Skip to main content

by Denis G. Campbell and
Michael Duniho

Retired NSA Analyst Michael Duniho’s work was the subject of Part One. Overnight he finished a detailed essay and further testing. His focus and detailed charts are from Pima County, Arizona where he resides.  

This remains a developing story. We just received additional information from Francois Choquette and are examining the need for a Part Three.

Our website has been under constant, consistent and repeated attack for Part One in this series. We encourage readers to download the spreadsheet there, acquire data from their own elections board and run these same analyses and report back. If we’re wrong, we’ll admit it. So far, it’s all been spot on. Someone is doing their damnedest to make sure your vote is manipulated.

When you publish something like this story, the other side does its best to completely dismiss and discredit it. Charley and I spent hours and I a sleepless night making sure we got this right.

My publication, Uk Progressive Magazine, is known for a commitment to depth. We are told time and again that we are where people come to get a more complete story. So it is our pleasure to reproduce in full the essay Michael wrote detailing his work. Yes it is partly to silence the comment trolls living in denial and we have a responsibility to our readers to go beyond the original 1,600 words.

Our readers also hold our feet to the fire and when two sections were found to be confusing, we updated the article to make sure it was clearer. For this commitment on your part to make sure we get it right, our gratitude knows no bounds. -DGC

Note: Since Kos does not allow graphics, we have placed links to each graph listed as Chart 1, Chart 2, etc. Alas they do go to our website which is still VERY slow and under a DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) from multiple computers around the globe at a rate of 3-5,000 hits per minute. Please accept our apologies and know that the graphs are worth viewing either here or directly on our website. Thank you.

Evidence of Vote Counting Fraud in Pima County?
by Michael Duniho

A paper published by Francois Choquette (Aerospace Engineer, Statistics, California) and James Johnson (Senior Quantitative Financial Analyst, California) outlined anomalies found throughout the United States in the Republican Presidential Primary that always favored Mitt Romney. The favoritism correlated strongly with precinct size, and did not correlate with any other logical choices (such as population density, income levels, race, etc). The paper asked readers to confirm their analysis and report on findings.

I analyzed the 2012 Presidential Preference Primary in Pima County and confirmed their analysis. I also analyzed two 2012 Board of Supervisors Republican primaries and found no apparent anomalies. I analyzed many 2010 races and found anomalies in all statewide races, always apparently favoring Republicans (except for propositions). I found no anomalies in the LD28 State Senate race.

The correlation of Republican (or in the case of the Republican Presidential Primary, with Mitt Romney) strongly suggests vote count fraud, which would occur in larger precincts because it is easier to hide it there.

Pima County has persistently refused my requests to sort early ballots before doing the state-required hand-count audit because they say it is too much trouble. These statistics suggest another reason: they may be hiding vote-counting fraud.

We need to re-examine early ballots for the 2010 election, if they are still available, to confirm the hypothesis of vote-count fraud or to certify that there was none. This would involve removing the ballots from the vault under a court order, sorting them by precinct, and then hand counting some of the larger precincts. It appears from the data that we might discover vote-count fraud in every state-wide race in that election.
We need to re-examine the Republican Presidential primary early ballots in the same way, sorting them by precinct and then hand counting some of the larger precincts.

If the contention of vote-counting fraud is correct, we could be victimized by vote-continuing fraud in the November election, affecting not just the Presidential race but also state-wide races and possibly county-wide races. Anomalies in the 2010 general election appeared to show about ten percentage points taken from the Democratic candidate and added to the Republican candidate’s total. This changes the outcome of any race that is closer than 20 percentage points.

Here are some charts showing apparent vote flipping and others confirming no fraud in a race. Each chart shows a different race. Lines that move up from left to right represent votes added through fraud. Lines that move down from left to right represent votes taken away from a victim through fraud.

The first chart shows a race that was clearly not flipped, the LD28 State Senate race. It is not a county-wide race, so there were fewer precincts to analyze. The wiggles on the left of the chart represent small precincts with so few votes as to render statistical analysis less useful. In the larger precincts, the lines are flat, showing no votes transferred from one candidate to another.

Chart 1

The second chart is another race that apparently had no evidence of fraud. This is the 2012 Pima County Board of Supervisors race between the incumbent Ray Carroll and challenger Sean Collins. This race had even fewer precincts (62) than the LD28 State Senate race (92 precincts), so the lines are not perfectly flat, but they do not show any significant slope, leading me to believe there is no evidence of fraud.

Chart 2

The next chart is another Board of Supervisors primary race (District 1, Republican) that shows no evidence of fraud. The small number of precincts (65) causes what would be flat lines in a larger data set to appear wiggly, but again there is no discernible slope for any candidates.

Chart 3

The next chart is the 2010 Giffords-Kelly race, showing an apparent shift of ten percent of the votes from Giffords to Kelly. Unfortunately for Kelly, Giffords appears to have run more than 20 percent better than Kelly so that even with the shift she still won the election by a small percentage. Making an assumption of fraud, this suggests that it might have been programmed into the computer before the counting begins and could not easily be changed during the election process.

[Note: I have been advised by the author of the report I was following that I need to account for relative party registration numbers in this chart, which might lessen the steepness of the slopes if Democrats tend to be found in larger numbers in smaller precincts and Republicans in larger numbers in larger precincts. I am working on getting precinct-level voter registration data for 2010 so that I can recalculate this chart to more accurately reflect the anomaly.]

Chart 4

Here is the same voting data adjusted for voter registration. On this chart it appears that large precincts provided Kelly with about 6% more votes than small ones did, and they provided Giffords with about 6% fewer votes than small ones did. The voter registration data, then, accounts for about 4% of the apparent 10% shift of votes.

Chart 5

The following chart represents the 2012 Republican Presidential Preference Primary. It shows a slope upward for Mitt Romney and downward for Rick Santorum. Although there is always the possibility that these slopes could be explained by something such as moderate Republicans being found in larger numbers in large precincts and conservative Republicans being found in larger numbers in smaller precincts, it has not yet been possible to correlate the vote count data with a convincing and numerically precise explanation. This argues for sorting early ballots by precinct so that a proper hand count audit can be done. Then whatever anomalies are found in statistical analyses, we can confirm with statistically comforting precision that no fraud occurred in any election contest.

Chart 6

This chart shows the data for the 2012 CD8 Special Election between Barber  and Kelly, with no adjustment for voter registration. It appears that larger precincts provided about 10% more votes to Kelly and small ones did, and that those same larger precincts provided about 10% fewer votes to Barber than smaller ones did.

Chart 7

This next chart shows the same vote count data adjusted for relative voter registration for the Democratic and Republican parties in each precinct:

Chart 8

We can see that voter registration variations between the two parties in larger precincts accounts for some of the variation seen in the first chart, but we are still left with an unexplained shift of about six percent of the vote from Barber to Kelly when we compare small precincts with large precincts. What causes this shift? We simply don’t know. Could there be another demographic cause that we have not yet analyzed? Yes, but what would it be? We are left with the question to be answered: Could this shift have been caused by fraud in the computer? The answer to that is that it could have been, and without a proper hand count audit, we cannot rule out that possibility.


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

  •  Fucking enough with this. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice Olson, elmo, highacidity, RIposte
    •  No - we've had enough of being rolled on election (5+ / 0-)

      day. Hearing one more Republican shill talking about the expected election day surge that will carry Romney to victory DESPITE the polls - and I'm afraid I'm hearing somebody advertising their intent to steal an election.

      Whether we are imagining this or not is becoming a secondary issue - there is NO confidence in the electoral system. A recent poll indicated that majorities of both sides fear the other side is going to steal the election. A simple paper receipt would go a LONG way to quell this concern about computer fraud - but that's not going to happen in 10 days.

      I proposed in another comment a way to create our own "paper receipts" to at least provide some confidence or a check on the process.

      I don't think we've had enough of this since 2000 when Republicans shut down the vote count in Florida and the Supreme Court handed the election to George Bush. We have the crookedest election system in the western world - and one side knows how to exploit that and as long as we fail to put up a fight and provide our own checks we'll continue to get mugged on election day.

    •  Ditto. Put them in Jail, it is a felony after all (0+ / 0-)

      Do we not prosecute for real crime anymore?

  •  Candidates with more money (0+ / 0-)

    spend more on advertising in larger precincts....they also pay more attention to GOTV efforts.  Plus, they spend money only on races within 10 points or else it would be a waste of money.

  •  Given that the US has this absurd election model (4+ / 0-)

    where the party in state power runs the election machinery aka "putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop" - the question to my mind is what can be done now to mitigate any chance of computerised fraud on Nov 6th.

    If I understand the basic constraints of the fraud - votes cannot be added (the computer equivalent to "ballot stuffing") since the totals for a precinct would no longer match the registrations check off by poll works. Ironically the Voter ID requirements (implicit or explicit) presumably entail better record keeping at this level.

    So it is only by switching votes cast the the fraud can happen - but if we can establish a floor of Democratic votes cast at a polling station then presumably any computer result showing fewer democratic votes than this floor could then be challenged.

    This floor could be established by the progressive equivalent of "True the Vote" - volunteers going to vulnerable polling locations and setting up a booth outside the polls inviting all who leave the polling place to come over and let them know how they voted. The purpose of the exercise would be clearly advertised as intending to counter any attempts to vote switch - and hopefully the great majority of those voting democratic in the precincts - already worried about another stolen election - would come over and have their vote tallied.

    Since the talley is only being used to potentially challenge the computer results, there would be no incentive for Republican voters to pretend to have voted Democratic. Bottom line there's no need to be determine the split - only a minimum number of votes that were cast for Democratic options. Probably one would only need to record the presidential choice to at least provide a basis for keeping the machines honest.

    The best result would be to capture the record of all those who voted Democratic on that day, but perhaps merely the possibility that such an exercise could lead to a challenge might help to reduce the percentage being switched. We should not rely on outside parties to do this - particularly since they have decided to drop a number of states. This is something a volunteer operation can do - and pretty well everyone in the Democratic camp understands why we need a safeguard.

    •  Are you involved in your precinct? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Do you help out setting up the voting machines and signing in voters on election day?

      If you did, you'd know this diary is bunk.

      •  Please explain (0+ / 0-)

        Could you explain how monitoring the polling place prevents centrally tabulated electronic votes without paper records from being changed later when the results of dozens of locations are aggregated?

        A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. - Dwight David Eisenhower

        by Mestral on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 02:59:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  why specify votes without paper records? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Pima County uses optical scanners plus "accessible" touchscreen equipment with voter-verifiable paper records.

          I don't know what proportion of Republican primary votes was recorded on paper ballots or records, but it must have been substantial.

          I think the call for better audits in Pima County is eminently reasonable, simply as a matter of principle. The data analysis, not so much. No basis is presented for the assertion that these lines should be flat, nor for the assertion that the non-flat lines evince 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 Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 04:14:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Paper records (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I agree with you. The data analysis seemed shaky to me. Particularly as I though most places use machines that create a paper record, so the count can be audited.

            Thanks for mentioning the hot line.

            •  well, here's the thing (0+ / 0-)

              In many cases, jurisdictions use paper, but don't routinely audit the paper and/or have very tight restrictions on partial (expandable) recounts if some of the counts are in dispute.

              So, to be clear, the existence of the paper records isn't necessarily a reason to dismiss an analysis that supposedly gives evidence of fraud. A well-done analysis could reveal real problems (through fraud or otherwise) that then could be corrected. (Not that you said otherwise.)

              But when Choquette and Johnson think they've found fraud in 49 different states, that strains credulity for several reasons, and the wide use of paper is one of them -- in tandem with the apparent lack of incentive. Mightn't he have settled for, oh, 40 or so?

              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 Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 04:17:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I think it's ridiculous to have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice Olson, Bob Duck

    Elected Secretary of State, we should have that removed and a person should be nominated by the Governor of that State, The Secretary of State should also not be allowed to vote as it is here in Canada. Our Chief Electoral Officer cannot vote.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site