Uh...aren't we missing about like...10 million votes???

[ElementaryPenguin]

Brookings Institute predicted that a voter turnout equaling the large one in '92 (61%) - would mean an increase of 17 million votes cast for president over the 105 million for 2000 - bringing the total to 122 million.

But at 115 million for this 2004 election - we have only a 10 million vote increase over 2000 - even though THE VOTER TURNOUT WAS 70.76%!!!!!

WTF?? How many are we missing? We'd be missing at least 7 million if the turnout were "only" 61% - but with an immense turnout of 70.76% - we're missing a whole sh*tload, are we not?? Anyone got their calculator handy? Is this as rotten as it sounds? Lots of Dem votes to be found at the bottom of Lake Erie and Biscayne Bay, perhaps?

http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/20040909mcdonald.htm

:shrug:
:puke:
:argh:

[Kukesa]

1. This was posted on election night (or early the next morning)

by VolcanoJen and it got lost.

Glad you're bringing it up again.

[ElementaryPenguin]

9. Fishing around for any explanations out there...

Isn't more likely there are somewhere in the vicinity of 20 millions votes unaccounted for??

:wtf:

[CAcyclist]

15. Check out my stats lower down on this page

Bush's increases are stunning and Kerry's increases are marginal and the overall voter rate is only 54% which makes no sense considering how many people went to the polls.

You are so right - we are missing millions of voters.

[CAcyclist]

16. Check out my calculations please!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=33367&mesg_id=33367

[johnnie]

2. I wonder what happened in Ohio

The NYT's reported that Dem registration was up by 250% and the repubs up by 25%. Strange that bush won by 3% in 2000 and around the same in 2004.

[ElementaryPenguin]

3. 250 to 25??? Wow!

I hadn't seen that!

:wow:

[johnnie]

4. Link

"The New York Times found that in Democratic areas of Ohio - primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods - new registrations from January through July rose 250 percent from the same period in 2000. In comparison, the Times reports today, registrations increased just 25 percent in Republican areas."

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1096191056165960.xml

[ElementaryPenguin]

7. Thanks for the link!! It's true! THAT clinches it for me!!

FRAUD!!!!!! And WTF is Kerry doing? It isn't just his career at stake, you know - it's the frickin' future of democracy in this country!!

:mad:

[Middle Finger Bush]

29. my theory at this point

is that Kerry is so deep in it that he doesn't want this to be uncovered because his role will be exposed.

[pointsoflight]

10. Combine that info with this....

Cuyahoga county--where Cleveland resides--was critical to this election. The Kerry campaign was counting on this county to carry Ohio, and had that happened, he would've won the majority of electoral votes. What happened in Coyahoga county? Many things have already been reported, but here's another that I haven't seen talked about....

Late into the night when Bush was leading in Ohio with 90% of precincts reporting, the democratic party was still optimistic of pulling out a win because they were still expecting huge numbers of additional votes from Cleveland that they thought would give them the lead. The votes never materialized. What happened?

55 precincts in Cleveland show a turnout of less than 40%. Several show a turnout of less than 20%, and one even shows a turnout of 7%. That's right, SEVEN PERCENT. Despite reports of very strong ground efforts, record turnouts, and long lines throughout Cleveland, 60, 70, 80, even over 90% of the people who took the time to register didn't bother to show up?!? Or did they? Was there massive voter suppression is these precincts? Were voters in these precincts forced to vote via provisional ballots, ballots that are not audited in Ohio, so that we have no way of knowing how many were actually cast?

We need to get a handle on what happened in Cleveland. In the 55 precincts I mention, 84.3% of the counted votes went to Kerry, 15.1% to Bush. We're talking about many thousands of votes here, just in Cleveland.

Please pass this along--I don't see it being reported anywhere.

Here's the raw data from Cuyahoga County for confirmation:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/boe/results/history/2004/1...

[krkaufman]

13. Ummm.... I can't imagine why turnout may have been lower than expected.

From MSNBC on election night, apparently of an Ohio polling place.

[ElementaryPenguin]

17. The turnout WASN'T lower - it was higher - 70.76%

Despite all the trouble people had to deal with. Very revealing photo though.

[krkaufman]

18. Lower than expected; NOT lower than the previous election.

Yes, this year's election had higher turnout than the previous election, but the turnout would have been even higher (i.e. > 70.76%!) -- and a good deal bluer -- had various voter suppression techniques not been so ably implemented.

[TheFarseer]

5. I knew dem registration far outpaces repuke

Can it really be that none of our new people voted and all of theirs did?!?!?! Then throw in new independents that were too lazy to register with a party(like me) and you have an even more lopsided figure.

[idiosyncratic]

6. How many stories like this will it take before this hits the news?

????

--------------------------

[ElementaryPenguin]

8. Everyone I show that graphic to - their jaw just drops!!

:mad:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. If true then 3.5 million defecit in popular vote can be overcome. eom

[ElementaryPenguin]

12. Yes - and very handily!

The scale of this fraud is amazing!

[CAcyclist]

14. Right!

According to my calculations - buried by now lower on this page (see Check out these stats) we only had a 54% voter turnout. But we had to have a much, much higher turnout.

[ElementaryPenguin]

19. Quite a descrency - 70.65% to 54%!! How many votes does that

amount to, CAcyclist? If you don't have the figure, perhaps TIA has it or can calculate it.

[CAcyclist]

22. 35.2 million missing people

215 million voting age , 116.7 voted

116.7 / 215 = .54 = 54%

so :

x/215 = .7065

x= .7065 *215 = 151.8

151.9-116.7 = 35.2 million people

[ElementaryPenguin]

24. HOLY SHIT! Paying attention, America?? 35 million missing votes!!

Thanks, CAC!!! How the hell can they explain away this one? Not even going to address it, evidently. Seven hour lines, etc. Amazing!

[CAcyclist]

25. Where do you get your 70% voter turnout estimate?

That figure makes a lot more sense than the 54% rate I calculated.

I also noticed that Bush's new voters are 2:1 white to minority from the exit polls . Since these are from CNN and most likely the AP exit polls which were adjusted to reflect the smaller number of minority votes - wait a second, how did AP know the actual votes were minority or not?

[ElementaryPenguin]

26. I'm still looking for the link - I found it yesterday...

I know it was a mainstream source. Very annoyed that I haven't found it yet.

[robbedvoter]

20. MIT study in 2000: 6 million votes uncounted nationwide. WITHOUT DIEBOLD

So, the number is hardly staggering.

[ElementaryPenguin]

21. How do you figure that? That would obviously already be factored in.

With the increase of population, registration and voter turnout - a 17 million vote increase (from 105 million) would have occured with just a turnout of 61% - we had a much greater turnout of 70.65% - and still only had a 10 million vote increase. Again, THIS DOES NOT ADD UP! We keep finding tens of thousands of extra Bush votes - and about zero extra Kerry votes!

[robbedvoter]

23. It's a number that was reported some time after the election.

It was based on a nationwide study they did. palast said "spoliage" was a significant part of the steal - especially in Ohio.

[leftchick]

27. I saw an Editor of an Ohio Newspaper on CNN Nov. 2....

Judy Woodruff's show. He and two other editors from papers in FL and PA were interviewed. The Ohio fellow said that by NOON on Tuesday more people had voted than for the WHOLE day in 2000! Now where the hell are their votes Mr. Blackwell?? I dare say it... FRAUD!!!!

:grr:

[Magic_Cookie]

28. Prior to the election

I was watching a show that was discussing turnout possibility & the guy had said that the starting BASE for this election should be around 114 million because of increased population. He had projected final totals around 120-124 million. Guess there were a few more memory card errors & machines that count down then we thought

[Christian30]

30. Every time I think I can let this go...

I find out something else that makes my blood boil.

Is this serious? Are we thinking some 20 million votes were jettisoned?

[cthrumatrix]

31. if it's up to the press...will never know.... we need to blow this and

other stories opne with a sincere investigation...NOW

[maryallen]

32. What about California's votes?

I kept waiting for CA votes to increase Kerry's popular vote.
But, it never materialized.

I know that it takes them weeks and weeks to count absentee votes.
I remember in 2000, Gore's popular vote advantage originally was about 200,000, but it grew and grew, reaching 500,000.

Funny how this election, the popular vote is stuck ... no movement at all ...

[jclay]

33. MISSING VOTERS!!

All day long on election day I listened to and read comments by poll workers that were saying they had "NEVER SEEN TURNOUT LIKE THIS" EVER!! Two dozen or so had been working these particular polls for 20 or 30 years. There were widespread reports like that all over the country. Now we're being told that turnout wasn't so hot, just a few million more than expected, what the hell is going on?? This was the huge story for me that day. "HUGE TURNOUT EVERYWHERE". Where are all of the missing votes? and why isn't anybody really talking about this??:wtf: