:: 11.10.2004 ::
To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe:
The above was a quote from a poster named 'TruthIsAll' on the DemocraticUnderground.com forums, found on the truthout site.
- That the exit polls were wrong;
- That Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll);
- That Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll);
- That incumbent rule #1 - undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong;
- That the 50% rule - an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling - was wrong;
- That the approval rating rule - an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election - was wrong;
- That it was just a coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail;
- That the surge in new young voters had no positive effect for Kerry;
- That Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000;
- That voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were not tampered with in this election.
My inital reaction to hearing that yes, there was election fraud, particularly in key states like FL and OH, was "well, Bush won by enough votes that it probably doesn't matte." But I checked last week's reported election results against this page and came up with this:
Bush won FL by less than 400,000 votes. The expected tally for counties using optical scan machines ((% registered Republicans)*(total votes counted) vs. (% registered Democrats)*(total votes counted)) was 1,337,242 to 1,432,425; the final tally was 1,950,213 to 1,445,675. So while Bush was expected to lose in those counties by 95,183, he instead won by a landslide of 504,538 votes.
This was of course more than enough to offset the results in counties that used e-voting machines (which received a lot more attention than optical-scan), which returned a Kerry win with the expected margin of about 100,000 votes.
Doesn't that seem just a little bit fishy? And doesn't it show that proving election fraud could actually make a difference?
:: Deb 3:10 PM :: permalink ::
 comments ::
Links to this post: