Update [2004-11-3 9:34:30 by katerina]: Could everyone who's posted a "the number's don't add up" diary that has
concrete numbers, specific examples, or first hand accounts please post a link below in comments. I'd like to gather all that info in one place.
It's 5 a.m. PST, and I haven't yet really slept. One reason is that the media has all but declared a second Bush term. The other reason, the more haunting reason, is that for the first time in my life, I no longer believe in the integrity of my nation's electoral process.
Now I can do nothing about the first problem, but I think there is a relatively quick way to visually see whether there really is cause for the suspicions that are haunting our hearts, or whether our emotions are getting the better of us.
Here's the idea. If, after having read it, you agree with it, PLEASE RECOMMEND THIS DIARY SO WE CAN GET THE WORD OUT TO THE WIDER KOS COMMUNITY.
Here's the idea....
First of all, time is of the essence. The election's narrative is forming as we speak, so we have to act quickly. Let's make our reaction to the Sinclair mess pale in comparison.
The seed of the idea: tonight as CNN was trying to explain the strange electoral results from FL and OH, Bill Hemmer and some other news guy I don't remember kept showing these graphics showing how much better Bush was doing in 2004 in various counties in FL and OH compared to 2000. These maps they kept flashing were the only indication of numbers by county, because originally the networks were only showing chunk numbers.
The first county map showed which counties Bush and Kerry were leading in. Suspiciously, when they first showed the graphic, there were no counties leading for Kerry. Yeah, right.
The second showed counties where Bush was doing better than 2000. These appeared deep red; counties where he was doing less well were pink or white. The map of I-4 corridor was blazing red.
The second map was supposed to explain and provide evidence for the first. The important point -- besides how suspicious the data was -- is HOW THEY CONVEYED THE INFO VISUALLY, SO IT IMPACTED THE VIEWER IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT HAVING TO GET DOWN INTO A NUMBERS GAME.
THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO MAKE OUR OWN MAPS.
************
*PROJECT FOLLOW THE VOTE
*** ********
*Here's what we need to do. County by county we need to make our own maps.
First map and this needs to be done ASAP, we need a nationwide map to show which states were accurately called and which were not. Accurately called Kerry states would be blue (the closer to the final result the exit polls were, the deeper the hue). Accurately called Bush states would be colored red (again, the closer to the final result, the deeper the hue. Inaccurately called states would be grey, the more inaccurate, the darker the shade of grey.
Second map: counties in FL and OH (and control states, perhaps, maybe WI and NH?) where Bush did better in 2004 than 2000.
Third map: counties in FL and OH (and control states) where Kerry did better in 2004 than 2000.
Fourth map: counties in FL and OH (and control states) where there were lots of new voters.
Fifth map: counties in FL and OH (and control states) color-coded to what type of voting -- specifically, is the voting system paper auditable or not (ie. if it's electronic voting, but there's a paper trail, it counts as paper auditable).
Sixth map: most important -- a merging of the second map info with fifth map info (ie. places where Bush gained and there is no paper trail one color; places where Bush gained and there is a paper trail another. I suspect that this is the map that will tell the tale of whether we're all getting too paranoid, or we truly have reason to fear that this election was stolen.
Seventh map: a nationwide county map that correlates where Bush's extra popular votes came from (comparing 2000 county data with 2004--I know lots of work) with the voting system used in that county. Again, use of color to somehow correlate whether Bush went up more in counties with non-auditable voting systems, but I'm too sleep deprived at the moment to be able to think clearly how best to convey it graphically. We've got to figure out where the hell those 3 million extra popular votes for Bush came from. This was bothering me all night long as the returns came in.
Finally, all maps will require accompanying data tables to show where the data the map represents comes from.
********'
Now it's great to have an idea, but this idea will take a lot of work to execute. I just do not have the time to tackle this one myself, much as I'd like to. I've got two kids I've already been neglecting horribly, and I just can't put into it what it will take to do it right. But I'm hoping this idea has enough spark to it, to inspire others to pick up the torch.
These are the type of people and skills I think it would take to make a successful *Project FOLLOW THE VOTES:
a) a campaign manager to oversee this project and coordinate volunteers;
b) a webmaster who can get a web site up and running quickly to post the results of our research;
c) google monkeys who can provide us with reliable data from public sources;
d) fact checkers who can double-check data/sources provided by the google monkeys;
e) graphic artists to create the visual maps of the counties to convey the info quickly and in a form that may catch the media's attention.
f) pr people to get the word out to the blogosphere and to the media.
Eventually, this should be done for every county in the country, but let's start with the two states that have deviated so much from the initial exit polling: FL and OH and are so crucial to the outcome of the election.
The other side was counting on this being over early. If you don't believe me, look at thIs story from early yesterday:
Bush hopes for speedy result on election night
We have to use the little time there is to our advantage, and perhaps give the Kerry team reason to continue to fight.
Update [2004-11-3 9:9:57 by katerina]: Some additional random thoughts (arrived at while while nursing my son back to sleep):
Preserving evidence
Does anyone have any connections in the academic world with people who have been doing research into electronic voting systems? I would love to know if individual voting machines in suspect counties were to be impounded right away, could hacked code still be found on them? I would also like to know if there would be a way to detect hacking attempts on the counting machines.
Legal questions
Kossack lawyers, do voters in counties that use unauditable voting machines have standing to bring lawsuits questioning whether their vote was counted correctly or does standing only belong to campaigns? Could such suits be used to provide injunctions for preservation of evidence (see above?)
Why was Bush constantly appealing to Democrats the last week of campaigning?
This little thought struck me all of a sudden while I was unsuccessfully trying to fall back asleep after nursing my son back to sleep -- why all the ridiculous appeals this last week for Democrats to throw their votes to Bush? Didn't this fly in the face of the supposed Rove strategy of aiming to expand the base rather than reach out to the other side? One possible explanation, setting up an alibi for higher than expected Democratic and Independent votes going to Bush (or not Kerry) in electronic voted FL and OH counties.
So... I would love to see a map correlating counties using unauditable voting systems in OH and FL with counties where the Bush vote from Democrats and Independents is skewed differently than nearby counties and national average.