Saturday, June 10, 2006

Something Smells Fishy in San Diego!

Unless San Diego is a veritable “hot bed” of third party and independent candidate activism (something that I wasn’t aware of), I find it hard to understand how a full 35% of voters (6,914 out of 19,739 votes) in the Busby/Bilbray 50th Congressional District run-off election who did not vote in the primary (in the same election) would vote for Libertarian and Independent candidates.

This represents an increase in third party and independent vote of 1,143% in the Run-Off relative to these votes in the primary! From 605 (69 for Clark of the Peace and Freedom Party and 535 for King of the Libertarian Party) to 6,914. Clark was replaced by Griffith, an Independent candidate, in the Run-Off. This is more than an 11 fold increase. Where did this huge increase in “militant – I will vote third party or independent no matter what the consequences in terms of who actually gets elected” voters come from?

In contrast Busby, the Democratic candidate in the run-off received only 59% of these 19,739 voters who voted in the Run-Off but not in the primary.

The 6,914 third party and independent vote (5.35% of total votes cast) is more than the 6,128 (4.36% of total votes cast) vote margin by which Bilbray reported beat Busby in the Run-Off.

What's really strange about the huge increase in third party and independent votes in the Run-Off is that you'd expect this to go in the opposite direction in such a high profile contested election. Voting for a third party in the primary gives an opportunity to register a protest vote without being a "spoiler". Here its as though the newly appearing 6,914 third party voters in the Run-Off positively went out of their way to risk the defeat of Busby or Bilbray by voting in the Run-Off for an Independent or Libertarian, and not voting in the Primary where they could have registered their protest without the risk of contributing to the defeat of one of the major party candidates!

Especially after what happen in Florida in 2000 with the Green party vote, you'd think their would be a great deal of awareness about the possibly of being a "spoiler", and a corresponding effort to avoid contributing to such a possibility!

I thank Brad Freidman of "Bradblog" for asking me to review the San Diego data and Bradblog respondents Michael Daniels and “Calinpendence” for pointing me toward this comparison of the Primary and Run-Off San Diego election data.

Data source: San Diego Registrar of Voters website (as of from June 9, 2006 16:59:21 100% of precincts reporting):

http://www.sdvote.org/election/primary.xml

Detailed Calculations (Microsoft Excel Format):

SanDiegoElection.xls


31 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

what did the exit polls say?

3:18 PM  
Blogger Pliny said...

Aw crap, you caught us again. Yup, we sTole this election too. We steal all the elections you lose - BWHAHAHAHAHAHA

3:34 PM  
Blogger Ron said...

I haven't heard of any exit polls on this one. Since Mitofsky refused to back up the 2004 exit polls, media has little incentive to pay for them. In any case we need publicly funded transparent polls with all data released!

4:11 PM  
Blogger unlawflcombatnt said...

What's really surprising is your complete lack of knowledge on this subject, and that you actually posted something demonstrating this lack of knowledge.

Comparing Griffith with Clark of the Peace and Freedom Party, and with King of the Libertarian Party, is ludicrous.

Griffith ran on a strong anti-illegal immigration position, and received the support of the Minutemen. The reason he did so well is because people in the district wanted illegal immigration stopped, and felt very strongly on this issue. That's why he received so many votes. And the lack of an equivalent position by Clark and King is why they did not receive many votes.

What should be really disheartening to Democrats is that Busby would have trounced Bilbray, had she taken the position favored by her constituents, and not that of McCain, Bush, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and all their corporate supporters.

Busby lost because of her unpopular support of the Senate Immigration Amnesty Bill. District 50 didn't like her position, and the election results reflect that.

4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not from the 50th district, so I don't know what the hell is going on. On the SD registrar website, it shows the run-off results and primary results. Were the run-off and primary elections on the same ballot, as Ron says? I thought the primary was held last month, causing the need for a run-off. Were two primaries held, one last month and the recent one to determine who is on the ballot in November?


unlawflcombatnt,

If both elections were on the same ballot, why would 2201 people vote for the libertarian in the run-off, but only 536 voted for him in the primary?

Also, for such an anti-illegal immigrant district, Busby seemed to do quite well. If it weren't for that last minute gaffe she made (which seemed wildly overblown to me) she'd probably be even closer. Is 6,000 protest votes the best they can muster?

9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, look at number of votes cast by Independents and Libs in San Diego for Gov, Senate Race, and all House districts (49-53).

There were 2438 votes cast Ind in Sen race and 2340 votes cast Ind in Gov race.

There were 1727 votes cast Lib in Sen race and 1745 votes cast Lib in Gov race. Plus, for all House districts in San Diego county: 269+ 536 + 127 + 431 + 390 = 1753 (49th through 53rd district).

Where do the extra thousands of votes come from in the Ind race and several hundred extra in the LIB race?
W. GRIFFITH - IND
5318
3.78%

PAUL KING - LIB
2201
1.57%





For example, in the Senate Race:
DON J. GRUNDMANN - AIP (Independent)
2438
100.00%

MICHAEL S. METTI - LIB
1745
100.00%

Votes cast in the Governor's Race for the Independent candidate
EDWARD C. NOONAN - AIP Independent
2340
100.00%

Votes cast in the Governor's Race for the Libertarian candidate
ART OLIVIER - LIB
1727
100.00%

Votes cast LIB in 49 + 50 + 51 + 52 + 53 house districts = 269+ 536 + 127 + 431 + 390 = 1753

10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, I didn't download your Excel spreadsheet so maybe you *did* look at Gov and Senate races (I worry about Excel spreading viruses).

10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The difference is explained by the fact in California you have to be registered as a p&f, independent, etc. to vote in those primaries. In the runoff, however, you can vote for anyone regardless of your registration. Therefore, more people would vote in the runoff for those candidates that couldn't vote in the primary. Further, given large number of declined to state voters in the district and confusing primary voting in California and a primary and runoff being held on the same day, it is hardly a surprise that many voters may have opted for the nonpartisan ballot and not voted in the primary at all.

Griffith was sold as a viable conservative alternative (he was a Republican until like a year ago) to Bilbray, so much that Busby ran ads telling voters to vote Griffith. It's hardly a surprise he did so well and people voted for him and King that couldn't vote in the primaries for third parties.

The difference is easily explained with some basic knowledge of CA politics and the race.

11:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How are the primary elections enforced? Do they have separate polling stations, do you have to produce a party registration form? I'm not registered for any party, so I don't know how this stuff works.

Also, no one has said if there was a second primary, or if the registrar website is listing the one from last month.

And if those results are correct, does that mean that ~300 libertarians that turned out for the primary didn't show in last week's election? 819 -> 536 when all other turnouts increased.


-Anonymous#2

12:22 AM  
Blogger Ron said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:28 AM  
Blogger Ron said...

Excellent point, thanks anonymous!

I hadn't looked at Lib and Ind voting in the Gov, Senate, and other House Districts in San Diego.

I'll check this out - were Griffith type candidates running in these other races as well?

In any case, the Griffith story in the 50th doesn't explain the over four fold increase in voting for the Libertarian.

I don't buy the notion that a Libertarian would rather cast a potential "spoiler" vote in the Run-Off rather than request a Libertarian ballot, vote a "protest" Libertarian vote in the primary (that would record the strength of Libertarian sentiment in the District without risking a Busby victory), and than (if I was a Libertarian) vote for Bilbray in the Run-Off.

My understanding is that the two elections were held simultaneously - so we're talking about the same group of voters declining to vote in the Primary but casting potential spoiler votes in the Run-Off - how does this make sense?

The huge Griffith vote also looks fishy to me - for the same reason, given the normally very small third party vote. Why would so many of these folks be willing to potentially contribute to a Busby victory?

9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last night I sent a message (10:22 PM) about the Busby election results (comment #87). I want to add more information which suggests I (and others) are wrong about the totals for the LIB and IND candidates being weird between runoff and primary elections in the 50th House district. The last thing I want to do is undermine legitimate efforts showing problems with voting machines.

Looking at the 2004 primary and general elections suggests that a huge boost for LIB and IND in the general election compared to the primary isn't so strange.

In the 2004 general election, the LIB and IND candidates for the 50th dist House seat got a lot more votes than was the total for all LIB and IND candidates in the Primary.

This suggests the 2006 difference between the Primary and run-off is not so strange.

===========2004 primary results.==========
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/voters/Eng/archive/200403bull.pdf
50th dist House seat
a total of 1037 votes were cast for IND in the 50th district
a total of 804 votes were cast for LIB

======Comparing 2004 primary to 2004 general election=================
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/voters/Eng/archive/200411bull.pdf
2004 general election
50th dist House seat
a total of 4723 votes were cast for IND in the 50th district
a total of 3486 votes were cast for LIB

10:08 PM  
Blogger Ron said...

anonymous,

Thank you for sharing this! As it happened I also looked at this data over the weekend. I agree that the numbers themselves suggest that the increase in third party and independent vote is not problematic.

However, I think there are a number of problems with this comparison:

a) The 2004 general was not a hotly contested critical election. Rather it was an almost sure Cunningham win (58.5% as I recall) that made it a "safe" vote for a third party.

b) Most of this third party and independent vote was Left - Green and AIP, and not Right as in the 2006 race.

c) This was not a situation where you could vote in the primary (you've already come to the polls) as a Libertarian and vote in the special as well. Its hard for me to understand why a Libertarian (once already there) would choose to not vote in the primary and yet cast a vote in the special in this hotly contested race.

d) I have since also found out (see NYT article on the election) that Bilbray came out strongly against immigration. Why would over 5000 voters risk a real chance of a Busby victory to vote for Griffith when Bilbray was (more or less) championing their cause? I can understand a lesser number of really militant types with little sense of political strategy, but over 5,000 seems implausible.

Having said all this - I agree that what we're talking about is not "air tight" - it is possible that this was an accurate vote count - but given these questions, without a voter verified paper trail recount, we'll never know!

1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect that the Libertarian and independent (a right-wing independent supported by the "minutemen" anti-immigrant movement) vote increase is due to "republican defectors" unwilling to vote for Bilbray. HOWEVER, THIS IS STATISTICALLY A DUBIOUS THEORY, due to the fact that Bilbray received an estimated 100% of all republican voters (that voted in the primary election held at the same time).

In the 2004 general election, some people postulated that the unbelieveable "inflated" republican presidential vote was due to tabulator fraud, but noone was able to provide any concrete proof of tabulator fraud. The CA-50 special election is the first time that an actual instance of tabluator fraud "may" be not only present, but proveable (without the testimony of an insider).

I have presented a theory that the vote discrepancy may be due to tabulator fraud. And if the theory is valid, it can be easily proven or disproven by statistical analysis of the San Diego voting.

Here are two (2)crossposts from the Brad Blog:


COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
... Michael Daniels said on 6/9/2006 @ 4:36 pm PT...



Brad,

Something is rotten in San Diego.

Please see my analysis (comment #46 in your June 8th Blog). However, the numbers on the San Diego website are different (worse) than the reported numbers in the L.A. Times (I used to do my analysis).

There may be verifiable proof of fraud via statistical analysis. The vote totals for the "special election" do not equal the vote totals for the "primary election" for the 50th Congressional District. The discrepancy is over 17K. There are 500 precincts in this district (per the San Diego website). If we can obtain the vote totals for these 500 precincts for several races, we can do some interesting stat work. (Although the numbers appear to be a moving target, my original analysis is still worth investigating).

IF the vote totals for assembly races in the district are close to the "special election" vote totals, then there is probable cause to investigate possible vote fraud (17K phantom votes). The same test should be conducted on the two (2) propositions races and any local office that effects all 500 precincts (other than Judge races).

17K votes is too large a variance between the special and primary vote totals. I cannot accept that 17K people voted in the special election and not the primary election for the congressional seat.

IT IS "REMOTELY POSSIBLE" that there may be the visible "footprint" of a tablulator computer subroutine that goes somthing like this:

IF VOTE for CANDIDATE V17 in RACE V2 = 1 and VOTE for CANDIDATE A07 in RACE V1 = 0, then add +1 to total for CANDIDATE A07 in RACE V1.

This would result if applied statewide, in the "blessed by the vote god" party having a zero defector rate in RACE V1. Hard to detect on a statewide level (would be assumed to be caused by voter error (spoiled ballot or refusal to vote on a given race) rather than tabulator fraud), but with a potentially deadly effect on the "unblessed" party's chances of ever winning RACE V1.
**********************
Comment No. 46 (mentioned above was renumbered Comment No. 44 (see Below)

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
... Michael Daniels said on 6/9/2006 @ 10:28 am PT...



Total primary votes cast (per LA Times)

105,063

Total special election votes cast (per LA Times)

122,273

Variance = 17,210

Attempting to reconcile this variance, I accidently developed the following theory (which I will call Theory T.F.#50):

(a) 45,868 democratic primary voters attempted to vote for Busby in the special election.
(b) 61 Peace & Freedom primary voters attempted to vote for Busby in the special election.
(c) 11,329 republican primary voters (aka "republican defectors) attempted to vote for Busby in the special election.
(d) 1,671 of the Busby "attempted" voters cast invalid (or uncounted) ballots in the special election.
(e) 1,389 republican defectors attempted to vote for the libertarian candidate in the special election.
(f) 4,492 republican defectors attempted to vote for the independent candidate in the special election.
(g) 11,329 republican defectors attempted to vote for Busby in the special election.
(h) There were a total of 17,210 attempted republican defectors in the special election.
(i) All of the republican primary voters who voted for Bilbray successfully voted for Bilbray in the special election.
(j) 9,868 republican primary voters who did not vote for Bilbray successfully voted for Bilbray in the special election.
(k) For every republican primary voter who attempted to defect in the special election, a fraudulent vote was created and added to the Bilbray vote count in the special election.

Vote recap:

Bilbray:

32,117 primary voters who voted for Bilbray
9,868 primary voters who voted for another rep.
17,210 fradulent votes (created electronically)

60,319 total votes (credited) in the special election

Busby:

45,868 democratic primary voters
61 peace & freedom primary voters
11,329 republican primary voters
less 1,671 spoiled/invalid/not counted votes

55,587 total votes (credited) in the special election

Theory T.F.#50 can be proved or disproven by reviewing the district votes for the other races.

If the total number of votes in the other races (assembly, proposition, other local races) is close to the primary election vote total of 105.063 then the theory is worth considering as a reasonable explanation of the vote variance.

If the total number of votes in the other races (assembly, proposition(s), and other local races) is close to the special election vote total of 122,273 then the theory is totally false.
***************

ACTION ITEMS NEEDED:

(1)Obtain vote totals (less absentee ballots) for the 500 CA-50 Precincts for Assembly and the two (2) propositions.
(2) Compare vote totals for the other races to the vote totals for the special and primary congressional election.
(3) If the CA-50 precinct totals for the assembly races and the two (2) propositions is close to the primary congressional total, then Mr. O's razor says TABULATOR FRAUD!

Here is a chance to prove suspected vote fraud. All we need is someone with the time and resources to obtain the 500 precinct vote totals and analyze for the tabulator fraud theory.

(Please crosspost to democratic underground election topic - I don't have access to post there)

1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding this comment:
) This was not a situation where you could vote in the primary (you've already come to the polls) as a Libertarian and vote in the special as well. Its hard for me to understand why a Libertarian (once already there) would choose to not vote in the primary and yet cast a vote in the special in this hotly contested race.
----------------------

This is actually very easily explained. If there are other primary races in another party you feel more strongly about, you will choose to vote in that primary, rather the Libertarian primary.

You can only vote in the Libertarian primary if you're registered Libertarian. You're not allowed to change your registration at the poll.

There often aren't Libertarian candidates for many contested seats, and while someone may be inclined to vote LIB (or GREEN) for more local positions (even if it's a throw-away vote because you know that person doesn't stand a chance (as was the case in the 50th district), you're less likely, even in a primary, to throw away that vote with a major position, like Governor, Senator.

So, you register Decline to State, choose either the Dem or Repub ballot in the Primaries, and vote Libertarian in the general elections. I would vote Green (probably not LIB) in this way, but I'd never register as Green (just so I could vote in their primaries) because they don't have viable candidates for most of the major campaigns.

4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To add to my 4:45 pm comment (a few paragraphs mysteriously disappeared)

In CA, you can register Decline to State. For primary elections, these people can request a Dem, Rep, or Ind. "partisan" ballot at the polls. However, other parties require you to be a registered member of their party in order to vote in that party's primary - the Greens and Libertarians, for example, do not allow someone registered "Decline to State" to get a Green or LIB ballot at the poll.

Thus, if you register Green or LIB, you've locked yourself into being able to only vote that party's ballot in the primaries.

By registering Decline to State, you keep your options open and can still choose at the poll to vote in the IND, DEM, or REP primary. For strategic reasons, one might choose to vote up a weak REP primary candidate, with the aim of giving the DEM primary winner a better chance (by doing this, you sacrifice voting in the DEM primary. But in certain circumstances, it could pay off.)

Also, a lot of people simply find registering with a specific party a bit distasteful, esp. when this information is distributed to the campaigns (with laws saying the privacy of this information is supposed to be protected, but very often, these laws end up being broken because the campaigns are very careless with who they provide this information to.)

4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more comment: at least parts of San Diego used optiscan so there is a verified vote trail. I believe all of CA must have some kind of paper trail, but in some cases, it's touchscreen, with a paper printout, which people are not highly likely to check carefully, contest by contest, against what they actually entered.

Even with a totally verified paper trail, it's only useful if there's a recount that uses the paper trail - which costs the candidate requesting the recount money (and possibly, the good will of the voters). Laws differ by state, but unless the totals are quite close, there is no automatic recount and generally, if a recount comes out with the same result, the challenger ends up paying something for the recount.

In the case of Busby, a recount request would most likely turn voters against her - it would be seen as "sour grapes" or something like that. I'm sure the campaign is just focusing on winning the November election - which is really the contest which matters (Bilbray may get some kind of boost based on 5 months in office, but it also could be a bit dangerous: he's likely to vote exactly the way his base wants him to, so he won't alienate them, but the way he votes could result in turning out more non-Republicans in November who will vote for Busby).

5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding 1:44 pm comment:
"17K votes is too large a variance between the special and primary vote totals. I cannot accept that 17K people voted in the special election and not the primary election for the congressional seat."

This simply isn't true if you understand that only registered LIBERTARIANS can vote in the primary, but anyone can vote Libertarian in the run-off election. Many people may not want to be registered Libertarians, yet would vote Libertarian in a general election.

See my 4:45 pm and 4:53 pm comments for further information.

I'm as concerned as anyone about election fraud, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the discrepancy in votes between the Primary and Special election.

5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding 1707 Comment:

Good strawman attempt...However,

My 17,210 variance (Results reported in L.A. Times...Offical numbers have changed, but logic of my analysis is still valid) is the variance between total (congressional) primary votes cast and total (congressional) special election votes cast (LIBERTARIAN VOTES ARE A SMALL "SUB-SET OF THIS POPULATION)". There may be a small number of special election voters that did not vote in the primary election, but NOT 17,210+.

The T.F.#50 THEORY I am proposing needs to be verified by comparing the vote totals for the assembly candidates and the two (2) propositions to the (congressional) primary & special election vote totals. IF the vote totals are close to the primary election vote totals, then my theory is a reasonable explanation for the vote count discrepancy. If the vote totals are close to the special election vote totals, then my theory is disproven.

Further proof/"disproof" can be obtained by comparing the poll books (for each precinct) to the vote totals (for each precinct).

"Strawman" arguements do not invalidate my theory.

V/r

M.A. Daniels

5:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There were 137,529 votes cast in the April 11, 2006 50th district Special election
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/voters/Eng/archive/200604bull.pdf

In the June 6, 2006 run-off election, 140,625 votes were cast (see http://www.sdvote.org/election/congress.xml; count isn't complete; San Diego county says: Last updated on: 06-09-06 at: 16:59:21; There are approximately 35455 Absentee / Provisional ballots still to be counted).

In the June 6, 2006 Primary, a total of 120,886 votes were cast.

I don't see it as odd that more votes were cast in the April 2006 primary, since this was such a high-profile election (and voters only had one campaign to figure out who to vote for).

Busby's totals:
April 2006: 60010
June 6 Primary: 46585
June 6 Runoff: 63489

Obviously, a lot of "Decline to state" people who requested a Dem ballot in the April 2006 election didn't bother to request one in the June 6 Primary (and thus, couldn't vote for Busby - it was pretty clear Busby was going to win, so why make the effort for the primary if you don't care about other primary contests on the Dem ballot), but still voted for Busby in the Runoff.

Do you see the June 2006 primary results as suspicious??

========================
I don't think what I said could be characterized as "strawman" (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html for details on what constitutes "strawman")

6:52 PM  
Blogger Ron said...

Anonymous and Michael,

a) I find the notion that a large number of Libertarians will vote in the Special but not in the Primary to be really odd. The Special is where you may end up being a spoiler whereas in the primary you can show your true colors with no real risk. Now some may be so concerned about confidentiality that they don't request a Libertarian ballot but this has got to be a small minority of them not 3/4th's of them! In other Primaries, if there is only one Libertarian candidate, many may not take the trouble to go to the polls to vote, but here you're at the polls already. The Libertarians that I know are very outspoken and proud of it and not at all trying to hide it.

b) I also agree that it seems strange that so many voters in the Special (for all of a 5 month term) don't seem to care about the Primary for the next General - again the issue here is that you've already made the trip to the polls - so why not "maximize" your influence. But I have no measure to determine what's "reasonable" for this group. I'm not sure that all but a "small number" of Special voters should be voting in the Primary. There may be a significant share of “principled Independents” who want to chose between candidates and not be registered in any party.

c) This is why I've been focusing on the Griffith and Libertarian issues. It seems really irrational to me for thousands of anti-immigrant voters to potentially swing the election to Busby when Bilbray was essentially supporting their cause. So this 5k sticks out to me. I can understand independents who may not care to register for a party or vote in a primary (who’s winner is pretty much a forgone conclusion) - but where did all of these really nutty - I'm going to shoot my self in the foot - Griffith voters come from?
Everyone knew that this election would be very close - these people were taking a huge risk - and not even for a party - but for a protest vote with no real effect on anything! It just doesn't add up. I can understand some nuts - but not 5k appearing out of nowhere in one Congressional CD!

10:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Baiman:

Apparently subtlety is not my strongest point.

I have an undergraduate level understanding of the concept of statistics. However, I do not have a Masters or Ph.D. Degree. Therefore, I have no professional credibility in the field of statistics.

Despite my limited talents in this area, I was able to quickly analize the L.A. Times reported election results for CA-50. I came up with a set of very precise numbers (numbers too precise and too quickly for my comfort)to explain the 17,200 vote discrepancy between the primary and special election vote totals.

I lack the resources and time to perform the detailed analysis requred to verify my theory. I would like my theory to be forwarded to the "academic" types with the time and resources to review (and prove or disprove) my theory. I have no academic contacts to approach. I know that there is a hard core group on the democratic underground website. Could you please forward my 1:44pm comments on your blog to the appropriate individuals on democratic underground OR forward my comments to an academic group that is currently researching the vote fraud issue.

I believe that CA-50 is a potential "goldmine" for vote fraud research (or a "dry hole"). This is the first time when there exists a 100% same day exit poll (Primary Congressional Election CA-50) for a congressional election (Special Election CA-50). In my prior posts, I neglected to include the governor race. The race results for CA-50 precincts may provide additional proof for my theory. I am aware that most people looking at this election are looking at voting machine manipulation vice tabulator manipulation. Personally, I am inclined to lean towards tabulator manipulation (requires fewer insiders and is harder to detect).

Very respectfully,

Michael Daniels

1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Baiman:

Apparently subtlety is not my strongest point.

I have an undergraduate level understanding of the concept of statistics. However, I do not have a Masters or Ph.D. Degree. Therefore, I have no professional credibility in the field of statistics.

Despite my limited talents in this area, I was able to quickly analize the L.A. Times reported election results for CA-50. I came up with a set of very precise numbers (numbers too precise and too quickly for my comfort)to explain the 17,200 vote discrepancy between the primary and special election vote totals.

I lack the resources and time to perform the detailed analysis requred to verify my theory. I would like my theory to be forwarded to the "academic" types with the time and resources to review (and prove or disprove) my theory. I have no academic contacts to approach. I know that there is a hard core group on the democratic underground website. Could you please forward my 1:44pm comments on your blog to the appropriate individuals on democratic underground OR forward my comments to an academic group that is currently researching the vote fraud issue.

I believe that CA-50 is a potential "goldmine" for vote fraud research (or a "dry hole"). This is the first time when there exists a 100% same day exit poll (Primary Congressional Election CA-50) for a congressional election (Special Election CA-50). In my prior posts, I neglected to include the governor race. The race results for CA-50 precincts may provide additional proof for my theory. I am aware that most people looking at this election are looking at voting machine manipulation vice tabulator manipulation. Personally, I am inclined to lean towards tabulator manipulation (requires fewer insiders and is harder to detect).

Very respectfully,

Michael Daniels

1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: 1:33 pm reply.
As I've said before, the same thing happened in 2004 primary (much smaller number of LIB votes relative to general) and general election. You seemed to think that was somehow different than 2006. I don't really agree with you on that.

Understand that in CA, a LIB must be registered LIB to vote in the primaries, and by doing so, cannot vote in another party's primary. For small parties this is a problem, because they often don't even have a candidate (and most of their candidates aren't competitive, except at the local level).

You might support some LIB candidates, but still feel strongly about a non-LIB governor, or secretary of state, or whoever. You're very likely in this case to want to vote a major party's primary ballot, because you know that as long as at least one LIB candidate is running in the primary, some LIB will end up on the general election ballot (and very often, there's only one LIB candidate in the primary, so what's the point of voting for that person? S/he's going to win regardless!)

Well, best to you; I've done what I can to explain the CA system. More important is why San Diego allowed voting machines to go home with poll workers for a week or more before the elction.

4:58 PM  
Blogger Ron said...

anonymous,

I appreciate your views on this (the Libertarian issue) and make no claim of absolute certainty for mine.

However, it seems to me that anyone who voted Libertarian in 2006 is someone who really doesn't care which of the major party candidates wins - as how else to justify not weighing in when every vote was so critical.

In this situation, its hard for me to imagine that a large number of these Libertarians (who voted in the Run Off) would care about Democratic or Republican primaries!
(where the winners were forgone conclusions! To the contrary , it seems to me that most of these would be just the kind of really militant Libertarians who would vote in the Libertarian primary as well!

Best to you too!

9:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just discovered the website who discuss about
Several
home business reviews

If you want to know more here it is
home based business reviews
www.home-businessreviews.com

2:49 AM  
Anonymous Free movie downloads said...

Superb blog post! I subscribed to your Feed for foreseeable future posts. I of course did a blast out to my visitors letting them know to come over to see your website. These people are captivated about the subject matter. It’s nice to recognize there are additional fantastic sites on the subject.

7:42 AM  
Anonymous Surveys for Money said...

Your post made me contemplate how important this in fact is. I got some very nice things from this.

11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep up the nice writing. Your internet site is really great plus a terrific useful resource.
bad credit repair

5:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love San Diego and the way you outlined this. Many people or blog pages that I have seen appear to leave out vital information but you hit on all the great specifics. Congratulations are in order!
cna training

12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A comprehensive good physical condition program tailored to an individual will unquestionably focus on anecdote or more specific skills, and on age-[3] or health-related needs such as bone health.[4] Tons sources[citation needed] also cite disposition, sexual and heartfelt fettle as an important purposes of whole fitness. This is often presented in textbooks as a triangle made up of three points, which impersonate physical, sentimental, and loony fitness. Bones well-being can also forestall or treat numerous long-lived fitness conditions brought on past ailing lifestyle or aging.[5] Working out can also serve people snore better. To visit robust it is consequential to combat in navy surgeon activity.
Training

Certain or task-oriented [url=http://www.pella.pl]fitness[/url] is a living soul's ability to complete in a specific venture with a tolerable expertise: for case, sports or military service. Certain training prepares athletes to put on fully in their sports.

Examples are:

400 m sprint: in a sprint the athlete requirement be trained to line anaerobically throughout the race.
Marathon: in this case the athlete requirement be trained to production aerobically and their persistence ought to be built-up to a maximum.
Divers run a risk fighters and patrol officers subject oneself to typical good physical condition testing to end if they are qualified of the physically demanding tasks required of the job.
Members of the Partnership States Army and Army National Look after have to be able to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).

4:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home