Berkeley Researchers Analyze Florida Voting Patterns 1237
empraptor writes "Researchers at UC Berkeley have crunched numbers and determined that 130,000-260,000 excess votes went to Bush in Florida. They have held a conference and posted their findings online. You can find articles on their research from CNet, Wired News, and many other sources. While the research used statistical analysis based on past elections and demographics, how else do you verify that a paperless voting system is working properly?"
Some thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
Doug Chapin, a nonpartisan election analyst, finds the claims to be baseless. "There were no problems that would lead me to believe that there were stolen elections or widespread fraud," he said.
"There was no overwhelming reason to cast doubt on the outcome of this election," seconded Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for Al Gore's 2000 campaign. "George Bush got more votes this time."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11
Much of the traffic is little more than Internet-fueled conspiracy theories, and none of the vote-counting problems and anomalies that have emerged are sufficiently widespread to have affected the election's ultimate result.
Kerry campaign officials and a range of election-law specialists agree that while machines made errors and long lines in Democratic precincts kept many voters away, there's no realistic chance that Kerry actually beat Bush.
''No one would be more interested than me in finding out that we really won, but that ain't the case," said Jack Corrigan, a veteran Kerry adviser who led the Democrats' team of 3,600 attorneys who fanned out across the country on Election Day to address voting irregularities.
''I get why people are frustrated, but they did not steal this election," Corrigan said. ''There were a few problems here and there in the election. But unlike 2000, there is no doubt that they actually got more votes than we did, and they got them in the states that mattered."
''I think it's safe to say that on the votes that were cast in Ohio, Bush won," said Dan Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University who is working with the ACLU to challenge Ohio's use of punch-card ballots. ''If the margin had been 36,000 rather than 136,000, we would have seen another post-election meltdown."
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/11436220p-1 2350492c.html [sacbee.com]
All three said their networks had set up investigative units to review any claims of voter fraud or problems with electronic voting technology this year, but that nothing significant had appeared anywhere to affect the election's outcome.
"A lot of the allegations we've looked into, they're just not true," Shapiro said. "Believe me, I'd love a juicy story about the election as much as anybody. Florida was a great story, but it's just not there this time."
A frequent charge levied after the 2000 election was voter disenfranchisement and ballot spoilage due, in large part, to antiquated, malfunctioning, or broken mechanical voting equipment. Legislation was introduced guaranteeing a minimum standard for the equipment and processes associated with voting in all jurisdictions. Since we are living in the 21st century, electronic systems were specified. $3.9 billion was set aside under HAVA to replace all mechanical punch card systems with electronic systems by 1 January, 2006. The goal is to ensure a consistency and fairness in the appearance and operation of the voting systems, both for voters and local election officials.
After the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) [fec.gov]:
To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for
Re:Statistical? (Score:5, Informative)
Just fix it! Support the bills that will! (Score:5, Informative)
After the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) [fec.gov]:
To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections...
The putative reasoning for going with electronic systems was likely that since we have managed to design accountable and reliable electronic and computing equipment for the management of our power, medical care, money, etc., it likely was more or less assumed by the legislature that such accountable systems could also be applied to voting.
A bill has been introduced to amend HAVA. H.R.2239 [loc.gov] and its twin Senate counterpart S.1980 [loc.gov], discussed further here [verifiedvoting.org], will amend the Help America Vote Act such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter, and that "any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen".
Additionally, the three electronic voting manufacturers already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products. Some e-voting critics make it seem like vendors are resisting. However, it is the local election boards that are resisting (as well as the slow march of bureaucracy). The e-voting vendors will build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.
Re:Ohio would be better (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? I live in Ohio and I can tell you it isn't "staunch" for the Democrats.
Re:Paper trail not enough (Score:5, Informative)
Mirror (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~pnelson/ucdata
Re:Paper trail not enough (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why Berkeley? (Score:2, Informative)
Dumbasses are generally republicans.
Kerry Could still Win...sort of. (Score:3, Informative)
Bush hasn't really won until the electoral college vote is done, which I believe is in December. If Kerry won a court battle in Florida the electoral votes could still go the other way. It is up to the free will of the electoral represenatives. The point of this article is moot anyway, even if Kerry got 260,000 extra votes, it wouldn't matter, Bush won Florida by about 400,000.
Re:A legal question (Score:5, Informative)
So we have about a month for the electoral college to change its mind.
Not published. (Score:3, Informative)
Let the scientific method work this out. If a paper has merit, let it be analyzed by stastic professionals, and if it does have merit, any statistical journal would be happy to run a major news story that would give them publicitiy.
But too many of these wannabe statiticians are not publishing their results. They make unrelaistic assumptions, they use questionable approaches to making claims, they don't use enough variables (in the case of this report, they didn't even factor in Nader!) And when they find something they believe is significant, they bypass the scientific method completely, and rush straight to internet blogs or PRNewswire.
Again, let the scientific method take its course, and be very cautious of anything that doesn't.
Re:They're never going to give up, are they? (Score:3, Informative)
They are over it.
Re:A legal question (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why Berkeley? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A legal question (Score:3, Informative)
Concession has absolutely no legal implications. It just means you'll quit putting any resources into contesting the election. (i.e., you won't ask for recounts, you'll tell your supporters it's over and you fought a good fight, etc.). If you remember, Al Gore actually conceded and then took his concession back. :)
The election still is not final. Each state will certify its election results through its own legal process which may differ from state to state. I don't think that's complete in most (any?) states, yet. The popular vote counts are only final when that certification process happens, so if recounts started showing up for Kerry, the election could still change.
Even after that, the electoral college doesn't meet for awhile, and it's not over until they vote.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Informative)
See Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit [gatech.edu] for a good description of logical fallacies, including the one mentioned in the parent post.
Re:Utterly Believable (Score:3, Informative)
Neat trick, considering that no Florida county uses Diebold e-voting machines [wired.com].
Re:Paper trail not enough (Score:5, Informative)
You still need a paper trail. The ballots can be counted, doublechecked, you can use 2, or 3, or N groups of people with whatever affiliation. This is where vote security lies.
I live in New Hampshire. When I voted, my local voting place was using a Diebold optical scanner vote box. Just like any other paranoid slashbot, I don't trust Diebold. But I do trust optical scan ballots, because when the numbers become contested, real people can do a recount.
Re:A statistical analysis proves exactly what? (Score:3, Informative)
What it says is "Here's the differences between actual tallied votes and what various other models predict. Notice how the trends work one way in certain counties, and a very different way in certain other counties. Notice how these counties coincide very well with the counties that used e-voting. In fact, there's less than one chance in a thousand that it could have happened that way randomly."
So it shows that there's a marked increase in Bush support in e-voting counties. That doesn't prove that fraud is the cause, but if you wanted to disprove it, then you would be wise to come up with some other reason why those sets of counties happen to overlap so well. And you would be wise to note the factors that they already corrected for.
Re:Possible explanation -- the values voters (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA [berkeley.edu]:
Re:The REAL red flags in this debate (Score:3, Informative)
1) Everyone votes
2) Electoronic machines report numbers
3) Losing party sues to have paper trail recount
4) Paper trail recount confirms computer count
5) Repeat 3 and 4 a few times.
6) Repeat in every election these machines are used in.
Given that the votes are challeneged and recounted every time, there is no point to going electronic at all. Also for those who care, my county is ~70% Democrats and votes that way. Although I do know that Illinois has many problems with Dead voters voting more than once. And they aren't electronic and they are heavily Democrat.
This Land Is Red Land, Paid For by Blue Land ... (Score:4, Informative)
linkus jucius [fortune.com]
Re:Not published. (Score:2, Informative)
Journal-published articles take 6-18 months to be published. This article is only a working paper, and it should be treated as such, but it would be definitionally impossible for a academic-refereed article to be coming out within a relevant timeframe.
Re:And How About Mechanical Voting Machines? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Not published. (Score:4, Informative)
As one commenter has already pointed out, the process of review and publishing takes at least a year, but it's common practice --- in all fields --- to circulate working papers and drafts. They've made all of their data and methodology available, so that appropriate review and replication can be conducted.
Also, the paper's lead author is a full professor, not a student.
-schussat
Re:Paper trail not enough (Score:5, Informative)
1) Pen and paper doesn't take forever to count. In Canada, we can get federal election results approximately 3 hours after polls close, and they're all pencil and paper. Just because the US has a larger population doesn't mean it'll take longer, just hire more people to count and that's it.
2) If the losing candidate questions the vote, he and his opponent can both witness the recount. One can hardly question again after having witnessed the recount.
Correlation vs causality and 'loaded language' (Score:3, Informative)
"Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of the Hispanic/Latino population."
* The effect cannot be explained within the framework of their model.
They state that their analysis takes account of:
- number of voters
- median income
- Hispanic population
- change in voter turnout between 2000 and 2004
- support for President Bush in 2000 election
- support for Dole in 1996 election
The counties with evote are the three largest counties. One should be careful in weighting the significance of the variables and data points. These three counties significantly skew the chosen fit.The change in turnout, past Bush support, and Dole support are not really relevent when comparing different demographics (three most populus counties with others).
The Hispanic vote is basically 'in the noise' outside of these three counties and there was a major shift in Hispanic vote between the Dole-Bush contest and the Kerry-Bush contest.
A little research will show that the shift in Hispanic vote was very significant in the 2004 election. Here is one of many sources [imdiversity.com]. Google will find many more.
Re:Paper trail not enough (Score:2, Informative)
You get the advantage of a quick count from the optical scanning, plus you get the advantage that the actual paper ballot the voter filled out is stored in a secure steel box. If there is any question about the count you simply go back over the ballots.
No need for printing a paper trail, let the people create the paper trail.
Re:Two things (Score:1, Informative)
Don't just RTFA, but look at their DATA!
According to their data, on average, the counties that used paper ballots increased their votes for Bush by .02%. The counties that used the "e-touch" as they call it increased their votes for Bush by .01%
Where's the conspiracy?
Ohio numbers don't match (Score:5, Informative)
official Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website [cuyahogacounty.us]
Re:Two things (Score:4, Informative)
There's also this report and the report [ustogether.org] that shows a significant and consistent difference in voting patterns in counties using Diebold electronic scanning machines. That's three different sources confirming that something is wrong based on three different investigative measures. How different ways does someone have to show that the totals don't add up?
Re:Paper trail not enough (Score:2, Informative)
The only problem with machines is verifying they're accurate.
BTW, do you do your laundry with machines? If so, why? Why not just hire some servants to do all your household chores for you? If you don't do this, or don't do all your household chores by hand with no machines at all, then you're a hypocrite.
Re:Two things (Score:1, Informative)
Same in Australia (Score:3, Informative)
there is an official and accepted reason... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.s
Re:Paper trail not enough (Score:3, Informative)
Now, besides the presidential election there were whole slates of local and state candidates, a US Senator and Representative to choose, and close on a dozen referenda. There is simply no way to do an actual count that quickly with a ballot that large.
In principle, I agree with you. But for a state to change its system to manual counting, it would require it to completely change the way it conducts elections. It's not a change we can simply drop into place.
Reasons for exit poll discrepancies (Score:1, Informative)
The president of the exit polling company, Warren Mitofsky, explained on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on November 5, 2004, how the exit polling works and why it was imperfect.
The exit polls, in the words of Mitofsky, "interviewed almost 150,000 people nationwide on Election Day. We interviewed in every state but Oregon, since they don't have any people at the polling places, and we also interviewed a national sample of polling places."
You gonna allow a sampling of about 10% to determine the outcome of the entire election?
The full interview is available online (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec
I urge everybody to read the interview. Please mod this post up, so that people won't keep asking the same questions over and over.
Re:Vote Fraud Smoking Gun (Score:3, Informative)
Odd that all these 'wishfull germs' were reported by mainstream media and have not been dispuited by aanyone. For example:
In nine counties, electronic vote machines count Democrat votes as Libertarian. [indystar.com]
This relates to my earlier mention of a vote machine glitch tipping a local election. [pal-item.com]
As for those reports of extra votes [westchesterweekly.com], if this site can be believed, it might only be the tip of the iceburg [rise4news.net].
As for those pre-loaded votes being for Kerry instead of Bush, I could not find a news report that backs up your assertion, so I would welcome a reference if you have one. I will gladly admit I'm wrong on that detail if you do. Voter fraud should be a bi-partisan concern... we need to shine a spotlight on it regardless of which side is doing it.
And my original point is still valid. The reports coming out of Volusia county are the most damning evidence of voter fraud to come to light so far. This event was caught on video tape and witnessed by the police... so it is difficult to discount. It is certainly too early to shout that the election was definitely stolen, but this certainly raises serious concerns and undermines the confidence in the election for many. If the election was not stolen, then there is nothing to fear from an audit; it will simply restore confidence in the election process. How can that be bad thing?
Cheers,
Re:Vote Fraud Smoking Gun (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the statistical study done at Berkely takes that whole 'Dixiecrat' phenomenon into account. It uses past voting trends and compares them to the recent election. The big news is not that the votes don't match party registration, but that the big variations from past behavior occur only in the precincts using electronic voting machines.
Read this... (Score:2, Informative)
before deciding that machines are evil and paper trails are the answer. The article shows how the vote appears to have been manipulated only in the counties using paper ballots. This makes sense because election officials and workers are much more likely to be able to grok ballot box stuffing and other such low-tech techniques.