Skip to main content

by Denis G. Campbell and
Charley James

Why is Mitt Romney so confident?

In states where the winner will be decided by less than 10%, of the vote he already knows he will win. This is no tinfoil hat conspiracy. It’s a maths problem. And mathematics showed changes in actual raw voting data that had no statistical correlation other than programmable computer fraud. This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008 (thus far) and in the 2012 primary contests from other Republicans to Mitt Romney.

(This was originally published by the authors yesterday on which is under a DDOS attack at this time to prevent this message from getting out. It is used here with permission. It was simultaneously released in this segment of The David Pakman Show. It also cross-posted on and LA Progressive.)

This goes well beyond Romney’s investment control in voting machine maker Hart Intercivic and Diebold’s close ties to George W. Bush. Indeed all five voting machine companies have very strong GOP fundraising ties, yet executives (including the candidate’s son Tagg Romney) insist there is no conflict between massively supporting one party financially whilst controlling the machines that record and count the votes.

A retired NSA analyst has spent several sleepless nights applying a simple formula to past election results across Arizona. His results showed across-the-board systemic election fraud on a coordinated and massive scale. But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.

“Easy to Cheat”
Retired NSA analyst Michael Duniho has worked for nearly seven years trying to understand voting anomalies in his home state of Arizona and Pima County. This publication has written extensively about apparent vote machine manipulation in a 2006 RTA Bond issue election that is still being fought in the courts. Said Duniho, “It is really easy to cheat using computers to count votes, because you can’t see what is going on in the machine.”

When Duniho applied a mathematical model to actual voting results in the largest voting precincts, he saw that only the large precincts suddenly trended towards Mitt Romney in the Arizona primary – and indeed all Republicans in every election since 2008 – by a factor of 8%-10%. The Republican candidate in every race saw an 8-10%. gain in his totals whilst the Democrat lost 8-10%. This is a swing of up to  20 point, enough to win an election unless a candidate was losing very badly.

Since sifting through and decoding massive amounts of data was his work for decades on behalf of the National Security Agency, he wanted to understand why this was ONLY happening in large precincts.

Nose Counting
The idea of examining large precinct results came via a link to a report written by Francois Choquette and James Johnson. Choquette became curious about South Carolina primary results in the February Republican contest. There a poll observer noted an unusually big gain of votes for Mitt Romney in larger precincts than in smaller ones. Choquette wanted to know why?

He examined and applied all of the normal statistical markers to see where a variance might occur: income level, population density, race, urban vs. rural, even party registration numbers. He found no correlation to explain why Romney votes trended upward while Paul and Santorum votes trended downward -yet only in large precincts.

Choquette then looked at all 50 states and found roughly a 10% switch in votes from Democrat to GOP or GOP to Romney in every state except Utah, where the presumption was, as it was Mitt’s religious home state and very conservative, there was no chance of Romney losing.

Choquette even saw in Maricopa County, which is Phoenix and its suburbs, that in 2008 Romney used this technique against John McCain. But McCain beat him by too much for a 10% fraud gain to matter. McCain tried to do the same thing in the general election to President Obama but 9 million votes nationally were too many to make up.

Examining every county across America was too massive an undertaking for any one person so he included a simple set of instructions and encouraged others to do the same with raw vote totals in their county/state.

1. Download the text files of all raw actual vote results by precinct from the Secretary of State’s Office.
2. Arrange them in precinct order.
3. Put in all of the candidate totals for each precinct.
4. Sort the data by total vote smallest on the top.

Now here it gets a bit dense: He needed to add columns that show cumulative totals by candidate then compare them by candidate to establish trend lines.

That reveals trends should remain statistically constant throughout an election.

Stealing Votes
But as the spreadsheet shows, the larger the precinct, the numbers start to change dramatically.

“If percentages did not change from one precinct to the next, we would see a flat line, but what we are seeing is sloped lines downward for Democrats and upward for Republicans (or, in the case of the Presidential primary, upward for Romney and downward for his opponents), said Duniho.”

In every election contest, the trend lines dramatically crossed for no apparent reason. It was revealed that votes were being systemically bled off for Rick Santorum and Ron Paul and then being credited to Mitt Romney.

Once Duniho completed the spreadsheet, he pumped in actual vote totals from other Arizona election contests.

He looked at every 2010 race in Arizona from Governor Brewer to Senator McCain and Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. The trends lines all did the exact same thing. Someone had manipulated the election outcome, most likely one person inserting a programme inside the system’s central computer… that flipped votes.

The results were astounding.

They showed that Governor Brewer actually lost her election and Gabby Gifford’s razor thin less than 1% point re-election victory over Tea Party Conservative Jesse Kelly was closer to a 20 point victory for her.

Duniho added, “We need to have strong hand count audits to confirm the integrity of these elections. This means comparing hand counts with official reports of the election.”

Ohio Precedent
This isn’t the first time Republicans have been charged with vote theft. It happened in the 2004 presidential election, in Ohio and Florida.

In Ohio, GOP consultant Michael Connell claimed that the vote count computer program he had created for the state had a trap door that shifted Democratic votes to the GOP.
He was subpoenaed as a witness in a lawsuit against then-Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and lawyers for the plaintiff asked the Dept. of Justice to provide him with security because there were two threats made against Connell’s life by people associated with Karl Rove. But in Dec. 2008, before the trial began, Connell was killed in a plane crash outside Akron Ohio.

There were problems in Florida, as well.

A study by the Quantitative Methods Research Team at the University of California at Berkeley found that anomalies between Florida counties using touch-screen voting and those using other methods could not be explained statistically. Noting the higher-than-expected votes for Bush in three large Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, Michael Hout, a Berkeley professor who did the study said there were strong suspicions of vote-rigging.

“No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained,” Hout said. “The study shows that a county’s use of electronic voting resulted in a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero—less than once in a thousand chances.”

Don’t Trust, Verify
Indeed the only way to 100% verify this election fraud would be through handcounts of ballots by precinct, matching those results to the reported totals. But as was mentioned earlier, a group in Pima County has been trying unsuccessfully to get access to ballots to conduct such a count for almost five years since anomalies first surfaced in voting machines in 2006.

Is there a judge in Arizona likely to suddenly reverse past trends and allow access to conduct such a handcount of ballots 12 days before a national election? And if not, why not? Maybe someone needs to commission the Anonymous hacker group to re-level the playing field because the courts are not going to do it.

The results of Duniho’s analysis can only happen if votes are being stolen, and the only way that’s possible is if the computerised machines are programmed to steal them.

Welcome to Zimbabwe.
More than 100 million Americans will cast their ballots thinking their vote will be fairly counted. It should be. Yet the crooks know they can safely flip up to 10% of votes without consequence. Anything more than that is statistically suspect.

President Obama won by such a huge margin in 2008 that even with this anomaly built into the system, he cruised to victory. This year the election is much closer. Can American democracy afford yet another election crisis placing three of the four last national Presidential election results in question or worse: The outcome was stolen, the outcome a victim of election theft?

Don’t Take Our Word
Use the spreadsheet above to do the maths in your own state, county or precinct. The results are compelling. Then demand that the Justice Department stop this insane view that results need to be reported by 11 pm for the television networks. Demand hand ballot counts!

We use paper ballots in the UK and results do not even begin to trickle in until 3 am. The final outcome can take up to three days to finalise. But voters in Britain know the count is accurate because every ballot is transparently hand-counted. When I read this article that Serbia, Belarus and Kazakhstan were sending election monitors to watch the US Election?, I knew we’d jumped the shark.

We are already being victimized by vote fraud on a scale that, in another country, would lead to calls for international election monitors. It is time for Americans to stop being victims of ghosts in the machine.

Denis G. Campbell is the author of 6 books including ‘Billionaire Boys Election Freak Show,’ ‘The Vagina Wars’ & ‘Egypt Unsh@ckled.’ He is the editor of UK Progressive Magazine and provides commentary to the BBC, itv Al Jazeera English, CNN, MSNBC and others. His weekly ‘World View with Denis Campbell’ segment can be heard every Thursday on the globally syndicated The David Pakman Show. You can follow him on Twitter via @UKProgressive and on Facebook.

Charley James is a long-time independent journalist who covers social justice, politics and economic issues. He’s worked in print and broadcast media for national magazines, large newspapers and major market radio and television outlets. Follow Charley on Twitter @SuddenlyHomeles.

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

  •  really? (21+ / 0-)

    romney will win every state that will be decided by less than 10%? which means he'll get- what- 400+ electoral votes?

    we're doomed.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:41:24 AM PDT

  •  So if Obama wins (6+ / 0-)

    How exactly are you going to explain that?

    History will be kind to us because we will write it.

    by Sky Net on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:43:21 AM PDT

  •  Snake oil anyone? (12+ / 0-)
    When Duniho applied a mathematical model to actual voting results in the largest voting precincts, he saw that only the large precincts suddenly trended towards Mitt Romney in the Arizona primary – and indeed all Republicans in every election since 2008 – by a factor of 8%-10%. The Republican candidate in every race saw an 8-10%. gain in his totals whilst the Democrat lost 8-10%. This is a swing of up to  20 point, enough to win an election unless a candidate was losing very badly.
    8-10% gain compared to what?

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:46:33 AM PDT

    •  I assume they mean (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      compared to all votes cast.

      Maybe the spreadsheet example would explain better.

      Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

      by dadadata on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:53:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here is the spreadsheet (0+ / 0-)

        Linky (Google Docs)

        The way the data is presented in the Analysis tab, it looks like the bigger the precinct, the more % votes for Romney and the fewer for Paul.  (Iowa Primary)  They shouldn't present so nice and neatly in a fair election, should they?  Those numbers should be bouncing around a bit.

        In capitalist America, bank robs you!

        by madhaus on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:56:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they bounce around like crazy (0+ / 0-)

          Try a scatterplot.

          Because the percentages are based on cumulative votes, any one precinct tends not to have much effect on the percentages except when very few votes have been cumulated.

          Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
          Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

          by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:10:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you're saying the method used is bs? (0+ / 0-)

            I really want to hear from people who do stats for a living/avocation to confirm this (not saying you don't, just the more who know of this, the better).  But why would Romney's numbers climb, Paul's numbers drop, and the other two candidates' numbers stay steady?

            In capitalist America, bank robs you!

            by madhaus on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:51:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that's not exactly what I'm saying (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bob Love

              The method used here is one legitimate way of visualizing the relationship between votes cast per precinct and vote shares. Another way would be to fit a smoother to the scatterplot -- although arguably that would give too much visual emphasis to "small" precincts relative to larger ones.

              (I used scare quotes because votes cast in the Republican primary isn't exactly a size metric. I've been in some 98% Democratic precincts.)

              The big honking fallacy here is that an upward (or downward) slope is prima facie evidence of fraud.  That would only make sense if voters were randomly distributed -- or, at least, the number of Republican voters per precinct were.

              What explains this relationship? One possibility is that Republicans in precincts with many Republicans are more likely to support "establishment" candidates. But how do we measure people's propensity to vote for "establishment" Republicans, at the precinct level? We'd probably do it by looking at past voting behavior. And when we did that, the Paulites would say, "See? the establishment has been screwing us for years!!!1!" Even though the correlation was originally asserted to be an "anomaly," the argument can morph ad libitum to fit the empirical data. Trying to prove that the correlation has innocent causes is like trying to convince someone that Obama isn't a socialist.

              (It used to be that people would say that exit polls were uncannily accurate predictors until 2004 -- or, a few would say, until 2000. That was demonstrably false. Steve Freeman, in his book, has a list of all the known 'exceptions' to the 'rule' that reads like an entry in a satirical No True Scotsman contest. People who haven't gotten that far still say that exit polls were uncannily accurate predictors until 2000 or 2004. It's a zombie undead non-fact. That aside, Freeman managed to accommodate the facts, to some extent, without altering his opinion in any observable way.)

              So, I step back and say: (1) Choquette and Johnson's assumption makes no sense. (2) Their interpretation makes no sense: It is ridiculous to propose that Romney stole votes in a very large fraction of precincts, in 49 of 50 states using a wide variety of election technologies (including hand counts), favoring the precincts with more votes in order to reduce the chance of detection. How dumb does an argument have to be before people realize that it doesn't have to be rebutted mathematically? (That isn't directed at you; that's a question that has troubled me for years.)

              Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
              Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

              by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:34:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not just a visualization ... (0+ / 0-)

                Charts do tell a lot, but there is also a strong statistical study that backs up the work.

                We have factored out urban density in 11 states that provided precinct-level data and the anomaly remained. Look at the statistical analysis or show it to someone who can appreciate such work.

                We go to great lengths to prove the randomness of the data, using 5 different tests that indicate randomness. All the tests pass, yet the anomaly remains.

                This second paper backs up the evidence in the first one:

        •  The data is charted cumulatively (0+ / 0-)

          We also have "Straight Precinct Vote Count" charts. They are more noisy, but the trend is the same.

          Download the data from any of the 49 states and plot it, either based on the straight precinct size or cumulatively. You will see the same effect, although it is much more clear when charted cumulatively.

          Here is an example of the Iowa char plotted with a straight precinct size X-Axis:

          Here's the same data plotted cumulatively. Note how much more clear the trend is:

    •  I want to believe this is CT stuff... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It's really difficult to believe that something like this could happen in a national election when the incumbent -- with control of the justice dept. and the power of the federal government at their disposal -- is a Democrat.

      However, since large metropolitan areas are usually more Democratic, this aspect of the equation could conceivably make sense:

      But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.

      "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

      by markthshark on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:16:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe I'm confused but (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, Quicklund, HudsonValleyMark

        wouldn't that make the larger precincts trend more

      •  it's sort of self-rebutting (6+ / 0-)
        But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.
        The analysis can't possibly "indicate" that. They found that Romney did better in larger precincts, and they SWAGged that he is stealing votes -- but only in larger precincts, because that is harder to detect.

        This is facially bizarre, because it's exactly what their analysis detected. They didn't have a prior hypothesis; they found a pattern, then declared that it is evidence of fraud, cunning fraud that is hard to detect, except through their analysis. Yet, their analysis is simple, so it seems like a pretty stupid tactic for avoiding detection.

        If they are thinking about detection by some other means, then they ought to state what that other means would be, and why this alleged vote-switching would be effective for evading it.

        Moreover, there is no a priori reason why this pattern should be evidence of fraud.

        Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:21:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've seen this evidence before (0+ / 0-)

          It doesn't make any sense.  Romney did better in different districts and worse in others?  You don't say?  People believe different things in democracies?  Really?  I can't imagine.

          •  to be fair, it's correlation, not just variation (0+ / 0-)

            They weren't expecting Romney's vote share to covary with the number of votes cast. And they couldn't find a specific measured variable that would "explain" the correlation.

            That isn't likely to surprise many people who study election data, because we're used to having our data be inadequate to our riddles. But these guys apparently were predisposed to jump to a conclusion. I think their story is worth considering, but I cannot make it make sense.

            What happened with exit polls after 2004 was kind of similar. Some folks still insist that the exit poll discrepancies are prima facie evidence of fraud unless someone can explain specifically why they were larger in some states than in others. Well, if I had had cameras trained on all the interview sites, maybe I would be able to do that. In real life, I can say that (1) the exit poll results in many states don't make sense on their face, and (2) the exit poll results aren't correlated with things I would expect them to be correlated with if they were appreciably measuring fraud. As an empiricist, I think that's pretty much the end of that story. But lots of people either aren't trained as empiricists, or perhaps aren't attuned to the quirks of this field, or just are wedged in their predispositions.

            Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

            by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:55:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Compared to what it would have been (3+ / 0-)

      without the tampering, of course!

      It's all just so clear. Don't you see!!!!

    •  Yeah, we seem to get real (0+ / 0-)

      vague just when proof calls for greater specificity.

      •  Where are we vague? Please specify. (0+ / 0-)

        All our data comes from official public sources and we provide links to this data.

        We provide the methodology you can use to reproduce our work.

        You are welcome to draw conclusions after you do the analysis.

  •  Can someone explain what DDOS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is for those of us who are acronymically challenged?

    The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

    by Pirogue on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:52:30 AM PDT

  •  Still waiting for Hudson Valey Mark's call for (9+ / 0-)

    extraordinary evidence. It can't happen here, nothing to see, all ct, besides republicans wouldn't do this, yeah right.

    I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box. The TSA would put Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the no-fly list.

    by OHdog on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:55:15 AM PDT

  •  Nate Silver and the Princeton folks must be (20+ / 0-)

    in on it, then.  They were pretty close in 2008.  The biggest anomaly in Silver's model was Indiana, projected to go to McCain by over 1%, which unexpectedly went to... Obama.

    So Obama actually won Indiana by 9-11%?  Uh-huh.  Apparently his razor-thin win in NC was actually by 10% or so.  He also actually won Missouri handily, and Georgia, and Louisiana, and Montana, and wasn't far from taking Texas, too.  Yup.  

    I also like the "Why is Mitt Romney confident?" thing.  Because he's projecting confidence, that means the fix is in, right?  I mean, people never project confidence and put on a brave face when they are losing in order to, say, continue getting scads of donations and PAC money.

    Nope, it's just like last Sunday, when I saw that underdog football team talking to the media, saying they were doomed, that they would be crushed, that no one should ever buy their merchandise again, or buy season tickets...

    Oh, wait.  That didn't happen.  They projected confidence and said they'd win.  This must mean that... they paid off the refs and bribed the commissioner!  Yeah!  It didn't mean they were projecting bravado or anything... and it's not like the GOP ever projects bravado, or makes Baghdad Bob-level pronouncements of their prowess, or anything.  

    My favorite bit is this:  

    Now here it gets a bit dense: He needed to add columns that show cumulative totals by candidate then compare them by candidate to establish trend lines.
    Translation:  He fudged his own numbers to show what he was trying to prove.  

    Shields up, captain.  Attacks coming in 5...4...3...

    •  Well, if it's true (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA, Quicklund, Wee Mama

      that Republicans did hack the vote in Arizona, they did a piss poor job of it. The two races in Arizona in 2010 this retired NSA guy claims  show evidence of hacking have the Democratic candidates winning.

      Hey, maybe it's actually Democrats who are hacking the vote!

    •  You made more sense of the math gibberish than I (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elmo, erush1345, cwech

      I think we are supposed to be bowled over by the word "spreadsheet".

    •  if there were vote total fiddling... where likely? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9, lgmcp, MA Mom, SolarAngel

      key states only would be the most effective... but risky  too, so only used sparingly and not safe to extend it just used carefully in selected and protected areas that will make the most difference... And of course this would not be anything remotely like in a total dictatorship with wholesale blatant theft with things like 100% turnout and 99% of the faithful citizens "voting" for the dear leader etc... no, instead in an advanced democracy this would need careful planning and targeted, deniable, fiddling only where things would tip the balance in key battlegrounds. The fewer in on it the safer it is. And very much like a non-credible CT story... who would believe it?

      So anyway, what about a state like Indiana in 2008? It would have been considered safe GOP so no fiddling would need to be planned there since it would be assumed to go Red anyway based on past experience. Oops for them but in the end they were losing way beyond their plan limits. Too many other states were out of reach and the margins in the funny business target states were unworkable too.

      But key states like Fla and Ohio... and WI and a very few others at most... this is where it would have been done in the past if it was being done and where it likely will happen again. Suspect that the 2010 wave was bigger than it would have been due to a lot of this kind of fiddle and there are enough clues that it could be true at least in some places... the monopoly of severe conservative corporations owning voting machine companies does make you wonder.....

      But even that is not enough so it would have to be augmented with the more overt tactics and strategies related to voter suppression, electoral fraud etc. nationwide to make a wider difference and help make the covert fiddles possible in the key target states if and as needed..... and don't forget there is also help via any other local safe conservative areas where more traditional methods and fiddles are routine but usually only ensure the same GOP winners in local and state elections... and some US reps working alongside all the fancier efforts.

      Vote count fraud (if real... and the same problems in the same places over and over does suggest there is something to it) is only one strand of the wider agenda of the Right... but vital if they want to win.

      Citizens United is the big money influence part of the multi prong GOP plan for electoral dominance ... ALEC and other agents are part of the voter suppression prong... taking the state legislatures in time for reapportionment was another prong... and continuing suspected vote count fiddling is another part of the plan... the more obviously illegal but control of key state level officials offers protection and key allies in setting things up or looking the other way... and as for the National level... justice Dept... there are still a lot of Bush holdovers among the US attorneys and there are helpful judges too... it is a mix of effective and ineffective... people who are pushing for the truth and those who are stonewalling or deflecting...

      The Republicans are nowhere squeaky clean in their election strategies and tactics... they do play fast and loose and make their own rules... over and over they get caught but usually get away with it and any hints of more that did not quite get revealed gets forgotten. And most of it is out in  plain sight but sold as part of other faux issues. Very few would need to be taking care of any covert electoral black ops... and it would be targeted very carefully as a final option and only where it would make a difference.

      Sure this is all along the border of CT stuff... allegations, dropped investigations, wishful thinking etc... but there is not just a Rove smoke machine going with flaky mostly legal moves, sometimes at least there is a real fire but the big money is also there to help  hide it too...

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:08:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need to be cautious (5+ / 0-)

        and aware and the GOP has gotta know we're watching.  

        But just look at the 2008 election.  How much would they have had to shave from NC to win it?  From Florida?  Virginia?  And if you're going to shave and risk all that that entails (i.e. getting caught), then why bother if you're not going to win the damn thing?  Whee!  We lost Florida by 2.5% instead of 5%!  That'll show 'em...

        Be aware, be vigilant, but look at the facts and don't be afraid.

        •  2000 and 2004... just close enough to work (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          but they know time and the demographics are against them... why else CU... and all the ALEC let legislation for suppression stuff ramping up after killing off ACORN ... and the push in 2010 to get control of max number of states in time for reapportionment?

           Because otherwise it would not be close enough to steal... and 2008 was just too much to overcome with the cumulative Bush years and the economy... If the crash had been delayed another year or so (probably their original hope) they might have had their "Maverick" reformer guy squeak in... war hero and all vs... Mrs. Bill (who could have foreseen Obama?)

          The truth is Nobody controls things completely or more than a little most of the time... but does not stop those who are used to having their way from trying to force things a bit. And previous successes embolden the crooked to try a bit more... but only as much as they think will work AND that they can get away with... And with the media tame or owned all the rest of their mostly legal  plans do have a plausible case for succeeding without having to go seriously fraudulent/criminal... but cheaters always hedge their bets... and if it includes the dirty, it will usually be just here or there and always deniable and make any accusers/whistle-blowers seem like crackpots... (or their plane crashes...).

          What would have been overstepping only becomes safe when a nation state is already too far down the Fascist path for any democratic fail-safes to catch more obvious election stealing and by then it is too late. We have a long way to go but why allow it to edge further in that direction? We are in the middle of an experiment to see if a kinder gentler unobtrusive 1984 is possible eventually... and fiddling the public's awareness, world view to allow or even cheer on anti democratic changes is part of that and that includes eroding oversight on elections and adding power over them by outsiders and insiders that bypass the protections and institutions involved up until now.

          Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

          by IreGyre on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:26:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The fact remains (5+ / 0-)

            that you have no hard evidence to back up your (understandable) fears.  No one does.  This diary doesn't, and the thousand diaries written about this subject before are similarly long on concern and short on details.  

          •  And please stop with the plane crash thing. (4+ / 0-)

            It's utterly ridiculous.  Icing the wings isn't the way to do it.  How many FAA inspectors (AND their bosses, AND the overseers, AND the people who were on site at the crash, AND the people who reviewed the case) did they have to buy off?  How many people at the airport saw the evildoers... what?  Hose down the plane in mid-winter?  Or did the ninjas kill them, too?  Not to mention the fact that trying to kill someone in a small plane crash is really stupid... a lot of crashes in small planes are fully survivable.  If you want to eliminate someone, fake a robbery and just shoot the guy.    

          •  Kerry WAS trailing in nat'l polls by ca. 2% (0+ / 0-)

            Just saying.  Maybe there was thievery in Ohio; and for sure black-box voting is wrong.  But the polls in '04 were entirely consistent with a Kerry loss, certainly nationally, and IIRC the Ohio polls were too.

            The biggest red flag in '04 was the exit polling diverging from the tabulated results.  That has never been explained satisfactorily.  But again, Bush was pretty consistently ahead in the polling before the election, so it's just weird.  "Just weird", of course, isn't the same as a conspiracy.

            We have already seen evidence of the GOP stealing votes in '00; we know what THAT looked like.  Will GOP find other ways if they can? Sure.  But that doesn't mean they already have, since the data just don't support it.  The teabaggers winning in '10 was very likely a simple matter of turnout, just like in '94.  The idea of fraud in '08, per this post, is laughable.  And I don't buy that there was systemic, cloak-and-dagger fraud in '04, for the simple reason that more than one guy would have come forward by now.

            "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

            by dackmont on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:49:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  P.S. - forgot Ken Blackwell's (0+ / 0-)

              nasty voting machine stunts and the like in Ohio '04.  That was unquestionably an e.g. of electoral fraud, and may well have flipped it from Kerry.  Not at all unimaginable Kerry could have won EV and lost PV with a 2% margin.

              "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

              by dackmont on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:55:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  "who would believe it?" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund, nota bene, Adam B, elmo

        I would believe it, if the evidence supported it.

        "Romney cheated because math!" doesn't cut it.

        Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:01:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I seem to recall that (0+ / 0-)

      McCain was confident as well, until he lost.

      What is Romney supposed to be except confident?

  •  Hacking Democracy (9+ / 0-)

    Electronic voting machines IMO are the 2nd biggest danger to this country's democracy.  Easily manipulated.

    Just as it was no surprise at all that Romney lied under oath to help his buddy, it would be no surprise at all if he cheated to win this election.  

    And I don't mean some overzealous campaign worker doing something on his or her own--seems to me both sides have that problem--but something more Nixonest.  

    •  Of course there is manipulation of machines. Why (9+ / 0-)

      is it considered CT?  Do you remember a checking account that would automatically up the check to even dollars and put the rest in your savings account?  What about apps that you buy for your phone or I-pad?  An app on a voting machine would be easy.  You just have it flip every 20th vote for a 5% overturn.  Or if you need 6% when it tallies 100 you flip another vote.

      Unless the government could come in with a unpenetratable box to go over the voting machines and make sure they are not programmed to erase and deaden the machne in the removal.  How else  can you check out how and if they are preprogrammed?  how do you get the truth?

      Diebolt is used in banks and gives you a paper trail for your money.  These same machines can give you a paper trail for your vote.  But they won't because then the manipulation can be traced.

      Now we have TAGG Romney owning a majority interest voting machines in 2 Ohio counties.  Hamilton County which is Ciincinnati.  There is a stench here!

      If you want to do a study you can go to Ga-1.  Jack Kingston seems to have the same % every time.  If the democrrat surges from the last person running against Kingston - kingston gets the same % again.  So if more dems move in an area - doesn't matter - kingston's percent remains the same.  My husband ran agaiinst Kingston in 2006.  Yet the same percentage in 2008, 2010!  I believe there is manipulation in machines with no paper trails.  

      Voting is under the supervision of thee Secretary of State in each state.  How reprehensible have the GOP SOS been?  Why is stealing an election a CT?  

      Back in 2004 SOS in Ohio Ken Blackwell said that if Kathryn Harris could be rewarded with getting elected to Congress for her work in Fla in 2000.  He, Blackwell, could be just as faithful.  He wnted that potential reward.

      Ask yourself if you would deposit your hard earned money in the atm banking machine without a receipt?  Same with your vote.

      •  Oops. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bluedust, elmo, erush1345, plan9pub

        Let's say I am a county clerk and it is time to prepare for election day. I get my machines out of storage and run test ballots through them to be sure they are functional and ready to deploy. They did not count correctly. I run another test batch. And another, and another. They all miscount.


        America's most massive conspiracy has just been revealed.

        But not one county official in America has ever made sure their machines actually work, eh?

        Well enough of that. Let's get down to the matter of buying bridges in the burrough of Brooklyn.

      •  Except that the Tagge Romney (0+ / 0-)

        claim has been debunked.

        Also, when I vote, I do not want a "receipt", what good is it? I want an actual paper ballot that I can fill out and turn in, which then establishes evidence of how I voted. A "receipt" violates the concept of a secret ballot and would prove nothing in the event fraud was alleged.

  •  Not exactly Proof. (7+ / 0-)

    I'm very concerned that this is possible, but I don't think this comes anywhere near meeting a standard of 'proof'. And I'm even more skeptical that it's an organized operation that crosses multiple states.

    The variance of larger precincts might be related to the reason larger precincts exist in the first place: higher population density. Democrats tend to do better in urban areas, Republicans in rural. I'm not convinced that the statistical analysis covered this completely, but I can't say it wasn't.

    That said, I'm not discounting the possibility that election machines have been hacked in the past, or that there's a systematic attempt to hack them again. I think we desperately need to switch back to paper ballots, which can be hand counted on demand.

  •  beware of geeks baring rifts nt (7+ / 0-)

    Job Crater Republicans Made Our Lives Miserable. Tell It To The Morans!

    by renzo capetti on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:30:25 AM PDT

  •  Even if this research is hocky puck, (14+ / 0-)

    we STILL need some Federal laws on the books to prevent any type of vote hacking.  This may or may not have happened in the past, but some day it WILL happen, and we need to take steps to prevent it.  A paper trail will do that.  Every electronic voting machine should produce a paper record that the voter can check (without voter ID), and then deposit into a 'safe' that can later be checked against the electronic vote totals.  That is the ONLY way to safeguard against the REAL voter fraud.

    The struggle of today, is not altogether for today--it is for a vast future also. - Lincoln

    by estamm on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:37:11 AM PDT

    •  paper records, audits, and available recounts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think my only quibble here is: I wish you wouldn't use "voter fraud" in this context.

      Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
      Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

      by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:03:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I go further: mandatory, FUNDED, random recounts (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      estamm, plan9pub, bardgal

      in some percentage of ALL precincts, EVERY time.

      Not only do we need hard-copy artifacts so that recounts are physically possible, we need to DO recounts, regularly and habitually, on a spot-check basis.  So that the procedures are in place.  So that actual inadvertent errors can be detected.  So that there is some kind of quality control on the process, routinely.  So that voters can have confidence.  

      Why should EITHER side trust a process that is not routinely audited?  

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:20:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

      but as long as folks keep wasting time going down these rabbit holes rather than doing the actual legwork required, the issue will remain unaddressed.

      Of course, it is FAR easier to fix this problem at the state and county level, but that is too much like work as well.

  •  Pure idiocy. Ban the diarist, please. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, erush1345, nota bene, plan9pub, cwech

    This stuff disgraces us.

    Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

    by Rich in PA on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:42:23 AM PDT

    •  Why should this disgust you? Are you afraid of (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CTDemoFarmer, judyms9, jabney, madhaus, bardgal

      the truth?  If votes are being manipulated and we don't ask questions or look at it seriously it will never be fixed.  Look at how vile the GOP has been.  And you don't think stealing an election is beneath them.  

      Senator Hatch said in 2008 that the GOP paid for nothing under Bush so we could have this financial fiasco.  Then McConnell and the GOP meet on the night of the inaugeration and vow to defeat every piece of legislation that the Dems put forth even if it destroys the country.

      Look at the vitral coming from the GOP on women, jobs, poverty and you think the thought of them stealing an election is beneath them!

      •  Thought? No. Capability? Different story. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nota bene, plan9pub

        manipulating vote counts is very easy to detect and can result in jail time.

        Voter suppression is there for everyone to see but with enough bullshit the laws pass anyway. Which makes that tactic legal.

        So let's see. Does the GOP use the effective and legal tactic? Or do they use the difficult tactic that might get them sent to jail?

      •  It's not that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's that there are more plausible explanations that don't require fraud/lawbreaking as alleged.  The CT proposed doesn't answer or refute these explanations.

        Here's my explanation/alternative theory:  the basic successful Republican turnout model works on social pressuring and herd effects very shortly before and on Election Day.  It involves identifying and softening up and 'inoculating' a lot of nonpartisan/nonpolitical but conservative leaning people weeks and months in advance against Democrats and 'liberalism'.  These people honestly mostly think, and tell pollsters, that they are unlikely to vote and haven't made up their minds who to vote for until the week or weekend before Election Day.

        Basically, standard polling doesn't and can't 'see' these people until the Republican Final Push- the social pressuring and hardest sell-takes place in the last 2-3 days before the election and they consciously decide to vote and vote Republican.

        When they do show up to vote Republican in large hordes- and we saw Team Bush achieve this in 2004 in spectacular fashion- we always get two phenomena.  One is this "Republicans must have hacked the machines" CT.  The other, and mostly forgotten by Democratic activists, is the one of people who vote every election and know their precinct's usual denizens showing up to vote and wondering "OMG, who are all these idiots/people I have never seen here before and why are they voting Republican?"

        •  I don't think this is required (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, cwech, nota bene

          Most of their analysis covers Republican primaries -- but they aren't relating their findings to poll anomalies at all.

          They're just shocked, shocked to learn that vote shares can be correlated with precinct size. But why not? Precinct size isn't randomly distributed. It's up to them to support the assumption that a zero correlation should be expected, not up to anyone else to measure -- at the precinct level! -- all the lurking variables that might influence vote shares.

          Besides, their causal account that larger precincts were hacked in order to avoid detection makes somewhere between little and no sense.

          Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
          Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

          by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 09:24:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now this math I understand (0+ / 0-)

            So that's the evidence? R=/= 0 (n AZ) therefore The Machines Are Hacked Nationally.

            This is an interesting find in the data. But that does not prove a conspiracy, it indicates an opportunity for further study to see what dynamics might be at work here. As I am sure the pros are doing,

            •  oh, not just in AZ!! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quicklund, cwech
              In 2012, the trends are highly consistent with Romney making these strange vote gains in all 50 states, except Utah, and Puerto Rico. There is no selection bias on our part; it’s pretty much like that everywhere.

              p. 2

              (Bear in mind that what they mean by "vote gains" actually is based on an underlying correlation.)

              I think that's remarkably silly. The whole premise, I thought, was that the hacking was concentrated in large precincts to evade detection. Turns out, not only does the supposed hacking occur across much if not all of the observed range of votes cast, but it occurs in 49 states. It's Brilliant!

              The number of votes cast is confounded with so many other things that it isn't obvious how -- or whether -- to approach this as a research question.

              Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
              Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

              by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:08:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  This CT diary gets recs? (7+ / 0-)

    The math description is gibberish. "trends lines"? No statistical analysis at all? No distribution? No breakdowns of machine types (if any!) per county?

    We are asked to believe there is a nationwide conspiracy reaching to every "large" county in America, something involving thousands of election workers and observers from both parties. And no one has talked nor has anyone noticed anything out of sorts, despite a 10% miscount being a MASSIVE error. But then one guy comes along types some numbers in a spreadsheet and the sort function is all it took to uncover the most extensive conspiracy in American history?

    This is preposterous on the face of it. I am not going to waste my time and attention on yet another breathless CT. Turn the info over to the DoJ. When that's done I'll remove the HR.

  •  Lets get one thing straight (6+ / 0-)

    even if you don't believe this can we afford to take a chance? Where I vote in PA I get nothing to even show how I voted. I have to take the machines word for it. Have you ever seen just how easy it is to hack a computer. It real simple when you vote you get 2 paper copies of how you voted one is put in a lock box and one you keep. Every machine will then be check against the paper trail and I mean every machine. If there is a problem then the paper ballot decides not the machine!  End of problem period. So it take a couple of days. So what, at least we know for sure and that is what it should be all about being 100% sure!!!

    •  Yes, I can afford to take the chance (0+ / 0-)

      since I am busy combating voter suppression tactics which are more effective and legal than though experiments with little practical application.

      If you think you have a better way to conduct elections then start rounding up your neighbors, put your plan on paper and do the legwork to push your legislators and county officials to change the law. Election rules propagate at the county and state level and are far easier to change than federal law.

  •  note who the author is (9+ / 0-)

    Same guy who claimed that Palin called the President a "sambo" and that Paul Krugman was getting a second-term nomination to the Council of Economic Advisers.  It's unsupported CT.

  •  I enjoy fidling around with statistics and am (0+ / 0-)

    intrigued enough to try it out. However I'm not really impressed. It's hard for me to take too seriously when you refer to "maths". I feel like I am reading a cheezburger blog.

  •  Don't you know where you are? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    temptxan, gooderservice, poligirl

    I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

    by triv33 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:20:23 AM PDT

  •  I really do not want to believe but I am (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

    by temptxan on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:20 AM PDT

  •  HR'd (5+ / 0-)

    for obvious reasons.

    Election fraud is a serious concern, but this is not a serious article.

    Views Differ On Shape Of Planet

    by nota bene on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:35:21 AM PDT

  •  My absolutely favorite part of this pile of pucky (9+ / 0-)

    is the thing that kills almost every conspiracy theory out there- it assumes that these idiots could actually pull this off.  

    So... there's a nationwide conspiracy to shave votes using voting machines, an operation spread out over almost every state of the union, coordinated by shadowy figures and kept secret by many, many people.  The CEOs and higher-ups at the companies, the people who wrote the software, the hackers, the flunkies they use to get them in position to do the hacking, and everyone else they bump into must be either bought off or eliminated (and you'd also have to buy those FAA inspectors and their bosses off for any mystery plane crashes).  All of this has been kept secret from the public and the operation continues to hum along without a glitch, completely undetected for years.

    Meanwhile, the Rmoney campaign is giving us trees of the correct height, missing tax returns, thirty-one flavors of rape, horses and bayonets, etc.  These are the same people that can't keep a bartender from recording an entire speech of absolutely damning soundbites (47%), who can't do a decent campaign commercial to save their lives, who release badly and obviously photoshopped records of campaign events on their tumblr account, who can't get their candidate to act natural for five seconds, who can't keep his son from threatening the president, who can't get the guy to not sound like a total moron on foreign policy despite weeks of practice...  see a disconnect, here?

    It seems to me that if these shadowy bad guys would simply have spent their talents and energies on preparing a good candidate, making him look good, and putting together an awesome package of damning stuff against the president, they could simply win, legally and simply, at the polls.  Remember, Obama was losing against "generic republican".  These people couldn't even do THAT.  

    Yet they can run a flawless, invisible operation to shave votes in every major precinct in America.  

    Yup.  Hey, lookie here, I got a bridge to sell you...

  •  It has been done (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    codairem, bardgal
    • Touch-Screen Vote-flipping in VA: And so it begins again. Expect many more of these in the days ahead, as usual, particularly in states like VA which continue to have so little respect for voters that most are forced to cast their votes on 100% unverifiable touch-screen systems. An email sent to Fairfax County, VA Democrats on Wednesday warns: "We have received several reports of touch screen voting machines switching the names on the ballot before the vote is cast." It goes on to advise voters who experience the problem to "Stop and alert the Election Officer - don't vote on that machine; Record the number of the voting machine; Record the name and phone number of the voter affected" and then to notify the local Democratic office immediately. We'd also add you should notify the Sec. of State, the local media and call 866-OUR-VOTE if this should happen to you.

    The Fairfax Dems also offer this very sage advice: "Also, we encourage voters to use paper ballots (optical scan machine) where available." But good luck finding paper ballots in VA. (If you can still vote absentee there, please do, but deliver the paper ballot in person on Election Day, if possible!)

    When touch-screen machines flip votes, they should be taken out of service immediately and quarantined. Unfortunately, most election officials allow technicians to try and re-calibrate the machines while they are in "Election Mode" and most vulnerable to manipulation. It's insane. We've been saying the same thing for years now, but few election officials seem to give a damn.
  •  One thing that is unpleasant to contemplate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, Quicklund, lgmcp

    but nontheless real is that any method of voting has its margin of error.

    Think back to the recount in 2000 as we watched thousands of votes being discarded because instead of cleanly punched holes, we had dimpled or hanging chads. If you don't completely fill out the circle in an optiscan ballot, your vote might not be registered, either. And I'm sure there are inherent systemic inaccuracies in electronic voting, too.

  •  One final thought (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We could also be asking the question why does President Obama and his campaign team feel so confident of victory?

    They do, you know. And unlike the Romney team, they don't have a long and storied track record of blowing smoke and making shit up.

  •  I really don't believe in any conspiracies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Except for One, Bush did steal the 2000 election but he did through legitimate means, it's called the Supreme Court. I think Bush did win in 2004 though.

  •  Why are we even using voting machines? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SolarAngel, bardgal

    California banned these machines in 2004. The rest of the country should follow suit. Why on EARTH do we use them when the only way to verify them is with a hand count anyway?

    •  Um, the machines that people worry about (0+ / 0-)

      are the ones where NO HAND COUNT IS POSSIBLE.

      Paper ballots counted by optical scanners don't worry me so much.  The hard copies still exist (or if they don't that's red flag) and CAN be counted.  

      When people rant against the evils of electronic voting machines, they are talking mainly about machines that generate NO external artifact.  

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:29:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But those machines are in the minority nationwide for precisely that reason.

        Now, if folks would apply some of the effort I see here in worrying about this to going out and changing the laws in their counties and states, the problem would be solved.

        •  Yes, a vigorous effort needs to be made (0+ / 0-)

          in regions where the touch-screen abominations are still in use.  

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:31:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If you want the machines banned (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MA Mom, SolarAngel, bardgal

      then start organizing you fellow citizens and change the law at the state/county level. Yes, it is that simple, though it requires a LOT of work.

  •  Extraordinary Claims.... (3+ / 0-) know the saying.

    Just putting together a pareto and saying "see!?!?" doesn't get it done.

    Unless you can isolate and eliminate all the possible OTHER explanations for the trend (geographic issues - small districts in cities vs. larger districts in rural/exurb areas, isolate for known partisan bent based on polling so you can identify areas where the likely vote differs hugely from reported results, etc.) then I just think this is all a bunch of hot air without much substance.   As much as I want to believe it's possible and am CONCERNED...I haven't lost my brain.

    A left-of-center blow-harded member of the goose-stepping blog-stapo since 2004.

    by floundericiousMI on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:54:50 AM PDT

  •  I would like the source code opened up (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madhaus, MA Mom, bardgal

    So people could verify the code. Voting machines should not be black boxes. If anything, opening up the code would make them better.

    •  California required this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and de-certified a bunch of machines that wouldn't do so.  But look at all the states that wouldn't even consider it.

      Then again, a huge number of us vote permanent absentee, and that means paper ballots.  I just confirmed online that my ballot was received back at County Elections.

      In capitalist America, bank robs you!

      by madhaus on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:06:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  we (0+ / 0-)

        have fill in the dot paper ballots which you feed into a reader not the touchscreen type.  I've never considered the reader machines to be bad, but more concerned with who has access to them.  

        Of course, I'm in Vt so for the most part if a repub won it would immediately set of an alarm.

    •  As the person who coined the term (0+ / 0-)

      "black box voting", I'm hip.

      In NC the code must be provided to the Board of Elections for auditing prior to the election.

  •  Whether or not this is CT, we really need (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MA Mom, nota bene, bardgal

    national standards for voting to prevent all of these problems:

      - insecure machines and tabulators
      - source code not subject to verification by both elections and independent groups
      - proprietary machines or software disallowing verification of any type
      - reasonable distribution of machines by population to avoid under-allocation (leading to suppression through time oppression)
      - multiple standards within a state for certifying a vote as valid
      - multiple standards for what constitutes a valid registration or valid identification
      - etc etc etc

    In capitalist America, bank robs you!

    by madhaus on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:05:24 PM PDT

  •  I had to see for myself (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    plan9pub, HudsonValleyMark

    I spent some time plugging in the Minnesota results into their spreadsheet, and while I'm not a statistician, I was intrigued by the story and wanted to see if there was some explanation for the phenomena described.  

    I wound up with charts that I assume were examples of the 'Flat data' (i.e. no tampering) they describe, though they do not look very similar to the ‘flat’ results they posted.

    I noticed while looking at the names of the cities (once the precincts were sorted by number of votes,) that the low vote precincts were ALL in rural areas, and the high vote precincts were all in metro areas.  This led me to believe that the stereotype of rural voters being more conservative than their moderate or liberal metropolitan counterparts might be coming in to play.

    Using that assumption to explain why the phenomena is seen in primary results for Republicans but not Democrats, I would guess that the rural/conservative vs. metro/moderate divide is more pronounced among Republicans, and Romney would have been considered by many to be the moderate among the Republican candidates.

    I also think that Ohio and Florida are examples of states that have several large metropolitan areas throughout their region, and I think this would have the effect of making the distribution of rural/metro voters more evenly disbursed, thus creating the steady, linear slope found in the charts from those areas.

    Utah is unique in that Romney had nearly 80% of the vote in all areas of the state, but it seems very plausible that his support in Utah would be pretty even in rural vs. metro areas there.

    As I said, I am not a statistician, but I do find the results interesting.  At first glance I thought they seemed to support their hypothesis, but after looking through it myself I’m led to believe it’s merely showing support for a long held stereotype about where conservative voters tend to live.  

    If I am missing, or misunderstanding some arguments they've made that account for that explanation then I would enjoy hearing about them.  I saw one adjustment they made regarding voter registration patterns, but I don’t understand exactly how that helps explain the Republican Primary results in particular, or the presidential election results more generally.

    If nothing else, they may have proved the country vs. city stereotype is real.

    There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary numbers, and those who don't.

    by j4k on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:26:59 PM PDT

    •  a few things (0+ / 0-)

      While I am far from being able (or wanting) to speak for them, I don't think they would consider those flat lines. I think they've cited maybe two examples of what they consider flat-line data, and they say they have more, which I don't doubt. But my experience has been like yours: it wasn't hard at all to find a non-flat example.

      To me, that says that their "anomaly" isn't anomalous. To them, apparently it says that the conspiracy goes farther than they ever imagined. For various reasons, I think my interpretation better fits the data.

      I don't think this is all urban/rural. The pattern exists within Des Moines in the Iowa caucuses. I really doubt that is because the results were hacked. I have never been to Des Moines, but I think it would be hyperbolic to say that some parts of the city are urban and others rural. Bear in mind that they primarily analyze votes cast in Republican primaries. So the "small" precincts may be heavily Democratic ones.

      Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
      Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

      by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:09:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There you go, Daily Kos (0+ / 0-)

    You've jumped the shark.

    Accusing Republicans of election fraud based on an excel spreadsheet.

    You're officially the Democratic analog of World Net Daily.

    This is the kind of shit that makes me ashamed to admit I'm a Democrat in public.

  •  How this didn't make it on the rec list... (0+ / 0-)

    I have no idea.

    My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball. But tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

    by hishighness on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:32:51 PM PDT

  •  How about sworn testimony by a GOV programmer? (0+ / 0-)
Click here for the mobile view of the site