincts later to alter votes.


Conclusions

The 2004 Ohio Presidential voting results do not accurately reflect voter intentions. In Cuyahoga County, the election was flawed and the design appears to have been manipulated. At locations with several ballot orders in use, many votes were cast by voters crossing precincts, hence counted other than as intended. At precincts with the highest Kerry support, the percentage of uncounted votes is inexplicably high. The obvious inference—intentional manipulation produced concentrated undercounting, cross-voting, and vote-switching in areas of highest Kerry support—cannot be ignored in the face of the evidence and statistics. The possibility that ballots were switched to different precincts, post-voting to effect vote-switching, must be considered in a complete chain of custody context.

Many individual ballots resulted in a vote-switch, a two-vote margin difference from the intended result. Switched-votes cast for Kerry and counted for Bush had twice the impact as their actual occurrence, by each subtracting one from Kerry and adding one to Bush. Bush and Kerry votes also went uncounted as non-votes or were miscounted as minor candidate votes. A high percentage of all Cuyahoga County votes were cast at locations with multiple ballot orders. The manner in which precincts and ballot orders were combined increased the probability of a Kerry cross-vote being recorded as a Bush vote. Quantitative analyses of candidate votes and of non-vote percentages evidence the cross-voting and the patterns of cross-voting and vote-switching.

Sorting locations and precincts to their specific cross-voting probability subsets reveals intended voting patterns and the degree of cross-voting. The combinations of ballot orders and precincts at polling locations enables quantitative analysis of cross-voting and vote-switching. The complexity of the election's organization—the great number of combinations of ballot orders and locations—also makes the task of determining the number of cross-votes laborious and complex. While that process is not concluded herein, the procedures so far taken in this study define the process. This process may be more easily applied to other Ohio counties given less-complex ballot order combinations.

Any official inquiry into the 2004 irregularities needs to be independent of political interests, and monitored by political interests. The fact that the irregularities discussed herein are known and have been reported to multiple jurisdictions and law enforcement entities, and yet no official inquiry into the election has occurred, illustrates the broader failure of the current election process and judicial system to respond to election fraud and irregularities or to hold officials accountable for their actions. Polling places should never have been arranged such as in Ohio, with multiple ballot orders and separate casting and counting devices. Measures are required to prevent the possibility of similar future flawed election designs. To this end, control of elections should be removed from competing political interests and actors to politically-independent processes, with at the least, independent and political oversight of elections.

Many more conclusions remain to be made as study and analysis continues. The 2004 Ohio election ballots must be preserved to allow further investigations. If this study illustrates anything, hopefully it is the degree to which this problem has not yet been fully considered, and the complete failure of officials to respond. During an era of new voting system technologies and reforms, careful consideration of past errors may prove useful in avoiding their repetition and in preventing future abuses of process and power.

The 2004 Ohio Presidential election remains to be fully investigated. The blatant evidence of irregularities and unfairness of organization continues to be ignored by most jurisdictional authorities informed of the evidence. I thank those few authorities pursuing this matter further.


7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cleveland, where Republicans switched minority votes from Kerry to Bush. Good choice Rs! (Original Post) L. Coyote Jul 2016 OP
Ohio and the Diebold company RazBerryBeret Jul 2016 #1
Diebold voting machines improved Ohio elections and in 2004 the problem was punch card voting. L. Coyote Jul 2016 #2
Still dirty RazBerryBeret Jul 2016 #3
And what happened in Milwaukee, another case of minority vote theft? L. Coyote Jul 2016 #4
voting fraud? no. COUNTING fraud, YES. pansypoo53219 Jul 2016 #5
Plus voter suppression by Ohio Sec.of State, slimeball Ken Blackwell. oasis Jul 2016 #6
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2016 #7

RazBerryBeret

(3,075 posts)
1. Ohio and the Diebold company
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 01:03 PM
Jul 2016

shameful partnership....

As an Ohioan, if we ever wanted to prove a case of Election Fraud or Vote Stealing it was all right here in 2004. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when the CEO of the company who makes a large amount of the voting machines pledges to deliver the votes to Bush and is not only a speaker at a fundraiser for Bush, but also invited to the Bush ranch... something is not right.

http://columbusfreepress.com/article/diebold-indicted-its-spectre-still-haunts-ohio-elections

Back to the scene of the crime, I guess...
total bullshit.

THIS is why it is so important to get corporate money out of elections. Our chances of having fair elections gets slimmer and slimmer with the amount of money dumped into them each cycle; this is why I was a Sanders supporter.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
2. Diebold voting machines improved Ohio elections and in 2004 the problem was punch card voting.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 01:29 PM
Jul 2016

Where Diebold machines were in service in 2004, the uncounted votes were very much reduced and the shift was blue. They were installed in red counties because better counting favored the Republicans and they were not installed in minority areas with a high Dem vote because the old machines did such a bad job of counting all ballots. After the entire state switched to electronic voting, the number of undervotes was greatly diminished statewide.

After the election, there was an army of trolls influencing the discourse about Ohio 2004, many here on DU included. Their misdirection included Diebold and other issues. The lockdown in one county, which also shifted blue, may have been a misdirection effort by Republicans to draw attention away from Cuyahoga.

The polls indicated they needed to switch a lot of votes. The treasure trove of Kerry votes was Cleveland, i/8th of OH Dems, so that is where they had to go to do the heist.

Don't get me wrong, electronic voting is a problem without the paper trail, proper security, and verifiable results. HAVA essentially tried to remove the evidenciary trail from election theft. But, the details matter in Ohio 2004 like no where else in this regard. Ohio's punch card system was designed to steal elections by switching minority votes in large urban areas. But, in 2004, they used every imaginable tactic to shave points, caging, limiting number of voting machines, etc., etc., and they still had to switch 6% of the votes in Cuyahoga. Who knows how many were switched statewide? All that down-ticket noise with non-partisan racers and candidates, that was vote-switching.





Ohio Spreadsheets and Charts

RazBerryBeret

(3,075 posts)
3. Still dirty
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 01:41 PM
Jul 2016

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner sued Diebold for breach of contract, warranty violations and misrepresentations by Diebold representatives involving 47 Ohio counties. In a bizarre settlement in 2010, more than half of Ohio's county boards of elections received free and discounted voting machines and software from Premier Election Solutions (formally Diebold). This is a result of the August 2008 lawsuit against Diebold filed by Brunner. In the counterclaim filed by Brunner, she alleged that Diebold voting equipment "dropped votes in at least 11 counties." The failure to count votes occurred when Diebold memory cards were uploaded to computer servers. Diebold in 2010 reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after the U.S. government sued them for $25 million in a fraud case. Diebold admitted that they had overstated the value of their election division by 300% in a stock manipulation scheme.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
4. And what happened in Milwaukee, another case of minority vote theft?
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 03:19 PM
Jul 2016

Why does the bluest part of Wisconsin shift red while the rest of the state shifts blue? Because Walker's crooks run Milwaukee?

http://jqjacobs.net/politics/spreadsheets.html#wisconsin



An obvious pattern, steal African-American votes?
If you want to steal candy, first go to the candy store!

Do Black Votes Matter? They sure do when you need to steal lots of them!

oasis

(49,150 posts)
6. Plus voter suppression by Ohio Sec.of State, slimeball Ken Blackwell.
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 04:23 PM
Jul 2016
Kerry didn't have prayer in 2004 Ohio.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Cleveland, where Republic...