|
||
This
is the Cliff Notes version of the actual site, which is being updated,
regularly. Click HERE for a table that shows, county by county, how many registered Republicans there were (the vast majority of whom, polls and common sense tell us, would vote for Bush), how many registered Democrats there were (likewise for Kerry), and what percentage of registered voters turned out to vote (we can reasonably assume a roughly equivalent percentage of each party's base came out to vote). From those figures, they arrive at an "expected" minimum vote for each candidate. However, since many more people vote besides those who are registered Democrats or Republicans (i.e. Independents, unaffiliated, or members of some other party), the actual vote for each candidate is naturally going to be higher than the "expected" figure which is a projection based only on registered Democrats and Republicans. The table also then shows the actual vote, as of 98.6% of the vote tallied. Some Florida counties used an "E-Touch" voting machine, and some used an "optical scan" machine. Let's look at these two groups:
These two Florida populations who seem to have voted so differently are roughly equivalent in size and relative party strength. The only apparent difference between these voting groups is the type of voting machine used. Compared to anything within the range of what a reasonable analysis would have predicted, the counties with the "optical scan" machines went disproportionately, overwhelmingly, and illogically for Bush, while the counties with the "E-Touch" machines yielded results in the range of what could normally have been expected. It sure looks fishy! UPDATE: I have seen some sites mention the "Dixiecrat" phenomenon--that many registered Democrats here tend to actually vote Republican. However, that is not a sufficient explanation for these results. For one thing, according to a CNN poll, while 14% of Florida Democrats did indeed vote for Bush, 7% of Florida Republicans in turn voted for Kerry. The net difference--or anything even remotely close--is not nearly enough to account for the discrepancy. Further, even to the extent that such cross-voting affects the results, it seems highly unlikely that essentially all the cross-voters would be in counties with one kind of machine, and none in counties with the other. OTHER VARIABLES THAT HAVE SINCE BEEN CONSIDERED: Were Republicans far more effective in getting out their base than were Democrats? CNN again reports that Republicans made up 41% of the voters, Democrats 37%. Since Florida actually has more registered Democrats than Republicans, it is true that a greater percentage of Republican voters showed up at the polls. If members of the two parties had shown up in about the proportion of their party enrollment, you would expect the Democrats' percentage of the total to be about 4 points higher than that of the Republicans, rather than 4 points lower. However, again, this does not account for the figures above (even in comination with the "Dixiecrat" phenomenon), and again, would not be expected to show up in the voting patterns of people who used one machine rather than another. E-Vote
machines tended to be used in larger/urban ares whereas optical scan
machines tended to be used in smaller/rural areas, so without a random
distribution of the type of machine used, the discrepancy could be based
on those different perspectives rather than on the machine itself. This
appears to be the strongest argument, I think, especially since the
same case could maximize the effect of the other factors mentioned (i.e.
it is more reasonable to postulate that the presence of more Dixiecrats
or heavier Republican turnout was tied to whether a county was rural
than whether it used a particular machine). However, even this explanation
seems unlikely to explain a difference of this magnitude, especially
in light of further analysis HERE which showed that, in mid-size counties
(some of which used each type of machine), there remained a significant
correlation between unusual strength for Bush and the use of optical
scan machines. I'm not the kind of person who believes in conspiracy
theories, and I want to be fair, but even with all these factors considered,
things look awfully suspicious! Why were exit polls in crucial states wrong? Why were they all wrong the same direction, giving Kerry more votes? Why were they wrong in states with electronic ballots, but not in states with paper ballots? Why
were they wrong only on the Presidential race, and right on other races? If there were problems with the samples in some states, it's odd that all the flawed samples would err in the same direction. And it would be odd for polls that were inaccurate in the Presidential race to all still be accurate in, say, Senate races, but that was the case according to this site [SMIRKING CHIMP]. There is no logical reason for there to be a correlation between more accurate exit polls in states with one kind of ballot system, and less accurate exit polls in states with a different one. Again, it looks like something fishy may have been going on with the electronic machines in the battleground states... Click
HERE for a site [SCOOP NZ] with some additional relevant information... According
to this
official web page [mirror]
(click the "U.S. President" link), 7,588,422 votes were cast
for President. Yes,
as of 11/7, Florida is currently reporting 237,522 more ballots cast
than there were people who voted. There were scattered reports of touchscreens that asked the voter to confirm a choice for Bush after they had selected Kerry. You can see this CNN story here. Honest
errors? Sure, could be. But it is curious that all these errors always
seem to favor the same candidate... |
