Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:54:50 -0800 (PST)
From: J.Andy Royle To: sswang@Princeton.EDU
Subject: plot Sam,
The attached
figure is a plot of log(observed votes) - log(expected
votes) vs. log(registered voters) (let's say that is
proportional to population size) for both Democrats
and Republicans. They show clearly the pattern of
rural/low population counties favoring republicans and
this advantage diminishing as the number of registered
voters increases up to about log(R)=11. The red dots
are the optical scan machines and the black dots are
the electronic machines. The black dotes are roughly
where you would expect them to be based on population
size. If anything, they slightly favor democrats
(consider drawing an eyeball "smooth" through all of
the dots).
In summary, the GOP message seems really to have paid
off in these low-population counties, which happen to
all be optical-scan. Of course, one could argue that
the fraud effect just happens to be confounded with
voting machine type (fortunate if fraud=true), but I
would be skeptical about that argument.
Regards,
Andy
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:37:41 -0500
From: Andy McCord To: 'Samuel Wang' Cc: kathy@directell.com
Subject: Optical Scan Results
It seems to me the "expected Republicans" figures may be badly skewed by
the definitions that base expectations on party registrations. The
counties involved seem most or all from the panhandle or other north
Florida areas less affected by recent developments and demographic
changes. I don't know Florida but do know a bit about the South. These
voters may be descendants of the white Dixiecrats, who still vote Dem in
local elections but go Republican in national or even statewide
elections. The extraordinary turnouts could be explained by the
parental notification for underage abortions measure. It might be more
accurate to compare to votes for Republicans in the 2000 election and
earlier, though in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton would have had more
appeal to white legacy Democrats than most Democratic candidates.
In any case, I think people need to pay very close attention to every
county where extraordinary increases in Republican votes and turnout
occurred. This could be a clue to fraud, but probably more likely would
be valuable in analyzing how the values appeal was executed.
Needed a password or something for the public thread, otherwise I'd have
posted there.
Andy
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:29:28 -0800
From: Chris Mundt To: sswang@Princeton.EDU
Cc: kathy@directell.com
Subject: explanation for touchscreen versus optical
Dear Sam:
I enjoyed following your website during the election - thanks for
providing the service. I just wish that the election had turned out
differently! But, hopefully, none of us the ability to control that
directly.
There seems to be a simple explanation for the touchscreen versus optical
results in Florida precincts. I would guess that it has nothing to do
with voting medium but, rather, was influenced by community size. I'm in
the middle of a couple of grant propsals right now so time is limited,
but have quickly scribbled my reasoning below:
1) Precincts with smaller total votes generally represent smaller
communities.
2) The touchscreen machines were used in large cities, but usually not in
small towns.
3) If you look at the % change data, there is a negative number on the
democratic side every time the total vote count is 35,000 or less - NO
EXCEPTION. This is true for both touchscreen and optical scan.
4) There are only two cases of precincts with total votes 35,000 or less
for touchscreen voting. In contrast, precincts with less than 35,000
votes are very common for optical scanning. Again, I assume that this is
because optical scans were used in small towns and rural areas, while
touchscreens were used in large cities.
5) Conclusion: there was a larger percentage of democratic voters who
went for Bush in smaller communities than in larger cities.
Sociologically, this makes some sense.
Hope this helps.
Chris Mundt
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:32:25 -0500
From: Peter Nau To: sswang@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Florida voting "anomalies"
Prof. Wang --
I believe there is a simple, common sense explanation for the so-called
anomalies found in the different predicted results of electronic vs.
optical scan machines.
The deviation from the "expected" result is not, I believe, due to a
difference in accuracy of the equipment. Nor do I think any widespread
fraud has been exposed.
The difference is likely due to the fact that scan machines were used
primarily in rural counties where Bush has much of his support. The fact
that these counties have many more registered Democrats than Republicans
is nothing more than a legacy of "Old Florida," where voters tended to be
registered Democrats. If you want to know the true character of these
counties, you need look no further than the percentage change columns,
which showed dramatic increases in registered Republicans and significant
decreases in registered Democrats. While this still leaves many more
registered Democrats than Republicans, these Democrats were about as
committed to John Kerry as Zell Miller was. They are Democrats in name
only, who simply have not bothered to reregister as Republicans. Look at
the counties where scan machines were used and had similar percentage
increases in registrations of both parties. Voila! Your "expected"
results resemble your actual votes.
Still not convinced? How about the fact that these discrepancies appeared
in the 2000 election? For example, Lafayette County, which voted
overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004 despite having vastly more registered
Democrats ALSO voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000. This was BEFORE a
459.3% increase in registered Republicans and a 69.3% decrease in
registered Democrats.
If you are STILL not convinced, I think a quick trip through these
counties to meet the voters would do the trick!
As a Kerry supporter and fairly new Florida resident, I understand the
temptation to find something nefarious in the results shown on the
ustogether.org web page. The fact is, there is nothing sinister about
them.
Sincerely,
Peter Nau
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:52:49 -0800
From: Kevin Malone To: sswang@Princeton.EDU
Subject: The Florida Numbers
It is very interesting to see the large difference in the outcome for
different voting systems. I hope you are going to look into these
numbers in more detail. My quick review of the numbers indicates that
the optical scanners were used alot more in small counties (total number
of registered voters) that are likely heavily rural. The question is are
these counties also heavily protestant? If so, exit polling indicates
that white protestants voted overwhelmingly for Bush and this would
explain some of the diffference (See
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/FL/P/00/epolls.0.html
for details). However, I agree the difference seems almost unbelievable
given that democrats made up > 70% of the registered voters in these
areas. This would imply that the overwhelming majority of the rural
democrats voted for Bush!
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:29:33 -0800
From: jcschank To: sswang@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Florida voting patterns
Hello Sam,
When I saw your posting on the Florida results I was really concerned
by the difference in party registration and voting. So, I looked up
the election results for the questionable counties for 2000 and
although, for example, Lafayette county is almost entirely registered
democrats, they voted overwhelmingly republican in 2000 as well. These
counties are almost entirely white, so I would guess that they are
old-south democrats who vote republican.
Jeff Schank
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:45:09 -0500
From: David Fry To: sswang@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Voter results in Florida
Sam,
Thanks for developing and updating your powerful election Web site. I'm just as
disappointed with the result as you are.
But isn't the issue with the optical scan machines in Florida obvious? Those
are from the less populated, more rural counties. And we already know those
populations are where Rove's 'value message' and GOTV push was more successful.
The smaller and more rural a precinct was, the more likely Bush was to exceed
his 2000 performance. Look at Hamilton country in Ohio, for instance.
This is borne out by looking at the individual optical scan counties in
Florida. The smaller ones (e.g. Baker, Calhoun, Dixie, etc.) had the large
Republican outliers. The larger counties with optical scan machines (e.g.
Brevard, Duval, Orange, etc.) had percentages that fit inside the same range as
the electric machines counties.
Unfortunately this election was determined not by voter fraud but by several
million people who thought it was more disgusting to watch two men kiss than to
watch thousands of people die needlessly.
David Fry
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:24:11 -0800
From: Karl Rimbach To: sswang@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Possible explanation for Florida numbers
Hi Sam,
I was very intrigued by the linked table of Florida counties by voting
method. It certainly looks suspicious, with many heavily Democratic counties
(at least by registration) voting for Bush. However, I did some further
investigation to compare the numbers to the 2000 election, and in fact those
same counties also voted heavily for Bush four years ago. The turnout then
was not as high, but nevertheless it proves either that:
a) the fraud has been going on for awhile
or
b) registered Democrats in small, rural counties in Florida often vote
Republican
Probably the second choice, but it still seems strange to me.
Thanks for your terrific site, and I'm sorry your predictions (the ones
including undecideds and turnout) didn't come to pass.
Karl