Skip to main content

I am on an Ohio recount update listserve, and this was sent around to the list recently. It's compiled by Richard Hayes Phillips, of New York; he has done an exacting and fascinating series of calculations analyzing wards, precincts and voting machines with various ratios and runnings of the data.  The calculations indicate that the refusal to supply adequate voting machines to democratic and minority areas was a deliberate strategy.  The information is worth reading in its entirety.

Something of interest at the bottom of the calculations is the call for the investigation of Mr. Damschroder, who is a bigwig Republican in Columbus who worked closely with Kenneth Blackwell in vote suppression on election day.



The Free Press on Election Day posted a disturbing
story, later confirmed by the Columbus Dispatch.  

The Free Press reported that Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder deliberately withheld voting machines from predominantly black Democratic wards in Columbus, and dispersed some of the machines to affluent suburbs in Franklin County.

Damschroder is the former Executive Director of the Franklin County Republican Party.  Sources close to the Board of Elections told the Free Press that Damschroder and Ohio’s Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell met with President George W. Bush in Columbus on Election Day.

The idea was to discourage turnout in Democratic wards by forcing voters to wait in long lines at the polling places.  Such a strategy would be far more effective than encouraging turnout in Republican wards.

Elections are all about margins.  There are 74 wards in Columbus.  George W. Bush won 12 wards, with a margin of 7.35%.  John F. Kerry won 62 wards, with a margin of 37.62%.  Affecting Kerry’s turnout would greatly reduce his margin of victory in Columbus, giving the Republicans a much better chance of overtaking Kerry given a strong enough showing in suburban and small town Republican strongholds.


Location      Kerry           Bush         Others
Kerry Wards  141520 68.40%   63693 30.78%  1704 0.82%
Bush Wards    36228 46.01%   42015 53.36%   496 0.63%
Grand Total  177748 62.22%  105708 37.01%  2200 0.77%

In order to investigate this matter, I obtained from the Franklin County Board of Elections all the data I needed in order to calculate, ward by ward, and precinct by precinct: (1) The ratio of registered voters per voting machine. (2) Percent turnout, calculated as total ballots cast divided by the number of registered voters. (3) Percent for Kerry, calculated as votes cast for Kerry divided by votes cast for president. (4) Margin of victory or defeat for Kerry, calculated as the difference between the vote totals for Kerry and Bush.

The first thing I noticed was the distribution of turnout.  There is a statistically significant difference between the turnout in the Bush precincts and the turnout in the Kerry precincts.


Percent    Bush       Kerry
Turnout  Precincts  Precincts

 > 60        68        57
55-60        32        55
50-55        17        73
45-50         7        78
40-45         1        49
< 40         0        34
Total       125       346

Median Bush Precinct:  60.56%
Median Kerry Precinct: 50.78%

Best Bush Precinct: Ward 57, Precinct F
Bush 64.97%  Kerry 34.82%  Margin 30.05%

Best Kerry Precinct:  Ward 17, Precinct D
Kerry 97.66%  Bush 1.98%  Margin 95.68%

Note: Ward 22, Precinct H was a tie.

As the above table shows, turnout was over 60% in 68 of 125 Bush precincts (54.4%), and over 50% in 117 of 125 Bush precincts (93.6%).  By contrast, turnout was over 60% in only 57 of 346 Kerry precincts (16.5%), over 50% in only 185 of 346 Kerry precincts (53.5%), and under 40% in 34 of 346 Kerry precincts (9.8%).

Was the uneven distribution of turnout due to a lack of enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate?  Or was it due to an uneven distribution of voting machines? To answer this question, I arranged the data, ward by ward, according to the ratio of registered voters per voting machine.


Ward      Voters/  Percent  Kerry    Kerry
          Machine  Turnout  Percent  Margin

WARD 19   261.2    67.99    63.33    + 1491
WARD 65   265.1    60.10    44.33    -  496
WARD 30   266.4    56.25    52.50    +  147
WARD 72   267.4    62.33    39.42    -  774
WARD 22   274.1    60.21    54.89    +  465
WARD 28   276.2    58.48    82.04    + 2371
WARD 63   278.7    56.10    47.37    -  242
WARD 48   278.9    52.84    82.37    + 1909
WARD 46   279.8    58.22    55.19    +  981
WARD 70   285.5    61.17    50.95    +   79
WARD 06   292.9    47.44    91.29    + 2494
WARD 21   293.9    57.92    58.45    +  719
WARD 34   295.8    55.85    65.05    + 1051
WARD 69   296.4    57.97    41.98    - 1030
WARD 60   296.7    55.97    44.27    -  478
WARD 66   300.0    53.01    52.32    +  203
WARD 05   302.9    46.24    94.34    + 1854
WARD 62   303.2    57.96    55.68    +  760
WARD 45   303.8    57.89    55.47    + 1208
WARD 47   304.8    52.85    73.83    + 1534
WARD 20   306.2    61.96    71.46    + 1077
WARD 53   307.2    53.66    55.01    +  499
WARD 15   308.4    51.88    60.71    +  291
WARD 27   308.4    53.06    68.63    + 1283
WARD 56   308.6    55.71    82.75    + 4065
WARD 52   308.7    53.68    68.52    + 1610
WARD 10   311.5    57.18    47.58    -  560
WARD 67   313.1    54.17    48.03    -  221
WARD 64   313.6    52.73    47.88    -  153
WARD 57   314.2    56.81    48.74    -  155
WARD 50   316.4    59.54    77.14    + 1447
WARD 58   317.6    55.04    49.82    +   41
WARD 07   318.1    44.24    94.21    + 2332
WARD 36   318.7    53.31    50.57    +   91
WARD 43   319.9    56.27    58.53    +  475
WARD 73   320.6    58.23    44.18    - 1032
WARD 71   322.2    53.93    47.58    -  307
WARD 74   322.8    55.02    46.19    -  339

As the above table shows, the 38 wards in which the number of registered voters per voting machine was the lowest enjoyed high voter turnout.  All but 3 of the 38 wards at the top of Damschroder’s list had a turnout above 50%, and 6 of the 38 wards at the top of the list had a turnout above 60%.  All 12 of the Bush wards are included in the top of the list.  The 26 Kerry wards in the top of the list are not his biggest strongholds.  In only 13 of the 26 wards did Kerry exceed his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote, which makes 13 of 38 wards altogether. However, these Kerry wards did enjoy a high voter turnout.  In 23 of the 26 wards, Kerry’s turnout exceeded that of his median precinct, 50.78%. Turnout exceeded 55% in 14 Kerry wards, and exceeded 60% in 3 Kerry wards.  Clearly, Kerry enjoyed a higher turnout where the polling places had enough voting machines.  What about the bottom of the list?


Ward      Voters/  Percent  Kerry    Kerry
          Machine  Turnout  Percent  Margin

WARD 38   324.4    48.15    67.32    +  546
WARD 35   327.5    50.90    92.36    + 2104
WARD 17   330.6    48.67    93.12    + 2465
WARD 42   330.6    46.34    70.77    +  966
WARD 14   333.4    49.37    81.31    + 2068
WARD 13   338.6    44.91    93.36    + 1702
WARD 44   340.7    48.87    72.98    + 3212
WARD 18   342.4    55.15    76.84    + 2043
WARD 51   343.6    46.93    88.59    + 1857
WARD 61   345.6    49.28    62.35    +  594
WARD 68   347.3    44.61    75.43    +  950
WARD 04   348.6    37.69    91.75    + 1643
WARD 32   348.7    55.11    58.82    +  456
WARD 26   349.3    41.34    89.69    + 1692
WARD 33   350.1    52.64    69.19    + 1803
WARD 54   350.6    52.77    59.82    +  668
WARD 49   353.9    50.76    54.45    +  370
WARD 25   354.6    52.90    91.57    + 3872
WARD 24   356.9    48.99    68.47    +  991
WARD 37   356.9    44.37    58.99    +  441
WARD 02   357.1    52.56    69.94    + 1517
WARD 11   365.4    49.14    58.80    +  531
WARD 31   367.0    45.05    69.86    + 1000
WARD 29   369.2    45.65    61.09    +  417
WARD 16   369.5    44.61    75.98    + 1732
WARD 09   373.4    35.06    68.71    +  497
WARD 39   374.4    46.29    70.06    +  711
WARD 55   377.3    43.55    88.64    + 1644
WARD 59   381.2    48.32    54.16    +  288
WARD 08   381.8    41.52    68.99    +  974
WARD 40   381.8    42.41    78.15    + 1205
WARD 03   396.9    44.69    84.66    + 1728
WARD 41   400.5    40.22    65.95    + 1110
WARD 23   400.9    47.57    73.47    + 1252
WARD 01   407.1    44.37    68.50    +  744
WARD 12   423.9    41.81    86.47    + 1557

As the above table shows, the 36 wards in which the number of registered voters per voting machine was the highest suffered low voter turnout.  All but 8 of the 36 wards at the bottom of Damschroder’s list had a turnout below 50%, and 2 of the 36 wards at the bottom of the list had a turnout below 40%.  All 36 of the wards at the bottom of the list were won by Kerry, and they include most of his strongholds.  In 29 of the 36 wards, Kerry exceeded his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote.  However, these wards suffered a low voter turnout.  In only 7 of the 36 wards did Kerry’s turnout exceed that of his median precinct, 50.78%.  Turnout was below 45% in 14 of the 36 wards, and was below 40% in 2 Kerry wards. Clearly, Kerry suffered a lower turnout where the polling places did not have enough voting machines.

A similar pattern is evident when examining the data for individual precincts.  I have arranged the data in the same manner as above, precinct by precinct, according to the ratio of registered voters per voting machine.  The 61 precincts with the lowest ratio of registered voters per voting machine are shown below:


Ward &    Voters/  Percent  Kerry    Kerry
Precinct  Machine  Turnout  Percent  Margin

60-G      166.0    65.06    40.99    -   56
22-H      176.3    63.52    49.23         0
63-I      180.0    53.52    52.10    +   14
28-G      185.7    57.99    76.34    +  170
69-G      190.0    53.16    48.33    -   10
63-E      192.3    62.05    43.75    -   41
52-H      192.7    52.08    70.76    +  133
70-C      199.5    63.73    50.47    +   12
67-K      212.7    64.58    42.16    -   61
65-G      213.8    61.57    40.15    -  153

46-F      215.7    65.84    39.71    -   85
30-C      216.7    66.00    50.95    +   10
65-D      219.3    65.65    44.08    -   50
33-H      221.7    52.48    78.03    +  195
72-D      228.0    67.21    38.30    -  136
46-I      228.2    64.68    54.96    +   76
69-D      228.6    64.48    47.81    -   29
28-E      229.0    69.98    88.23    +  488
21-E      231.0    68.57    58.93    +  142
19-D      232.0    66.55    58.87    +  142

64-D      235.3    58.50    47.33    -   20
46-A      235.7    61.53    48.85    -   10
71-A      236.3    67.14    42.19    -   69
10-E      238.6    67.73    36.63    -  211
56-C      239.3    63.51    74.67    +  224
57-D      240.0    67.33    43.50    -  102
19-G      241.0    68.36    58.66    +  117
21-F      242.0    66.63    57.98    +  105
57-H      242.3    63.82    50.22    +    6
15-B      242.5    62.47    54.62    +   68

34-E      242.7    63.32    59.04    +   90
60-F      242.8    64.37    37.18    -  155
10-H      244.0    64.07    49.46    -    2
66-F      244.3    66.85    46.42    -   32
57-K      245.0    68.42    46.31    -   75
18-D      246.7    67.97    71.49    +  217
72-A      247.0    64.68    40.13    -  122
18-E      247.3    62.89    75.84    +  308
65-H      247.3    50.27    54.86    +   40
48-D      247.5    56.67    83.70    +  380

14-D      249.7    56.88    79.48    +  252
19-C      250.0    72.00    59.55    +  139
70-E      250.0    51.11    65.83    +  167
46-B      250.8    58.13    51.94    +   27
60-D      251.5    63.62    45.02    -   61
45-I      251.6    52.31    56.31    +   85
64-H      252.8    54.70    52.28    +   26
48-E      253.0    58.50    62.33    +   78
73-E      253.1    60.78    49.67    -    1
06-E      254.0    50.49    94.43    +  453

70-D      255.3    66.41    50.30    +   11
66-D      255.6    55.79    48.52    -   18
69-C      255.8    54.50    36.10    -  186
42-C      256.0    61.98    57.14    +   74
46-L      256.0    66.54    57.84    +  162
10-P      256.5    65.30    35.33    -  190
47-F      257.7    50.84    76.96    +  211
45-H      259.8    60.59    44.03    -  183
19-B      261.0    70.11    60.80    +  164
52-B      261.5    62.43    62.21    +  159
69-I      261.5    68.36    37.80    -  169

As the table above shows, of the 61 precincts with the most voting machines per registered voter, 26 were won by Bush, 34 were won by Kerry, and one was a tie.  Again, Bush enjoys disproportional favoritism. Bush won 125 precincts and 26 of them (20.80%) are represented here.  Kerry won 346 precincts, only 34 (9.8%) are represented here, and they are not his major strongholds.  In only 12 of the 34 Kerry precincts did he exceed his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote, which makes 12 of 61 precincts altogether.  Most of these precincts enjoyed high voter turnout.  In all 61 precincts, turnout was above 50%.  In 42 of the 61 precincts, turnout was above that of Bush’s median precinct, 60.56%.  Of these 42 precincts, 22 were won by Bush, and 20 were won by Kerry.  This proves once and for all that the Kerry precincts could have enjoyed a voter turnout similar to that of the Bush precincts, if only they had been supplied with enough voting machines.

And what of the precincts with not enough voting machines?  The 60 precincts with the highest ratio of registered voters per voting machine are shown below:


Ward &    Voters/  Percent  Kerry    Kerry
Precinct  Machine  Turnout  Percent  Margin

12-A      551.7    34.50    84.96    +  407
01-B      540.0    34.57    68.41    +  211
25-B      507.7    41.56    91.33    +  522
23-B      501.0    41.38    79.13    +  363
41-C      490.0    38.91    60.53    +  127
60-E      481.0    40.47    51.05    +   15
11-A      476.7    35.24    74.80    +  252
18-A      475.0    48.77    80.46    +  430
59-D      464.3    45.51    59.46    +  123
03-D      462.3    46.21    79.15    +  374

03-A      461.0    37.09    92.37    +  442
54-C      459.7    40.54    63.82    +  159
40-A      458.0    40.90    77.10    +  312
10-U      455.0    52.00    53.15    +   85
12-B      453.3    38.60    92.31    +  445
61-C      449.7    43.66    70.31    +  234
49-E      447.3    38.75    52.70    +   30
55-B      446.0    42.38    91.80    +  473
23-A      444.0    45.12    81.76    +  381
09-B      439.8    28.82    68.66    +  195

02-A      439.7    38.06    80.32    +  308
57-A      437.3    42.91    65.41    +  176
31-C      437.0    39.97    65.07    +  160
16-E      436.7    41.98    68.50    +  205
32-C      436.3    43.54    60.99    +  128
74-F      436.3    45.23    51.86    +   25
54-A      435.7    46.82    67.77    +  218
11-D      435.0    47.28    55.67    +   81
69-H      433.8    54.76    40.93    -  167
53-G      432.7    45.30    68.49    +  219

10-C      431.0    39.68    81.80    +  321
69-J      428.8    47.00    47.44    -   38
67-A      427.3    54.37    41.99    -  108
16-C      427.0    40.28    77.13    +  475
29-A      426.0    36.85    70.81    +  196
04-C      423.3    32.44    89.46    +  332
41-D      423.0    42.47    64.75    +  165
36-G      421.0    37.29    66.52    +  156
08-D      419.7    51.55    69.47    +  253
42-A      417.7    40.30    81.64    +  321

57-B      417.0    48.28    57.87    +   97
73-B      415.0    41.69    46.41    -   29
26-A      413.0    41.81    89.88    +  403
02-B      412.3    53.27    69.54    +  263
52-E      412.0    46.60    87.39    +  431
08-A      411.6    30.95    79.75    +  381
73-J      411.6    63.56    42.62    -  189
44-A      409.7    48.90    86.36    +  434
57-G      409.0    43.60    50.00    +    7
33-C      407.0    47.42    64.11    +  170

46-J      405.7    47.99    66.38    +  197
44-B      405.3    45.97    81.37    +  348
44-G      405.0    37.22    79.02    +  348
71-B      404.3    42.04    49.80    +    1
49-D      403.7    45.33    51.58    +   22
24-B      402.7    45.45    65.50    +  174
39-A      401.0    46.05    67.51    +  398
55-D      400.7    42.43    87.38    +  382
10-A      400.3    39.72    55.91    +   60
45-J      398.8    57.30    58.77    +  165

As the table above shows, of the 60 precincts with the fewest voting machines per registered voter, only 5 were won by Bush, and 55 were won by Kerry.  Again, Bush enjoys disproportional favoritism.  Bush won 125 precincts, and only 5 of them (4.00%) are represented here.  Kerry won 346 precincts, 55 (15.9%) are represented here, and they include his major strongholds.  In 41 of the 55 Kerry precincts, he exceeded his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote. None of these precincts enjoyed high voter turnout. In only 7 of the precincts was turnout was above 50%. Of these, 4 were won by Kerry, and 3 were won by Bush.  Turnout was below 45% in 34 precincts, below 40% in 16 precincts, below 35% in 5 precincts, and below 30% in one precinct.

It is important to understand what these numbers mean.  The polls in Ohio were open from 6:30 A.M. to 7:30 P.M.  That is 13 hours, or 780 minutes.  If there are 400 registered voters per voting machine, and turnout is 60%, each voter has less than 3.5 minutes to vote, and that is assuming a steady stream of voters, with no rushes at certain hours.  It also assumes no challenges to voters at the polls.  If there are 550 registered voters per voting machine, and the turnout is 60%, each voter has 2.4 minutes.

All of this amounts to theft of votes.  It has been shown above that the Kerry precincts enjoyed a voter turnout similar to that of the Bush precincts when supplied with enough voting machines.

It is an easy matter to calculate, assuming the same vote percentages for each ward, how many more votes John Kerry would have gotten with a 60% voter turnout.  This is not an unreasonable number.  The median Bush precinct enjoyed a turnout of 60.56%. The turnout was 66.31% for Cincinnati, city wide.

I am aware that because the Franklin County Board of Elections did not purge its voter rolls, there are more registered voters than adults listed as living in Franklin County by the United States Census. There are many “registered” voters who are dead or have moved away.  One might expect, therefore, a lower percentage of voter turnout in Columbus than in Cincinnati.  However, 60% of the voting age population is a reasonable figure.  Presidential elections have surpassed this figure four times in my lifetime: 1952 (61.6%), 1960 (62.8%), 1964 (61.9%), and 1968 (60.9%).  In 1992 the figure was 55.9%, and the 2004 election was probably more hotly contested. PROJECTED COLUMBUS RETURNS WITH 60% TURNOUT

Ward or   Percent  Kerry   With 60%  Gain or
Precinct  Turnout  Margin  Turnout     Loss

WARD 01   44.37    +  744   + 1006   +  262
WARD 02   52.56    + 1517   + 1732   +  215
WARD 03   44.69    + 1728   + 2320   +  592
WARD 04   37.69    + 1643   + 2616   +  973
WARD 05   46.24    + 1854   + 2406   +  552
WARD 06   47.44    + 2494   + 3154   +  660
WARD 07   44.24    + 2332   + 3163   +  831
WARD 08   41.52    +  974   + 1408   +  434
WARD 09   35.06    +  497   +  851   +  354
WARD 10   57.18    -  560   -  588   -   28
WARD 11   49.14    +  531   +  648   +  117
WARD 12   41.81    + 1557   + 2234   +  677
WARD 13   44.91    + 1702   + 2274   +  572
WARD 14   49.37    + 2068   + 2513   +  445
WARD 15   51.88    +  291   +  337   +   46
WARD 16   44.61    + 1732   + 2330   +  598
WARD 17   48.67    + 2465   + 3039   +  574
WARD 18   55.15    + 2043   + 2223   +  180
WARD 19   67.99    + 1491
WARD 20   61.96    + 1077
WARD 21   57.92    +  719   +  745   +   26
WARD 22   60.21    +  465
WARD 23   47.57    + 1252   + 1579   +  327
WARD 24   48.99    +  991   + 1214   +  223
WARD 25   52.90    + 3872   + 4392   +  520
WARD 26   41.34    + 1692   + 2456   +  764
WARD 27   53.06    + 1283   + 1451   +  168
WARD 28   58.48    + 2371   + 2433   +   62
WARD 29   45.65    +  417   +  548   +  131
WARD 30   56.25    +  147   +  157   +   10
WARD 31   45.05    + 1000   + 1332   +  332
WARD 32   55.11    +  456   +  496   +   40
WARD 33   52.64    + 1803   + 2055   +  252
WARD 34   55.85    + 1051   + 1129   +   78
WARD 35   50.90    + 2104   + 2480   +  376
WARD 36   53.31    +   91   +  102   +   11
WARD 37   44.37    +  441   +  596   +  155
WARD 38   48.15    +  546   +  680   +  134
WARD 39   46.29    +  711   +  922   +  211
WARD 40   42.41    + 1205   + 1705   +  500
WARD 41   40.22    + 1110   + 1656   +  546
WARD 42   46.34    +  966   + 1251   +  285
WARD 43   56.27    +  475   +  506   +   31
WARD 44   48.87    + 3212   + 3944   +  732
WARD 45   57.89    + 1208   + 1252   +   44
WARD 46   58.22    +  981   + 1011   +   30
WARD 47   52.85    + 1534   + 1742   +  208
WARD 48   52.84    + 1909   + 2168   +  259
WARD 49   50.76    +  370   +  437   +   67
WARD 50   59.54    + 1447   + 1458   +   11
WARD 51   46.93    + 1857   + 2374   +  517
WARD 52   53.68    + 1610   + 1800   +  190
WARD 53   53.66    +  499   +  558   +   59
WARD 54   52.77    +  668   +  760   +   92
WARD 55   43.55    + 1644   + 2265   +  621
WARD 56   55.71    + 4065   + 4378   +  313
WARD 57   56.81    -  155   -  164   -    9
WARD 58   55.04    +   41   +   45   +    4
WARD 59   48.32    +  288   +  358   +   70
WARD 60   55.97    -  478   -  512   -   34
WARD 61   49.28    +  594   +  723   +  129
WARD 62   57.96    +  760   +  787   +   27
WARD 63   56.10    -  242   -  259   -   17
WARD 64   52.73    -  153   -  174   -   21
WARD 65   60.10    -  496
WARD 66   53.01    +  203   +  230   +   27
WARD 67   54.17    -  221   -  245   -   24
WARD 68   44.61    +  950   + 1278   +  328
WARD 69   57.97    - 1030   - 1066   -   36
WARD 70   61.17    +   79
WARD 71   53.93    -  307   -  342   -   35
WARD 72   62.33    -  774
WARD 73   58.23    - 1032   - 1063   -   31
WARD 74   55.02    -  339   -  370   -   31

GRAND TOTAL                          +16788

Thus I conclude that the withholding of voting machines from predominantly Democratic wards in the City of Columbus cost John Kerry upwards of 17,000 votes.  A more detailed calculation could be done on a precinct by precinct basis, but that is not necessary here.  The purpose is to illustrate the magnitude of the conspiracy.

Matt Damschroder did not act alone.  There are 74 wards and 472 precincts in Columbus, Ohio.  It is not possible for one person to have delivered all the voting machines, and it is unlikely that nobody else was involved in planning where to deliver them. Anyone who associated with Mr. Damschroder on or shortly before Election Day should be investigated for possible complicity.

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
4 Fisher Street
Canton, New York 13617
(315) 379-0820

Originally posted to concernedamerican on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 04:19 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The point is, it was deliberate, (4.00)
    and Damschroder did not act alone.  And that is borne out by the data.
    •  Excellent analysis! (4.00)
      Any way to graph it?  (A picture is worth a thousand words.)

      IMHO, the voting machine game and deliberate vote suppression is just a big a case of fraud as any 'counting' issue.

      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

      by Catriana on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 04:42:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ideas for graphing this (none)
        I have neither the time nor the skill to do this right, but I think that it's critical that this not just end up on a bar chart.  It needs icons.

        What we need are rows representing precincts that are colored red or blue based on whether they went for Kerry or Bush.  Each square is split horizontally in two; on the left half there's an icon for each voting machine in the precinct, on the right half there's a little person icon for say every 10 people who had to wait in line at that precinct.  The rows should be sorted by ratio of line length to number of machines.  If there's a giant splash of blue at the top, there's an obvious problem.

        So if X is a machine and i is 10 people:

        Fake Kerry precinct
        XXX    | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
        Fake Bush precinct
        XXXXXXX| iiiiiiiii

        Just a thought.  Hope the formatting comes out ok.

      •  For graphs, see below n/t (none)

        The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.-Benjamin Franklin

        by Luam on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:50:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  REQUEST (none)
        Will someone please summarize this data in the simplest possible terms and post it up here near the top?  Not everyone has the time to do more than skim a diary full of statistical arguments like this one.  It would help to have a simple explanation so that someone can decide if it's worth their while to look very closely at the statistical argument in the diary.  The summary could be titled something like "WHAT THIS DATA SHOWS."

        "Now watch this drive."

        by tompaine2004 on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 07:14:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  One body of graphs and analysis (none)
        By new kossite 'Febble' (Joe Knapp) here (and referenced in other diaries). He derives an estimate of ~7,000 discouraged Kerry votes (net of Bush discouraged votes).

        Be advised, Knapp's initial "smoking gun" enthusiasm is tempered considerably as a result of our colloquy here. The data may not support the weight of conclusions some would lay on them.

      •  A slighlty different view of the data (none)
        I've done some graphs and will post the URL as soon as it is up.  There is an alternative explanation (to deliberate malpractice)of the data although it still looks like culpable negligence to me. See (for now) the bottom of this page: linked text
        •  Some graphs and analyses here (4.00)
          I've written up some statistical analyses I've done on the Franklin county data and it's posted here:

          Votes lost due to under-provision of voting machines in Franklin County, Ohio.  

          It has some graphs, which make the statistical points fairly clearly.

          My findings are similar, if more conservative than those of Richard Phillips, and I have used statistical tests of the effects..

          To summarise:

          1. Inadequate machine provision DID depress turnout*
          2. This dispoportioniately affected Kerry voters*
          3. The reason for this was at least in part that Kerry precincts were allocated fewer machines*

          I also offer an alternative cock-up rather conspiracy theory, which is only slightly less damning: essentially they did not buy enough voting machines, and had to cover up.  They therefore factored in turnout in 2000 when allocating machines.  As turnout was more depressed in Democratic precincts (another statisically significant effect), this was tantamount to discriminating against Kerry voters in 2004.  And because half the county had too few machines to process every voter, this amounted to a "cap" on turnout at 2000 levels, and undermined the GOTV efforts of Democrats.

          Finally I estimate the total loss of votes overall and to each candidate using a more conservative method than Phillips: I estimate that 18,5000 votes were lost, of which 66% would have been for Kerry and 30% for Bush.  This translates into a net loss of 7000 votes for Kerry in terms of Bush's final margin.

          It is still possible that the machine allocation strategy was fiendishly clever rather than terminally stupid, but if it comes to court, they have a sort of defence, so it as well to know what it might be (and what is wrong with it).  The fact is that at even at this conservative estimate, around 18,500 voters were disenfranchised, and because the error was not randomly distributed between presidential candidates, it seriously distorted the result in favour of Bush.

          * these results are statistically significant, at a probability of one in 10,000 or less.

          •  Sorry: (none)
            * these results are statistically significant, at a probability of one in 10,000 or MORE (ie 1 in more than 10,000 of the effects occurring by chance)

            Sorry, I've got flu.

            Even after assiduously attempting to destroy the effects in various ways (as any good statistician should do, and in line with suggestions by RonK Seattle) they were barely dented. And I should here thank RonK Seattle for his/her help and for the suggestion of looking for the algorithm likely to have been used to allocate the machines. Sorry, should have done that before.

    •  asdf (none)
      This is extraordinary info, and hopefully will eventually be brought before the relevant courts.
    •  Great Attempt To Quantify The Effect... (none)
      of an unequal distribution of voting machines.
      There definitely was an effect of longer lines turning away voters. I'm sure people who refute this will talk about a historically higher turnout among Republican precincts being more a part of the correlation that you attribute to the lack of voting machines. What somebody will do eventually is look at a comparison to past elections. My guess is that you will find that somehow the difference between turnout in historically higher turnout GOP areas and lower turnout Democratic areas was much higher this year.

      And now we have another name to add to the list of pro democracy election officials. Move over Harris and Blackwell. Make way for Damschroder.

    •  Two comments (4.00)
      First, we might want to brainstorm about ways BushCo communcated all its fraud attempts. In this case, it may have been face-to-face conversations. But somehwere, there is communication which should reveal more of their plans.

      Second, has there been any word about the investigation into the break-in in the Toledo Dem HQ? If you recall, the Toledo HQ was broken into by someone who knew where all the GOTV and voter protection info was stored. I'm wondering if that theft gave the GOP some really detailed info on what they'd need to do to suppress the vote for the entire state? I haven't heard a word about that break-in since it happened, and I'm curious what kind of investigation is taking place.

      •  closed investigation (4.00)
        On Oct 21 we have this:
        "Authorities have a suspect but no charges have been filed
        Toledo police said yesterday they don't believe the break-in and theft of three computers from Lucas County Democratic headquarters last week were politically motivated...."

        two weeks after the event,On Oct 27 they gave up, with no answers..

        "Police reach dead end in party HQ burglary probe

        With their leads at a dead end, Toledo police yesterday said they have all but closed the breaking-and-entering case earlier this month at Lucas County Democratic Party headquarters.

        They have made no arrests, though they questioned one suspect who was arrested in an unrelated case.

        Other tips led nowhere, despite a $5,000 reward for information about the break-in, or $1,000 rewards for a no-questions-asked return of the three computers that were stolen during the heist, police investigators said....

        Additionally, a local and statewide fingerprint checks turned up nothing.

        They knew that it wasnt policical... Just by gut instinct? The suspect didnt pan out.
        case closed.

        Anyone have friends in the Toledo Press or police dept who could shed some light???

        •  Thanks (4.00)
          For the research.

          And sure, it wasn't political. Purely financial, since whoever did it was able to get a $1,000,000 bounty from his uncle Rove who just happens to like slightly used computer equipment. A lot. Oh, and don't worry about stripping the data off the computer. Uncle Rove has a friend who's an expert at that--he'll take care of it.

          I'm going to ask around to the Toledo dems I've got connections to (which is few). If we could clarify exactly what info they got when they got the computer, and then trace how they had used it, we might be able to put together a trail.

        •  Dare I say (none)
          This sounds like Watergate!
    •  We should sit around and do nothing (4.00)
      much like the Democratic Party.  This was what Kerry called "the most important election of our lifetimes", so why should anybody bother getting upset about this?  It is only voter supression that happens every time.  Each time it happens, nothing happens, so why should this be any different.

      I am wondering if the Republicans have infultrated the DNC and have their agents calling the shots.  If something doesn't change soon and these guys don't grow any balls, they could go the way of the Whigs.

    •  Biiiiiiiig Karma for you (none)
      Outstanding work.

      Will you have to wear glasses for the rest of your life from the eyestrain? OUCH!

  •  reformat it (none)
    Many more people will read this if you don't have it so skinny down the page.  I know you probably think it is a pain in the ass to do that, but it is a pain in the ass to read it now.
  •  Excellent... (none)
    the Free Press has been instrumental in post election coverage of dirty tricks.
  •  I am with you on this (none)
    but there is one thing I don't understand.  The the ratio between the precincts with adequate machines 250/voter to those with inadequate machines 500/voter is 2:1, how come the lines in the Kerry districts where there were not enough machines were hours long, when in the good areas it took minutes to vote.  Maybe that ratio is 20:1

    I'm not cricizing your analysis, which was great, but what else happened to slow down this vote.  Perhaps there was a conspircy to slow the vote down even before voters got to the machines.

    If the turnout was in the 40% range, how come the lines were 2,3 or 4 hours long?  Something else is wrong here.  

    •  explanation (none)
      If 1 machine can handle 250 voters per hour, and you have 1 machine per 250 voters, and voters arrive at 250 per hour, that will just keep up and you will have essentially no lines.  The same situation with 500 voters per hour arriving: after 1 hour you have 250 in line, after 2 hours, 500 are in line, etc., and pretty soon you have an 8 hour line.
        The most explosive thing in the article to me is Bush himself met with Blackwell and the other guy on election day.  The gist of the article suggests there is clear grounds for a voting rights case against Blackwell and the other man for conspiring to keep vote machines out of black precincts.  But Bush was in the meeting too!  This suggests he was part of the conspiracy.  He can be sued as well.
      •  Blackwell on KO last night... (none)
        ...denied meeting with Bush on 11/2.  He didn't seem credible to me, though.

        Nunc pede libero puisanda tellus... (Now is the time to beat the earth with unfettered foot...)

        by a2jean on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:44:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He lied. (none)
          Plain and simple.
          •  Question (none)
            Can you point to evidence of the meeting?
            •  I've written to Phillips (none)
              with a request for hard evidence.  All I can say is that a lot of people here were wondering what Bush was doing flying into town on election day, and I have no doubt that he met with Blackwell, who was chair of his re-election campaign in Ohio.
              •  At the time (none)
                we thought it was evidence that Bush was panicking about Ohio, and he was flying in for a rally to keep up their spirits.  I don't remember anything about a meeting with Blackwell (I'd have thought that was suspicious even before the numbers started coming out), but then again, I didn't read about it, I heard it on the radio and from some K/E people early on 11/2.

                I've read recently that Bush met with Damschroder on 11/2, though, but I can't remember where I saw it.

                This warrants further investigation.

                "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." Mencken "This is one of those times." Me

                by jsmdlawyer on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:55:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't know if Blackwell or Bush met but... (none)
                  Bush was at the republican headquarters on election day.  From the Columbus Dispatch, President Bush visited with campaign workers Tuesday at the headquarters of his campaign in downtown Columbus.

                  The Republican headquarters is located at:
                  211 S. Fifth Street | Columbus, OH 43215 | 614.228.2481

                  The SOS office is located at:

                  Borden Building
                  180 East Broad Street
                  Columbus, OH 43215

                  Client Service Center
                  30 East Broad Street
                  Columbus, OH 43215

                  SOS Phone: 614-466-3910

                  It looks like they are really close.

                  Here is the URL to a map of downtown Columbus:


            •  EVIDENCE of Blackwell meeting: (none)
              According to Bob Fitrakis (Free Press), the Columbus Dispatch published a story on election day, in which it said that Bush would be meeting with Blackwell in Columbus.  So that's the Free Press's evidence for the meeting.

              Here's the reply I received from Mr. Phillips, in response to my request for evidence of the Blackwell-Bush meeting:

              "Check with Bob Fitrakis at
              The Free Press, 1240 Breyden Road, Columbus, OH 43205.
              (614) 253-2571.  e-mail:  He is
              the one who first reported the story, and he posted my
              work without correcting my statement about the
              meeting, attributed to the Free Press.

              Let me know what you find out.

              Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D."

              I'm not sure what Phillips is referring to with "posted my work without correcting my statement about the meeting."  In any event, now I'm going to look for the Columbus Dispatch story that supposedly stated Blackwell would be meeting with Bush that day.

          •  All Bushies are liars (4.00)
            They take the oath to lie for their leader, the king of liars!

            Bush's meeting with Katherine Blackwell and others needs to be documented, does anyone have any hard information?

            Remember Nixon, impeached for a third-rate burglary that wasn't needed for his reelection.  Here Bush went to Ohio on election day- this is unprecedented in our country's history!  So document his visit or find a true patriot on his SS detail to tell us who he met with- then IMPEACH BUSH!

            An alternative is to find some patriotic electors, we only need 20 of them.

      •  Would that be subject to RICO? (none)

        It's been a time, therefore, of illusion and false hopes, and the longer it continues, the more dangerous it becomes.- John Anderson

        by Anderson Republican on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 07:05:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  RICO and electoral fraud (none)
          I wrote about this earlier.  I'm not a lawyer but my guess is that you would have to find a progressive judge who wouldn't rhow it out.  And then on appeal, of course, we can imagine what the courts would do.

          I've posted the link to the diary below.

          1965 voting rights act: or supression = electoral fraud
          by dr colque

          Sat Nov 27th, 2004 at 17:05:25 PST

          I can't figure out why the actions we saw during the election aren't actionable under the 1965 voting rights act. The following is from the Dept. of Justice website. As well, following the logic of Congressman Riggs in his attack on Earth First (cited below), someone should ask the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime "to expand the scope of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute to include the illegal activities of these organizations."

          Full entry at

      •  Isn't it 250 per election cycle? (none)
        or are all those quote per hour?  When I vote, I am very fast because I would never ever vote for a Republican because I don't want them to have numbers, unless the Dem is a serial killer.  So I vote a straight ticket.  It takes me about a minuite to vote.  So that is 60 an hour at my speed.  Maybe a minutes is too low when you have to address the machine operator, give him your card (for the lever machines in NY), close the curtain, read a little bit so that you don't vote for the wrong people, if there is a ballot intiative, that slows things up.  I bet even I'm closer to a minute and a half.

        If a machine can do 500 a day or per 12 hours, that is 41.6 voters and hour vs. 20.8 per hour where there are more machines.  If the average time it takes to vote is 2 minutes, the precincts with less machines will need 83 minutes for their 41.6 voters.  So I guess overtime that does just add up because 11.6 voters don't make it every hour...that's at two minutes.  If there is a pruposeful slowdown, then wouldn't that # per hour go down, causing those left over every hour to go up.  If there is always someone ready to get into a machine, then it's just machine time.

        Does anyone know the average time it takes for people to vote?  I've seen from 45 seconds to 13 minutes.  I guess that fluctuates by the complexity of the ballot/machine and perhaps the education level of the voters.

        Were thee any referendums on the ballot in Ohio?  That could cause hours worht of lines in precencts pressed for machines and that might even be an indirect strategy.

        •  Yes, there were (none)
          several referenda on the ballot-- a few statewide, and then several locally, depending on the municipality.  (School levies, whether to allow alchohol to be served 500 feet from a church or a school, etc.)

          And of course there was Issue 1, which was phrased in a confusing way and by which I know many people were confused.  So some folks might have taken up some extra time trying to figure that one out.

          •  One of the reasons to be mad at Kerry (none)
            Well, with all those initiatives there needed to be more machines but it looks like Karl Rove made sure that didn't happen.

            Proving fraud or turning around the election will be almost impossible.  However, these issues are explosive if handled with anger and disgust and they should have been raised by Kerry.  Instead, he was to anxious to kiss Bush's ass in his concession.  I'm tired of working for losers like Kerry.

            Someone Big needs to show ANGER and DISGUST for god's sake.  

            For anyone who thinks Evan Bayh won't be happy to kiss president Jeb Bush's ass after he runs the same high road losing campaign as Kerry, they are crazy!!!

            Bayh believes in the Bush tax cuts and lots of the things the Republicans do.  If the next guy doesn't paint the Republicans for the dispicable political terrorists that they are, they will go down just like Gore and just like Kerry.

        •  A lot in City of Columbus (none)
          In addition to statewide issues, there were about 6 more local infrastructure bonds on the ballot- all of them long and hard to read. State law requires that voters be given 5 minutes to vote. They would have been hard-pressed to even read through the issues in that amount of time. Also, judgeships do not show party affiliation on the ballot, there were a lot of them, and no way to vote straight ticket on the Franklin County machines.
      •  or, if this somehow gets to court (none)
        ....Bush could be forced to testify / be deposed at the very least!

        (thank you Miss Lewinsky - we have found a reason for your scandal).  

    •  mystery explained (none)
      Let me oversimplify.   Say the voters show up at a constant rate evenly over the time duration of the election, and each machine can handle 250 voters.   This means the length of the lines is not proportional to the number of voters, but rather to the number of voters in excess of 250.  So the lines will be 25 times longer when there are 500 voters (excess=500-250) than when there are only 260 (excess=260-250=10).   This is a highly simplified analysis, but I think it illustrates the basic idea.
    •  A Possible Answer? (4.00)
      This is based on a conversation with one woman, but if it was happening at polling places everywhere, who knows?  Anyway, on election day I went to Pennsylvania to work with ACT and was teamed up with a local woman to canvass in predominantly Democratic, African-American neighborhoods.  

      In the course of our conversation she told me about her experience earlier that morning when she voted (in the same area we were canvassing).  She said that although her name appeared on the voters list and she had her voter registration card with her, it took 10 minutes for her to even sign in.  Someone was called over to examine her name, her card, her drivers license, with them even asking her, even with all of that, to provide a something else to show she was actually from that district...I remember her saying the man challenging her actually looked angry when she pulled out her electric bill.  

      Anyway, my point is, provide fewer machines and then slow down the process with obviously legitimate voters and you could add hours to the wait in line.  

    •  Queue Theory.... (none) something to look up.

      It gets a lot more complicated than I understand, but to oversimplify, if one site is processing voters at twice the rate, then when they have completed any given number, there will still be that number waiting outside the slower site.

      Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae

      by Truckle on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:38:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I saw a study on this recently (none)
      can't link it for you at the moment -- maybe someone else can.  I beleive the underlying principle is much like the time saved in running a red light -- avoiding the initial back-up provides not only the initial time savings, but also compound savings from avoiding subsequent back-ups.


    •  Maybe I didn't make clear enough (none)
      that this isn't my analysis-- it is the analysis of the gentleman whose name appears at the bottom of the diary.  I'll go back in and make it clearer.  I thought it was extremely interesting, and worthy of posting-- but it's his work, not mine.
    •  Previous post had answer (4.00)
      I wish I had the link (I don't) but a while back someone posted on the "number of machines at precinct" scam. It works like this:

      Demographics show need for 6 machines at a certain precinct in order to allow 65% of registered voters to vote.

      When polls are open, only two machines are present. One is non-functioning and needs to be fixed.

      At 12:00 the second machine is up and running.

      At 2:00 a third machine is delivered.

      At 4:00 a fourth machine is delivered.

      At 6:00 a fifth and final machine is delivered.

      When the count of machines at precinct is logged at 6:30, five machines are reported at precinct, one less than required by demographic models at theoretical 65% turnout.

      In the final report it looks like the precinct was short machines by about 15%.

      In reality, assuming 1 machine X 12 hours equals 1 full time machine we have:

      • 1 machine full time
      • 1 machine 2/3 time
      • 1 machine 1/2 time
      • 1 machine 1/3 time
      • 1 machine 1/6 time
      = 2 2/3 full time machines, or short by roughly 55%.

      And all of this supposes turnout at 65%. Supposing that some of these preceincts saw as much as 70% or 75% turnout just magnifies the problem even more.

      That's why the line-ups were so long.

      "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

      by thingamabob on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 07:23:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly the scam in Ohio (none)
        I saw this also, they reported the "number of machines at the end of the day" at each precinct.

        The exciting part is if we can tie the Chimp directly to Katherine Blackwell this may finally give us something to charge him with.

        Of course Rehnquist is still on ice or life support, waiting to croak out "Bu...ssh" to any election challenge.

        •   OT: Maybe the Chief Justice has mellowed some (none)
          after doing medical marijuana to relieve the cancer pain and alleviate the cachexia.

          Maybe he has come to his senses and will go with his conscience this time about Bush, as Rehquist prepares to meet his maker.

      •  This happened in my Columbus precinct (none)
        I was working in 6-C, and I was frankly quite surprised to see ward 6 as number 10 in the list of wards with the most number of machines. We started with 3 machines (with an average of 200 votes per hour total--not per machine). At 8 pm, half an hour after the polls closed, an extra machine mysteriously arrived. Even with that the last voter didn't finish until after 10 pm.

        ...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

        by megs on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:08:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This won't help our case much... (none)
      I live in Ward 74 (74-C, to be exact).  Ward 74 is located in far northwest Columbus, and is part of the Dublin school district.  It is relatively affluent and predominantly white.  The polling location for wards 74 and 65 is Olde Sawmill Elementary School.

      Ward 74

      322.8 voters/machine
      55.02 percent turnout
      Kerry percent 46.19
      Kerry margin -339
      Kerry margin assuming 60% turnout -370

      Ward 65

      265.1 voters/machine (second lowest ratio in city)
      60.10 percent turnout
      Kerry percent 44.33
      Kerry margin -496

      I waited in line for an hour and a half (starting at around 8:10 am), my wife waited for about two hours later that morning, and there were about fifty people on line (presumably for all precincts in wards 74 and 65) when the polls closed at 7:30.  A couple showed up at 7:31 and was not allowed to get in line.

      My point - and I do have one - is that the GOP will be able to point to instances in which people waited for what would normally be considered a long time even in precincts that went for GWB.  (And can anyone explain to me how a ward with 55% turnout can have such long lines?)

      And what about Ward 19?  It had the lowest ratio of voters per machine (261.2) and 67.99% turnout, yet it went strongly for Kerry (63.33%, +1491 margin).

      •  You 're Missing It (none)
        Look at the overall trend, not just specific Wards.

        The number of voters per machine correlates quite closely with turnout.  The fewer voters per machine, the higher the turnout. The more voters per machine, the lower the turnout.

        Now take a look at the where the minuses and plusses are.  The minuses (Bush wards) are grouped near the top of the list - in the wards with fewer voters per machine, while the plusses (Kerry Wards) tend toward the bottom - in wards with more voters per machine.

        What this tells you is that providing fewer machines to Kerry leaning wards had the effect of  reducing turnout in those wards.  

        •  I understand that... (none)
          ...and as far as I know, the GOP even went out of its way to make sure that a few GOP-leaning precincts had long lines, just so they had examples of their own to point to.  (No tinfoil here, right?)  My point was simply that we have to build a case on more than the testimony of folks who had to wait in line to vote.
  •  But for a graph (none)
    My kingdom for a graph . . .

    The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing, they tell us how the media is doing.

    by Thumb on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:19:38 AM PST

    •  Some Graphs of machines w/ turnout (4.00)
      I was working on a Diary about the voter turnout compared to Machines per voter, but it looks like this thread is a better place to put it. I earlier posted a very similar comment on this thread as well.  This diary has article with a list of precincts with voter turnout, number of registered voters per machine and percentage of voters for Kerry.  I put them up in a graphic to try to get an idea of what was actually happening in Franklin County.

      Pay attention to the right half of the graph.  Once we get past 250 or 300 voters per machine, the numbers clearly start to go down.  The running average is clearly depressed by about 10%, to me this is clear evidence of voter suppression.  There isn't enough data to be certain, but my intuition tells me that the graph falls as 1/x, saying that there is a fairly fixed limit to the number of voters per machine who can and will vote.  So, a lack of machines depressed voter turnout, a fairly obvious conclusion.  Glancing at this graph, I would say that all else being equal we should fight to make sure that all precincts had no more than 250-275 voters per machine.

      This graph correlates the number of voters per machine with the percentage vote for Kerry, it is much more noisy and harder to draw conclusions from.  As has been previously discussed, the worst precincts for machine limiting voter suppression are pro-Kerry.  The article I got my data from did not include actual registration numbers, but it we were to look them up we could "normalize" the results to determine about how many votes Kerry should have gotten if these precincts hadn't suppressed the vote.

      Of course, it isn't possible to statistically model elections.  They won't even let us model the census.  What we could calculate with a robust enough model is how many votes were prevented at those precincts by insufficient machines and determine if it accounts for enough votes.  I assume that there is no way to prove that someone was disenfranchised by an excessively long line and find them to permit them to vote.

      Here is the raw data that I used to make these graphs.  Please note that one precinct had no data for Kerry percentage this turns up as a 0 in my data that accounts for that blip in the Kerry Vote graph.  also note that the two precincts with less than 150 voters per machine only had two machines, if they had only one then they too would have been suppressed.

      I decided not to make a case that Kerry voters had a lower turnout.  The right has contended that they did better GOTV when in fact they did better KOTV (Keep or Kick).  So there is little point in saying that we had a lower turnout.

      If you look at the tail of the top graph and compare the same points on the Kerry graph, again look at the right sections, you will see the correspondence yourself.

      The most suppressed precincts are:

                                     V/M        % Turnout    % Kerry
        MIFFLIN                   322.5    47.44    65.88   
        WHITEHALL_2          324.8    53.81    53.86   
        REYNOLDSBURG_4   325.6    52.73    50.44
        FRANKLIN                348.9    49.77    49.32   
        CLINTON                 351.1    48.73    57.07   
        WHITEHALL_4          368.9    51.99    60.31

      We need reform which makes sure that the lines never get long enough to discourage voters.  The reason I said all else being equal is because different machines and ballots will change the critical number.  We could start with something like, whenever mathematically possible no more than 10% variation in the number of voters per machine.

      The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.-Benjamin Franklin

      by Luam on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:43:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Source (none)
        Hmm..  It seems that I read a similar article by the same Author now that I look at it again.  Here is a copy of the article I used for my data on Franklin County (Columbus area) precincts.

        The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.-Benjamin Franklin

        by Luam on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:48:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You have a kingdom? (none)
      Wow!  We really are the elite!  ;-)  
    •  What would be useful (none)
      Would be three maps of Columbus by ward side by side with deeper shades of color indexing in one the ratio of voters to machines, and in the second, voter turnout, and in the third, red vs. blue (shades of purple).
  •  Re: Media Lockdown: Ohio, USA (none)
    For those perplexed why the dismantling of American democracy doesn't make the television news, I unburden myself of evidence suggesting that more than editorial judgment controls what the people get to see.

    Earlier this year I was jolted by a passage in an e-mail authored by Michael Fiorile, the CEO of Dispatch Broadcast Group, Columbus, Ohio.  The passage occurs in an exchange of messages between Mr. Fiorile and a member of the Board of Directors of Dispatch Communications, the parent company, and was floated my direction by that board member so I could appreciate certain hurdles to progress.

    Mr. Fiorile's point can't be paraphrased:

    > Oh and one more point....the regulators of our industry, who need access to
    > their constituents on an equal and most favored basis will ALWAYS look to
    > maintain their base of communication. They have a long history of looking
    > after their own interests. As it turns out, their interests often is the
    > same interests of localism. This has served us well and should continue to.

    Mr. Fiorile was Chair of the Television Board of the National Association of Broadcasters when he wrote this passage.

    •  This is fascinating. (none)
      Can you give a little more background re: how you came by this email-- that is, is there someone from "inside" who is sympathetic and passing you stuff like this-- and also, what the context/background is on Fiorile's reference to "the regulators of our industry" and "the interests of localism"?
      •  No, it's not fascinating. (none)
        It is deeply disturbing.

        The context: explaining why Dispatch should not shift its investment away from traditional broadcast operations and toward emerging wireless distribution systems.

        Background: Over-the-air broadcast accounts for only 15-20% of terrestrial broadcaster's audience. The remainder derives from the grandfathered "must-carry" rule that requires other carriers like cable to carry local channels. The value of a broadcast license is almost entirely in this artificial privilege, and not in the spectrum, which has much more valuable uses. "Localism" is the battlecry for the political protection of that privilege before the FCC and congress. It's a laughable charade.

        Source: It was explicitly directed to my attention by the board member who is the other participant in the conversation. I was trying to get him to join the board of an enterprise; he was trying to get Dispatch to send high-level representation to a meeting about that enterprise.

        •  charade (none)
          I'm an engineering peon at a local affiliate in a small market.

          The localism issue isn't entirely bogus.  Our station is the only one available locally that has a local news staff.  If we didn't have local news, the next closest thing would be "local news" piped in from about a four hour drive away.  If the local cable co didn't have to carry us, it would be the same situation for 80-85% of the local viewership who don't watch over the air.

          I'm sure the localism issue gets perverted in all sorts of ways, but there is some validity there.

          BTW Our local news generally sucks, but at least the reporters are really here and could break real local news if needed.  

        •  Well, you're an insider (none)
          and it may not seem fascinating anymore to you-- but to me, finding out a little about the workings of the business you're in is indeed fascinating.  Thank you for explaining.

          Yes, it's deeply disturbing.  And what I think I'm realizing is that there are so many hurdles or obstacles to getting issues like this onto broadcast news and journalism, obstacles that will never be made plain or talked about to laypeople such as myself, because they have to do with the arcana and rules and professional codes of the business of broadcasting-- the plumbing and wires of the thing-- and not with the facade/icing/endproduct that ends up projected over tv screens or on webpages...

  •  Okay, can somebody explain to me why... (none)
    ...we let this happen? I mean, I can't believe that nobody on our side thought about the possibility of them pulling this ahead of time? And shouldn't it have been clear enough that all the efforts of KE04, MoveOn, ACT, and so on would come to naught if we didn't make sure that those who turned out had the physical ability to vote? I'm serious, these are not rhetorical questions - I just don't get it.

    Oh, and, is any of this actionable?

    If you cannot convince them, confuse them. Harry S. Truman

    by brainwave on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:28:14 AM PST

    •  We knew, and tried... (none)
      I remember reading posts about this before.  

      Bottomline is they just didn't give a damn and did it anyway.  And it worked.  

      I am at a loss to explain how so many people at this site are still optimistic after the way this election went down.  To be frank, the election shouldn't even have been so close to begin with.  There is no hope anymore, just try to manuever your assets in a way that they'll survive the decline of this country.  There's no way to prevent that decline anymore.  

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:41:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bushies are masters of stealing elections (none)
        The Bushies had four years to practice and plan their election stealing apparatus.  Even sending the Chimp to Ohio to close the deal and buck up those who were subverting our constitution.

        You are right, there are lots of "Colin Powell believers" on this site who still live in the fantasy of this being a nation of laws, and a constitution that means anything.

        This country's democratic experiment ended on Dec. 12th, 2000, the rest is just entertainment for the masses.  Notice how quickly the SCLM shut down any talk of the election once millionair Kerry sold us out by conceding.

  •  Great analysis, but (none)
    Statistics don't prove fraud.  There is a minute chance that these things will happen by chance.   What we need is proof that suppression took place, an e-mail or the like.

    Has anyone filed a Freedom of Information request for all of Damschroder or Blackwells e-mails?  

    I work as a federal employee, and know that my e-mails are subject to FOIA requests by anyone.   As a public employee, e-mail is not private.  I assume the same stands for these folks.  

    A memo, e-mail, or sworn statement proving this was deliberate is all we need to blow this wide open...

    Just a thought.

    •  Just a thought... (4.00)
      The Ukraine might be more democratic than the US.

      Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae

      by Truckle on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:43:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can look but I doubt you will find anything... (none)
      but a trail of e-mails and memos documenting that this indeed was the best projected distribution of voting machines. But you know, "stuff happens", and  " We'll know better next time", and "Really Judge, we have the best interest of the people at heart. (the Republican people, nudge, nudge, wink, wink)".

      Remember Bush visited those thugs in person on Election Day. He saw them practically weekly during the campaign. They are probably  bright enough to know this themselves but I am sure Rove and company told them not to put anything on paper or in e-mails. And I am sure they had plenty of assurances from higher up that a safety net was there for them if anything went wrong.

    •  Open Records? (none)
      Does OH have an Open Records law?
  •  Good analysis, but change headline (none)
    I've recommended this diary - I especially concerned since I live in Columbus, and I saw one of the wealthier precincts that had no lines at the end of the day.  So, good job.  I hope we can use reports like this to really push for election reform.

    That said, please change the title of the diary - it's on the recommended list now, so no need for the ALL CAPS HEADLINE.  

  •  So now we know... (none)
    But it comes back to the same cold, hard truth.  Nothing is going to be done about it.  The American public as a whole does not care that people were disenfranchised.  Even if the amount of discouraged voters would have swayed the election, people will not care.  And there's no reason for Republicans just not to do it all over again.  

    There's no point fighting anymore.  Just let them run this country into the ground and we'll pick up the pieces afterwards.  

    In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

    by Asak on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:39:36 AM PST

  •  Compelling does not trump Dismissal on Summary (none)
    Judgment when judicial machinery controlled by reds.  
  •  minor point (none)
    The polls were kept open past 7:30 p.m. for those already in line at that point, which may have a minor effect on the minutes-per-voter calculation.  I don't think this detracts from the evidence you've presented, but it should be mentioned.
  •  This is all great data for the Voting Act lawsuit (none)
    that is sure to come. Perhaps the courts will control the voting machine distribution next time.

    But that is just a symptom. As long as you have highly partisan politicos controlling the voting process they will find such ways to tilt the playing field for their guys.

    The real questions are: Where in the hell is the Ohio Democratic Party? How is that the two largest Democratic Counties, Cuyahoga and Franklin, have partisan Republicans running the voting process? Why aren't the residents of those counties rioting?

    We can't fix their problems for them from the outside. If they just yawn and go about their business it will happen over and over and over and over.....

    •  YES, you have asked (none)
      the million dollar question-- why are Republicans running the two largest democratic counties, in terms of elections?  And where is the Ohio Democratic Party?

      In disarray.  Ohio woefully needs infrastructure, a machine.  You're right, it has to happen from the inside.

  •  numbers make my head spin (none)
    but thanks for this diary!

    "Democrats: Always standing up for what they later realise they should have believed in." -Jon Stewart, the Daily Show

    by anna on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 07:03:27 AM PST

  •  I graphed the data (none)
    Sorry, I don't know how to post the graphs, but they are very compelling, much more so than browsing the tables.

    Instructions for the Excel-challenged (or skip this and see my conclusions in the paragraphs below).
    If table data above is selected, copied and pasted-special as text into Excel, it appears as 1 column that needs to be separated into several columns of numbers only, without text. To do this, simply create new columns as needed with the LEFT and RIGHT commands. They are easy and I won't totally explain here. Briefly, these commands tell Excel to truncate (cut-off) a number of characters to the right or left. So you lop off the left and right of the text string to get a column of pure numbers that can be graphed.

    I plotted (Voters per machine) vs. (Turnout) for all of the wards above. The correlation is very clear. The machine-rich areas enjoy turnout in the upper 50's, whereas the machine-poor generally get 45% turnout.

    I plotted (Voters per machine) vs. (%KE votes) for all the wards above. A good correlation, although more diffuse than the graph above. This shows Kerry got the most support from wards that were machine-poor.

  •  Map with Precinct Numbers (none)
    I was wondering if anybody had a map of Franklin County with their precinct numbers.  Some of us are thinking about a canvassing project.  Let me know.
  •  Are Depositions In Order? (none)
    Am not a lawyer,but it seems that someone should be taking depositions from Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder and his staff to begin trying to get to the bottom of this matter, and whether there was a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise voters. As former Representative Dick Armey said over and over again during the "Whitewater" investigations,
    "This just doesn't pass the smell test!"

    Best regards,

  •  another graph idea (none)
    I would like to see the number of voters per precinct graphed against the number of over/under Kerry votes. I think this would make your case most convincingly. If I have time later today, I will do this.
  •  Shouldn't there be more (none)
    machines per voter in urban areas? I live outside the city so my ballot has fewer races. It should take longer to vote for more races. That could exacerbate the problem shown here.
    •  It would make sense (none)
      to allocate the number of machines proportionate to the number of registered voters.  By that same rationale, it wouldn't be that hard to allocate the machines in such a way as to cause selective problems (as seems to have been the case).  I think the whole "black box" voting thing was misdirection - lots of people were tearing their hair out over the lack of a paper trail.  But this appears to have been the real scam.

      "As I get older, the only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance."

      by frsbdg on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:04:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    in more ways than one!

    No doubt this is an age-old tactic - - and no doubt these fiends need to be prosecuted.

    Great post.  Compliments to the author for all of that painstaking labor.

    Get P-Diddy (Vote or Die) up to date on this: it is the urban core that is suffering most here.

  •  Instead of a full statewide re-vote (none)
    it seems like there should at least be a re-vote
    in districts that complain of disenfranchisement.

    The march needs to be put in a diary.

    It should be posted in all the blue forums.

  •  Texas Election Theft (none)
    There is serious election theft happening right now in Texas. Kos & company, we need your help to publicize this. I'll post the related articles on a few other diaries and open threads until you guys take the ball and run with it, because the story is hidden in the local section of the state's newspapers. Thanks.

    Austin American Statesman

    San Antonio Express-News

    Houston Chronicle

    Dallas Morning News

    Burnt Orange Report

    "I am a Democrat without prefix, suffix or apology." - Sam Rayburn

    by sandra1113 on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 07:55:14 AM PST

  •  Thank you (none)
    Compelling information. If true these are crimes. Pursuing this is PRE-inauguration business, the window when yes, overturning the election is still theoretically possible. Will it happen? I don't know. The important thing is to send the message as Richard Hayes Phillips Ph.D. did writing this and as concernedamerican did posting it, that you are aware that democracy was struck with a blunt instrument and left to bleed to death in a dark alley in Columbus and you're not letting it slide.

    This is a grow up diary. This is a Democratic diary.

  •  What really kills me (4.00)
    is that the Bushies have the absolutely enormous set of balls to claim that the Ukraine election is invalid.  Even more, the vast majority of Americans are too busy buying crap at Wal-Mart to realize how crooked the election was here.  

    "As I get older, the only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance."

    by frsbdg on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:07:20 AM PST

  •  This is very, very good (none)
    This detailed, hard data analysis is exactly the type of expert testimony that proves things in courts of law.

    The Kerry campaign should devoting some serious resources to exactly this type of proof-building.

  •  Roeper in Chicago Thinks We are full of it. (none)
    Some have predicted that by running some of these theories up the flagpole that the MSM would take the debunked stories and use them to delegitimize our complaints. Turns out that is exactly what is occuring in some media outlets. Richard Roeper in the SunTimes today writes this:
    Real conspiracy theorists never admit they're wrong. No matter how many facts and bits of logic you throw at them, they'll always say, "That's all well and good, but you haven't proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm wrong. Why can't you produce concrete evidence that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist?"

    Well, because it's a little tough to prove a negative
    Rest of Article

    I think there are some errors in his analysys and a few of you might agree with me. Maybe you'd like to share some thoughtful responses to this article with him.

    Keep in mind, you probably need to get your point across in one or two short paragraphs if you want him to actually consider reading it.

    •  Don't you love how the people who (4.00)
      post accounts and evidence of disenfranchisement, election malfunctions, harrassment and fraud here are called "conspiracy theorists," but the people who complain about the same things in the Ukraine are called "citizens"?

      A big difference between here and there:  we didn't take to the streets on November 3.  We didn't camp out in the middle of the mall in D.C.  We didn't chant and protest and go on strike.

      Why didn't we?

      Is it because we believe that our elections system "works" and so we couldn't believe that it could be fixed and hijacked?  Do we believe that the system is impervious to the actions of bad people, if bad people control it?  Maybe this is the year when bad people controlled the elections in key states-- as we saw in Ohio, Florida, Oklahoma, Colorado-- and they decided to do bad things, with a sense of impunity that was perhaps not misguided given the fact that there were no mass protests on November 3rd, and the fact that the corporate media colluded with their interests in branding anyone who questioned the election results as "conspiracy theorists".

      Whereas, in Ukraine they have a newer democratic system, and there is still more transparency and rawness?

      •  It's been only "spitballs" ..... (none)
        .....since 2000, and umpires [from Gov's and SoS's all the way to SCOTUS] who work for the other team, and media who either don't care, don't have the guts to care, or are totally in favor of the fix because they get to make shit up and call it news -- and they get paid really well for it.

        W 2: Democracy O - ver?

        By the way, you've posted an outstanding Diary; thank you.

        "Halt, Audit, & Prove My Vote Counts, Now"

      •  We had this discussion (none)
        on another thread, and a gilas girl (brilliant, as always) had this to say:

        What we have is a weak democracy, but a strong governance mechanism.  In some of the Eur-Asian nations you are discussing as a model, I think, perhaps the reverse is true: the sense of democracy and the demand for it to actually be practiced is stronger than in the US, but the governance mechanisms are weaker, and therefore respond to the organic democracy that takes place on the streets in a way that doesn't happen here.

        I agree completely with this, and what we need to do in this country is find ways to strengthen "organice democracy" in such a way as to make our government more responsive while not weakening the strong "governance mechanism" that we do in fact have.  A government can be both strong and responsive, IMO.  I'm just not sure how to go about accomplishing this -- it's not exactly something to do over lunch.

        "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." Mencken "This is one of those times." Me

        by jsmdlawyer on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:13:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe a series of lunches? (none)
          Seriously, that's what I'm getting at.  We have a very strong governance mechanism, and a sense that that mechanism works.  What is going to be worked out, ideally, in the next few years is heightened awareness of the ways in which the mechanism is subject to tampering and fixing-- i.e., the ways in which it has been weakened, and is weak, and open to abuse-- and heightened awareness of the possibility of responsiveness through channels other than LTEs or conversations with neighbors and friends.  So, protest, better organized mass response.
          •  People also need to (4.00)
            be given a reason to give a fuck -- right now in this country, one of the reasons people don't protest about anything is that there is no investment in the process of government.  For too long, Republicans have gotten away with the idea that the government is "them" -- some alien force that rules our lives.  And the media plays along, by ignoring and/or marginalizing any protests that actually do take place.

            The government is not them, it is us.  If we want to take it back, we can -- but we need to do so not every two years or every four years, but EVERY FUCKING DAY, by demonstrating to people that there are issues to care about, that the corporatist Republican model and the media "scandal du jour" model are robbing us of our voice in our own government.  Government is only responsive if we insist that it be so.  Passivity is acceptance.

            So WHEN is that first lunch?  We gots work to do.

            "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." Mencken "This is one of those times." Me

            by jsmdlawyer on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 10:13:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Why didn't we? (none)
        Maybe because we didn't have a sophisticated USAID program behind our efforts.
      •  Here's Why (none)
        You ask: Why didn't we [take to the streets in protest]? The reason is we (Americans, generally, to include the vast majority of activists such as most who will read this offering) are wrapped up in our daily comforts and lifesyle and really don't want to be inconvienced by actually undertaking to do the hard things. Its just too much trouble.

        Perhaps, one day after democracy has been successfully dismantled in we live in what will, in fact, be a very different country, it will be recognized that taking to streets and actually fighting with your life for what you believe in is required.

    •  At least they're finally talking about it . . . (none)
      . . and from the Bush-endorsing Chicago Tribune no less.

      I'm encouraged - sounds like they may be getting a little nervous.

    •  Letter to Roeper (none)
      Here's the letter I sent him:

      Dear Mr. Roeper,

      I read your article: "Some conspiracy theorists elect to ignore the truth."  It is true there are some pretty weird throries about the election.  But I think you are missing the bigger point.   Namely that elections should not only be honest, but should be manifestly and transparently honest, so as to eliminate and possible grounds for suspicion.   Do you agree?  I hope so.

      Unfortunately, many of the votes (30-40%) in the 2004 election are counted on voting machines that maintain no auditable paper record.    This means, should questions arise, there is no way to verify the votes were correctly recorded and counted.    This leads to the unfortunate situation that there's no way to prove the election was honest.   This is a really terrible situation.

      Please think about this a bit.   Even aside from the possibility of deliberate fraud everyone knows computer programmers can make mistakes.   If there was a paper ballot (counted by Opti-scan) we could always recount if any questions arose.  But the situation we have now is analogous to having some guy count the ballots in a locked room, give us the totals, and then burn the ballots, so we have no way to verify anything.  Do you think this is a desirable situation?   If not, while it's fine to debunk off the wall theories, at the same time I hope you will also advocate systemic improvements that will eliminate the reasonable grounds for suspicion that now exist.

      Incidentally, the following article from NYDN lists some pretty strange reported voting results. What's your take on this?

      Hoping to hear from you.


  •  Graphs (none)
    Here's a link to a pdf document with scatter plots and regression lines for the Columbus data.
  •  Total votes per machine (4.00)
    You note one counter argument is that precincts with VERY high levels of registered voters per machine may reflect precincts where there are many older registrations that are no longer valid but that remain on the books.  This is especially common near colleges and in poor renter communities, where residents move frequently.  We'd need to compare these numbers to historic voting patterns to see if turnout in these precincts has usually been lower.

    That said, it's worth noting that at at the statutory maximum of 5 minutes per voter, 780 minutes means only 156 voters.  

    Multiply the turnout by the number of registered voters per machine and we find...

    For precincts with the HIGHEST registered voter-machine ratios,
    56 of 60 had over 155 votes per machine.
    38 of 60 had over 180 votes per machine.

    For precincts with the LOWEST registered voter-machine ratios,
    22 of 60 had over 155 votes per machine.
    1 of 60 had over 180 votes per machine.

    Clearly, machines in these precincts were AT capacity; their failure to register higher tallies does not reflect inadequte voter turnout, but inadequate opportunities to vote.  While turnout in those precincts may not have equalled the county average, it would have been substantially higher than it was.

    Civilization is a tenuous thing; it lies no thicker on the mind of a man than humanity on the skin earth.

    by Silent E on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 09:11:01 AM PST

    •  So what you're saying is . . . (none)
      . . . assuming that even in wards where turnout was reported as low, turnout was still high enough so that all the voting machines should have been occupied all day in all wards.

      Thus a steady stream of voters across the county means that each voting machine should have had pretty much the same number of votes in it at the end of the day. Indeed, machines in wards with the longest lines (those with fewer voters per machine) should have had MORE votes in them since the wards presumably they stayed open later to compensate.

      Yet the final totals show quite the opposite. The total votes per machine is LESS in those wards with more voters per machine, despite the machines being at full capacitry throughout the day.

      The only apparent explanations are that either a lot of ballots were spoiled or the machines simply stopped counting.  Yet even if the ballots were spoiled they would presumably still be included in turnout calculations.  Which means . . .

      Great point. To verify, we need to tabulate turnout from physical check-in lists, to see just HOW MANY people actually turned out on election day.   If more people turned out than were counted by the machines, this is indeed PROOF that the something is fishy with the counting.

      •  Actually, its more mundane (none)
        Yet the final totals show quite the opposite. The total votes per machine is LESS in those wards with more voters per machine, despite the machines being at full capacitry throughout the day.

        The only apparent explanations are that either a lot of ballots were spoiled or the machines simply stopped counting.

        Actually, you've got it backwards.  Total votes per machine were higher in wards where there were insufficient machines.  

        In precincts with a greater-than-average number of machines-per-voter (disproportionately Bush precincts), half the precincts had over-capacity machines, and only one was at VERY high capacity.

        In wards with insufficient machines (overwhelmingly Kerry precincts), almost all precincts were over-capacity, and more than half were at VERY high capacity.

        Low turnout rates in those precincts with insufficient machines reflect that many voters must have simply given up on voting because of excessively long lines.  If precincts had been able to accomodate all excess demand simply by staying open late and letting those in line finish up, on average we would see higher votes-per-machine in those precincts, but we should expect roughly similar turnout totals.  It is the absurdly low turnout numbers in those precincts (anything under 45%) that reveal the scope of the problem.

        Civilization is a tenuous thing; it lies no thicker on the mind of a man than humanity on the skin earth.

        by Silent E on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 11:49:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (none)
      I'm so glad you pointed this out. In the precinct where I worked, not only was there a high number of registrations that were no longer valid, there were many people listed two, three, even four times in the poll book.

      We had 3 machines, each with over 180 votes, and one extra machine that showed up at 8pm (half an hour after the poll was meant to close). Our last voter finished after 10pm.

      An accurate count of valid registered voters would show a much higher voter turnout, but not having to wait in the rain and cold for 4 hours would have increased it even more!

      Oh, for the record, it was Columbus 6-C. Kerry 503, Bush 34, with approx. 1,700 registered voters (if memory serves).

      ...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

      by megs on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 08:34:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  opt-scan is the best (none)
    This all illustrates why opti-scan and pure paper are best for the voter (forgetting the issues of counting, etc. In my precinct, we had 12 voting booths for people to mark their opti-scan ballots. But when there began to be lines for the booths, as an election official this year I just told voters that if they were not concerned about privacy (and they had a statutory right to vote in private), they could vote anywhere in the room they wanted.  Whenever I announced  that, almost everyone in line with their ballot waiting for a booth went to a table, lay down on the floor, leaned against a wall, put the ballot in their lap, whatever, and marked it. No wait for an electronic machine, no wait for a punch card booht, no wait for a lever machine.  No opportunity for election officials to game the system by misallocation of equipment.

    Now, I understand that electronic machines are better for many with certain disabilitiers, etc.

  •  On programming glitches in OH..... (none)
    "Maybe every 10th vote for kerry,
    you'd instead give to Bush.OK, that's pretty easy to program, but it wouldn't expain the bizzare results in this one precinct in Ohio.

    But,what if the evil programmer made a mistake? Maybe one line of code had an error they didn't catch.

    I decided to write a small vote counting program, and add in a function to steal every 10th vote. Once that was working I'd introduce a small error and see if the results came close the Ohio results  reported by AP. The program below is the result."

    Two interesting comments about the post:

    1. "Irregularities like the one in Gahanna don't happen on accident in computer code. It took a specific line of code that was meant to alter votes, like the one he gave as an example that, quite frankly, is probably close to the mark if not dead on. I can't visualize honest code that would make a mistake like that and I'd love to see a Repuke or a blackbox official come up with an explanation. Trust me, they won't."

    2. "....asked my bro in law, since I do know something about coding, how that glitch could've possibly happened, i.e. is there any logical explanation he could come up with, with all his knowledge of coding/programming, to explain how bushie could get 3893 more votes due to the glitch while all other tallies remain unharmed? He said no, it just didn't seem probable. Coming out of a Die Hard Repubs mouth that was good enough for me."

    For the program and further details: 03&mesg_id=92503

    "Halt, Audit & Prove My Vote Counts, Now"

  •  SEND THIS INFORMATION TO .... (none)  and to the Ohio State Democratic Party, and Keith Olbermann
  •  Great article (none)
    Don't know if this has been posted downthread or before, but a great article in Newsweek/MSNBC this week:

    Four More Years To Finally Get It Right

    "Of course, verification is only one component of voting reform. Why is it that the companies that make the machines are run by executives who favor one party over another? For that matter, why is it that the so-called referees of the process are often partisan politicians themselves? When tackling the problems of provisional ballots, supplying precincts with sufficient voting machines and handling recounts, wouldn't it make sense to have neutral parties in charge?

    After the 2000 debacle, one might have expected that our leaders would move mountains to make the next election an exemplary one. The fact that we cannot convince the doubters proves otherwise. Don't call them paranoid, but recognize their passion for fairly run, accurately tabulated elections. If only their zeal were more contagious."

    "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." ~ Unknown

    by mad ramblings of a sane woman on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 11:29:24 AM PST

  •  I just received an URGENT email (none)
    regarding the recount in Ohio.  Delaware County is challenging this recount tomorrow in court.  If Delaware wins, there may not be a recount at all.  If any of you can make it to Delaware (near Columbus, Ohio), please do.  Here is the email:

    We need as many people as possible to attend this court hearing to show support for the Vote Recount!  This MUST be STOPPED!

    The hearing for the permanent injunction hearing regarding the Delaware County Vote Recount is TOMORROW!!!
    Wednesday ---  December 1, 2004 at 12 p.m.
    at the Delaware County Courthouse
    91 North Sandusky Street
    Case # 04CVH11827

    Judge W. Duncan Whitney will hear the case, on the second floor of the Courthouse.  The website for the Courthouse is

    The reason this is URGENT is that it is imperative that the Delaware County Board of Elections and their legal council,
    Republican County Prosecutor David Yost follow the State Of Ohio statutory rules and recount the vote.  Yost calls this "a waste of
    money".  I ask... how can verifying a questionable vote total be a waste of money, particularly when the recount has already been paid for by the Libertarian and Green party candidates and endorsed by the Democratic Party?
    David Yost commented "that a recount would be a futile exercise".  This is clearly untrue.  Since Bush's narrow 1% lead is shrinking day by day as voting tabulation errors are being
    discovered, and as large numbers of provisional and absentee ballots are being counted.  As the lead shrinks, the potential for an
    automatic vote recount increases.  This could trigger an automatic statewide recount by Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell.  So at
    this time not only are the two presidential candidates calling for a recount, but the state is very likely to need to follow statutory
    rules and do a recount regardless.  If the permanent injunction they seek to get on December 1st goes through.  There will be NO
    RECOUNT for any reason.

    The biggest issue here is that Delaware County could set legal precedent here, if they don't recount, other counties may not recount.  Maybe everything went fine in Delaware, maybe not?  We know that there are hundreds of notarized affidavits and thousands of reports of vote irregularities and cases of vote intimidation.  

    What if these counties also choose not to do a recount.  Delaware cannot be allowed to not recount.  If Ohio counties don't recount, other
    states and their counties could also be effected.  Ohio, Alabama, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada are all getting a recount.

    Please show up at the Delaware County Courthouse on Wednesday, and bring a car load of friends with you!

    If you have questions please contact Paddy Shaffer at

    Directions: From Columbus, go north on State Route 23.  Get off on Sandusky Street exit  (this is the south side of town)and go north
    into town.  It is approx. 1½  to 2 miles down the road.  You will pass Rt. 36 and Rt. 37.  It will be on the left side, on the corner
    of Rt. 37 and N. Sandusky Street.  

    •  Please report on this tomorrow... (none)
      I have a prior appointment, otherwise I would be there myself.
    •  Tell them (none)
      That we will decide what to do with our money, thank you very much.

      Talk about frivolous lawsuits. Jeez. The scariest part is they might actually win.

      Resuscitate investigative journalism! Reality-Based does NOT mean investigations are wrong - it means investigations are essential.

      by nephalim on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 01:22:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  According to Blackwell... (none)
        ...a statewide recount will cost $1.5 million.

        That's about 14 cents for each man, woman, and child in the state.

        Granted, the state isn't exactly flush with cash - as a state employee who hasn't received a pay increase in three years, I'm acutely aware of this fact - but I think we can afford this.

        •  Yeah, (none)
          He'd be underestimating us if he thought that would put the nail in the coffin.

          Resuscitate investigative journalism! Reality-Based does NOT mean investigations are wrong - it means investigations are essential.

          by nephalim on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 01:55:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I don't get it (none)
      All these lawsuits so far have been about having the recount before the results are certified, right?  Isn't this the same thing?  I'm confused.

      What I mean is that other lawsuits have been filed asking for recounts before the results have been certified, and the lawsuits have been thrown out.  And my understanding is that that is no big deal, because recounts normally happen after the results are certified anyway.  It's like a prerequisite.  

      Are you sure it's not just that, and not a lawsuit outlawing any recount whatsoever?

    •  Contact Judge Whitney's office (none)
      Thanks for this. Please post as a diary so that people can see it and we can recommend. Also, I did a little Googling on Judge Whitney who seems like a really decent man. Here's his office contact info:

      W. Duncan Whitney.
      Judge, Court of Common Pleas, General Division
      Second Floor
      The Delaware County Courthouse
      91 North Sandusky Street
      Delaware, Ohio 43015-1795
      Telephone: (740) 833-2530
      Facsimile: (740) 833-2529

      •  Yikes, W. Duncan Whitney is a Republican (none)
      •  I've emailed (none)
        the judge and a member of the county dem party executive committee to see if they can suggest anyone else I could email to.

        To the judge:

        Judge Whitney,

        It is my understanding that you are presiding over a hearing today, December 1, 2004, to consider a permanent injunction regarding a recount of the 2004 presidential election poll.  Please know that I join many concerned Americans from across the country who want the election results to be validated.  
        As a non-resident, I know I am asking for something that won't hurt my pocketbook, but I feel justified in asking, for I feel that leaving our presidential election unverified will hurt our entire country much more.  Please allow the recount.


        Maybe others could contact him?

        •  My letter to Judge Whitney (none)
          Dear Judge Whitney:

          I understand you will be presiding over a hearing at which the Delaware County Board of Elections will attempt to excuse itself from recounting the county's ballots in last month's presidential election.  As a citizen of the state of Ohio and of the United States of America, I ask that you rule against the Board on this matter.

          Ohio law provides that candidates may request a recount if the appropriate fees are paid.  Mr. Badnarik and Mr. Cobb have complied with the law, and there is no reason to deny their request.  Secretary of State Blackwell has stated that a statewide recount would cost $1.5 million, which works out to about 14 cents per Ohio resident.  The money can be considered an investment in the public's confidence in the electoral system.  Many irregularities have surfaced since Election Day, and the public has good reason to be skeptical of the process.  Only a thorough audit of every facet of the election - including a recount of the votes - will restore the public trust in this vital aspect of American government.

          While it is possible that we disagree as to which candidate is best suited for the presidency, I'm sure we agree that elections should be conducted efficiently, impartially, and transparently.  I request that you order the recount to proceed in Delaware County.    

          Thank you.

          Columbus, Ohio

    •  please make it a diary! (none)
    •  The Court Hearing has been cancelled (none)
      I have received word that the court hearing scheduled for today has been cancelled and it is moving to the federal court.  The Kerry/Edwards Campaign are joining in on this case.  The Washington Post article is here:
      "Kerry Team Seeks to Join Fight To Get Ohio County to Recount"
      but it does NOT confirm that the case in Delaware scheduled for today has been cancelled and moved to the federal court so please keep an eye out for it to see if is true.  It just mentions in the last paragraph that Cobb requested the case be moved to Federal Court. There is another diary in the recommended diary list regarding this WP article.
  •  we need to (none)
    get this shit over to the aclu and naacp. finally, we have the evidence to call it fraud.

    congratulations! we're taking down a fraudident!

  •  wiki'd (none)

    But I'm swamped, and haven't read any of the comments.  If anyone has come up with stuff that modifies this study in this diary's comments, could you please add it to the wiki?  See the top of the page.

    (Click my sig to go to the wiki in question.)

  •  Nearly a Month Later, Ohio Fight Goes On (none)
    This Yahoo article (rated 3.58 out of 1279 votes) is linked to Buzz Flash.  My sense is that Jesse Jackson is pushing the issue of election tampering out into the MSM. (Thank you, Jesse!) Obviously, something is rotten in Denmark.  But look at the last sentence:

    Nearly a Month Later, Ohio Fight Goes On

    Jackson said Blackwell, who along with other statewide GOP leaders was a co-chairman of Bush's re-election campaign in Ohio, should step down from overseeing the election process.

    "You can't be chairman of the Bush campaign and then be the chief umpire in the seventh game of the World Series," Jackson said.

    Blackwell's office responded by saying the state has a "bipartisan and transparent system that provides valuable checks and balances."

    "The problem seems to be that Rev. Jackson's candidate didn't win," said Carlo LoParo, a Blackwell spokesman.

    So easy to be smug and dismissive!!!  Just a foretaste -- don't you think -- of what the MSM media dogs will do to Kerry if and when he ever seriously weighs in on this issue. I hope he does, and soon, but he had better wear his Hazmat suit and keep it zipped up tightly.

  •  Conduct a Poll (none)
    Someone needs to conduct a poll and find out how many people left without being able to vote. This would be relaively inexpensive and hopefully get some media play for the issue.
  •  Here is a Franklin County racial map (none)
    Showing the precincts that had over 300 active voters per machine:

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site