Skip to main content

Jacobs, a self described anthropologist and archeologist, analyzed the ballots in predominantly Democratic Cuyahoga county and suggests that the ballots were purposely designed so that errors that voters might make by voting in the wrong precinct resulted in extra votes for Bush. Jacobs concludes that these errors resulted in a 3.35% reduction in Kerry’s vote count and a corresponding 3.35% increase in Bush’s tally, a 6.7% swing that if true, would have cost Kerry Ohio and the Presidency.

Original Content at

April 8, 2007

2004 Presidential Election Ohio - Kerry Votes Switched to Bush says James Q Jacobs

By Steven Leser

"Many votes were counted for the wrong candidate or ballot option, and a significant portion of the cross-voting resulted in Kerry votes tallied as Bush votes" alleges an article by James Q Jacobs on his site at .

Jacobs, a self described anthropologist and archeologist, analyzed the ballots in predominantly Democratic Cuyahoga county and suggests that the ballots were purposely designed so that errors that voters might make by voting in the wrong precinct resulted in extra votes for Bush. Jacobs concludes that these errors resulted in a 3.35% reduction in Kerry’s vote count and a corresponding 3.35% increase in Bush’s tally, a 6.7% swing that if true, would have cost Kerry Ohio and the Presidency.

To those not familiar with voting in Ohio, the above idea of getting a ballot for one precinct and casting it in another may not sound plausible, but as I wrote in my December 14, 2004 article below, "Ohio Recount: County Election Board Chair Disputes comments from spokesperson for Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell", polling places were set up where one location served multiple precincts. As Jacobs correctly points out, enough of these precincts had a different order for Presidential candidates to cause a significant amount of ballots placed in the "wrong box" to affect the election. Since this was in Democratic Cuyahoga county where Kerry received nearly 2/3rds of the vote, the problem would be twice as likely to hurt Kerry as Bush.

Jacobs drives home his point with actual analysis of ballots in locations that served multiple precincts and rigorous application of statistical analysis. His statistics predict when placement of candidates on ballots cause accidental "cross-voting" and thus increases tallies for Bush or third party candidates and the vote tallies bear them out. Where ballots in one location have either Kerry or Badnarik in the same location depending on precinct, you see a 5 times increase in Badnarik’s vote over his average support in surrounding precincts.

Many of us have doubted the accuracy of the 2004 Presidential Election tally in Ohio. My previous articles have listed reasons why we were suspicious but I could never find a "smoking gun". As sure as I was that there was malfeasance in the election, and despite me and many other people unearthing more and more suspicious actions, events and tallies, I was beginning to doubt that any proof the likes of which would stand up to the legal system’s rules of evidence would be found. The evidence unearthed by Jacobs is hard to ignore and may constitute the smoking gun for which many of us have been searching.

Having ballots with changed orders of Presidential candidates in multiple precincts that vote at the same location is hard to explain. Remember, we are talking about people for whom conducting elections is their profession. One would expect any elections professional would recognize the potential problems with this scenario and avoid them. Cuyahoga County, like other counties in Ohio and probably around the country is served by a single team led by a single person. It strains the limits of believability to assert that there was not an intent behind changing the order of Presidential candidates in ballots in the county, let alone at locations where multiple precincts voted and thus could introduce the error asserted by Jacobs.

I’ll let James Q Jacobs have the last word in this article. Here are three paragraphs from the Conclusions portion of his study:

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

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

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


My Prior articles on problems with the 2004 Presidential Election in Ohio


Will Kerry be elected President by the Electoral College in eight days? 12/2004

Strange and suspicious behavior regarding the election and recounts from Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell 12/12/04

Ohio Secretary of State's Office Responds 12/13/04

Ohio Recount: County Election Board Chair Disputes comments from spokesperson for Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell 12/14/04

Ohio Recount: Interview with Chair of Franklin County's Board of Elections 12/20/04

The Ohio Recount: The Stealth Recount 12/20/04

Ohio Recount: Ohio Recount has ended, Kerry finishes 300 votes closer to Bush 12/28/04

Ohio Recount: The Recount That Wasn't, a Chance to Reassure Voters Missed. 1/4/05

Election 2004: Congressional Democrats to Force Debate on Ohio Results 1/6/05

Ohio Election and Recount: Congress/Legal Experts weigh in on Ohio Election & Lawsuits 1/7/05

Election 2004 and RFK Jr – Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Questions Whether 2004 Ohio Prez Vote Stolen 6/1/2006

Ohio Elections Officials Convicted of Tampering with 2004 Presidential Recount January 25, 2007

Authors Bio: Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations. Mr. Leser broke the story of the Bush Impeachment Resolution being drafted in the Illinois General Assembly. The story was printed right here on

Originally posted to SteveLeser on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:04 PM PDT.


Do you believe Kerry really won Ohio and thus had the Presidency stolen from him?

83%180 votes
7%17 votes
8%18 votes

| 215 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  Sk&Boner didn't put up enuf fight to find out nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, abbeysbooks, blueintheface

    Let's start thinking "All Star Cabinet", cuz the swamp is full of gators...

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:04:16 PM PDT

    •  There was no proof (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Radlein

      Bush won the popular vote by 3%. As hard as it is for some of you to accept, the public voted for Bush in 2004. For DC related travel advice, please visit that link.

      by jiacinto on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:09:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you sound just like... (7+ / 0-)

        "[Alberto Gonzalez] is an honest man...I call it a tempest in a coffee cup because there was absolutely no evidence at all that the Justice Department was trying to interfere with ongoing intervention in their cases."

        Orrin Hatch
        Friday, March 30, 2007


      •  Gore didn't roll over in less than 8 hours (12+ / 0-)

        And they just discovered that the RNC server in Cnattanooga was also the choice of the Ohio Secretary of State.

        If the issue was "held open", who knows what irregularities would have turned up??

        We'll never know, cuz Kerry threw in the towel.  

        He wasted time, energy and money, in my opinion.

        Spent all his credibility in my opinion, thus Massachussetts can keep him.

        Let's start thinking "All Star Cabinet", cuz the swamp is full of gators...

        by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:19:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is an inane position (11+ / 0-)
          I'm really getting tired of people attacking Kerry bcause he didn't refuse to concede because something "might have turned up."

          The morning after the election, it looked like Bush had carried the state by a small but decisive margin of about 120,000 votes. What would have been the result of Kerry refusing to concede on what? A whim? A hunch? A hope?

          Sudddenly the media glare would have been on him- produce your evidence immediately!!!!

          Well, there was none at that point. So the full force of the right-leaning media would have jumped on Kerry, smearing him as a sur-grapes sour-loser gumming up the entire system for no reason at all. Sure, he could have fought on. The recount proved nothing but the evidence did start to pile up by spring of the following year. By that time, Bush would have long since been declared the winner and Kerry totally marginalized in the Senate, ridiculed as a laughing stock and probably retiring next year. He would not be a respected voice for the causes he's fought for; he wouldn't have written a book on the environment which continues to push that cause forward. He would be nothing.

          And on the teensy little off-chance that by some miracle he could have produced the evidence in before the result was made official and by an additional miracle had the election in Ohio reversed? He would have entered the White House, smeared and tattered, his presidency already destroyed, facing a hostile Republican majority in congress looking for ANYTHING to hang him with. Once several dozen peple had lost their lives in Katrina (because of course Kerry would have had the sense to evacuate people from hospitals and nursing homes and rescue the elderly from their homes, which were a bulk of the people who died), they would have impeached him over that.

          There was no practical way for Kerry to refuse to concede and think he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. It wasn't feasible. And by the way, hell yeah, I think the election in ohio was stolen. I think it's been proven. But it couldn't have been proven in time to help John Kerry.

          A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

          by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:38:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But the fact that he did nothing (6+ / 0-)

            afterward to help investigate the thousands of incidents of reported voting irregularities in Ohio alone makes him culpable in his defeat.

            I don't think that he could have fought the Right-Wingers and the MSM in overturning the election. But he should have fought harder to expose the corruption that has been running rampant in our voting process.

            •  I disagree with that as well (4+ / 0-)
              For Kerry to devote his effort to researching and investigating what happened in Ohio would again have exposed him to ridicule and made him ineffective in the Senate. It would also have made his constituents, the voters of Massachusetts, ask what the hell he was doing for them.  I don't think this investigation was Kerry's job. It should have been done by the local media in Ohio. This was a Pultizer Prize story waiting to happen but the media closed the book on it within days, dismissing it with headlines like "Internet conspiracy theories about election refuse to die." The duplicitous Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a full-page story about a month after the election that consisted of listing all the reported irregularities, quoites from elections activitists saying "These should be investigated" and quotes from Republicans saying 'It's all sour grapes" or in the words of J. Kenny Blackwell "The election ran smoothly and every single voter who wanted to vote got to vote."
              Then it had the gall to say a year or two later hat it had "thoroughly investigated and found nothing." It never did one scrap of actual investigation.

              Most of the actual investigation on the ground was done by Bob Fitrakis and his team at They found that the irregularies that probably made the difference and swayed the election after the fact were blocks of unexplained "Discovered" votes for Bush in about a dozen western border counties that are heavily Republican and went for Blackwell for governor in 2006 (Luckily they were pretty lonely in that one!).

              A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

              by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:39:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  They dismissed it b/c Kerry didn't pursue it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Look, the MSM is for the most part, a bunch of pretentious clowns who get off to seeing their name under a byline. But for those that aren't, they need an angle to pursue a story. And when the national Presidential runner-up says that there is no story, then that's a pretty solid deterent to looking into possible voting irregularities.

                There was some solid reporting in Ohio after the election. But without a national voice (like say, the Democratic nominee for President), than the national media is just going to dismiss the hardwork of local reporters who are uncovering groundbreaking evidence of a 2nd election stolen by the Bush campaign. And as you pointed out, there were people doing backbreaking work to uncover what really happened in Ohio. John Conyers had hearings, the Green and Libertarian Parties challenged the system, and charges were brought against a few of the most incompetent of election employees. But unless you were someone who was following this story online, you heard nothing of any of it. And that is an absolute shame.

                Bottom line, without national pressure from political activists or leaders, there is no political story. And when we needed a national voice, Kerry simply wasn't there.

      •  You Don't Start With Proof (13+ / 0-)

        First credible allegations, then legal investigation, then convict upon proof, finally the remedy.

        We had credible allegations from the outset.

        Election fraud is the only crime where we demand the prosecution submit its summary before we open the initial investigation.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:37:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JuliaAnn, greenearth

        no one found proof the day Kerry conceded. But there has been many people working on it in the days, months, weeks and years since then. And all evidence points the same way, Bush cheated and won- again.

  •  This doesn't prove anything (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    abbeysbooks, Mia Dolan

    For I could say that the placement of ballots in the wrong box for the wrong precinct may have been unintentional and due more to incompetence than malfeasance. I could also argue that it was incompetence on the part of Cuyahoga County BOE staff who did that.

    Again I think that, while there was voter suppression, there just is no evidence to show that Bush "stole the election". Bush won the popular vote by 3%. I am sorry that Kerry didn't win, but I accept the fact that he lost. At the time the electorate voted for Bush.

    I agree that the voting machines have security flaws, but I also reject the almost instantaenous knee-jerk reponse that any and all Democratic loses must be due to Diebold and the voting machines. I have said this before, this knee jerk reaction makes it easier for anyone to dismiss those who have legitimate concerns as being irrational conspiracy thoeorists. For DC related travel advice, please visit that link.

    by jiacinto on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:08:53 PM PDT

    •  This diary hasnt been up long enough for you to (5+ / 0-)

      read Jacob's entire article let alone digest all of his data and make a reasoned determination of its worth.

      I guess I know you're good for a kneejerk response coming on the Republican side for just about everything.

    •  Please. Have you ever taken the SAT's? (6+ / 0-)

      Can you imagine one county, state etc changing the design of the answer sheet? And what a furor would ensue when that can of worms was broadcast?

      People can't even get their recycling trash correctly separated with glass,cans and paper in a movie theatre, when separate containers are provided. Let alone paper ballots into separate boxes.

      Did you see the Princeton video of the 20 second change in memory cards in the Diebold machine witha $19.95 file cabinet keys?

      Be real.

      There was also another diary here on just how they did it.

    •  Actually, Jiacinto, you're right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, baccaruda, HudsonValleyMark
      This is a non-story. This was practically the first voting anamoly noticed, investigated and accounted for. It's safe to say this one WAS poll worker error and confusion. ALL ballots here have the order of the candidates rotated at random; it wasn't some conspiracy to confuse people. And unfortunately multiple precinct polling places are bedeviled with undertrained workers who thought voters could go to any machine. That's how Badnarik got his several hundred votes (intended for Kerry) at the St. Benedictine polling place.  In this particular case, there was only confusion, not attempts to disenfranchise people. And it's highly dubious this particular anamoly accounted for a six-plus percent swing in the vote in the county.

      A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

      by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:41:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  just FWIW (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I think my credentials as a skeptic are in good order, and I generally agree with your points, but Jacobs did some careful work -- and it appears that the caterpillar crawl wasn't just in one or two polling places (although it was certainly most severe in a few). It is hard to pin down.

        It's a bit hard to figure whether Steven Leser himself really read and understood the work. It's a comparison of Kerry's margins in two different kinds of precincts within Cuyahoga County. Even if JQJ's bottom line holds up, it would come nowhere near a 6.7% swing countywide.

      •  Honestly I think that this is a (0+ / 0-)

        matter of some people still, three years after the fact, not wanting to accept the fact that Kerry lost the election. For DC related travel advice, please visit that link.

        by jiacinto on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:29:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, in my case, it's not that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eddie Haskell, Cory Bantic, John Poet
          I have looked at the evidence and i'm virtually certain Ohio was stolen for Bush in 2004. What bothers me is people still agonizing over shards of evidence that have long since been vetted when we here in Ohio have long sicne moved on to looking for solutions. I didn't spend all of last year retrying old evidence; I spent it working to elect Jennifer Brunner our new Secrtary of State so that the entire election system could be cleaned up and made fair, safe and transparent. I spent it working to elect Ted Strickland governor and make sure that the agent of the theft, J. Kenny Blackwell, did not become our next governor. Here in Cuyahoga County, we have major transformation going on at our Board of Elections, with new developments almost every day, as both OhioNative and I have been diarying. We do not have time to live in the past but only look to the future. And that future will include candidate order rotation on the ballots, but hopefully better trained poll workers, such as the ones at the polling place I worked at one election day in November with six precincts, where the poll workers bent over backwards to make sure everyone was at the correct table.

           I hate to say this, but there really IS nothing here to see- move along.

          A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

          by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:45:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have yet to see any real evidence (0+ / 0-)

            that "Ohio was stolen for Bush in 2004". All I have seen here on this board are conspiracy theories by people who just don't seem to accept the fact that Kerry lost the election to Bush. Bush won the popular vote nationwide by 3%. It was clear to me that, as much as I didn't like it, Bush won.

            The reason why I take a tough line on these "stolen election" diaries is that there is no proof that could convince ordinary people that the "election was stolen". On top of that, when these folks make these assertions without evidence, they make it easier for those who don't want the machines to be investigated to dismiss any and all concerns as the rants of irrational conspiracy theorists.

            It's like the Boy who Cried Wolf. In the fable he cries "wolf" to make the town run up and respond to his false alert. Eventually, though, the town starts to tire of this. So one day, when a wolf does shop and kills his flock, no one comes when he "cries wolf". And so it is the same thing with these cries of "stolen election".

            There seems to be this knee-jerk reaction here among some posters whenever a Democrat loses a close election. They seem to believe that any and all Democratic losses have to be due to Diebold. They seem to not realize that, despite the best efforts of some Democratic campaigns, the voters do pick Republican in close elections.

   For DC related travel advice, please visit that link.

            by jiacinto on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:54:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Richard Hayes Phillips' declaration (9+ / 0-)

    corroborates this (pdf). He examined a subset of ballots, and filed his declaration as an effort to protest the planned destruction of the ballots. I failed to follow up. Were the 2004 ballots preserved? Is Jacobs' article based on a subsequent examination of ballots cast in Cuyahoga County?

    Phillips explained how it worked in the polling places with more than one precinct: Poll workers were supposed to tell voters which machines to vote on, since the machines were calibrated for vote order. Instead, poll workers were told to tell voters to 'use any machine'. Clearly an actuary had to have determined which polling places this ploy would lead to a result of fewer Kerry votes, simply by the law of averages. Phillips found that there were unexpectedly high votes for 3rd party candidates that could be explained by this scheme, which preferentially switched votes away from Kerry. This is the kind of vote-shaving scheme typical of Republicans. Instead of using their resources to make this country better, they scheme and plot to rip off the common folk.

    •  Some, possibly most, ballots are preserved (8+ / 0-)

      My wife and I have been working in election advocacy in Ohio for several years, and 2006 saw a major victory for us when a Democratic secretary of State was elected (Jennifer Brunner).

      One of her first acts was a policy of preserving the ballots from the 2004 election.

      Any ballots that still exist are now preserved.  I do not know whether all ballots were preserved, as there were a fair number of tricks in 2004.

      Whether the tricks were enough to change the outcome of the election is, in my opinion, not known.  It may be unknowable.

      I was present at a relatively well-run voting place where the lines were only 1.5 hours through most of the day.  In my opinion, mis-allocation of voting machines is the most likely trick they pulled (in addition to media ownership and other pre-election machinations).  This is why I say that it may be impossible to ever say whether the current administration won honestly.  I tend to think not, but cannot cite specific hard evidence to that effect.

    •  But they were random accidents (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      And this occurred in very few precincts. The one major case I can think of happened at St. Benedictine High School. Obviously, the poor training and lengthy lines contributed to this, but it's clear this wasn't targeted as it hit polling places where this didn't occur just as badly or worse.

      A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

      by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:48:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A coin toss is also random, but it is predictably (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peace voter, Halcyon

        random if performed enough times.

        I've read Jacob's analysis and the statistics behind them. They are very rigorous. I'll be happy to take any similarly rigorous data back to him if you have any.

        •  What "rigorous data" do you need? (0+ / 0-)
          I don't see "rigorous data" here proving anything. He's taken a handful of irregularites which we've known about since early November, 2004, already counted up and accounted for, and extrapolated a lot of speculation onto of which he lays some "if" numbers. The problem is there's no proof the "if" happened, just because of several drama incidents involving a few hundred votes that were obviously incorrect. I'm willing to bet the total number of votes lost to voters being directed to the wrong tables was well under 1,000. And I don't need "rigorous data" to tell you that rotating candidate order is standard procedure. Just call the BoE. 216-443-4200.

          A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

          by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:51:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is a lot more to his data than that... (0+ / 0-)

            ...for someone who always seems so sure of what they are talking about whenever the topic of Ohio Elections comes up, you offer very little other than offhanded dismissals.

            I ask of you what I ask of anyone anytime someone disputes the work of someone who has provided rigorous scientific and statistical analysis to support their theories.

            Provide better ones.

            "I've seen this before and it is nothing" doesnt cut it.

            This , although it is of a radically different discipline, is generally along the lines of what I would expect when you dispute a scientific study, not "his data is wrong".

  •  It may not prove anything, (4+ / 0-)

    but it is certainly intriguing.  Especially when you think that the problems in Florida-13 may have been largely caused by a poorly designed ballot or in hindsight, perhaps an insidiously designed ballot.  This may be a factor that we have been overlooking.  Doesn't require any manipulation of technology, just select the highest Democratic districts and try to see that the ballots in those districts is confusing.  Simple and devastating. Anyone remember the butterfly ballot? Is this how Rove changed the results of two elections?

    Maybe we've been looking under the wrong rock.

    •  Ballot*optics- probably a Senior Thesis project (0+ / 0-)

      by someone at the Government Affairs department of Regents Univ. Or an elaborate fraternity prank.

      Throw enough curvaballs in as many districts at once, and the real frauds haven't been detected to this day.  

      Let's start thinking "All Star Cabinet", cuz the swamp is full of gators...

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:31:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. Let's change the SAT answer sheet in Florida (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and see if anyone says anything.

      •  Also mistrain the elderly poll workers, make hour (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peace voter, baccaruda, abbeysbooks, isis2

        long lines even longer if you can.  Get untested equipment from dubious vendors.

        Open a few polls late.

        Intimidate all the Federal Attorney offices only to look into non-existent Democratic Fraud in key states.


        Let's start thinking "All Star Cabinet", cuz the swamp is full of gators...

        by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:53:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Those problems are being corrected (0+ / 0-)
          Our new Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, is testing all equipment, and revamping poll worker recruitment, training and rules. She'll undoubtedly be taking a close look at machine allocation among other things.  And as far as I know, thre have been no voter fraud investigations in Ohio by US attorneys. The League of Women Voters found only four verified instances of voter fraud in the entire state.

          A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

          by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:53:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Lots and lots of little things can add up (0+ / 0-)

          and they are impossible to blame as engineered. Just mistake after mistake after mistake. It will make the difference in a close election.

    •  Except there was no "selection" process involved (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The order of candidates is rotated on all ballots throughout the county. It's not poorly done, it's not manipulated and it's still done to avoid giving any candidate the advantage of always appearing first on every ballot.

      A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

      by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:50:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have a problem with your claim (4+ / 0-)

    total vote in Cuyahoga was about 670,000.  7.4%  (assming 3.7% were ALL switches from Kerry to Bush) is still less than 50,000.  Yet Kerryn lost Ohio by more than 100,000 votes.   And the percentages you cite do NOT apply to all voting locations in Cuyahoga County.  When you reduce the application of the percentages to those precincts involved in multi-precinct voting locations, the numbers drop even more.

    You do not have a smoking gun as far as I can see.

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

    by teacherken on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:22:56 PM PDT

    •  Ken, Jacobs says there was enough problems in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Cuyahoga to affect the OVERALL total in the state by 6.7%, not the Cuyahoga total.

      •  don't see that in mathematics in diary, sorry (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and from what I see there is

        • some from Kerry to 3rd parties
        • some from Bush to 3rd parties
        • no analysis of any from 3rd parties to major parties

        it is still incomplete.  Thus I still do not see a smoking gun.

        Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

        by teacherken on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:44:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry if you are not satisfied with the link to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter

          the author's work. I'm not going to plagiarise him and offer his work as my own. There is enough statistical analysis in the link I provided to keep one busy for days. If you dont want to read it, dont, but dont then bug me about not enough evidence.

          •  I'm not bugging you (5+ / 0-)

            but you assert a claim without providing a complete summary.  I find that problematic.  It would not require you to plagiarize to summarize the relevant material.  IF you don't want to, that's fine.

            You are talking to someone who knew ahead of time that there were going to be shenanigans in Ohio, from a slightly drunken boast made by a staffer to the RNC in a bar on Capitol Hill.  

            And I think that the election may well have been manipulated.  But you make an assertion in diary that it can all be explained by this one smoking gun.  But itself you have not presented sufficient evidence to make that claim.  That is the point I made -  and the diary reads as if the percentages were derived from Cuyahoga, because that is the only place referenced for  the multiple precincts voting scenario that is described.

            I would suggest the problem may be a lack of clarity in what you do present.  

            But if you want to blow me off, be my guest.

            There was insufficient in the diary to encourage me to follow the links.

            Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

            by teacherken on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:57:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you're absolutely right (in important respects) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I'm pretty familiar with JQJ's work, and it certainly doesn't support a statewide shift of 6.7% -- in fact, it doesn't support a countywide shift of 6.7%. It's hard to say exactly how large a shift it supports in the county.

              There are relatively few votes for third-party candidates anywhere in the state -- analysis of Peroutka->Kerry, well, it isn't a major factor.

              JQJ has done some interesting work, so if you're interested in Cuyahoga, it may merit a closer look -- but not on the premise that it accounts for a 6.7% shift statewide.

        •  Actually, I don't know of any (0+ / 0-)
          from Bush to third-party candidates. It's possible there were a scattered handful but nothing like the hundreds lost by Kerry. But the total number of such incidents was small and localized to begin with.

          The number of votes for third-party candidates was insignficant.

          A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

          by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:56:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The only problems widespread enough (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        to have changed the result in Cuyahoga County alone were machine misallocation resulting in lengthy lines and suppression due to scaring people away from the polls or giving them false information. But there is absolutely no way to quantify the number of votes lost that way.  The infamous Badnarik votes were only a few hundred; a think a few hundred more went to another third-party candidate as well.

        A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

        by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:52:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jacobs' data disputes you... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter

          "Using Cuyahoga voter numbers, only 39,388 of 525,172 Kerry wrong-precinct voters would vote as intended (K-K P = 0.075). The actual number of voters, not precinct averages, is used to determine outcome probabilities. Table 17 presents the resultant county-wide cross-vote outcome probabilities. The pairings of cross-votes, Kerry with disqualified and Badnarik with Peroutka, are clearly illustrated by the results. Figure 1 also shows the pairing pattern. Ballot orders were combined such that Kerry and Bush are collocated most often. Significantly more ballot combinations switch Kerry cross-votes to Bush and to disqualified than to the third party candidates".

          •  You can create a table (0+ / 0-)
            to show what the results would be IF any given thing happened. The only problem is that this widespread swap of Kerry voters to Badnarik and Peroukta did not happen. For instance, did you subtract every single-precinct polling place where this misdirection would not be possible- such as mine? It's a lot of fancy air-spinning with some numbers thrown in for good measure, but it's measuring something that there is no proof happened, and in all likelihood didn't, just because we know of a handful of incidents where it did.

            A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

            by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:59:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And in such a way, every scientific study could (0+ / 0-)

              be disputed. With people like you around, it is amazing we as a species ever got anywhere.

              Newton's Principia? Just a lot of fancy air-spinning with some numbers thrown in for good measure.

              General Relativity? Just a lot of fancy air-spinning with some numbers thrown in for good measure.

              Quantum Mechanics? Just a lot of fancy air-spinning with some numbers thrown in for good measure.

              I wrote in another part of this thread what I would expect to have not just this theory, but any rigorous scientific theory disputed. And it isn't just me, its what the scientific community expects.

              •  Badnarik & Peroutka got under 3700 votes in Cuya (0+ / 0-)

                About half a percent, which is close to what they got statewide (although they probably didn't do as well in Cuya). Even allowing for some votes to fall through to Bush and to "candidate disqualified" as well, you're not gonna get a huge number out of this analysis. Or if you do, something probably went wrong. So Anastasia's skepticism is fundamentally well founded.

                •  Jacobs lists those numbers in his study (0+ / 0-)

                  they are well accounted for in it.

                  See sheet BO-P

                  That is not a refutation of his theory nor is it a fundamental base for skepticism of it.

                •  Mark, are you trying to be contrarian (0+ / 0-)

                  or are you trying to thoroughly understand what Jacobs is proposing? I could ask the same of Anastasia and Jiacinto.

                  If the three of you are going to continue to dispute the theory, which is fine, I repeat my request that you spend the necessary time to completely understand it and craft the necessary refutation.

                  •  why do you assume that I haven't? (0+ / 0-)

                    I've corresponded with Jacobs; I think he has a pretty good idea of my views.

                    Basically, you're convinced by his 'rigorous scientific theory,' but I personally don't know any political scientists who are. He's the contrarian; we don't especially owe him a crafted refutation. That isn't how social science (or any other science I know of) actually works. You're welcome to assume that we're all bonkers, of course.

                    Do you really not see why Peroutka and Badnarik's low vote totals are a problem here? Do you think that many more votes fell through to Bush?

                    •  but I should make a distinction here (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm not challenging the premise that caterpillar crawl cost Kerry votes. I certainly challenge the view that it cost him a net 6.7% on the margin in Cuya, much less statewide. If JQJ is now arguing that, I'm at a loss to account for it.

                  •  let me help with some further specifics (0+ / 0-)

                    Figure 5 purports to show a suspicious prevalence of Kerry->Bush vote switching opportunities vis-a-vis others. This is kind of silly, because JQJ must know that he is using an irrelevant null hypothesis. The ballot order isn't fully randomized: it rotates. If a polling place has two precincts, most often the precincts are adjacent in the rotation order, which is alphabetical by candidate. (For instance, in any given ward, precinct "D" is more likely to be colocated with "C" or "E" than with other precincts. "C" and "E" will always have one of the adjacent ballot orders.) When ballot orders are adjacent, any Kerry votes counted in the wrong precinct will leak to Bush or to "disqualified" (Nader), rather than Badnarik or Peroutka.

                    The top figure, which is repeated as Figure 6 -- well, Anastasia already identified a basic limitation here, which is that these vote-switch "probabilities" assume an event that hasn't actually happened. Still, doesn't the correlation between Kerry vote share and probabilities evince some elaborate scheming? No, at least not prima facie. The switch probabilities go down as the number of ballot orders per polling place goes up, so the basic finding is that the polling places with fewer ballot orders tended to be the most Democratic. The polling places with only one ballot order, and therefore a P = 0 of Kerry->Bush switch -- which JQJ omits from this figure altogether -- averaged about 74% Kerry, higher than any of the proportions he does display. The average Kerry vote share declines monotonically to 53% in polling places with all five ballot orders.

                    If one wanted to be crazily polemical, one could use this result to argue that Republicans were disproportionately shunted into the most chaotic polling places (assuming that polling places with more ballot orders are more chaotic). There is no evidence for that hypothesis, either. Basically, it seems that polling places tend to contain more precincts in less Democratic areas, probably something to do with the density. Period.

                    Now, one can poke around in the entrails for days (and I have) trying to figure out what may have happened at the margins -- to what extent did Bush do subtly better in precincts where Kerry votes could leak to him than vice versa? etc. The estimates are imprecise and not especially dramatic: generally fractions of a percentage point of total vote, perhaps a few thousand votes. They certainly don't support an inference of deliberate tampering countywide, by pollworkers and/or by the BoE when designating the polling places and ballot orders. Is it possible that someone somewhere tweaked the letter-order of precincts in order to gain some probabilistic advantage? I suppose so, but I have no need of that hypothesis.

                    I've spent an hour trying to make this comment relatively lucid, and I've just scratched the surface. The more detailed the response, the less the likelihood that anyone would ever read it.

  •  Even this was not enough (6+ / 0-)

    and Rove had to personally man the "phone lines" in order to drum up the necessary margin.

    It's funny that Rove has admitted it.  When you look at interviews about the events on election night he describes disbelief at the numbers early in the evening and then goes on to say he had to "get on the phone. . ."

    Why would getting on the phone make any difference?

  •  I need more info b/4 I decide: (0+ / 0-)

    Jacobs, a self described anthropologist and archeologist

  •  Okay, now what? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Given that the last two elections were stolen, do you think that anything is going to be done about them?  Is Bush going to be removed and Kerry put in office for the remainder of this term?

    This is like the rehashing of the Kennedy/Nixon race.  As a historical fact to be learned from in future races, it is relevant.  Otherwise, immaterial.  The time for hand-wringing is past.  The time for accountability and vigilance is upon us.

    I think that I shall never see, a billboard lovely as a tree. Perhaps unless all billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all. - Ogden Nash

    by Grannus on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 06:36:27 PM PDT

  •  I voted "Not Sure"... (0+ / 0-)

    because it's the name of the main character in Idiocracy

  •  Absolutely Stolen (5+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the post - it provides one mechanism to explain the discrepancy between exit poll data and results - a discrepancy that favored Bush in nearly every case, and that accounted for as many as a 10 million vote swing. The mainstream media quickly covered this up. A similar discrepany caused a hue and cry in that other bastien of democracy, the Ukraine.

    The book "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?" by a statistician author, presents clear evidence to support the view that something was at work to secure the Republican presidential victory. Is there any wonder that Karl Rove is so confident on election night?

    •  hardly a "statistician author" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Steve Freeman has a PhD in organization studies, mostly has done business case studies (as far as I could glean from his c.v.), and has very little background in survey research. That's fine, but the problem is, a great many people who do have background in survey research think he is wrong. Smart, but wrong, and not just slightly.

      The work described in the diary obviously wouldn't explain the double-digit exit poll discrepancy in (say) New Hampshire -- where a targeted recount of hand-marked ballots in jurisdictions deemed to have suspicious counts yielded almost no error in the original count.

      Well, a bunch of us have been through all this before. Maybe tomorrow I will have the energy to post a few links.

  •  Kerry Blew It (4+ / 0-)

    How come Kerry didn't spend the $15 million he had left that Americans had donated to him to win the presidency, to actually win the presidency? He knew Ohio was rigged when he conceded. And he knew what Bush was capable of doing after stealing an election, by watching 2000-2004 and Gore.

    I guess Kerry really believed his reason to run was "what have I got to lose", as he said when he pointed out that even as a loser, he'd still be Massachusetts senator, and still rich.

    He would have been a lot better than Bush, but he'd have been a lot better than a cattleprod up the ass. The Democratic Party that produced him as the country's only hope should be left dead and buried, for our own good.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:19:41 PM PDT

    •  Kerry blew it big time (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      baccaruda, frandor55, DocGonzo, greenearth

      lots of people donated money that they really could not afford to donate to create a fund to fight election inproprieties - we saw them coming - we prepared for the eventuality - millions of dollars were raised - and Kerry threw in the towel - he didn't fight for us - he didn't use the money that we donated and raised - he rolled over in lightning speed - for shame.


    •  Oh please (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eddie Haskell
      First of it, it would have been virtually impossible for the Kerry campaign to dump any more resources into Ohio than it did. People were gagging on Kerry presence whether in the media or their communities. I mean, when Martin Sheen and Robert Redford come to your DOOR and ask you to vote for Kerry and Bruce Springsteen and Michael Stipe and a busload of movie stars are in town every weekend, and three separate organizations are phone-banking and getting out the vote, and people are flooding in from out of state starting around Labour Day, well, you've pretty much maxed out your resources,

      As for Kerry knowing it was rigged, well, he must be some kind of telepathist then, because even the most plugged-in election activists didn't know it. All of us knew that certain things might happen and took preemptory moves, some of which were effective and some of which were not.

      Your pessimistic take on, well, everything, is not borne out by facts.

      A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

      by anastasia p on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 08:05:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  WRONG (0+ / 0-)

        You're talking about before the election, which I never said. Kerry knew it was rigged by Election Night polls close, which is how Carville knew to call his wife and Cheney. That $15M was to fight the crooked counts after the election. Get the evidence that Conyers' investigation found from the thousands of witnesses, and even more with a budget and without Congressional comity.

        Kerry blew it. And you're coming up with nonsense justifications for it. Get your head out of the sand.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:06:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Greg Palast states very clearly that Bush lost (4+ / 0-)

    both elections.

    You can listen to the video when he was on Air America or read the transcript.  And, he says they're getting ready to try it again in 2008 since it has worked so well the first two times.

  •  The whole election was rigged at the margins. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter, kalmoth, greenearth, drmah

    The exit polls and actual result differentials; the documented stories of what happened in Cuyahoga County; the statistical improbability of Bush's vote total in the 3 South Florida counties; and more important, the number of voters who were effectively denied access to vote because of unusually long lines (all in Democratic precincts (e.g., Franklin County (Columbus, OH) all contributed to give Bush his 'margin' of victory in Ohio (160k votes) and the 3.5 million nationwide differential.

    I also have personal experience with the dysfunctional elections system, as I was a voting rights attorney for Kerry in Orlando, FL.  People in heavily Democratic precincts faced unusually long delays, as precinct locations had been changed last minute, voter rolls books were not updated, and the county elections office did not have enough telecommunications equipment or people to confirm the eligibility of people to vote in a particular precinct.  None of these problems happened in GOP districts.  In one case, the polling place for a GOP precinct and Dem Precinct was at the same location, (a school).  The Dem precinct had long delays.  The GOP precinct reported no problems.

    All of these pieces, each masterminded by Rove, contributed to Bush's victory.  I don't think any of this is seriously in dispute.  What we are looking for is the proof of one of several potential causes for Bush's narrow 'victory'.  

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 07:48:01 PM PDT

  •  This is too freakin' complicated (0+ / 0-)

    Can you simplify this?

    I went to the link and got lost in a maze of charts, graphs, abbreviations, etc.

    Make this simple to understand so it is more easily accessible to the intelligent mind.

    "In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." Chomsky

    by formernadervoter on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 08:17:53 PM PDT

    •  OK, try this... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Imagine I give you a ballot and the ballot says punch the following for your choice

      A - Bush

      B - Kerry

      C - Badnarik

      D - Peroutka

      E - (not a choice on this ballot and will register as a no vote)

      Now, there are three ballot boxes in the room, each for a different precinct and each with a different candidate order. You punch B and put it in a ballot box, but it is the wrong one for your precinct. In the box in which you put it, it will subsequently be put in a machine that reads ballots as

      A - Kerry

      B - Bush

      C - Peroutka

      D - Badnarik

      E - No vote

      Thus, you just voted for Bush. Since the county you voted in is going to vote 67% for Kerry, these mistakes will cost Kerry two votes for each vote it costs Bush. Moreover, with clever placement on ballots in locations with multiple precincts, you can maximise the instances where a mistaken vote will cost double, i.e. it wont just cost Kerry a vote, it will register one for Bush.

      That is it in a nutshell.

  •  No Official investigation yet? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Why the heck not?

  •  What happened (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Was that heavily Democratic areas in Cleveland had multiple precincts with the same voting place, and each precinct had its own randomized order of the candidates, and lots of votes were cast with one precinct's key, and counted with another precinct's key. See my diary here:

    Here's another diary I wrote on the situation:

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 08:43:11 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site