Sorry to disappoint, no fraud in Cuyahoga County...

[WCGreen]

I just went over the numbers, precinct by precinct and the total number of votes cast match the numbers on the Cuyahoga County BOE web site as well as the SOS's tally for Cuyahoga County.

Now, there are some anomalies in the votes cast for each city, but these have got to be a glitch in the totaling routine

If you add up all the numbers in the ballots cast for all the cities in Cuyahoga County, you would get 854,622 votes cast. That would be an 85% turnout. The number of votes reported to have been cast in the county are 665,334. Now if you add the numbers precinct by precinct and then add in the absentees cast, you arrive at the same number....

I am embarrassed for the BOE since I once served. They should never have released these numbers as it just cast suspicion over the final count.

But I spent the last three hours going over the voting totals and I feel confident there was no fraud in this county. There was an error in tabulating the sub totals as reported on the Web site but these totals had absolutely nothing to do with the vote count on a precinct by precinct count.....

Remember, CC uses the punch card method and a recount would be easy to do. I would advise doing a recount just to placate all the fears and suspicions out there.

[Must_B_Free]

1. so how do you know Kerry votes weren't moved to the Bush column?

[WCGreen]

2. Because the tally for Kerry was 66.7%

to 33.2% for Bush, a much higher total than I can remember for a democrat running for president.

Kerry 433,262
Bush 215,624

Even my city, Westlake, Kerry won 2 out of six wards. And my city is the second most republican city in the whole county.

No, there wasn't any fraud, just some major fuck-ups on what was posted to the web site and what has remained on the Web Site.

I was really into this as the total votes reported in the section keyed on by contributors to DU and Bartcop were running ahead of the population totals for those cities. That's what made me think there might be some problems.

But when I downloaded the Prec by Prec count and it matched the totals for the county, I knew it was more a computer totaling problem than a case of vote counting fraud.....

[ShaneGR]

25. Yup

I'm from Akron originally, and the numbers down there are equally impressive for Kerry. The fact is, we got our asses kicked on an unprecedented scale down in the SW. If there was fraud, it would be down there.

[m berst]

3. why would anyone be disappointed?

And why are we presuming ourselves to be the investigators?

And why is anyone here paying defense attorney for possible wrong doers?

The idea is this -

There are a lot of irregularities (can there still be any doubt about that???)

A democracy cannot survive when the people don't have confidence in the vote.

A full investigation of the election is needed and the people have a right to demand that.

We aren't competent to prove, to de-bunk nor to play junior detective. We are here - AS DEMOCRATS - to lobby for the people's interests, not the government's. We aren't making any accusations, we are raising valid suspicions. Those suspicions easily rise to the level that mandates a full and honest investigation.

The burden of proof is not on the people, it is on the government. The job of letting the officials off the hook is not ours either.

[WCGreen]

15. I think the people who are trying hard to

find a reason why we lost will be disappointed. That is why I worde the post that way.

I was disappointed. From the way things looked at first blush, I felt twe might actually pick up some votes in Cuyahoga County.....

Now, if I was still on the Board, I would be pushing hard for a recount just to dispell any and all rumors.....

But that's me and I no longer sit on the board.....

[m berst]

17. Democracy itself is at risk

Not a win by any candidate.

[Awsi Dooger]

4. I looked at Ohio for 3 days and found nothing

Saturday thru Monday, wasted.

I checked Cuyahoga County for hours after DUers isolated it as suspicious. The number of votes checked. The only thing strange was Kerry did slightly better than I would have projected. In 2000, Gore carried Cuyahoga 62-34% with a margin of 157,000 votes.

Ohio needs to get rid of the damn punch cards. The provisionals might have been enough to get Kerry fairly close, minus undervotes and overvotes from all the punch card counties.

[Merlin]

5. I agree. Why would we suspect a county that went 2 to 1 for Kerry?

I grew up in Cuyahoga County and I'm proud they gave their support to JK.

But I too struggled with their numbers, and they have THE MOT ANACHRONISTIC WAY IMAGINABLE of presenting polling results.

[Eloriel]

30. I'll tell you why --

for one thing, what better place to shave votes than a stronghold for EITHER party? Doesn't matter if it's Kerry or Bush -- pulling more numbers for Bush (as long as Kerry were allowed to win a Kerry county) wouldn't raise any suspicions.

I don't buy "software glitch." I've seen a few too MANY software glitches that were quite purposeful in their results, thank you very much.

[The Flaming Red Head]

38. I agree with you.

A computer counting error is an error and skews the results.

[Awsi Dooger]

55. Wait a minute, DUers conveniently argued THE OPPOSITE in a thread of mine

One day after the election I looked at the 3 huge Democratic strongholds in South Florida -- Dade, Broward, Palm Beach. They are all Diebold and demonstrated nothing out of bounds in voting numbers or percentages.

I was confronted many times in that thread by DUers insisting I was a fool for looking at large pro-Kerry counties, that of course the GOP would steal elsewhere, where it wasn't so obvious.

Whatever fits the desperation, I guess.

[WCGreen]

59. No, Cuyahoga County is not EVote...

It is still punch card and so there is a paper trail.

In FLA, from what I understand, the counties in question had anomolies in voting as well as voting done via EVote...

I may be wrong. That is why I make no assumption about FLA.

I do, however, know Cuyahoga County very well and so I can make the statements and then back them with my research and knowledge of the lay of the land......

[nodictators]

60. False Information Alert

Miami-Dade and Broward counties use ES&S touchscreens.

Palm Beach uses Sequoia touchscreens.

No Diebold in any of those.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

6. Tin Foil futures tumble...

...Now can we get on with actually WINNING in 2008??

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr_Spock]

42. Cut the guy some slack will ya?

He's probably gonna be right about the final outcome so just ignore if you don't like the post.

[sergei kirov]

7. too many registered voters in Cuyahoga county

According to the US census the population in Cuyahoga county that is over 18 is 1,022916 as of July 2003. the population is dropping, so I did not bother to adjust for 2004. The number of registered voters is 1005807 or 98%. In an urban county it is highly unlikely that only 2% of residents are non citizens, this number must contain a lot of registrations that need to be purged from the roles. Using the inflated number of registered voters you get an 85% turn out. Now lets reduce the registered voters by 10%, probably the highest possible number that could be real but still an arbitrary selection. This gives us 920624 voters. This is 90% of the population registered. Now the turn out is 93%. Do we really think 93% actually turned out to vote? The real question would be to prove that only the Republicans were stuffing the ballot box and not also the Democrats.

[WCGreen]

12. Most people register when they get or renew their Drivers Licence

That is why there are so many registered voters.

Also, CC did not drop in population...

They also purge the rolls every now and then. Unless the BOE is informed about someone passing or moving, that person is still on the rolls until purging time.....

It is reactive not proactive.....

[sergei kirov]

46. registered voters

According to the US census Cuyahoga county's population decreased by 2.1% between 2000 and 2003. I have no reason to believe that this trend did not continue through 2004. Ohio does have motor voter laws but you must specially request a form which you then mail in. (At least at any DMV that I have been in in the Buckeye state and I have changed my registration 4 times so I have some experience. This is not an effortless method, and I have never been asked if I wanted to register to vote. Some DMV's may be more helpful.)

To be honest if I were going to fix the vote I would not bother with hacking the machines just add 5% to your guy's total with extra votes. Turnout is typically low enough in this country that no one would be the wiser, especially since turnout is usually reported as a percentage of registered voters and the registered voter numbers are clearly too high in many parts of the state. (My understanding is that it is difficult to purge people from the roles, so the numbers reflect more than the total number of possible votes in an area.) I am not saying it was done, but it sure fits nicely with the little interview by the President and Rove et al saying that their numbers showed the president winning.

[noamnety]

8. a glitch?

"these have got to be a glitch in the totaling routine

Every instance is explained away as everything was fine, the machines worked perfectly, there was just "a glitch."

what the hell does that mean?

Is the "totaling routine" referring to the second set of books in the GEMS software? The set that seems to be there for the purpose of manipulating vote totals?

[baldguy]

9. Right. This isn't rocket science.

It's ACCOUNTING.

If there's a "glitch" in the software, LOOK AT THE SOFTWARE & FIX IT! A programmer should be able to analyze the program and tell EXACTLY what is happening.

And if all else fails, they can RECOUNT the county.

The fact that the totals for the county add up is irrelevant, when more than 30 individual precincts had turn-out rates over 100% - more people voted than were registered to vote! The total for Kerry was 66%, when it could easily have been 80%. That's 85,000 votes just in one county.

[WCGreen]

16. No precincts reported more than 100%

The highest Tunronut, I believe, was 79%.

Several cities and wards did report more than 100%, but the tally kept by the computer, the end tally, is not by city or ward but by precicnt.

[baldguy]

32. Really? Look for yourself:

Straight off the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website:
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm

ORANGE CSD: REG. VOTERS 11640 / BALLOTS CAST 22931 / diff -11291
WOODMERE VIL: REG. VOTERS 558 / BALLOTS CAST 8854 / diff -8296
HIGHLAND HILLS VIL: REG. VOTERS 760 / BALLOTS CAST 8822 / diff -8062
BEDFORD HEIGHTS: REG. VOTERS 8142 / BALLOTS CAST 13512 / diff -5370
FAIRVIEW PARK: REG. VOTERS 13342 / BALLOTS CAST 18472 / diff -5130
BEDFORD CSD: REG. VOTERS 22777 / BALLOTS CAST 27856 / diff -5079
BAY VILLAGE: REG. VOTERS 13710 / BALLOTS CAST 18663 / diff -4953
BEDFORD: REG. VOTERS 9942 / BALLOTS CAST 14465 / diff -4523
WARRENSVILLE HEIGH: REG. VOTERS 10562 / BALLOTS CAST 15039 / diff -4477
OAKWOOD VIL: REG. VOTERS 2746 / BALLOTS CAST 7099 / diff -4353
STRG WD3: REG. VOTERS 7806 / BALLOTS CAST 12108 / diff -4302
BROOKLYN: REG. VOTERS 8016 / BALLOTS CAST 12303 / diff -4287
BEACHWOOD: REG. VOTERS 9943 / BALLOTS CAST 13939 / diff -3996
WARRENSVILLE CSD: REG. VOTERS 12218 / BALLOTS CAST 15822 / diff -3604
ROCKY RIVER: REG. VOTERS 16600 / BALLOTS CAST 20070 / diff -3470
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS: REG. VOTERS 12173 / BALLOTS CAST 14854 / diff -2681
SOLN WD6: REG. VOTERS 2292 / BALLOTS CAST 4300 / diff -2008
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS: REG. VOTERS 10072 / BALLOTS CAST 11982 / diff -1910
MORELAND HILLS VIL: REG. VOTERS 2990 / BALLOTS CAST 4616 / diff -1626
VALLEY VIEW VIL: REG. VOTERS 1787 / BALLOTS CAST 3409 / diff -1622
PEPPER PIKE: REG. VOTERS 5131 / BALLOTS CAST 6479 / diff -1348
CHAGRIN FALLS VIL: REG. VOTERS 3557 / BALLOTS CAST 4860 / diff -1303
CUYAHOGA HEIGHTS V: REG. VOTERS 570 / BALLOTS CAST 1382 / diff -812
OLMSTED FALLS: REG. VOTERS 6538 / BALLOTS CAST 7328 / diff -790
BROOKLYN HEIGHTS V: REG. VOTERS 1144 / BALLOTS CAST 1869 / diff -725
INDEPENDENCE LSD: REG. VOTERS 5735 / BALLOTS CAST 6226 / diff -491
INDEPENDENCE: REG. VOTERS 5735 / BALLOTS CAST 6226 / diff -491
MAYFIELD VIL: REG. VOTERS 2764 / BALLOTS CAST 3145 / diff -381
NORTH OLMSTED: REG. VOTERS 25794 / BALLOTS CAST 25887 / diff -93
SOUTH EUCLID: REG. VOTERS 16902 / BALLOTS CAST 16917 / diff -15

That's a total of 97,489 fraudulent votes. And just who do you think they were tallied for, hmmm?

[WCGreen]

33. THOSE ARE NOT PRECINCTS.....

THEY ARE CITIES AND CITY TOTAL ARE WRONG....

The precicnt total is not the same. The precicnt total is the number used to tabulate the total vote, not the numbers that are presented by the city.....

Go the the web site. Add up the totals for all the cities that are listed, not the wards but the cities because that is the number you insist on looking at.

You will notice the number is

854,622. That would mean that 85% of the population turned out to vote.

Look there are problems but not in the vote count. It is in the total for the cities which is not the number used when counting the vote. The number used is precicnt by precicnt and that number totals out to be

584,710 votes cast on election day at teh polls.

Add the 80,624 votes cast via absentee and you get to the number
665,334 which is over 65% turnout.....

[baldguy]

37. So, then where do these numbers come from?

When it says on the county's own website "REGISTERED VOTERS - FAIRVIEW PARK 13342", then that DOES NOT mean there are 13,342 registered voters who were allowed to vote in the municipality of Fairview Park before the election?
When it says "BALLOTS CAST FAIRVIEW PARK 18472", then that DOES NOT mean that there were 18,472 ballots cast by registered voters in that municipality on election day?

Now my understanding is that ONE voter can cast ONE ballot in ONE precinct in ONE city. Right? Or does Ohio count numbers differently?

They can't get the extra ballots from the absentees, since those are broken out seperatly. They're not provisionals, since they won't start to count those until friday. So, where do these numbers come from?

[The Flaming Red Head]

40. why does the city ward tally match on reg. voter and not votes cast?

REGISTERED VOTERS - BEDFORD
9942 (this number equals the total of registered voters when you add the wards)
REGISTERED VOTERS - BDFD WD1
1640
REGISTERED VOTERS - BDFD WD2
1570
REGISTERED VOTERS - BDFD WD3
1799
REGISTERED VOTERS - BDFD WD4
2097
REGISTERED VOTERS - BDFD WD5
1387
REGISTERED VOTERS - BDFD WD6
1449


BALLOTS CAST BEDFORD
14465

this number doesn't match when you add the wards it should be 5912
BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD1
956
BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD2
980
BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD3
951
BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD4
1249
BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD5
826
BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD6
950

I just pulled this one out of the pile to see.

[WCGreen]

48. See my post at the end.....

[WCGreen]

35. BTW, That is why I started to look this whole thing

over in the first place.... By seeing what the fuck was going on....

It seems to me BBV just went to the site, saw a problem and went off half cocked like a Art Bell guest to see how much shit they could stir up....

Me? Well I just posted all this shit on here because I just reached in my ass and grabbed a chunck of crap out just to piss people off....

You want my resume....

30 years as an active democrat
1 year as an elected member of the Board of Elections
25 years as an accountant
8 years as the elected treasurer of the democratic party in CC
The endorsed Demcoratic candidate for State Senate in CC
The treasurer of more than a dozen judges and county wide officials
A writer for the local Independent papers
Published on the PD OpEd Page
Never once voted for a republican

Oh I guess you will say that just makes me part of the problem....

[The Flaming Red Head]

41. And your name is?

[WCGreen]

50. Chris Green

or William C. Green

Which ever you choose to use.....

I was on the BOE as W. Christopher Green...

[WCGreen]

14. No the glitch was in how the totals were precented..

If a city is divided by precincts only, for example Brecksville, the total number posted as a total on the Web Site was 7,303 votes cast.

When you get the prec by prec reuslts, the total number of votes cast is exactly the same, 7,303.

Every city divided by wards had the wrong total.

But the numbers cast by wards added up to the number cast by precicnt.

That is why these numbers are correct.

Look, the whole process is overseen by two democrats andtwo republicans. The executive Director is, by law a democrat. If you remember, he was the guy who went toe to toe with Blackwell about the paper thickness and won....

[TruthIsAll]

10. And Greg Palast disagrees with you. I believe Palast.

No fraud? Right.

[WCGreen]

11. Good for Greg P.

As far as I know he never stepped foot in Cuyahoga County and I live here. I also served on the BOE and know how the votes are counted and the safegaurds they take to insure a credible election.

In the late 1970's, the board was under the control of the federal government and was mandated by the DOJ to clean up it's act.

They did and I have faith, once I looked at the numbers, in how the tally was done.

Look, the totals are phenominal for Kerry. I was hoping Kerry would win the county by 150k votes. That is what we can expect here. But to win by over 214k, now that is phenominal.

As for machines, I think the whole county is still on the punch card. One city a few years back had tried out an electronic voting device, but when the state didn't decide on one machine, Cuyahoga went back with the punch cards...

As for the PD's comment about the overlapping voting districts....

That's bullshit since Bay Village, the one showing, in the total, 9800 more votes than were cast on a prec by prec count, is all in one jurisdiction. One.

Shaker Hts., which has about three different political jurisdictions running through it, came out right on target in the count. No, there is some other routing problem with the totaling. I think it has to do with which cities are divided by wards and which cities are divided by precincts. All the cities with precincts only matched the number of votes cast as reported on the Web Site. All the cities with wards AND precincts were off.

If you go through, Prec by Prec and add up the numbers, you get:

584,710 votes counted and cast on election day.
80,624 is the number of absentees...
665,334 as the total number cast on election day and counted. Same number reported to the SOS and shown on their site.

There are 24,788 provisional ballots still out there.....

If we used the total numbers posted on the web site, you would have

854,622 votes cast. That would be about 84% turnout. It was good but not that good.......

If there is fraud in Ohio, It has to be where the voting was done via electronic devices.

[geek tragedy]

13. Greg Palast just makes shit up.

He's able to keep track of all this voter fraud from the other side of the Atlantic? Right.

[bobbyboucher]

22. I would give him, uh, let's see, about, uh, say.... a million times

more cred than you.

[geek tragedy]

23. Good for you. n/t

[pschoeb]

31. Umm, Greg Palast is American and lives in New York

It's amazing but it is possible to write stories for the British Press without being British or in Britain. I know hard to beleive(sarcasm). When Palast writes for the Obsrever or Guardian it is almost always about American issues, that's what they hire him for, to write about the state of American politics and corporations. Palast also writes stories for American papers and magazines as well.

[geek tragedy]

34. I stand corrected (and convicted of making shit up myself!)

He still is very long on conclusions and very short on supporting evidence.

[Malikshah]

49. Oh my god-- please

Subtlety is an art--please folks, remember that.

Palast will go down in history while the naysayers will attempt to change history.

[Zhade]

61. Indeed.

That quote's a keeper.

[Junkdrawer]

18. Good. Then you won't mind the manual recounts...

Cuz here they come....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2657197&mesg_id=2657197

[WCGreen]

19. There wasn't a 123% turnout in Fairview Park

Which, by the way went

4387 for Kerry
3993 for Bush...

Turnout was 63.9%

It is not twelve miles outside of Cleveland, it is the first suburb to the southwest side of Cleveland.

See, people from the outside look at numbers and don't dwelve any further.

But if you must base your recounts on what people from far far away are saying then so be it.

But from someone who is an ACCOUNANT, A FORMER BOARD OF ELECTION MEMBER, THE FORMER TREASURER OF THE CUYAHOGA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, A FORMER CANDIDATE, then I would say run the cards through the machine again. But a manual recount based on accusations from afar that have no basis in reality, nah.....

[Junkdrawer]

20. Manual Recount...

Coming right at cha...

[bobbyboucher]

21. No need for manual recounts. Trust the tabulators.

We don't need no stinkin' verification. We trust the machines.

[Junkdrawer]

24. Bob Boudelang...Is that you????

Like we'd believe a recount that consists of feeding the ballots through the same lying ass machines...

[WCGreen]

26. Then count them manually...

Kerry won Cuyahoga County by 214k votes. Thats 63% of the votes cast went for Kerry..

There is nothing strange about the numbers but hey, scan a web site, believe what you want to believe and then be really pissed of when the results come back the same...

BTW, the Cuyahoga County BOE has used the same counting machine since the 1980's....

I'm sure the good people of Cuyahoga County would love to pay all that overtime.....

BTW, I knew how I was going to vote in this election back in 1976.....

YEa, I'm some right wing nutcase.........

[Junkdrawer]

27. It's the central tabulator GEMS we're looking at...

And those in its ilk...

[hang a left]

29. ROTFLMAO N/T

[SoCalDemocrat]

36. You've proven nothing

Your analysis, if you call it that, contains no support for your position whatsoever.

[WCGreen]

39. Go to this site, not the cover page....

This is the data that I looked at because this is the true data that is counted amd also the way the data is counted.

Precinct by precicnt not Ward by ward or city by city....

Look it all over and then get back to me if you think there are any problems.

It's complicated and will take a while to decifer it so go ahead, be my guest.

Clue.... Go to page 0150 and see the numbers in column 03. This is the whole bay village total votes cast on election at the polling locations. Now scroll down to page 0186. This is the total cast for absentee in those political subdivisons listed at the top of each page. So, if you take the total number of votes cast the day of the election (Add all the precinct up in column 03 for Bay Village, you get 8,715 votes. Now on page 0186, you will see that absentees for 10-16-2004 equal 9948. These are, for some reason, placed in column 03 for Bay Village. Now I know all those votes did not come from Bay Village. That is the glitch I was talking about, in the total. The individual precicnts are correct....

So, if you ad the 8715 to the 9948, you get the total ballots cast number listed above, or 18663. That's the mistake. The vote totals are correct by precicnt are correct. The number that appears at the top of each page are not the official numbers that are used for turnout purposes.

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/boe/results/history/2004/110204_GE_Canvass.TXT

Remember, I have been using data like this for more than twenty five years to help predict voting behavior in Cuyahoga County. Through my efforts, we elected a clean slate of democratic office holders. Not one county wide rpublican. If you want to continue to challenge my knowledge and my experience, please tell me yours.....

[Nederland]

43. Thank You

Thanks for explaining this.

I have to say however, that Cuyahoga County needs to get its act together and fix the way the results are displayed. As it stands, they are leading many people to believe that there was a serious act of fraud in the county. I think they would have to know that it is in theiur best interest to get this fixed and display the corrected number on the website with a long note explaining what happened.

Any chance of that, or are the election workers too concerned about covering their own asses?

[pschoeb]

44. Where do you get 854,622 as total?

The 665,334 total on BOE website includes absentee, that is what Total means.

  	 
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT
Vote for 1 	(With 1458 of 1458 precincts counted)
MICHAEL BADNARIK/RICHARD V. CAMPAGNA 	
1828 	  	0.28%
GEORGE W. BUSH/DICK CHENEY 	
215624 	  	33.05%
JOHN F. KERRY/JOHN EDWARDS 	
433262 	  	66.41%
CANDIDATE DISQUALIFIED 	
0 	  	0.00%
MICHAEL A. PEROUTKA/CHUCK BALDWIN 	
1667 	  	0.26%

Total Votes for President is 652381 which matches decently with ballot totals, some people might have written in.

The Canvas Report generated on 11-8 clearly adds the absentee ballots into the Total that equals 655,344. Notice that the absentees are place in column one, that is for a grand Total, which adds up to 655,344.

RUN DATE:11/08/04 12:13 PM                        CUYAHOGA COUNTY                                          REPORT-EL52     PAGE 0200
                                                                     WITH 1458 OF 1458 PRECINCTS REPORTING
                                                   TOTAL  PERCENT                                                    TOTAL  PERCENT
   01 = BALLOTS CAST TOTAL                       665,334             07 = BALLOTS CAST SENATE DIST 18               12,760
   02 = BALLOTS CAST ABSENTEE                     80,624             08 = BALLOTS CAST SENATE DIST 21              133,805
   03 = BALLOTS CAST CONGRESS DIST 10            297,712             09 = BALLOTS CAST SENATE DIST 23              149,283
   04 = BALLOTS CAST CONGRESS DIST 11            288,253             10 = BALLOTS CAST SENATE DIST 24              202,673
   05 = BALLOTS CAST CONGRESS DIST 13             51,962             11 = BALLOTS CAST SENATE DIST 25              166,813
   06 = BALLOTS CAST CONGRESS DIST 14             27,407             12 = BALLOTS CAST HOUSE DIST 07                52,478
                                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)         01      02      03      04      05      06      07      08      09      10      11      12
                                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7855 WESTLAKE 5-E                       406 . . . . . . 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
7856 WESTLAKE 5-F                       471 . . . . . . 471 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
                   WESTLAKE WARD 5     2651       0    2651       0       0       0       0       0       0    2651       0       0

7861 WESTLAKE 6-A                       499 . . . . . . 499 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
7862 WESTLAKE 6-B                       553 . . . . . . 553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
7863 WESTLAKE 6-C                       593 . . . . . . 593 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593
7864 WESTLAKE 6-D                       403 . . . . . . 403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
7865 WESTLAKE 6-E                       442 . . . . . . 442 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
                   WESTLAKE WARD 6     2490       0    2490       0       0       0       0       0       0    2490       0       0
                     WESTLAKE CITY    15225       0   15225       0       0       0       0       0       0   15225       0       0

7901 WOODMERE A                         301 . . . . . . . . . . 301 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
                  WOODMERE VILLAGE      301       0       0     301       0       0       0       0       0       0     301       0

7902 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-10-21         896 . . 896 . . 896 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
7903 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-11-21        1044 .  1044 .  1044 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1044
7904 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-12-25        1426 .  1426 .  1426 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1426
7905 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-13-23        4314 .  4314 .  4314 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4314
7906 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-14-23        5295 .  5295 .  5295 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5295
7907 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-15-23        7284 .  7284 .  7284 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7284
7908 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-16-24        9948 .  9948 .  9948 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9948
7909 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-17-24        2147 .  2147 .  2147 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2147
7910 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-18-24        3146 .  3146 .  3146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3146
7911 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-07-25        5724 .  5724 . . . . .  5724 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5724 .  5724
7912 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-08-25        8553 .  8553 . . . . .  8553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8553
7913 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-09-21        6007 .  6007 . . . . .  6007 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6007
7914 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-10-21        2627 .  2627 . . . . .  2627 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2627
7915 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-11-21        2633 .  2633 . . . . .  2633 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2633
7916 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-12-25        4744 .  4744 . . . . .  4744 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4744
7917 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-13-23         203 . . 203 . . . . . . 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
7918 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-17-24        3313 .  3313 . . . . .  3313 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3313
7919 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-98-18         574 . . 574 . . . . . . 574 . . . . . . . . . . 574
7920 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 13-17-24        2540 .  2540 . . . . . . . . .  2540 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2540
7921 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 13-18-24        4009 .  4009 . . . . . . . . .  4009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4009
7922 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 14-17-24        2812 .  2812 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2812 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2812
7923 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 14-98-18        1385 .  1385 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1385 .  1385
                    ABSENTEE TOTAL    80624   80624   35500   34378    6549    4197    1959   13207   17096   27915   20447    5724

[WCGreen]

47. Not from this page but from the front page of the Cuyahoga

BOE results page.

That is where everyone gets the wrong totals. The ones that say Bay Village had 18863 votes cast. That is what caused the uproar....

So if you add up all the cities, not the Wards or political subdivisions, you get the 884,622 total votes...


http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm

Registered Ballots Cast
City l
Bay Village 13,710 18,663
Beachwood 9,943 13,939
Bedford 9,942 14,465
Bedford Hts 8,142 13,512
Bentleyville 801 502
Berea 13,241 11,372
Bratenahl 1,214 762
Brecksville 11,304 7,303
Broadview Hts. 13,312 11,181
Brooklyn 8,016 12,303
Brooklyn Hts. 1,144 1,869
Brook Park 14,491 14,458
Chagrin Falls Twp 112 67
Chagrin Falls Vil 3,557 4,860
Cleveland 323,202 214,902
Cleveland Hts. 38,840 29,885
Cuyahoga Hts. 570 1,382
East Cleveland 18,244 15,045
Euclid 37,618 27,479
Fairview Park 13,342 8,472
Garfield Hts. 19,953 18,636
Gates Mills 2,250 1,375
Glenwillow 448 213
Higland Hts 6,449 5,731
Highland Hills 760 8,822
Hunting Valley 544 301
Independence 5,735 6,226
Lakewood 41,983 28,531
Linndale 92 53
Lyndhurst 12,411 7,681
Maple Hts. 18,608 15,808
Mayfield Hts. 13,755 12,086
Mayfield Village 2,764 3,145
Middleburg Hts. 12,173 14,854
Moreland Hills 2,990 4,616
Newburgh Hts. 1,430 840
North Olmsted 25,794 25,887
North Randall 896 393
North Royalton 22,404 18,233
Oakwood Village 2,746 7,099
Olmsted Falls 6,538 7,328
Olmsted Twp 8,418 5,380
Orange 2,775 1,748
Parma 56,146 43,289
Parma Hts. 14,647 13,967
Pepper Pike 5,131 6,479
Richmond Hts. 7,753 4,787
Rocky River 16,600 20,070
Seven Hills 9,077 8,473
Shaker Hts. 24,577 14,499
Solon 16,949 13,819
South Euclid 16,902 16,917
Strongsville 34,805 29,125
University Hts 10,072 11,982
Valley View 1,787 3,409
Walton Hills 1,953 1,333
Warrensville Hts. 10,562 15,039
Westlake 25,627 25,173
Woodmere 558 8,854
1,005,807 854,622


One of the reasons I am a little upset is BBV just put these numbers out there, didn't even seem to bother investigating, they just went off half cocked and said there are problem, big problems.

Well yea the Cuyahgoa BOE has a problem but it is in presentation not calculation. They have been presenting these numbers like this for years.

Sorry it took a while to get this on the web but I didn't realize I could cut and paste from a spreadsheet. I also had to step away from my computer for a while, Life does intrude now and then......

[pschoeb]

56. Sorry, I think I misread your first post, you are correct

I thought you were actually claiming the 854,622 and 85% turnout were correct totals. The problem is the half assed way they did Absentee counts in the ballot totals areas, it's to bad they didn't use the column that could have been filled in for precinct counts of absentees.

For those looking at the Canvas information you will notice that Absentees are prefeced by a code like "7902 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-10-21". I think from looking at these, the first number is Congressional District, followed by State House District, followed by State Senate Distrct. These number codes seem to represent bundles of absentee ballots, with the smallest designation being the State House District. For some reason, it seems that in the ballot total section of the Canvas report, an absentee count is never broken down below these bundlings.

Vote totals by absentee bundling codes

                                    Total
7902 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-10-21     896
7903 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-11-21     1044
7904 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-12-25     1426
7905 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-13-23     4314
7906 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-14-23     5295
7907 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-15-23     7284
7908 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-16-24     9948
7909 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-17-24     2147
7910 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-18-24     3146
7911 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-07-25     5724
7912 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-08-25     8553
7913 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-09-21     6007
7914 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-10-21     2627
7915 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-11-21     2633
7916 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-12-25     4744
7917 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-13-23     203
7918 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-17-24     3313
7919 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-98-18     574
7920 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 13-17-24     2540
7921 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 13-18-24     4009
7922 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 14-17-24     2812
7923 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 14-98-18     1385
total                              80624

For example Bay Village comes up with the 18,663 because it had all of
7908 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-16-24, 9948 votes added to it, despite the fact that these are all the absentee ballots for House district 16, not just Bay Village (House district 16, would include at least Westlake, North Olmstead, Fairview,Rock River City). To Prove how many Absentee ballots were in Bay Village, look at votes for Bay Village tax levy from the Canvas, and we see no where near 9948 absentee ballots there. IF you start looking at the tax levy vote for each city, you can get an idea about the absentee votes. These erroneous city ballot totals aren't used for anything, and aren't reflected anywhere else.

ISSUE #2 - BAY VILLAGE CITY PRO'D TAX LEVY (RENEWAL)
CURRENT EXPENSES - 2.5 MILLS
  Vote for  1
   01 = FOR THE TAX LEVY                           4,843   50.10
   02 = AGAINST THE TAX LEVY                       4,823   49.90
                                   ----------------
                                         01      02
                                   ----------------
0111 BAY VILLAGE 1-A                    176     234
0112 BAY VILLAGE 1-B                    201     233
0113 BAY VILLAGE 1-C                    185     225
0114 BAY VILLAGE 1-D                    204     236
0115 BAY VILLAGE 1-E                    219     236
                BAY VILLAGE WARD 1      985    1164

0121 BAY VILLAGE 2-A                    206     243
0122 BAY VILLAGE 2-B                    211     209
0123 BAY VILLAGE 2-C                    202     186
0124 BAY VILLAGE 2-D                    175     219
0125 BAY VILLAGE 2-E                    170     259
                BAY VILLAGE WARD 2      964    1116

0131 BAY VILLAGE 3-A                    225     177
0132 BAY VILLAGE 3-B                    191     174
0133 BAY VILLAGE 3-C                    231     178
0134 BAY VILLAGE 3-D                    221     162
0135 BAY VILLAGE 3-E                    210     208
                BAY VILLAGE WARD 3     1078     899

0141 BAY VILLAGE 4-A                    216     151
0142 BAY VILLAGE 4-B                    182     182
0143 BAY VILLAGE 4-C                    190     207
0144 BAY VILLAGE 4-D                    218     180
0145 BAY VILLAGE 4-E                    143     160
0146 BAY VILLAGE 4-F                    209     185
                BAY VILLAGE WARD 4     1158    1065

                  BAY VILLAGE CITY     4185    4244

7908 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-16-24         658     579
                    ABSENTEE TOTAL      658     579

[Awsi Dooger]

57. Do you really expect balance and basic competence from BBV?

As I posted in another thread yesterday, I knew zilch about Ohio voting when I looked at Cuyahoga beginning Saturday. I've been to the state of Ohio twice in my life.

It was admittedly confusing and poorly organized on the website, but I knew it had to be something I was doing wrong so I kept reading and clicking and looking. Even while watching college football simultaneously I was able to figure out the wards/municipalities problem and come up with voting numbers that made sense and fit.

BBV stormed in with tunnelvision and found what they wanted. No examination necessary.

[m berst]

45. no burden of proof on us

Do We Still Have a Democracy?

<snip>

In a free society, where the legitimacy of the government must reside in the consent of the governed, "trust us" is a totally unacceptable response to the citizen's demand for proof of the integrity of his vote. It is doubly unacceptable, when "trust us" is uttered by an employee of a private company, the officers of which have announced their support of a political party and of candidates whose names appear on the ballot.

And that is exactly the condition in which we find ourselves in the presidential election of 2004.

Herein, as all too few observers have noticed, is the crux of this issue: it is not the ability of the critics to prove electoral fraud, but rather the inability of the manufacturers and software programmers to prove electoral integrity.

<snip>

Let us state the fundamental moral and political issue clearly and emphatically.

The citizen has no obligation to prove that his ballot is secure; the citizen has a right to be confident that his vote will be counted, as he cast it. And it is the solemn obligation of the government to secure that right.

The right of the citizen to a secure ballot is the foundation of a democratic society and the guarantee that the government rules with the consent of the governed. If that right has been violated by supporters and/or agents of the government, that government has no legitimacy.

We do not know if Election 2004 was fraudulent. But equally important, the paperless machines have made it impossible to verify that it was not fraudulent. And it is the inalienable right of a free people that their franchise be fair, accurate, transparent, and verifiable.

This, at least, we can affirm: there are disquieting indications that this presidential election, like the previous, was a fraud and that in a fair election, John Kerry would now be the president-elect.

This essay is in the public domain. I have decided not to copyright it order to encourage distribution. Please link, download, copy, and distribute at will. But if you do, please indicate author, source (The Crisis Papers) and URL (www.crisispapers.org/essays/democracy.htm). An unaltered copy of this page will supply all three.

Ernest Partridge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/11/10_democracy.html

[WCGreen]

51. I whole heartly agree...

Let's look for fraud. But let's look where there are paperless trails, CC uses punchcasrd, there is proof or the vote.

The machine use in CC is a smiple optical reader, a punch card reader...

Look, all I am really saying is let's get on to other places that need to be looked at and not waste time where there is no reason....

Let's look where there is no paper trail.....

[m berst]

53. understood, thanks

There are people, or so it seems to me, who are intentionally confusing things (not you) so I am being a stickler for clarity.

[The Wielding Truth]

52. Thanks WC this makes sense. If anyone wants recount I say knock yourself

out. It's only time and money.

[sludge man]

54. I've poured over the results...

I have to agree, there is nothing here as far as the presidential vote. For example, Highland Hills; 760 registered voters, 248 for Kerry, 13 for Bush. Woodmere; 558 registered voters, 258 for Kerry, 40 for Bush. I've checked every precinct in every ward in all 59 communities in Cuyahoga County including absentee votes. The total votes for president never exceeded registered voters. The total votes for president that I counted match the Secretary of State count. That being said, the BOE has never explained to my satisfaction how they had ballots cast in excess of registered voters. The absentee vote distribution across all of the communities doesn't add up. I will be keeping my eye on the provisional ballot numbers.

[WCGreen]

58. Here is the page that should explain the difference...

Notice that the absentees for 10/16 are located in column three. If you add 9948 to 8715, you get 18663.....

8715 is the total number of votes cast in Bay Village on a prec by prec count.....


RUN DATE:11/03/04 04:06 AM NOVEMBER 2, 2004 REPORT-EL52 PAGE 0186
WITH 1458 OF 1458 PRECINCTS REPORTING
TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT
01 = BALLOTS CAST STATE BD OF ED DIST 05 215,433 09 = BALLOTS CAST BEDFORD 14,465
02 = BALLOTS CAST STATE BD OF ED DIST 11 449,901 10 = BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD1 956
03 = BALLOTS CAST BAY VILLAGE 18,663 11 = BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD2 980
04 = BALLOTS CAST BYVL WD1 2,233 12 = BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD3 951
05 = BALLOTS CAST BYVL WD2 2,164 13 = BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD4 1,249
06 = BALLOTS CAST BYVL WD3 2,030 14 = BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD5 826
07 = BALLOTS CAST BYVL WD4 2,288 15 = BALLOTS CAST BDFD WD6 950
08 = BALLOTS CAST BEACHWOOD 13,939 16 = BALLOTS CAST BEDFORD HEIGHTS 13,512
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7855 WESTLAKE 5-E 406
7856 WESTLAKE 5-F 471
7861 WESTLAKE 6-A 499
7862 WESTLAKE 6-B 553
7863 WESTLAKE 6-C 593
7864 WESTLAKE 6-D 403
7865 WESTLAKE 6-E 442
7901 WOODMERE A . . . . 301
7902 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-10-21 . . . . 896
7903 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-11-21 . . . 1044
7904 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-12-25 . . . 1426
7905 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-13-23 . . . 4314
7906 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-14-23 . . . 5295
7907 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-15-23 . . . 7284
7908 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-16-24 9948 . . . 9948
7909 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-17-24 2147
7910 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 10-18-24 3146
7911 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-07-25 . . . 5724
7912 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-08-25 . . . 8553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8553 8553 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8553
7913 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-09-21 . . . 6007
7914 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-10-21 . . . 2627
7915 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-11-21 . . . 2633
7916 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-12-25 . . . 4744
7917 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-13-23 . . . . 203
7918 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-17-24 3313
7919 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 11-98-18 574
7920 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 13-17-24 2540
7921 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 13-18-24 4009
7922 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 14-17-24 2812
7923 ABSENTEE VOTERS - 14-98-18 1385


[Heath.Hunnicutt]

62. Why did some Wards turn out 150%

Why did Strongsville Ward 3 turn out 151%

(a) the absentee ballots for that city were counted there and added to the ward total.
(b) counts from Wards 1,2, and 4 were accidentally moved there, evenly, so they would all come out to 67% but 3 would be 151%
(c) systematic, obvious, published, fraud.
(d) a and c

The fact is that (a) makes the most sense in explaining why some Ward totals are for remarkable over-voting. The city totals and ballots cast - absentee do work out to the same reported number.

[Chomskyite]

63. This is the kind of thing we need

We need more DUers with expertise and with time and proximity to do this kind of necessary work.

I thank you for doing this and we're all in your debt.

I'm wondering what the number of overvotes are in this county and also whether we'll ever see a trustworthy attempt to count these. I'm also wondering about the number of signatures of voters on the rolls. Did these match the total number of ballots to the degree expected?