No tinfoil hat necessary here, though. This is pretty obvious. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
The county-level data are quite noisy when it comes to vote percentages, but somehow magically the statewide vote percentages match to 5 significant figures.
I have a really cheap bridge right here under my bed that you might want to buy... We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
The optical counters 4 hours behind the complete hand count? That staggers the imagination.
The flip-flop in voting percentages to 5 frickin' digits over the total population!?! That smells like a calculatory artifact. Getting a .99999 correlation is exceeding rare in the Social Sciences. Anyone who can get a .97 is ecstatic and the conclusion is considered bullet proof.
Somebody in those counties need to get off their ass and file a class action lawsuit to force the SecState to a hand powered recount.
Optical Scan Clinton 91,717 52.9507% Obama 81,495 47.0493% Total 173,212 Hand Counted Clinton 20,889 47.0494% Obama 23,509 52.9506% Total 44,398
Optical Scan Clinton 91,717 52.9507% Obama 81,495 47.0493% Total 173,212
Hand Counted Clinton 20,889 47.0494% Obama 23,509 52.9506% Total 44,398
Smoking gun. Or the coincidence of the millennium.
Has anyone posted any of this to the Obama and Clinton campaigns?
However, it is possible that the actual ballots were tampered with and that a recount will confirm the results. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
Maybe this was planted by Republicans in order to "discover" it after she gets the nomination.
That is very possible. But why make the numbers so bizarre, as if whoever did this thought something like that wouldn't be noticed until several months from now (unless they were incompetent)? Wouldn't they want something that they could disguise for a few months? I'm just thinking/typing out loud.
The scenarios are: estimate the probabilities from the machine counts and assume the hand counts are a random sample, or vice versa. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
The easiest way to steal the election is to just reverse the Obama/Clinton counts on a precinct basis. If you do it in every precinct it even gives you plausible deniability - sorry, computer bug! A human error programming the mappings to the database.
But maybe they thought that's easy to reverse and they really want Clinton to win. So they say okay, let's just tamper with the largest county in the state. They could just have reversed the counts and, given statistical noise, the vote percentages would have been similar but to less than 95% confidence. Being a single county, you'd have to go down to precinct level to show all the precincts are switched.
But maybe they thought they needed to eliminate the discrepancy. In statistical parlance, they worried about a one-tailed chi-square test (misfit) but not about a two-tailed chi-square test (misfit or too-good-to-be-true fit).
I mean, it just takes a pocket calculator to get the "correct" vote counts.
Tampering with the count would mean that a recount would give the win to Obama. Tampering with the ballots would confirm the results, possibly with a 200-vote difference from the initial ones. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
This is actually quite important. I want to pull it out and emphasis it.
How are the ballots secured after an election? Black Box Voting seems to have some serious concerns over this.
"We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines."
aspiring to genteel poverty
Kicking myself for not tediously taking screen shots of every friggin' municipality in the dumb Googlemap thing. Why can't they just add a table below it? One noticeable thing on the 59 screen shots I grabbed between 10:45 pm NH time and midnight NH time, is that the ones that had late results (not submitted as of 4 hours after poll closing) -- well, you'd expect them to be hand count locations, right? Nope. Mostly Diebold locations. That's a major red flag to me. How the heck can you not push "print" for four hours??? It normally takes only 30 minutes to wrap things up and print the poll tape when the polls close. My method was grabbing the municipalities left to right, right to left, starting at the south end of the state and working up. I only got about three rows up. Anyone who has additional time slice information documenting late reporters I'd like to see it. Late reporters from the first 59 locations I grabbed: BRENTWOOD - Diebold location - had the Dem results, but no Republican results as of 11:53 pm (polls closed at 7) CHESTERFIELD - Hand count location - no results as of 11:00 pm DERRY - Diebold location - no results in as of 11:42 pm FREMONT - Diebold location - no results in as of 11:48 pm GREENFIELD - Hand count location - no results in as of 11:52 pm HAMPTON - Diebold location - results in on time, but I flagged this because every Dem candidate had a result divisible by 5 and for Republicans, Huckabee 217, McCain 1217, Romney 1217, it just looked weird. So much for my statistical capabilities. HOLLIS - Diebold location - results not in as of 11:54 pm NEW IPSWICH - Diebold location - results not in as of 10:52 pm NEWTON - Diebold location - results not in as of 10:58 pm PELHAM - Diebold location - results not in as of 10:56 pm TEMPLE - Hand count location - results not in as of 11:26 pm WINCHESTER - Diebold location - results not in as of 10:46 pm
How the heck can you not push "print" for four hours???
Weren't these votes machine-counted, by optically scanning paper ballots, rather than machine-voted?
On the othe hand, I see no correlation with number of tallied votes and late reporting:
Brentwood - 838 Chesterfield - 952 Derry - 5230 Fremont - 742 Greenfield - 368 Hampton - 3974 Hollis - 1923 New Ipswich - 717 Newton - 888 Pelham - 2484 Temple - 395 Winchester - 826 *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Rockingham: Brentwood Derry Fremont Hampton Newton
Hillsborough: Greenfield Hollis New Ipswich Pelham Temple
Cheshire: Chesterfield Winchester Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Brentwood - 39.62%, 36.16% Chesterfield - 39.46%, 38.52% Derry - 45.64%, 31.20% Fremont - 41.78%, 30.73% Greenfield - 27.45%, 42.93% Hampton - 42.78%, 32.59% Hollis - 35.52%, 41.19% New Ipswich - 38.63%, 29.43% Newton - 48.42%, 29.17% Pelham - 50.72%, 29.03% Temple - 24.56%, 50.38% Winchester - 48.79%, 28.57%
Not much of a trend. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
No, you have to make a more complex hypothesis. Clinton led throughout the evening as we watched results coming in, so at least the Clinton/Obama swapping had to have been done before. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
