nonscientific evidence

[Middle Finger Bush]

I remember on election night a trend which caught my eye on both the Florida vote and the National vote was Bush's early and incredibly consistant lead.

With very few precincts reported, Bush leapt ahead with a 300k lead in Florida and a 3mil lead for the US. It was uncanny how from about 10% to 90% reporting that this incremental lead stayed almost exactly consistent.

I can't really understand how this would be possible.

[Stevious]

1. early voters...

voted for Kerry?

[Middle Finger Bush]

2. how would that create a Bush lead?

and aren't they reported by precinct, not necessarily chronologically?

[SmallFatCat]

3. Good point

That would suggest to me that the early reporting precincts contained almost all the "majority".

Surely early/late voting doesn't come into this, as this is the precinct reporting the whole days results.

[papau]

4. late reporting equates to reporting the changes that allow Bush to "win"

There were negative votes flying about as the numbers were changed!

Only the 25 million negative adjustment to increase Bush lead is known to have not been accepted as a legit correction by the state summary computers

it is best to steal in small bites!

:-)