TruthIsAll
03-03-2009, 07:25 AM
Andrea Novick is the founder and legal counsel for the Re-Media Election Transparency Coalition. She will be testifying to the New York City Board of Elections this week in regard to her findings concerning the use of mechanized lever voting systems.
This has just been guest blogged on BradBlog:
The EAC Lied, Lever Voting Machines (Almost) Died
The Discredited Position of the Discredited Election Assistance Commission Helps Keep New York on a Collision Course with Democracy
But it's not too late to save the last transparent electoral system in the United States...
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6956
In the very first paragraph, she writes: "New York is the last state in the nation to have a non-computerized, transparent voting system. We still use immutable, theft-deterring mechanical lever machines to count our votes".
===
Let's set the record straight. That is a patently false statement. Whatever one might think about lever machines, they are NOT transparent. There is NO paper ballot record.
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/NewYorkLeverFraud.htm
As a former New Yorker who voted on the levers, I am also opposed to the installation of machines in which the votes can be rigged and the count not verified. Unfortunately, lever vote counts have not been verified for one hundred years before HAVA.
In Florida 2000, there were 185,000 spoiled underpunched, overpunched and butterfly punched card ballots. Had they all been counted, Gore would have been President the last eight years. But SCOTUS made sure they weren’t counted. Bush needed Florida to steal the election.
Bush did not have a prayer of winning New York. Gore won the state by 1.7 million votes (60.2-35.2%) with 4.6% going to third parties. He also won nationally by 540,000 votes. Only some are aware that according to the US Census, 5.4 million votes were uncounted. It is estimated that Gore won 4 million of them and his true margin was close to 3 million. No one was concerned that Gore may have also lost votes in New York. It was never an issue. After all, it didn’t matter how much he won by. But it mattered to those who were already planning for Bush’s re-selection in 2004. There could not be a repeat of 2000.
Bush required 270 electoral votes which he would get hook or crook; but he also needed a convincing popular vote margin. Rove knew that Bush would not win a fair election. HAVA was passed. The touch screens and central tabulators could switch the votes in the battleground states. New York kept its levers. To pad the popular vote, it made eminent sense to cut the Democratic margin in states like NY and CA - especially in large urban and suburban locations. Even though Florida and Ohio were key battleground states, New York was a fertile state for vote padding. It was important only to those who needed to pad the Bush vote. Kerry was going to win it big.
So it was hardly noticed that Kerry won NY by 1.4 million votes (300k less than Gore) with a 58.5-40.2% margin, despite a massive Democratic GOTV, 48% national Bush approval (under 40% in NY) and 70% of 100,000 third-party voters.
The media never discussed the fact that the unadjusted NY exit poll (before it was matched to the recorded vote) had Kerry winning NY with 64% despite the fact that third-party voters defected to Kerry.
They also didn't mention that the 12:22am National Exit Poll (before it was matched to the recorded vote) indicated that 8% of Gore voters and 10% of Bush voters defected.
And that New York and Connecticut, both 100% lever, also had the largest exit poll (WPE) discrepancies.
They ignored the fact that in the last three elections the Democratic NY late vote share (500k) was 7% higher than the Election Day share.
In 2008, Obama won the official NY vote by a 26.7% margin, compared to Gore’s 25.0% and Kerry's 18.5% We will have to wait to see the unadjusted exit polls. If the 2000 and 2004 trend continued in 2008, Obama had 68%, slightly below his 71% share of the 583,000 late votes (absentee and provisional paper ballots).
New Yorkers who want to keep the levers believe the exit polls had to be wrong and that the recorded vote was the True Vote. After all, they say, levers can't be hacked. Apparently, they also believe there was no incentive for Bush to pad the vote.
Maybe the levers can't be hacked electronically but gears can be shaved, faulty machines or too few good machines can be placed in minority precincts, and there's no way to verify the vote count. In other words, were it not for corrupt individuals, levers might be trustworthy.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter why, how or if the NY vote count can be rigged. The evidence surely suggests they have been. What does matter is that the vote count cannot be verified. For this reason alone, levers should be put to pasture – just like the touch screens. Regardless of the voting system used, the counts must be verifiable.
Why would BushCo steal votes in NY? Kerry won the recorded vote by a whopping 18%. The simple answer: to pad his popular vote “mandate”. This analysis shows that Kerry did much better in NY than the recorded vote indicates.
Naysayers cherry-picked the final NY pre-election poll in an attempt to promote the myth that the pre-election polls were correct and the exit poll was way off. But were they registered (RV) or likely-voter (LV) polls? If they were LVs, they would not have included new voters who came out in droves. In essence, NY lever proponents base their entire case on the final pre-election LV polls that did not include new or undecided voters, both of whom went 3-1 for Kerry. Yet they reject the unadjusted (11% WPE) exit poll in which all voters (including new and late undecideds) were asked who they just voted for.
But there is no evidence to prove that the votes were counted accurately, while there is historical evidence that Lever machines have been rigged (in Florida). They fail to consider that late votes (absentee and provisional PAPER ballots) counted after Election Day skewed sharply to Gore, Kerry and Obama.
How does one explain the 2000-2008 New York late vote anomalies? In total, there were 1.56 million late votes compared to 20.1 million Election Day, a 7.8% increase. The average Democratic late vote share was 67%; the Election Day share was 60.0%.
In 2004, Al Franken ridiculed election fraud researchers who fought for transparent elections. He had to run for office to see how wrong he was.
Dan Rather's votimg fraud expose was a clear example of how mechanical voting machines can be rigged. In Florida 2000, poor-quality paper used in punch card machines was a major cause of election fraud in heavily Democratic precincts. The report illustrated a method used to hack mechanical voting machines (punch card or lever). There are fundamental flaws in their argument.
1- They failed to consider the NY 2000 vote: Gore 60.2-Bush 35.2-Nader 3.6. Their argument implies that the 2004 recorded vote was fraud-free and that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush - clearly an impossible scenario.
In fact, according to the 12:22am NEP, Kerry won Nader voters by 71-21% and 10% of Bush voters defected to Kerry while just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. Adjusting the NEP weights based on the NY 2000 recorded vote and assuming 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry won by 63.6-35.1%.
2- They ignored the theoretical margin of error. It’s well known that exit polls are more accurate than pre-election polls. There was a 5.1% discrepancy between Kerry's NY pre-election (59%) and exit poll (64.1%). Since the MoE is 4% for a typical 600-sample pre-election state poll, there was a 95% probability that Kerry's True vote was in the 55-63% range. The NY exit poll 3.2% MoE (30% cluster effect) implies that there was a 95% chance that Kerry's True vote was in the 60.8-67.2% range which would fall within the MoE of both the NY pre-election and exit poll. On the other hand, the weighted average of 51 state pre-election polls (adjusted for undecided voters) matched the National Exit Poll to within 1%.
3- They failed to consider that Kerry’s vote share was 10% higher in NY than nationally. The Election Calculator, which accounts for voter mortality, turnout and uncounted votes, determined that Kerry won by 64.0-34.5%. The assumptions were as follows: Gore and Kerry won 75% of the uncounted votes (5% of total cast); Kerry won 94% of Gore voters, 12% of Bush voters, 61% of new (DNV2k) voters and 68% of returning Nader/other voters. A sensitivity analysis shows that if Kerry won 90-98% of returning Gore voters and 57-65% of DNV2k, his NY vote share ranged from 61.3 to 66.7%.
4- They implied there was zero fraud in claiming that the recorded vote was the true vote. An analysis of the effects of uncounted and switched votes indicates that Kerry won by 63-36%. If 2% of total votes cast were uncounted (75% to Kerry), then 7% of Kerry votes were switched to Bush. The uncounted vote assumption is lower than the 2.74% national average (NY uses lever voting machines).
The New York anomalies:
1. Kerry won three exit poll measures by an average 64.1%.
His recorded share was 58.5%.
2. Mechanical voting machine precincts had the highest average WPE (10.6%).
New York votes 99% by Lever.
3. According to the National Exit Poll, Kerry won 57% of new voters; 91% of Gore; 64% of Nader; 10% of Bush.
4. Kerry’s NY vote share was 10% higher than his national share. Therefore, his NY shares must have exceeded the national shares (note 3).
5. Kerry won 66% of the final 500k votes but only 58% of the initial 6.8m; Gore won 74% of the final 500k and 60% of the initial 6.3m.
6. Kerry won approximately 75% of the uncounted votes (included in the exit poll but not the official count).
7. Kerry had his highest NY shares in the four counties that had the highest rates of voting incidents.
8. Bush gained a total of 573k votes in NY (25.8%) from 2000; Kerry gained just 246k (6.6%); Nader lost 196k.
9. Kerry won returning Nader voters by a 47% margin over Bush; he won new voters by16%.
Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry at a 2% higher rate than Gore voters to Bush.
If we conservatively assume that Kerry’s NY share of new and former Gore voters was just 1% higher than his National share, then Bush needed 100% of former Bush voters to match the official count! The net defection rate would have had to flip from Kerry (+2%) to Bush (+7%). So how did Bush improve his NY vote share by over 5%? Do you believe in magic?
10. Bush made big gains in heavily Democratic urban/suburban strongholds yet did not do well in his strongholds: small towns and rural areas (the “Urban Legend”). Seven strong Democratic NYC area counties comprised 50% of the total recorded vote; Kerry had 66% in the seven counties, but Bush gained 311k (41.3%) from 2000; Kerry improved by just 129k (5.4%) over Gore; Nader lost 89k. In other counties, Bush had 48% and gained 262k votes (7.6%) while Kerry gained 118k (3.4%). The implausible change in Bush and Kerry vote shares in the largest 15 New York Counties from 2000 to 2004 tells the story.
11. Since Kerry won 64% (57k) and Bush 17% (15k) of returning Nader voters, Kerry would have a 72/27% margin in the seven counties assuming an equal defection of Bush and Gore voters. But according to the National Exit Poll, 10% of Bush voters defected and 8% of Gore voters defected. Assuming a net 2% defection to Kerry, he would have had a 73/26% margin in the seven counties. So how could the Bush vote share increase by 6.4% (26.5 to 32.9%) and the Kerry share decline by 3.6% (69.6 to 66.0%)? That’s a 10% increase in Bush margin!
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TIACountyVoteDatabase_24111_image001.png
NY 2008
Obama McCain Other Total
4.769 2.742 0.082 7.593
62.8% 36.1% 1.1% 100%
Obama won 71% of the 584,000 late votes but only 62% of the initial 7.0 million.
NY 2004
Kerry Bush Other Total
4.314 2.963 0.114 7.391
58.5% 40.2% 1.3% 100%
Kerry won 64.3% of the 499,000 late votes but only 57.9% of the initial 6.89million.
Kerry also won the unadjusted exit poll with 64%.
NY 2000
Gore Bush Nader Other Total
4.108 2.403 0.244 0.67 6.822
60.2% 35.2% 3.6% 1.0% 100%
Gore won 65.4% of the 552,000 late votes but only 59.8% of the initial 6.3 million.
NY 2004 Pre-election and Exit Polls
New York Kerry Bush Nader
Recorded vote 58.5% 40.2% 1.3%
Final pre-election poll 57 39 1
Projection 59 40 1
Edison-Mitofsky Exit Poll Measures
WPE (11.4) 64.1% 34.4% 1.5%
Best Estimate 65.1 33.8 1.1
Composite 63.1 35.5 1.4
Average Voting Machine WPE for all Exit Poll Precincts
Mechanical (Lever) voting machine precincts had the highest mean Within Precinct Error (10.6%).
Paper ballot precincts had the smallest mean WPE (2.2%)
New York votes 99% by Lever.
WPE WPE Number of
Voting Method mean median Precincts
Paper Ballot 2.2 0.9 40
Mechanical 10.6 10.3 118
Touch Screen 7.1 7 360
Punch Cards 6.6 7.3 158
Optical Scan 6.1 5.5 573
NY True Vote
Assumptions:
95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004
1.22% annual voter mortality
No uncounted votes
Kerry NY vote shares exceed corresponding National Exit Poll
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other NEP
DNV 1.236 16.7% 61% 37% 2% 57-41%
Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 94% 5% 1% 91-8%
Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 12% 88% 0% 10-90%
Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 68% 13% 19% 64-17%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 63.45% 35.07% 1.48%
7.376 4.680 2.587 0.109
NY 2004 Election Calculator
Plausible Scenario Assumptions:
95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004
1.22% annual voter mortality
No uncounted votes
Scenario 1:
(12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares)
1.22% annual voter mortality
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 0% 1.236 16.7% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 10% 90% 0%
Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 64% 17% 19%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 60.54% 37.98% 1.48%
7.376 4.465 2.801 0.109
Scenario 2:
(Kerry vote shares increased for NY)
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 1.236 16.7% 61% 37% 2%
Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 94% 5% 1%
Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 12% 88% 0%
Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 68% 13% 19%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 63.45% 35.07% 1.48%
7.376 4.680 2.587 0.109
Scenario 3 (most likely):
Uncounted votes: 5%
Gore and Kerry share of uncounted votes: 75%
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV - 1.30 16.8% 61% 37% 2%
Gore 95% 3.96 51.0% 94% 5% 1%
Bush 95% 2.23 28.8% 12% 88% 0%
Other 95% 0.27 3.4% 68% 13% 19%
Total 6.46 7.76 100% 64.0% 34.5% 1.5%
7.76 4.97 2.68 0.12
Sensitivity Analysis
Kerry Kerry share of New voters
%Gore 57.0% 59.0% 61.0% 63.0% 65.0%
Voters
Kerry NY Vote Share
98% 65.4% 65.7% 66.0% 66.4% 66.7%
96% 64.3% 64.7% 65.0% 65.3% 65.7%
94% 63.3% 63.7% 64.0% 64.3% 64.7%
92% 62.3% 62.6% 63.0% 63.3% 63.6%
90% 61.3% 61.6% 61.9% 62.3% 62.6%
Kerry Margin
98% 2.50 2.55 2.61 2.66 2.71
96% 2.34 2.39 2.45 2.50 2.55
94% 2.18 2.24 2.29 2.34 2.39
92% 2.03 2.08 2.13 2.18 2.23
90% 1.87 1.92 1.97 2.02 2.08
Gore Gore Voter Turnout in 2004
share 93.0% 94.0% 95.0% 96.0% 97.0%
Unctd
Votes Kerry NY Vote Share
85% 64.0% 64.2% 64.3% 64.5% 64.7%
80% 63.8% 64.0% 64.2% 64.3% 64.5%
75% 63.6% 63.8% 64.0% 64.2% 64.3%
70% 63.5% 63.6% 63.8% 64.0% 64.2%
65% 63.3% 63.5% 63.6% 63.8% 64.0%
Kerry Margin
85% 2.29 2.32 2.34 2.37 2.40
80% 2.26 2.29 2.32 2.34 2.37
75% 2.23 2.26 2.29 2.32 2.34
70% 2.20 2.23 2.26 2.29 2.32
65% 2.18 2.20 2.23 2.26 2.29
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Implausible Scenarios
(vote shares adjusted to match to recorded vote)
Scenario 1:
Bush wins 100% of Nader 2000 voters
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 1.236 16.7% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 10% 90% 0%
Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 0% 100% 0%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 58.37% 40.79% 0.84%
7.376 4.305 3.009 0.062
Scenario 2:
Bush wins 100% of Bush 2000 voters
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 1.236 16.7% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 0% 100% 0%
Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 64% 17% 19%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 57.60% 40.92% 1.48%
7.376 4.248 3.018 0.109
Scenario 3:
Bush wins 54% of New 2004 voters (DNV)
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 1.24 16.7% 44% 54% 2%
Gore 95% 3.72 50.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 95% 2.17 29.4% 10% 90% 0%
Nader 95% 0.25 3.4% 64% 17% 19%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 58.36% 40.15% 1.48%
7.376 4.305 2.962 0.109
________________________________________________________________________
New York County Vote Changes
(93.4% of final recorded total)
Vote Change Kerry Bush
Total NYS 246k 6.6% 573k 25.8%
Top 7 Counties 129k 5.4% 311k 41.3%
Final Recorded Vote
Total Dem Nader Bush Dem Nader Bush
2004 7,377 4,314 99 2,963 58.48% 1.35% 40.17%
2000 6,762 4,112 244 2,405 60.82% 3.61% 35.57%
Change 614 201 -144 557 4.9% -59.1% 23.2%
Preliminary Recorded vote
2004 6,892 3,993 103 2,795 57.94% 1.50% 40.56%
2000 6,269 3,746 300 2,222 59.76% 4.79% 35.45%
Change 622 246 -197 573 6.6% -65.5% 25.8%
Change from Preliminary to Final
2004 485 320 -3 167 66.1% -0.75% 34.6%
2000 493 366 -56 183 74.2% -11.4% 37.1%
Seven NYC Area Counties
2000 2004 Vote Change Percent Change
County Precincts Total GORE BUSH NADER Total KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH
Total 7779 3093 69.6% 26.5% 4.1% 3442 66.0% 32.9% 1.1% 129 311 -89 5.4% 41.3%
Brooklyn 1888 557 80% 16% 4% 630 74% 25% 0.8% 23.3 67.2 -17.1 5% 75%
Suffolk 1006 536 53% 42% 5% 618 49% 49% 2.1% 18.0 77.7 -13.7 6% 35%
Nassau 1070 554 58% 39% 4% 597 52% 47% 1.0% -6.7 64.5 -14.7 -2% 30%
Manhattan 1100 522 79% 15% 6% 572 82% 17% 1.4% 59.1 16.4 -25.1 14% 21%
Queens 1470 512 74% 23% 3% 559 71% 28% 0.8% 18.3 41.3 -11.9 5% 36%
Bronx 912 279 86% 12% 2% 318 83% 17% 0.6% 22.8 19.7 -3.9 10% 59%
Staten Island 333 133 52% 45% 3% 148 42% 57% 0.8% -6.2 24.3 -2.9 -9% 40%
Total New York Counties
2000 2004 Vote Change Percent Change
County Precincts Total GORE BUSH NADER Total KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH
Total 15553 6270 59.8% 35.4% 4.8% 6892 57.9% 40.6% 1.5% 247 573 -197 6.6% 25.8%
Brooklyn 1888 557 80% 16% 4% 630 74% 25% 0.8% 23.3 67.2 -17.1 5% 75%
Suffolk 1006 536 53% 42% 5% 618 49% 49% 2.1% 18.0 77.7 -13.7 6% 35%
Nassau 1070 554 58% 39% 4% 597 52% 47% 1.0% -6.7 64.5 -14.7 -2% 30%
Manhattan 1100 522 79% 15% 6% 572 82% 17% 1.4% 59.1 16.4 -25.1 14% 21%
Queens 1470 512 74% 23% 3% 559 71% 28% 0.8% 18.3 41.3 -11.9 5% 36%
Erie 1007 384 57% 37% 6% 411 56% 42% 2.2% 13.3 27.7 -13.5 6% 19%
Westchester 948 306 58% 37% 4% 377 58% 41% 1.5% 39.5 38.9 -7.3 22% 34%
Monroe 792 300 51% 44% 5% 330 50% 48% 1.6% 13.9 26.3 -10.2 9% 20%
Bronx 912 279 86% 12% 2% 318 83% 17% 0.6% 22.8 19.7 -3.9 10% 59%
Onondaga 485 190 54% 41% 5% 199 54% 44% 1.8% 5.4 10.1 -6.5 5% 13%
Staten Island 333 133 52% 45% 3% 148 42% 57% 0.8% -6.2 24.3 -2.9 -9% 40%
Albany 327 130 60% 34% 6% 136 60% 38% 1.9% 3.8 6.9 -5.6 5% 16%
Orange 284 118 46% 50% 5% 135 44% 55% 1.3% 5.1 16.0 -3.7 9% 27%
Rockland 250 117 56% 40% 4% 122 49% 50% 1.5% -6.0 13.7 -2.7 -9% 29%
Dutchess 239 105 47% 47% 6% 114 47% 52% 1.6% 4.0 9.7 -4.7 8% 20%
Saratoga 168 89 45% 50% 5% 100 45% 53% 1.8% 4.7 8.3 -2.3 12% 19%
Niagara 180 87 52% 43% 5% 90 49% 49% 1.9% -1.2 5.9 -2.7 -3% 16%
Oneida 209 87 45% 49% 5% 89 42% 55% 2.3% -1.7 6.5 -2.6 -4% 15%
Broome 193 81 52% 43% 6% 84 50% 48% 2.0% 0.0 5.7 -3.0 0% 16%
Ulster 161 72 48% 44% 8% 84 54% 43% 2.3% 10.6 4.8 -4.1 30% 15%
Rensselaer 136 64 51% 43% 6% 67 49% 48% 2.2% 0.5 4.8 -2.4 2% 17%
Schenectady 131 63 53% 42% 5% 65 52% 47% 1.8% 0.0 4.0 -2.1 0% 15%
Chataqua 135 55 46% 49% 5% 57 45% 53% 1.9% 0.0 3.0 -1.4 0% 11%
Oswego 107 45 47% 48% 5% 49 47% 51% 2.0% 1.8 2.9 -1.3 9% 13%
Ontario 88 42 44% 51% 5% 47 42% 56% 1.6% 1.1 4.5 -1.4 6% 21%
Putnam 72 40 44% 51% 5% 44 41% 58% 1.1% 0.6 4.7 -1.7 3% 23%
Steuben 82 38 36% 59% 4% 39 34% 64% 1.7% -0.3 2.9 -1.0 -2% 13%
Wayne 67 36 39% 56% 4% 39 38% 60% 1.7% 0.4 2.9 -1.0 3% 14%
Tompkins 67 37 54% 34% 12% 38 64% 34% 2.4% 4.8 0.6 -3.6 25% 5%
StLawrence 99 37 54% 41% 5% 38 55% 44% 1.9% 0.8 1.3 -1.1 4% 9%
Chemung 82 35 46% 50% 4% 38 43% 54% 2.4% 0.5 3.3 -0.6 3% 19%
Jefferson 83 27 42% 47% 10% 35 43% 55% 2.1% 3.7 6.3 -2.1 32% 49%
Cayuga 61 30 49% 45% 6% 32 50% 48% 2.2% 1.6 2.3 -1.0 11% 17%
Catargus 74 32 40% 55% 5% 32 39% 59% 1.8% -0.3 1.5 -1.0 -3% 8%
Clinton 64 29 50% 44% 6% 31 52% 46% 2.1% 1.9 1.6 -1.0 13% 12%
Livingston 57 26 39% 56% 6% 29 38% 60% 2.1% 1.4 3.4 -0.8 14% 24%
Sullivan 63 25 50% 45% 5% 28 49% 50% 1.9% 1.0 2.5 -0.8 8% 22%
Madison 51 26 42% 52% 5% 28 43% 55% 1.8% 0.9 1.7 -0.8 8% 12%
Warren 57 26 43% 52% 5% 28 43% 55% 2.0% 0.7 1.9 -0.8 7% 14%
Herkimer 61 25 44% 51% 5% 26 41% 57% 2.0% -0.5 1.9 -0.7 -4% 15%
Columbia 54 26 47% 46% 7% 26 54% 43% 2.1% 1.7 -0.8 -1.4 14% -7%
Genesee 53 26 40% 55% 5% 26 37% 61% 1.6% -0.8 1.4 -1.0 -8% 10%
Otsego 58 23 45% 48% 7% 25 47% 51% 2.0% 0.8 1.3 -1.0 8% 11%
Washington 51 22 41% 53% 6% 23 42% 56% 2.4% 0.8 1.4 -0.7 9% 12%
Greene 52 19 40% 54% 6% 23 39% 59% 2.0% 1.3 3.2 -0.7 17% 31%
Tioga 46 21 41% 54% 5% 22 40% 58% 1.7% 0.4 1.4 -0.6 4% 13%
Cortland 42 20 47% 47% 6% 21 47% 51% 1.9% 0.7 1.5 -0.7 7% 16%
Fulton 49 21 43% 53% 4% 21 41% 57% 1.9% -0.4 0.6 -0.5 -4% 6%
Delaware 59 19 42% 53% 5% 20 40% 58% 2.4% 0.2 1.6 -0.5 3% 16%
Montgomery 49 20 49% 47% 4% 20 44% 54% 1.9% -0.9 1.4 -0.4 -9% 15%
Chenang 39 19 45% 50% 5% 20 43% 55% 2.0% -0.1 1.3 -0.6 -1% 14%
Allegany 41 17 35% 61% 5% 18 34% 64% 1.7% 0.0 1.0 -0.5 0% 10%
Essex 39 16 44% 49% 7% 17 46% 52% 2.2% 0.6 0.9 -0.7 8% 11%
Wyoming 39 17 35% 60% 5% 17 34% 65% 1.4% -0.1 0.9 -0.5 -2% 9%
Franklin 49 16 50% 45% 5% 17 51% 47% 1.9% 0.6 0.7 -0.5 7% 9%
Orleans 40 15 38% 58% 4% 16 35% 63% 1.6% -0.1 1.2 -0.4 -2% 13%
Seneca 27 13 48% 47% 5% 14 45% 52% 2.1% 0.1 1.3 -0.4 2% 21%
Schoharie 29 13 39% 55% 5% 13 39% 59% 2.1% 0.2 0.9 -0.4 4% 14%
Lewis 30 10 40% 56% 4% 11 40% 58% 1.9% 0.3 0.6 -0.2 8% 10%
Yates 20 9 39% 55% 5% 10 39% 60% 1.6% 0.2 0.7 -0.3 5% 15%
Schuyler 17 8 40% 54% 6% 8 40% 58% 1.9% 0.2 0.7 -0.3 8% 18%
Hamilton 11 3 29% 64% 7% 3 32% 66% 1.6% 0.1 0.1 -0.2 15% 6%
________________________________________________________________________
NY 2000-2004 County Vote Analysis
Final Recorded Vote
Total Dem Nader Bush Dem Nader Bush
2004 7,377 4,314 99 2,963 58.48% 1.35% 40.17%
2000 6,762 4,112 244 2,405 60.82% 3.61% 35.57%
Change 614 201 -144 557 4.9% -59.1% 23.2%
Preliminary Recorded vote
2004 6,892 3,993 103 2,795 57.94% 1.50% 40.56%
2000 6,269 3,746 300 2,222 59.76% 4.79% 35.45%
Change 622 246 -197 573 6.6% -65.5% 25.8%
Change from Preliminary to Final
2004 485 320 -3 167 66.1% -0.75% 34.6%
2000 493 366 -56 183 74.2% -11.4% 37.1%
Analysis of Changes in Margin
2000 Gore 2004 Kerry Increase in Bush
County Gore Bush Nader Margin Kerry Bush Nader Margin Margin Vote
Albany 59.7% 34.0% 6.3% 25.7% 60.2% 37.8% 1.9% 22.4% 3.3% 6922
Allegany 34.7% 60.5% 4.8% -25.8% 33.8% 64.5% 1.7% -30.6% 4.8% 1031
Bronx 86.0% 11.9% 2.1% 74.1% 82.7% 16.7% 0.6% 66.0% 8.0% 19734
Brooklyn 79.9% 16.1% 4.0% 63.9% 74.3% 24.8% 0.8% 49.5% 14.4% 67235
Broome 51.8% 42.5% 5.7% 9.3% 50.1% 47.9% 2.0% 2.2% 7.0% 5684
Catargus 40.4% 54.6% 5.1% -14.2% 39.2% 59.0% 1.8% -19.8% 5.6% 1453
Cayuga 49.3% 44.9% 5.8% 4.4% 49.9% 47.9% 2.2% 2.0% 2.4% 2266
Chataqua 46.3% 49.1% 4.5% -2.8% 45.1% 53.1% 1.9% -8.0% 5.3% 3038
Chemung 46.1% 49.8% 4.2% -3.7% 43.4% 54.3% 2.4% -10.9% 7.2% 3327
Chenang 44.8% 49.7% 5.5% -4.8% 43.0% 55.0% 2.0% -12.0% 7.1% 1343
Clinton 50.4% 43.9% 5.7% 6.4% 52.4% 45.5% 2.1% 6.9% -0.4% 1565
Columbia 46.9% 45.8% 7.3% 1.1% 54.4% 43.5% 2.1% 10.9% -9.8% -829
Cortland 47.1% 47.1% 5.9% 0.0% 47.1% 51.0% 1.9% -3.8% 3.8% 1498
Delaware 41.5% 53.2% 5.2% -11.7% 39.8% 57.7% 2.4% -17.9% 6.2% 1628
Dutchess 46.7% 47.1% 6.2% -0.4% 46.5% 51.9% 1.6% -5.3% 4.9% 9666
Erie 56.8% 37.4% 5.9% 19.4% 56.2% 41.6% 2.2% 14.6% 4.8% 27705
Essex 44.2% 49.0% 6.8% -4.8% 45.7% 52.2% 2.2% -6.5% 1.7% 912
Franklin 50.1% 44.6% 5.3% 5.5% 51.4% 46.7% 1.9% 4.7% 0.8% 678
Fulton 42.7% 53.1% 4.2% -10.5% 41.3% 56.8% 1.9% -15.6% 5.1% 644
Genesee 39.8% 54.9% 5.2% -15.1% 37.2% 61.2% 1.6% -23.9% 8.9% 1393
Greene 40.0% 53.8% 6.2% -13.7% 39.2% 58.8% 2.0% -19.7% 5.9% 3237
Hamilton 28.8% 64.3% 6.9% -35.5% 32.2% 66.2% 1.6% -34.0% -1.5% 131
Herkimer 44.1% 51.1% 4.8% -7.1% 41.0% 57.0% 2.0% -16.0% 9.0% 1910
Jefferson 42.3% 47.4% 10.3% -5.1% 43.2% 54.7% 2.1% -11.5% 6.4% 6343
Lewis 39.7% 56.0% 4.3% -16.4% 40.3% 57.9% 1.9% -17.6% 1.3% 575
Livingston 38.6% 55.9% 5.5% -17.3% 38.1% 59.8% 2.1% -21.7% 4.3% 3363
Madison 42.5% 52.3% 5.2% -9.8% 43.0% 55.2% 1.8% -12.2% 2.4% 1686
Manhattan 78.5% 15.1% 6.3% 63.4% 81.9% 16.7% 1.4% 65.3% -1.9% 16421
Monroe 50.8% 44.1% 5.1% 6.6% 50.4% 48.1% 1.6% 2.3% 4.4% 26322
Montgomery 49.3% 46.9% 3.8% 2.5% 44.5% 53.6% 1.9% -9.1% 11.6% 1388
Nassau 57.6% 38.7% 3.7% 18.9% 52.3% 46.7% 1.0% 5.6% 13.3% 64523
Niagara 51.7% 43.3% 5.0% 8.4% 49.2% 48.9% 1.9% 0.3% 8.1% 5919
Oneida 45.4% 49.3% 5.3% -3.9% 42.3% 55.4% 2.3% -13.1% 9.2% 6538
Onondaga 53.8% 40.9% 5.3% 12.9% 54.1% 44.1% 1.8% 9.9% 3.0% 10102
Ontario 43.6% 51.4% 5.0% -7.9% 42.0% 56.4% 1.6% -14.4% 6.6% 4541
Orange 45.8% 49.6% 4.6% -3.8% 43.6% 55.0% 1.3% -11.4% 7.6% 16027
Orleans 37.8% 58.0% 4.2% -20.2% 35.5% 63.0% 1.6% -27.5% 7.3% 1150
Oswego 47.0% 48.1% 4.9% -1.0% 47.4% 50.6% 2.0% -3.1% 2.1% 2869
Otsego 45.4% 48.1% 6.5% -2.7% 46.8% 51.2% 2.0% -4.4% 1.7% 1252
Putnam 43.5% 51.0% 5.5% -7.4% 41.3% 57.5% 1.1% -16.2% 8.8% 4697
Queens 74.2% 22.5% 3.2% 51.7% 71.2% 28.0% 0.8% 43.2% 8.5% 41325
Rensselaer 50.9% 43.2% 6.0% 7.7% 49.4% 48.4% 2.2% 1.0% 6.7% 4817
Rockland 55.9% 40.2% 3.9% 15.7% 48.7% 49.8% 1.5% -1.1% 16.8% 13655
St Lawrence 53.9% 41.2% 4.9% 12.7% 54.6% 43.5% 1.9% 11.0% 1.6% 1319
Saratoga 45.4% 50.0% 4.7% -4.6% 45.2% 53.0% 1.8% -7.8% 3.2% 8344
Schenectady 53.2% 41.7% 5.2% 11.5% 51.5% 46.7% 1.8% 4.9% 6.6% 4008
Schoharie 39.3% 55.5% 5.2% -16.1% 38.6% 59.4% 2.1% -20.8% 4.7% 941
Schuyler 40.4% 53.8% 5.9% -13.4% 40.0% 58.1% 1.9% -18.1% 4.7% 721
Seneca 47.9% 46.7% 5.4% 1.3% 45.5% 52.5% 2.1% -7.0% 8.2% 1277
Staten Island 51.8% 45.2% 3.1% 6.6% 42.3% 56.9% 0.8% -14.7% 21.3% 24335
Steuben 36.3% 59.4% 4.3% -23.2% 33.9% 64.4% 1.7% -30.5% 7.3% 2906
Suffolk 53.2% 41.8% 5.0% 11.4% 49.1% 48.8% 2.1% 0.3% 11.2% 77671
Sullivan 49.8% 45.0% 5.2% 4.7% 48.5% 49.5% 1.9% -1.0% 5.8% 2513
Tioga 40.8% 54.5% 4.7% -13.6% 40.3% 58.0% 1.7% -17.7% 4.1% 1447
Tompkins 54.0% 33.7% 12.3% 20.3% 63.9% 33.7% 2.4% 30.2% -10.0% 627
Ulster 48.2% 43.5% 8.3% 4.6% 54.3% 43.4% 2.3% 10.9% -6.3% 4831
Warren 43.2% 51.7% 5.1% -8.6% 42.9% 55.1% 2.0% -12.2% 3.7% 1913
Washington 41.1% 53.1% 5.7% -12.0% 42.1% 55.6% 2.4% -13.5% 1.5% 1351
Wayne 39.2% 56.4% 4.4% -17.2% 38.0% 60.4% 1.7% -22.4% 5.2% 2857
Westchester 58.4% 37.4% 4.2% 21.0% 57.9% 40.7% 1.5% 17.2% 3.8% 38923
Wyoming 35.0% 60.4% 4.6% -25.4% 33.7% 64.9% 1.4% -31.2% 5.8% 919
Yates 39.5% 55.4% 5.1% -15.9% 38.8% 59.6% 1.6% -20.8% 4.9% 735
This has just been guest blogged on BradBlog:
The EAC Lied, Lever Voting Machines (Almost) Died
The Discredited Position of the Discredited Election Assistance Commission Helps Keep New York on a Collision Course with Democracy
But it's not too late to save the last transparent electoral system in the United States...
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6956
In the very first paragraph, she writes: "New York is the last state in the nation to have a non-computerized, transparent voting system. We still use immutable, theft-deterring mechanical lever machines to count our votes".
===
Let's set the record straight. That is a patently false statement. Whatever one might think about lever machines, they are NOT transparent. There is NO paper ballot record.
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/NewYorkLeverFraud.htm
As a former New Yorker who voted on the levers, I am also opposed to the installation of machines in which the votes can be rigged and the count not verified. Unfortunately, lever vote counts have not been verified for one hundred years before HAVA.
In Florida 2000, there were 185,000 spoiled underpunched, overpunched and butterfly punched card ballots. Had they all been counted, Gore would have been President the last eight years. But SCOTUS made sure they weren’t counted. Bush needed Florida to steal the election.
Bush did not have a prayer of winning New York. Gore won the state by 1.7 million votes (60.2-35.2%) with 4.6% going to third parties. He also won nationally by 540,000 votes. Only some are aware that according to the US Census, 5.4 million votes were uncounted. It is estimated that Gore won 4 million of them and his true margin was close to 3 million. No one was concerned that Gore may have also lost votes in New York. It was never an issue. After all, it didn’t matter how much he won by. But it mattered to those who were already planning for Bush’s re-selection in 2004. There could not be a repeat of 2000.
Bush required 270 electoral votes which he would get hook or crook; but he also needed a convincing popular vote margin. Rove knew that Bush would not win a fair election. HAVA was passed. The touch screens and central tabulators could switch the votes in the battleground states. New York kept its levers. To pad the popular vote, it made eminent sense to cut the Democratic margin in states like NY and CA - especially in large urban and suburban locations. Even though Florida and Ohio were key battleground states, New York was a fertile state for vote padding. It was important only to those who needed to pad the Bush vote. Kerry was going to win it big.
So it was hardly noticed that Kerry won NY by 1.4 million votes (300k less than Gore) with a 58.5-40.2% margin, despite a massive Democratic GOTV, 48% national Bush approval (under 40% in NY) and 70% of 100,000 third-party voters.
The media never discussed the fact that the unadjusted NY exit poll (before it was matched to the recorded vote) had Kerry winning NY with 64% despite the fact that third-party voters defected to Kerry.
They also didn't mention that the 12:22am National Exit Poll (before it was matched to the recorded vote) indicated that 8% of Gore voters and 10% of Bush voters defected.
And that New York and Connecticut, both 100% lever, also had the largest exit poll (WPE) discrepancies.
They ignored the fact that in the last three elections the Democratic NY late vote share (500k) was 7% higher than the Election Day share.
In 2008, Obama won the official NY vote by a 26.7% margin, compared to Gore’s 25.0% and Kerry's 18.5% We will have to wait to see the unadjusted exit polls. If the 2000 and 2004 trend continued in 2008, Obama had 68%, slightly below his 71% share of the 583,000 late votes (absentee and provisional paper ballots).
New Yorkers who want to keep the levers believe the exit polls had to be wrong and that the recorded vote was the True Vote. After all, they say, levers can't be hacked. Apparently, they also believe there was no incentive for Bush to pad the vote.
Maybe the levers can't be hacked electronically but gears can be shaved, faulty machines or too few good machines can be placed in minority precincts, and there's no way to verify the vote count. In other words, were it not for corrupt individuals, levers might be trustworthy.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter why, how or if the NY vote count can be rigged. The evidence surely suggests they have been. What does matter is that the vote count cannot be verified. For this reason alone, levers should be put to pasture – just like the touch screens. Regardless of the voting system used, the counts must be verifiable.
Why would BushCo steal votes in NY? Kerry won the recorded vote by a whopping 18%. The simple answer: to pad his popular vote “mandate”. This analysis shows that Kerry did much better in NY than the recorded vote indicates.
Naysayers cherry-picked the final NY pre-election poll in an attempt to promote the myth that the pre-election polls were correct and the exit poll was way off. But were they registered (RV) or likely-voter (LV) polls? If they were LVs, they would not have included new voters who came out in droves. In essence, NY lever proponents base their entire case on the final pre-election LV polls that did not include new or undecided voters, both of whom went 3-1 for Kerry. Yet they reject the unadjusted (11% WPE) exit poll in which all voters (including new and late undecideds) were asked who they just voted for.
But there is no evidence to prove that the votes were counted accurately, while there is historical evidence that Lever machines have been rigged (in Florida). They fail to consider that late votes (absentee and provisional PAPER ballots) counted after Election Day skewed sharply to Gore, Kerry and Obama.
How does one explain the 2000-2008 New York late vote anomalies? In total, there were 1.56 million late votes compared to 20.1 million Election Day, a 7.8% increase. The average Democratic late vote share was 67%; the Election Day share was 60.0%.
In 2004, Al Franken ridiculed election fraud researchers who fought for transparent elections. He had to run for office to see how wrong he was.
Dan Rather's votimg fraud expose was a clear example of how mechanical voting machines can be rigged. In Florida 2000, poor-quality paper used in punch card machines was a major cause of election fraud in heavily Democratic precincts. The report illustrated a method used to hack mechanical voting machines (punch card or lever). There are fundamental flaws in their argument.
1- They failed to consider the NY 2000 vote: Gore 60.2-Bush 35.2-Nader 3.6. Their argument implies that the 2004 recorded vote was fraud-free and that 100% of returning Nader 2000 voters defected to Bush - clearly an impossible scenario.
In fact, according to the 12:22am NEP, Kerry won Nader voters by 71-21% and 10% of Bush voters defected to Kerry while just 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush. Adjusting the NEP weights based on the NY 2000 recorded vote and assuming 12:22am NEP vote shares, Kerry won by 63.6-35.1%.
2- They ignored the theoretical margin of error. It’s well known that exit polls are more accurate than pre-election polls. There was a 5.1% discrepancy between Kerry's NY pre-election (59%) and exit poll (64.1%). Since the MoE is 4% for a typical 600-sample pre-election state poll, there was a 95% probability that Kerry's True vote was in the 55-63% range. The NY exit poll 3.2% MoE (30% cluster effect) implies that there was a 95% chance that Kerry's True vote was in the 60.8-67.2% range which would fall within the MoE of both the NY pre-election and exit poll. On the other hand, the weighted average of 51 state pre-election polls (adjusted for undecided voters) matched the National Exit Poll to within 1%.
3- They failed to consider that Kerry’s vote share was 10% higher in NY than nationally. The Election Calculator, which accounts for voter mortality, turnout and uncounted votes, determined that Kerry won by 64.0-34.5%. The assumptions were as follows: Gore and Kerry won 75% of the uncounted votes (5% of total cast); Kerry won 94% of Gore voters, 12% of Bush voters, 61% of new (DNV2k) voters and 68% of returning Nader/other voters. A sensitivity analysis shows that if Kerry won 90-98% of returning Gore voters and 57-65% of DNV2k, his NY vote share ranged from 61.3 to 66.7%.
4- They implied there was zero fraud in claiming that the recorded vote was the true vote. An analysis of the effects of uncounted and switched votes indicates that Kerry won by 63-36%. If 2% of total votes cast were uncounted (75% to Kerry), then 7% of Kerry votes were switched to Bush. The uncounted vote assumption is lower than the 2.74% national average (NY uses lever voting machines).
The New York anomalies:
1. Kerry won three exit poll measures by an average 64.1%.
His recorded share was 58.5%.
2. Mechanical voting machine precincts had the highest average WPE (10.6%).
New York votes 99% by Lever.
3. According to the National Exit Poll, Kerry won 57% of new voters; 91% of Gore; 64% of Nader; 10% of Bush.
4. Kerry’s NY vote share was 10% higher than his national share. Therefore, his NY shares must have exceeded the national shares (note 3).
5. Kerry won 66% of the final 500k votes but only 58% of the initial 6.8m; Gore won 74% of the final 500k and 60% of the initial 6.3m.
6. Kerry won approximately 75% of the uncounted votes (included in the exit poll but not the official count).
7. Kerry had his highest NY shares in the four counties that had the highest rates of voting incidents.
8. Bush gained a total of 573k votes in NY (25.8%) from 2000; Kerry gained just 246k (6.6%); Nader lost 196k.
9. Kerry won returning Nader voters by a 47% margin over Bush; he won new voters by16%.
Bush 2000 voters defected to Kerry at a 2% higher rate than Gore voters to Bush.
If we conservatively assume that Kerry’s NY share of new and former Gore voters was just 1% higher than his National share, then Bush needed 100% of former Bush voters to match the official count! The net defection rate would have had to flip from Kerry (+2%) to Bush (+7%). So how did Bush improve his NY vote share by over 5%? Do you believe in magic?
10. Bush made big gains in heavily Democratic urban/suburban strongholds yet did not do well in his strongholds: small towns and rural areas (the “Urban Legend”). Seven strong Democratic NYC area counties comprised 50% of the total recorded vote; Kerry had 66% in the seven counties, but Bush gained 311k (41.3%) from 2000; Kerry improved by just 129k (5.4%) over Gore; Nader lost 89k. In other counties, Bush had 48% and gained 262k votes (7.6%) while Kerry gained 118k (3.4%). The implausible change in Bush and Kerry vote shares in the largest 15 New York Counties from 2000 to 2004 tells the story.
11. Since Kerry won 64% (57k) and Bush 17% (15k) of returning Nader voters, Kerry would have a 72/27% margin in the seven counties assuming an equal defection of Bush and Gore voters. But according to the National Exit Poll, 10% of Bush voters defected and 8% of Gore voters defected. Assuming a net 2% defection to Kerry, he would have had a 73/26% margin in the seven counties. So how could the Bush vote share increase by 6.4% (26.5 to 32.9%) and the Kerry share decline by 3.6% (69.6 to 66.0%)? That’s a 10% increase in Bush margin!
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TIACountyVoteDatabase_24111_image001.png
NY 2008
Obama McCain Other Total
4.769 2.742 0.082 7.593
62.8% 36.1% 1.1% 100%
Obama won 71% of the 584,000 late votes but only 62% of the initial 7.0 million.
NY 2004
Kerry Bush Other Total
4.314 2.963 0.114 7.391
58.5% 40.2% 1.3% 100%
Kerry won 64.3% of the 499,000 late votes but only 57.9% of the initial 6.89million.
Kerry also won the unadjusted exit poll with 64%.
NY 2000
Gore Bush Nader Other Total
4.108 2.403 0.244 0.67 6.822
60.2% 35.2% 3.6% 1.0% 100%
Gore won 65.4% of the 552,000 late votes but only 59.8% of the initial 6.3 million.
NY 2004 Pre-election and Exit Polls
New York Kerry Bush Nader
Recorded vote 58.5% 40.2% 1.3%
Final pre-election poll 57 39 1
Projection 59 40 1
Edison-Mitofsky Exit Poll Measures
WPE (11.4) 64.1% 34.4% 1.5%
Best Estimate 65.1 33.8 1.1
Composite 63.1 35.5 1.4
Average Voting Machine WPE for all Exit Poll Precincts
Mechanical (Lever) voting machine precincts had the highest mean Within Precinct Error (10.6%).
Paper ballot precincts had the smallest mean WPE (2.2%)
New York votes 99% by Lever.
WPE WPE Number of
Voting Method mean median Precincts
Paper Ballot 2.2 0.9 40
Mechanical 10.6 10.3 118
Touch Screen 7.1 7 360
Punch Cards 6.6 7.3 158
Optical Scan 6.1 5.5 573
NY True Vote
Assumptions:
95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004
1.22% annual voter mortality
No uncounted votes
Kerry NY vote shares exceed corresponding National Exit Poll
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other NEP
DNV 1.236 16.7% 61% 37% 2% 57-41%
Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 94% 5% 1% 91-8%
Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 12% 88% 0% 10-90%
Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 68% 13% 19% 64-17%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 63.45% 35.07% 1.48%
7.376 4.680 2.587 0.109
NY 2004 Election Calculator
Plausible Scenario Assumptions:
95% turnout of 2000 voters in 2004
1.22% annual voter mortality
No uncounted votes
Scenario 1:
(12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares)
1.22% annual voter mortality
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 0% 1.236 16.7% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 10% 90% 0%
Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 64% 17% 19%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 60.54% 37.98% 1.48%
7.376 4.465 2.801 0.109
Scenario 2:
(Kerry vote shares increased for NY)
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 1.236 16.7% 61% 37% 2%
Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 94% 5% 1%
Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 12% 88% 0%
Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 68% 13% 19%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 63.45% 35.07% 1.48%
7.376 4.680 2.587 0.109
Scenario 3 (most likely):
Uncounted votes: 5%
Gore and Kerry share of uncounted votes: 75%
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV - 1.30 16.8% 61% 37% 2%
Gore 95% 3.96 51.0% 94% 5% 1%
Bush 95% 2.23 28.8% 12% 88% 0%
Other 95% 0.27 3.4% 68% 13% 19%
Total 6.46 7.76 100% 64.0% 34.5% 1.5%
7.76 4.97 2.68 0.12
Sensitivity Analysis
Kerry Kerry share of New voters
%Gore 57.0% 59.0% 61.0% 63.0% 65.0%
Voters
Kerry NY Vote Share
98% 65.4% 65.7% 66.0% 66.4% 66.7%
96% 64.3% 64.7% 65.0% 65.3% 65.7%
94% 63.3% 63.7% 64.0% 64.3% 64.7%
92% 62.3% 62.6% 63.0% 63.3% 63.6%
90% 61.3% 61.6% 61.9% 62.3% 62.6%
Kerry Margin
98% 2.50 2.55 2.61 2.66 2.71
96% 2.34 2.39 2.45 2.50 2.55
94% 2.18 2.24 2.29 2.34 2.39
92% 2.03 2.08 2.13 2.18 2.23
90% 1.87 1.92 1.97 2.02 2.08
Gore Gore Voter Turnout in 2004
share 93.0% 94.0% 95.0% 96.0% 97.0%
Unctd
Votes Kerry NY Vote Share
85% 64.0% 64.2% 64.3% 64.5% 64.7%
80% 63.8% 64.0% 64.2% 64.3% 64.5%
75% 63.6% 63.8% 64.0% 64.2% 64.3%
70% 63.5% 63.6% 63.8% 64.0% 64.2%
65% 63.3% 63.5% 63.6% 63.8% 64.0%
Kerry Margin
85% 2.29 2.32 2.34 2.37 2.40
80% 2.26 2.29 2.32 2.34 2.37
75% 2.23 2.26 2.29 2.32 2.34
70% 2.20 2.23 2.26 2.29 2.32
65% 2.18 2.20 2.23 2.26 2.29
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Implausible Scenarios
(vote shares adjusted to match to recorded vote)
Scenario 1:
Bush wins 100% of Nader 2000 voters
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 1.236 16.7% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 10% 90% 0%
Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 0% 100% 0%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 58.37% 40.79% 0.84%
7.376 4.305 3.009 0.062
Scenario 2:
Bush wins 100% of Bush 2000 voters
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 1.236 16.7% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 95% 3.718 50.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 95% 2.172 29.4% 0% 100% 0%
Nader 95% 0.250 3.4% 64% 17% 19%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 57.60% 40.92% 1.48%
7.376 4.248 3.018 0.109
Scenario 3:
Bush wins 54% of New 2004 voters (DNV)
Turnout Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 1.24 16.7% 44% 54% 2%
Gore 95% 3.72 50.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 95% 2.17 29.4% 10% 90% 0%
Nader 95% 0.25 3.4% 64% 17% 19%
Total 6.140 7.376 100% 58.36% 40.15% 1.48%
7.376 4.305 2.962 0.109
________________________________________________________________________
New York County Vote Changes
(93.4% of final recorded total)
Vote Change Kerry Bush
Total NYS 246k 6.6% 573k 25.8%
Top 7 Counties 129k 5.4% 311k 41.3%
Final Recorded Vote
Total Dem Nader Bush Dem Nader Bush
2004 7,377 4,314 99 2,963 58.48% 1.35% 40.17%
2000 6,762 4,112 244 2,405 60.82% 3.61% 35.57%
Change 614 201 -144 557 4.9% -59.1% 23.2%
Preliminary Recorded vote
2004 6,892 3,993 103 2,795 57.94% 1.50% 40.56%
2000 6,269 3,746 300 2,222 59.76% 4.79% 35.45%
Change 622 246 -197 573 6.6% -65.5% 25.8%
Change from Preliminary to Final
2004 485 320 -3 167 66.1% -0.75% 34.6%
2000 493 366 -56 183 74.2% -11.4% 37.1%
Seven NYC Area Counties
2000 2004 Vote Change Percent Change
County Precincts Total GORE BUSH NADER Total KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH
Total 7779 3093 69.6% 26.5% 4.1% 3442 66.0% 32.9% 1.1% 129 311 -89 5.4% 41.3%
Brooklyn 1888 557 80% 16% 4% 630 74% 25% 0.8% 23.3 67.2 -17.1 5% 75%
Suffolk 1006 536 53% 42% 5% 618 49% 49% 2.1% 18.0 77.7 -13.7 6% 35%
Nassau 1070 554 58% 39% 4% 597 52% 47% 1.0% -6.7 64.5 -14.7 -2% 30%
Manhattan 1100 522 79% 15% 6% 572 82% 17% 1.4% 59.1 16.4 -25.1 14% 21%
Queens 1470 512 74% 23% 3% 559 71% 28% 0.8% 18.3 41.3 -11.9 5% 36%
Bronx 912 279 86% 12% 2% 318 83% 17% 0.6% 22.8 19.7 -3.9 10% 59%
Staten Island 333 133 52% 45% 3% 148 42% 57% 0.8% -6.2 24.3 -2.9 -9% 40%
Total New York Counties
2000 2004 Vote Change Percent Change
County Precincts Total GORE BUSH NADER Total KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH NADER KERRY BUSH
Total 15553 6270 59.8% 35.4% 4.8% 6892 57.9% 40.6% 1.5% 247 573 -197 6.6% 25.8%
Brooklyn 1888 557 80% 16% 4% 630 74% 25% 0.8% 23.3 67.2 -17.1 5% 75%
Suffolk 1006 536 53% 42% 5% 618 49% 49% 2.1% 18.0 77.7 -13.7 6% 35%
Nassau 1070 554 58% 39% 4% 597 52% 47% 1.0% -6.7 64.5 -14.7 -2% 30%
Manhattan 1100 522 79% 15% 6% 572 82% 17% 1.4% 59.1 16.4 -25.1 14% 21%
Queens 1470 512 74% 23% 3% 559 71% 28% 0.8% 18.3 41.3 -11.9 5% 36%
Erie 1007 384 57% 37% 6% 411 56% 42% 2.2% 13.3 27.7 -13.5 6% 19%
Westchester 948 306 58% 37% 4% 377 58% 41% 1.5% 39.5 38.9 -7.3 22% 34%
Monroe 792 300 51% 44% 5% 330 50% 48% 1.6% 13.9 26.3 -10.2 9% 20%
Bronx 912 279 86% 12% 2% 318 83% 17% 0.6% 22.8 19.7 -3.9 10% 59%
Onondaga 485 190 54% 41% 5% 199 54% 44% 1.8% 5.4 10.1 -6.5 5% 13%
Staten Island 333 133 52% 45% 3% 148 42% 57% 0.8% -6.2 24.3 -2.9 -9% 40%
Albany 327 130 60% 34% 6% 136 60% 38% 1.9% 3.8 6.9 -5.6 5% 16%
Orange 284 118 46% 50% 5% 135 44% 55% 1.3% 5.1 16.0 -3.7 9% 27%
Rockland 250 117 56% 40% 4% 122 49% 50% 1.5% -6.0 13.7 -2.7 -9% 29%
Dutchess 239 105 47% 47% 6% 114 47% 52% 1.6% 4.0 9.7 -4.7 8% 20%
Saratoga 168 89 45% 50% 5% 100 45% 53% 1.8% 4.7 8.3 -2.3 12% 19%
Niagara 180 87 52% 43% 5% 90 49% 49% 1.9% -1.2 5.9 -2.7 -3% 16%
Oneida 209 87 45% 49% 5% 89 42% 55% 2.3% -1.7 6.5 -2.6 -4% 15%
Broome 193 81 52% 43% 6% 84 50% 48% 2.0% 0.0 5.7 -3.0 0% 16%
Ulster 161 72 48% 44% 8% 84 54% 43% 2.3% 10.6 4.8 -4.1 30% 15%
Rensselaer 136 64 51% 43% 6% 67 49% 48% 2.2% 0.5 4.8 -2.4 2% 17%
Schenectady 131 63 53% 42% 5% 65 52% 47% 1.8% 0.0 4.0 -2.1 0% 15%
Chataqua 135 55 46% 49% 5% 57 45% 53% 1.9% 0.0 3.0 -1.4 0% 11%
Oswego 107 45 47% 48% 5% 49 47% 51% 2.0% 1.8 2.9 -1.3 9% 13%
Ontario 88 42 44% 51% 5% 47 42% 56% 1.6% 1.1 4.5 -1.4 6% 21%
Putnam 72 40 44% 51% 5% 44 41% 58% 1.1% 0.6 4.7 -1.7 3% 23%
Steuben 82 38 36% 59% 4% 39 34% 64% 1.7% -0.3 2.9 -1.0 -2% 13%
Wayne 67 36 39% 56% 4% 39 38% 60% 1.7% 0.4 2.9 -1.0 3% 14%
Tompkins 67 37 54% 34% 12% 38 64% 34% 2.4% 4.8 0.6 -3.6 25% 5%
StLawrence 99 37 54% 41% 5% 38 55% 44% 1.9% 0.8 1.3 -1.1 4% 9%
Chemung 82 35 46% 50% 4% 38 43% 54% 2.4% 0.5 3.3 -0.6 3% 19%
Jefferson 83 27 42% 47% 10% 35 43% 55% 2.1% 3.7 6.3 -2.1 32% 49%
Cayuga 61 30 49% 45% 6% 32 50% 48% 2.2% 1.6 2.3 -1.0 11% 17%
Catargus 74 32 40% 55% 5% 32 39% 59% 1.8% -0.3 1.5 -1.0 -3% 8%
Clinton 64 29 50% 44% 6% 31 52% 46% 2.1% 1.9 1.6 -1.0 13% 12%
Livingston 57 26 39% 56% 6% 29 38% 60% 2.1% 1.4 3.4 -0.8 14% 24%
Sullivan 63 25 50% 45% 5% 28 49% 50% 1.9% 1.0 2.5 -0.8 8% 22%
Madison 51 26 42% 52% 5% 28 43% 55% 1.8% 0.9 1.7 -0.8 8% 12%
Warren 57 26 43% 52% 5% 28 43% 55% 2.0% 0.7 1.9 -0.8 7% 14%
Herkimer 61 25 44% 51% 5% 26 41% 57% 2.0% -0.5 1.9 -0.7 -4% 15%
Columbia 54 26 47% 46% 7% 26 54% 43% 2.1% 1.7 -0.8 -1.4 14% -7%
Genesee 53 26 40% 55% 5% 26 37% 61% 1.6% -0.8 1.4 -1.0 -8% 10%
Otsego 58 23 45% 48% 7% 25 47% 51% 2.0% 0.8 1.3 -1.0 8% 11%
Washington 51 22 41% 53% 6% 23 42% 56% 2.4% 0.8 1.4 -0.7 9% 12%
Greene 52 19 40% 54% 6% 23 39% 59% 2.0% 1.3 3.2 -0.7 17% 31%
Tioga 46 21 41% 54% 5% 22 40% 58% 1.7% 0.4 1.4 -0.6 4% 13%
Cortland 42 20 47% 47% 6% 21 47% 51% 1.9% 0.7 1.5 -0.7 7% 16%
Fulton 49 21 43% 53% 4% 21 41% 57% 1.9% -0.4 0.6 -0.5 -4% 6%
Delaware 59 19 42% 53% 5% 20 40% 58% 2.4% 0.2 1.6 -0.5 3% 16%
Montgomery 49 20 49% 47% 4% 20 44% 54% 1.9% -0.9 1.4 -0.4 -9% 15%
Chenang 39 19 45% 50% 5% 20 43% 55% 2.0% -0.1 1.3 -0.6 -1% 14%
Allegany 41 17 35% 61% 5% 18 34% 64% 1.7% 0.0 1.0 -0.5 0% 10%
Essex 39 16 44% 49% 7% 17 46% 52% 2.2% 0.6 0.9 -0.7 8% 11%
Wyoming 39 17 35% 60% 5% 17 34% 65% 1.4% -0.1 0.9 -0.5 -2% 9%
Franklin 49 16 50% 45% 5% 17 51% 47% 1.9% 0.6 0.7 -0.5 7% 9%
Orleans 40 15 38% 58% 4% 16 35% 63% 1.6% -0.1 1.2 -0.4 -2% 13%
Seneca 27 13 48% 47% 5% 14 45% 52% 2.1% 0.1 1.3 -0.4 2% 21%
Schoharie 29 13 39% 55% 5% 13 39% 59% 2.1% 0.2 0.9 -0.4 4% 14%
Lewis 30 10 40% 56% 4% 11 40% 58% 1.9% 0.3 0.6 -0.2 8% 10%
Yates 20 9 39% 55% 5% 10 39% 60% 1.6% 0.2 0.7 -0.3 5% 15%
Schuyler 17 8 40% 54% 6% 8 40% 58% 1.9% 0.2 0.7 -0.3 8% 18%
Hamilton 11 3 29% 64% 7% 3 32% 66% 1.6% 0.1 0.1 -0.2 15% 6%
________________________________________________________________________
NY 2000-2004 County Vote Analysis
Final Recorded Vote
Total Dem Nader Bush Dem Nader Bush
2004 7,377 4,314 99 2,963 58.48% 1.35% 40.17%
2000 6,762 4,112 244 2,405 60.82% 3.61% 35.57%
Change 614 201 -144 557 4.9% -59.1% 23.2%
Preliminary Recorded vote
2004 6,892 3,993 103 2,795 57.94% 1.50% 40.56%
2000 6,269 3,746 300 2,222 59.76% 4.79% 35.45%
Change 622 246 -197 573 6.6% -65.5% 25.8%
Change from Preliminary to Final
2004 485 320 -3 167 66.1% -0.75% 34.6%
2000 493 366 -56 183 74.2% -11.4% 37.1%
Analysis of Changes in Margin
2000 Gore 2004 Kerry Increase in Bush
County Gore Bush Nader Margin Kerry Bush Nader Margin Margin Vote
Albany 59.7% 34.0% 6.3% 25.7% 60.2% 37.8% 1.9% 22.4% 3.3% 6922
Allegany 34.7% 60.5% 4.8% -25.8% 33.8% 64.5% 1.7% -30.6% 4.8% 1031
Bronx 86.0% 11.9% 2.1% 74.1% 82.7% 16.7% 0.6% 66.0% 8.0% 19734
Brooklyn 79.9% 16.1% 4.0% 63.9% 74.3% 24.8% 0.8% 49.5% 14.4% 67235
Broome 51.8% 42.5% 5.7% 9.3% 50.1% 47.9% 2.0% 2.2% 7.0% 5684
Catargus 40.4% 54.6% 5.1% -14.2% 39.2% 59.0% 1.8% -19.8% 5.6% 1453
Cayuga 49.3% 44.9% 5.8% 4.4% 49.9% 47.9% 2.2% 2.0% 2.4% 2266
Chataqua 46.3% 49.1% 4.5% -2.8% 45.1% 53.1% 1.9% -8.0% 5.3% 3038
Chemung 46.1% 49.8% 4.2% -3.7% 43.4% 54.3% 2.4% -10.9% 7.2% 3327
Chenang 44.8% 49.7% 5.5% -4.8% 43.0% 55.0% 2.0% -12.0% 7.1% 1343
Clinton 50.4% 43.9% 5.7% 6.4% 52.4% 45.5% 2.1% 6.9% -0.4% 1565
Columbia 46.9% 45.8% 7.3% 1.1% 54.4% 43.5% 2.1% 10.9% -9.8% -829
Cortland 47.1% 47.1% 5.9% 0.0% 47.1% 51.0% 1.9% -3.8% 3.8% 1498
Delaware 41.5% 53.2% 5.2% -11.7% 39.8% 57.7% 2.4% -17.9% 6.2% 1628
Dutchess 46.7% 47.1% 6.2% -0.4% 46.5% 51.9% 1.6% -5.3% 4.9% 9666
Erie 56.8% 37.4% 5.9% 19.4% 56.2% 41.6% 2.2% 14.6% 4.8% 27705
Essex 44.2% 49.0% 6.8% -4.8% 45.7% 52.2% 2.2% -6.5% 1.7% 912
Franklin 50.1% 44.6% 5.3% 5.5% 51.4% 46.7% 1.9% 4.7% 0.8% 678
Fulton 42.7% 53.1% 4.2% -10.5% 41.3% 56.8% 1.9% -15.6% 5.1% 644
Genesee 39.8% 54.9% 5.2% -15.1% 37.2% 61.2% 1.6% -23.9% 8.9% 1393
Greene 40.0% 53.8% 6.2% -13.7% 39.2% 58.8% 2.0% -19.7% 5.9% 3237
Hamilton 28.8% 64.3% 6.9% -35.5% 32.2% 66.2% 1.6% -34.0% -1.5% 131
Herkimer 44.1% 51.1% 4.8% -7.1% 41.0% 57.0% 2.0% -16.0% 9.0% 1910
Jefferson 42.3% 47.4% 10.3% -5.1% 43.2% 54.7% 2.1% -11.5% 6.4% 6343
Lewis 39.7% 56.0% 4.3% -16.4% 40.3% 57.9% 1.9% -17.6% 1.3% 575
Livingston 38.6% 55.9% 5.5% -17.3% 38.1% 59.8% 2.1% -21.7% 4.3% 3363
Madison 42.5% 52.3% 5.2% -9.8% 43.0% 55.2% 1.8% -12.2% 2.4% 1686
Manhattan 78.5% 15.1% 6.3% 63.4% 81.9% 16.7% 1.4% 65.3% -1.9% 16421
Monroe 50.8% 44.1% 5.1% 6.6% 50.4% 48.1% 1.6% 2.3% 4.4% 26322
Montgomery 49.3% 46.9% 3.8% 2.5% 44.5% 53.6% 1.9% -9.1% 11.6% 1388
Nassau 57.6% 38.7% 3.7% 18.9% 52.3% 46.7% 1.0% 5.6% 13.3% 64523
Niagara 51.7% 43.3% 5.0% 8.4% 49.2% 48.9% 1.9% 0.3% 8.1% 5919
Oneida 45.4% 49.3% 5.3% -3.9% 42.3% 55.4% 2.3% -13.1% 9.2% 6538
Onondaga 53.8% 40.9% 5.3% 12.9% 54.1% 44.1% 1.8% 9.9% 3.0% 10102
Ontario 43.6% 51.4% 5.0% -7.9% 42.0% 56.4% 1.6% -14.4% 6.6% 4541
Orange 45.8% 49.6% 4.6% -3.8% 43.6% 55.0% 1.3% -11.4% 7.6% 16027
Orleans 37.8% 58.0% 4.2% -20.2% 35.5% 63.0% 1.6% -27.5% 7.3% 1150
Oswego 47.0% 48.1% 4.9% -1.0% 47.4% 50.6% 2.0% -3.1% 2.1% 2869
Otsego 45.4% 48.1% 6.5% -2.7% 46.8% 51.2% 2.0% -4.4% 1.7% 1252
Putnam 43.5% 51.0% 5.5% -7.4% 41.3% 57.5% 1.1% -16.2% 8.8% 4697
Queens 74.2% 22.5% 3.2% 51.7% 71.2% 28.0% 0.8% 43.2% 8.5% 41325
Rensselaer 50.9% 43.2% 6.0% 7.7% 49.4% 48.4% 2.2% 1.0% 6.7% 4817
Rockland 55.9% 40.2% 3.9% 15.7% 48.7% 49.8% 1.5% -1.1% 16.8% 13655
St Lawrence 53.9% 41.2% 4.9% 12.7% 54.6% 43.5% 1.9% 11.0% 1.6% 1319
Saratoga 45.4% 50.0% 4.7% -4.6% 45.2% 53.0% 1.8% -7.8% 3.2% 8344
Schenectady 53.2% 41.7% 5.2% 11.5% 51.5% 46.7% 1.8% 4.9% 6.6% 4008
Schoharie 39.3% 55.5% 5.2% -16.1% 38.6% 59.4% 2.1% -20.8% 4.7% 941
Schuyler 40.4% 53.8% 5.9% -13.4% 40.0% 58.1% 1.9% -18.1% 4.7% 721
Seneca 47.9% 46.7% 5.4% 1.3% 45.5% 52.5% 2.1% -7.0% 8.2% 1277
Staten Island 51.8% 45.2% 3.1% 6.6% 42.3% 56.9% 0.8% -14.7% 21.3% 24335
Steuben 36.3% 59.4% 4.3% -23.2% 33.9% 64.4% 1.7% -30.5% 7.3% 2906
Suffolk 53.2% 41.8% 5.0% 11.4% 49.1% 48.8% 2.1% 0.3% 11.2% 77671
Sullivan 49.8% 45.0% 5.2% 4.7% 48.5% 49.5% 1.9% -1.0% 5.8% 2513
Tioga 40.8% 54.5% 4.7% -13.6% 40.3% 58.0% 1.7% -17.7% 4.1% 1447
Tompkins 54.0% 33.7% 12.3% 20.3% 63.9% 33.7% 2.4% 30.2% -10.0% 627
Ulster 48.2% 43.5% 8.3% 4.6% 54.3% 43.4% 2.3% 10.9% -6.3% 4831
Warren 43.2% 51.7% 5.1% -8.6% 42.9% 55.1% 2.0% -12.2% 3.7% 1913
Washington 41.1% 53.1% 5.7% -12.0% 42.1% 55.6% 2.4% -13.5% 1.5% 1351
Wayne 39.2% 56.4% 4.4% -17.2% 38.0% 60.4% 1.7% -22.4% 5.2% 2857
Westchester 58.4% 37.4% 4.2% 21.0% 57.9% 40.7% 1.5% 17.2% 3.8% 38923
Wyoming 35.0% 60.4% 4.6% -25.4% 33.7% 64.9% 1.4% -31.2% 5.8% 919
Yates 39.5% 55.4% 5.1% -15.9% 38.8% 59.6% 1.6% -20.8% 4.9% 735