or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › All the President's Voting Machines by Faun Otter
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

All the President's Voting Machines by Faun Otter

post #1 of 3
Thread Starter 
For those who don't know...Faun Otter (I think we met, or at the very least I remember him, in DC a couple years back at a party), has good knowledge of statistics, also has good knowledge of the Diebold voting machine issue and has been researching and running numbers on the Cali recall/election.

Here are Parts 1 and 2 of his work...don't know if it's complete yet, so maybe there will be a Part 3 yet. Like I said before, I know NOTHING about statistics. I post this with permission from the author, indeed with encouragement to do so from the author.

Part 1:

Tulare county votes look wrong
by Faun Otter

All the President's Voting Machines - Diebold strike again?

I always wondered if a background in boring statistical analysis might ever come in handy. Well
take a look at what I found amongst California's voting data, as supplied by their secretary of state.


Tulare county use Diebold Opti-Scan equipment.

Tulare county gave 'obscure' candidates very high percents of their state wide totals:

Palmieri - 995 out of 3,717 26.77%
Platform was 'don't vote for me or the recall'. Gay Rights activist who lives in LA.

Kunzman - 694 out of 2,133 32.54%
Lives north of Oakland and favored increased social programs. Said he would fire all
school custodians tosave money and have the kids empty the trash and clean the carpets.

Sprague - 546 out of 1,576 34.64%
Zero tolerance for discrimination. Lives near

Sacramento
McClain - 46 out of 2,463 1.77%
Civil engineer, Berkley grad living in Bay Area

These were not local candidates. The 'local candidate effect' can be seen with Doctor Macaluso
from Visalia in Tulare county. He got 7.2% of his state wide total vote from his home county.

As a percentage of the votes counted as of the time I ran this analysis, Tulare votes were 0.9% of the state total.
For comparison, in the 2002 fall election, the county gave Bustamante 24,647 votes which has dropped to 15,487
even with an increase in votes cast from 61,884 to 68,891. Stats can never prove anything but these absurd figures
are strong evidence for an audit.

The county gave leaders the following percentages of their state wide totals:
Swartzenegger 1.028%
Bustamante 0.65%
McLintock 1.036%
Camejo 0.25%

These figures suggest a possible scam in which the machines were used to skim Bustamante votes to 'fringe' candidates.
That would leave the % for Swartzenegger close to that predicted by opinion polls and exit polls but decrease Bustamante's total.
I am now running similar tests on every county where Diebold were doing their best to deliver the votes to George Bush
- to paraphrase Wally O'Dell, their CEO.

Alameda's touch screens did something rather odd. A reasonable distribution of votes by candidate by county has a long thin tail,
often ending with several candidates getting NO VOTES. The touch screens of Alameda seem to have managed to find a good
number of votes for all sorts of people at the bottom edge of the ballot. Funny coincidence that Alameda has suddenly taken a
dislike to Bustmante after giving him 62% of their vote for Lt. Governor last year, he is down to barely 50% of the total.

More later as I crunch the numbers. If you care to check my figures, go to the CA secretary of state's site for the raw data.

Part 2:

"All the President's Voting Machines - Part 2"

I ran a number crunch of CA counties that use Diebold machines to cast/count votes and found some weird figures that suggest a skim of votes from top candidates to people who were unlikely to affect the outcome. I don't have the facilities or time to spread sheet all the candidates by county. Such a spread sheet would allow a lot of interesting weightings to further illustrate evidence of Diebold messing with the vote.

I did my hand calculator work on the California election results (from the secretary of state's site) when 96% of precincts had reported. The website also showed:

Counties using Diebold Touchscreens:
Alemeda, Plumas

Counties using Diebold Optiscan:
Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Placer, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Trinity, Tulare.

There were a total of 1,403,375 votes cast in these counties combined. The CA total was 7,842,630 at this stage of the count. Thus 17.89% of all the state votes were cast on Diebold equipment.

I had earlier developed an hypothesis that some lower order candidates (ones who couldn't affect the result) appeared to be getting unusually large numbers of votes in Tulare county. I decided to test to see if the these and other 'fringe' candidates might be used to receive skimmed votes in other Diebold counties.

Method:
I added all the votes cast/counted on Diebold equipment for each candidate and expressed it as a percentage of their total votes cast state wide. The following table lists: Candidate name, votes counted for them in Diebold counties, CA state total votes counted for that candidate and what percentage of that candidate's total votes were counted in Diebold counties.

It looks like, as one might expect, there is a slight variance from an even state wide distribution but many 'lower ticket' candidates have vote totals that ONLY correlate with the use of Diebold equipment! I have included some names chosen at random from the result list that show that not all lower order candidates were used for the receiving skimmed votes. Note that Diebold's counties are spread geographically over the whole of California.

I have checked background on the skewed result candidates and they are not residents of the counties where they got very high percentage results. In one case, Palmieri, the candidate was surprised to hear about Tulare county (I emailed him) and had not been there nor had family or friends there. In fact, his platform was "Don't vote for me." He described this vote pattern as "strange."

State total 7,842,630.
Cast in Diebold counties 1,403,375
17.89% of the total votes cast.

Swarzenegger 581,145 3,552,787 16.36%

Bustamante 447,008 2,379,740 18.78%

McLintock 186,923 979,234 19.08%

Camejo 39,199 207,270 18.9%

Huffington 7,498 42,131 17.79%

Ueberoth 3365 21378 15.74%

Flynt 2384 15010 15.88%

Coleman 1869 12443 15.02%

Simon 1351 7648 17.66%

Palmieri 2542 3717 68.3%

Louie 598 3198 18.7%

Kunzman 1957 2133 91.75%

Roscoe 325 1941 16.7%

Sprague 1026 1576 65.10%

Macaluso 592 1504 39.36%

Price 477 1011 47.18%

Quinn 220 433 50.8%

Martorana 165 420 39.28%

Gosse 60 419 14.3%

Conclusion
Based on the impossible distribution of votes for some candidates (a meteor hit my car twice this week sort of odds) a hand count of the affected counties to compare with the machines should be done. This would show if the machines had been tampered with to alter the results. As we already know, it is not possible to audit touchscreen machines because Diebold refuse to allow printing of a ballot to be placed in a box as a back up for use in just such an apparent tampering with votes.

For those who are unsure of figures:

California is huge and has a population similar to many European nations. Lower order candidates have little or no ability to spread any sort of message to parts of the state beyond their own home and/or where they have previously lived. One would expect some of the 'fringe' candidates to do well in their home county and then to have a very even distribution across the rest of the state. That is not the case. In Diebold counties (those who use vote casting/counting machines made by Diebold, a corporation that supports George Bush) the results are skewed towards low scoring candidates by unbelievably large amounts.

The probability of scoring twice the expected average county % could charitably be construed as the upper limit of the possible. Some candidates exceed that figure in Diebold counties by a four or five fold margin. If you have done statistics, you know that is so far beyond what might be expected that you would reject it as defective data. If it happened to one candidate in this election, I would be surprised but might accept it. There are a large number of candidates who show this same systematic pattern of receiving skimmed votes.

The California recall shows Diebold trying to affect the election outcome by moving votes from high ranked candidates to low ranked candidates.

By doing this, Diebold keep the total number of votes cast constant but rob some candidate of their votes. Before anyone makes this a partisan issue - it could be Republican victim next time.

I've been working on this for nearly twenty hours now. Please pass this on and make sure it is sent to some county elections officials, the CA secretary of state (a Dem) and so on.

Best regards,

Faun

NOTE from Joyce:
Now...with all this in mind, the question forms: Is Cali just a testing ground for getting the fix in for 2004? The midterm elections had some interesting anomalies, which I saw at that time, that were not as arcane as the above stats are to me: there were a good number of races in which the resulting (R) winners were exactly 18,181 points ahead in the end. Now one or two exactly with the same spread of votes....possibly....but several across the country, especially in cases where the dem candidate was in the lead till the very end? Unlikely.

This is where Bev Harris' extensive research on the topic of Black Box Voting comes in:

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

I shudder with fear about 2004 and the agenda of what currently passes for the GOP. REAL Republicans I know and respect, are beginning to see that there is something wrong too.

We common folks ALL have good intent for our families, futures and country.

And if we don't start to question and demand answers from the grassroots up instead of just trusting the powers and awaiting answers to trickle down (as with the "official" 9/11 reports, where even the families can't get answers)...well I am afraid that it will be too late and maybe it already is.

For those who think the GOP is so righteous and motivated by the teachings of Jesus and the Bible...just be careful for what you pray, as you may just get it and I suspect you may not like it once it's done. It's possible your sincere and deep faith is being used- which is in my opinion really lousy, and my heart is heavy about that, but I will go out on a limb here and speculate at this point, that they don't care HOW they get what they want (globally), even to the point of using faith to appeal to you. (May I be mistaken for the sake of future generations!)

But then, you all know I am crazy ild ...Joyce in the mts.
post #2 of 3
Thread Starter 
Mark Crispin Miller is also getting this out!

http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

(psst! Mr. Miller is the author of "The Bush Dyslexicon")

post #3 of 3
Thread Starter 
On top of all this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ting_anomalies

Interesting...Joyce in the mts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › All the President's Voting Machines by Faun Otter