For All Interested In Research

[BeFree]

If you are going to really research, one must take caution one is not sucked in by bad numbers. On another thread, some numbers were being thrown around as fact, when, in fact, the numbers were not OFFICIAL.

An email asked me to look at what someone was using for election numbers from some place in NC. A Mecklenberg County, NC, Board of Elections website.


So I did. And here is what I found. And let this be a lesson to all you researchers: accept only what is labeled OFFICIAL RESULTS. Because, as you will see, this page from the Meck website is NOT OFFICIAL, in fact it is labeled as a *MediaDownload*, eh?

http://www.meckboe.org/ENR_MediaDownload/full.txt

Lord, lookie at all those NUMBers. Well, lets look 'em over.

Here is a sample from that page listing the three different congressional races in Meck county. When we compare the AB's the provisionals and what not, we see that page uses the same numbers for what appears to be Voter Turnout in each of the three congressional races in the county, ie, 1095, 443, 187, 57, 902, and 123. I have bolded the first set for your convenience. Well, if anyone used these numbers no wonder they're all screwed up.... these numbers are fucked and obviously NOT OFFICIAL, like the numbers Autorank used in the same case:


"US Congress, District 8",104,29,29,19287,62925,,,,,,,,,,,,
,"Larry Kissell","Robert C. (Robin) Hayes",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Total",10931,5157,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Precinct #",,,"Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,,
<snip>

AB1 ,74,73, 1095,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
AB2 ,5, 20, 443, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS1 ,17, 7, 187, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS2 ,0, 0, 57, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR1 ,76,16, 902, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR2 ,7, 1, 123,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,

"US Congress, District 9",105,115,115,106309,313352,,,,,,,,,,,,
,"Bill Glass","Sue Myrick",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Total",37732,62556,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Precinct #",,,"Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,
<snip>
AB1 ,341,466, 1095,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
AB2 ,126,194, 443, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS1 ,38, 47, 187, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS2 ,6, 23, 57, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR1 ,161,190, 902, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR2 ,39, 46, 123, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


"US Congress, District 12",106,54,54,38687,145872,,,,,,,,,,,,
,"Mel Watt","Ada M. Fisher",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Total",26236,8340,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Precinct #",,,"Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,,
<snip>
AB1 ,83,44,1095,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
AB2 ,61,35,443,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS1 ,72,2,187,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CS2 ,26,2,57,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR1 ,216,32,902,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PR2 ,19,10,123,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,

As we can see, there is a big, big screwup there on that site, and those numbers are NOT to be trusted in any way shape or form. Of course, the county BoE has made news in the past for big screwups, looks like they're gonna be in the news again. Go Auto!

[kster]

1. K&R....nt

[kster]

3. Two recomends is all it will take......nt

[BeFree]

8. Whoa, I never thought this would be on Greatest

So here is some background for all those who might now have been reading the DU, Election Reform Forum.

In this thread, Autorank, lays out the case for voting irregularities in both Fla. and NC, and the shared similarities : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464585

Then, in this thread, a Dkos poster, Southern Dem, is said to refute Autorank. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464950&mesg_id=464950

This thread is about how the Dkos poster, SD, and others, have misused, misread, and misunderstood the confusing NUMBers from the website mentioned in the OP.

Meanwhile, the OFFICIAL RESULTS page has the data that Autorank uses and really, is the only data that should be used.
http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D8.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. ...and CERTAINLY don't look at the data in #6 n/t

[BeFree]

19. #6? WTH?

If you tell me what #6 is supposed to mean, maybe I will look at it. But first I need to know what the hell you are talking about.

Ya gotta a link or something, anything, to this #6?

Welcome back to my DU, Otoh.

[kster]

11. Yep, looks Official to me

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D8.html

[galloglas]

2. Great summation! K'n'R.

Straight arrowed. Straight to the point and right on target. Uno BullsEye!

Just watch for the part, coming soon to a thread near you, where Elvis starts singing Gregorian chants in Latin... before he leaves the building.

[Kurovski]

4. Kick.

:kick:

[kster]

5. Kick.nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. you are still wrong

These are the same numbers as the ones you like to call the "official results." To obtain the "official results," you can take these numbers and add them together.

If you actually want to know something about Mecklenburg County, I would in fact encourage you to do this.

You are pointing to exactly the same thing others have pointed to: that the absentee, curbside, and provisional turnout figures include the entire county in each of the three House districts. That is why the House turnout figures are incorrect.

Now, shall we look again at some of what you <snip>ped? (Why did you snip it? Hmmmm....)

Proceeding from the beginning of the file:

"DateTime",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
11/20/2006 21:50:00,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Office","Office Number","Precincts Complete","Total Precincts","Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,
,,195,195,157252,522149,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"US Congress, District 8",104,29,29,19287,62925,,,,,,,,,,,,
,"Larry Kissell","Robert C. (Robin) Hayes",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Total",10931,5157,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Precinct #",,,"Voter Turnout","# Registered Voters",,,,,,,,,,,,,
002 ,491,169,678,2575,,,,,,,,,,,,,
004 ,441,217,696,2112,,,,,,,,,,,,,
005 ,223,75,320,1363,,,,,,,,,,,,,
006 ,350,124,483,2496,,,,,,,,,,,,,

660 House votes out of 678 turnout in precinct 002; 658 out of 696 in precinct 004; 298 out of 320 in precinct 005; 474 out of 483 in precinct 006. I encourage anyone who wants to look at all the numbers and see what they say.

[BeFree]

16. Incorrect?

You state:" ... figures include the entire county in each of the three House districts. That is why the House turnout figures are incorrect."

The 'House Turnout figures are incorrect'? Now that is bold. Did you inform SD of that? I don't think so.

How did you arrive at that idea? Are you claiming that the BoE OFFICIAL RESULTS are incorrect? 'Cause that is what it appears you are saying.

Frankly, what you have said here, and what willB posted about what SD says is all quite misleading.

I looked at the Kos diaree-a and it really says nothing substantial. SD provides no independent links, no independent data, and no independent thought, yet you and others just follow him down the hole.

Actually, it is all quite disturbing. Especially this most recent comment of your's that "... the House turnout figures are incorrect."

Welcome back to my DU, OTOH.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

9. nice work! great to see these numbers "unpacked"

KnR!

[BeFree]

13. Had to "unpack"

Our man Autorank was attacked for posting facts right from the horse's mouth, ie, the BoE.

He defended himself but he has no time to play with his detractors - he has more important work to do, so I got his back on this.

Thanks, Brook, for noticing.

[BeFree]

12. The sun shines brighter, today

It's past morning now, and the sun has risen

And looking at these NUMBers again shows how the poster at Kos, Southern Dem, has misused the Meck numbers. And I must say that while the Meck *MediaDownload* file is screwed up, it isn't as colossal as it first appeared. But the mistake by Southern Dem becomes even more colossal and anyone who continues to support his theory after this point is on the Titantic with him.

Here's what SD did. He subtracted the votes in the AB column from the total of voters in the whole county, ie AB1 ,74,73, 1095,0. Here is its math:
1095 minus 74+73 = 948. SD claims that AB1 has 948 undervotes! His whole anti-Auto premise is based upon that math!

Well, as anyone can see, because of the way Meck has displayed the numbers, using such math is WRONG, but that is what SD appears to have done.

Meanwhile the math using the OFFICIAL RESULTS very simply shows that in District 8 there was an over 15% undervote. And compared to neighboring Congressional districts 9 & 12, the rate of undervotes in 8 are two and three times as much.

No one should be so dumb as to use the numbers in the way done, and then deny that using the OFFICIAL RESULTS, as Auto did, is the way to go about determining the real undervote.

Well, when you have been at this as long as I have, it comes as no surprise that some people will do anything to beat back the Election Reform folks. But always, when the sun is shined upon them the truth comes out.

Below are the comments SD, at Kos, made about our man Autorank. Well, the truth is known and it is SD who needs to apologize. Not just him but all those who are using his argument.

There is a bigger problem with his article, however. Collins either intentionally uses an inflated undervote figure to make Mecklenburg County's undervote appear more sensational, or he has no idea how to figure the undervote from the iVotronics returns.

In stating that Mecklenburg County's undervote is greater than 15% he failed to exclude all paper absentee, curbside and provisional votes. Provisional votes naturally create a huge undervote since so many are discarded. Once those are removed the actual undervote of 4.2% is revealed. With the correct undervote total, Collins' entire argument is rendered moot.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. facts matter

Well, maybe that's just me.

If you really think SouthernDem is wrong, maybe you should head over to DailyKos and see if you have any more luck listening to people over there. Or maybe you would like to slug it out with the activist(s) who put together this site on "The Mysterious Mecklenburg Undervote of 2006", which correctly shows the NC-08 undervote as a bit over 4%. Or with Ellen Theisen. Maybe she's a "machine head."

Really, where do you get off implying that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to "beat back the Election Reform folks"?

"SD claims that AB1 has 948 undervotes!"

Nope. Folks can head over to Southern Dem's diary to verify that that claim doesn't appear. What Southern Dem points out is that including the paper absentee, curbside and provisional figures throws off the totals. (But I think SoDem's bit about "discarded" provisional ballots is confusing. The main problem is that all the absentee, curbside, and provisional ballots are included in the turnout figures for all three House districts.)

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the "official results" you are linking to are the same as the precinct-level data, only totaled.

People can believe what they want, but they can't say that they weren't told. Anyone with questions can PM or e-mail me.

[BeFree]

15. Lets look at all the Mecklenburg County Cong. district vote totals.

These are the OFFICIAL RESULTS.

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D8.html

Voter Turnout:

19287 out of 62913
Voter Turnout Percentage:...31%

Totals District 8
Larry Kissell DEM 10931 68%
Robert Hayes REP 5157 32%

That makes 16,088 votes in this race from a total of 19287 voters, leaving 3,199 undervotes in district 8. That Meck BOE site says that almost 15% of the total voters did not vote in this congressional race.
******************************

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D9.html
District 9
Voter Turnout:

106309 out of 313238
Voter Turnout

Total:
Bill Glass DEM 37732
Sue Myrick REP 62556


100288 total voters leaving 6021 undervotes which is about 5% undervotes, so again, the 15% undercount in district 8 is three times greater than district 9. Three times!

Total.........100288 counted + 6021 uncounted = 106309 total voters

************************

Then we have district 12

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D12.html
Voter Turnout:

38687 out of 145836
Voter Turnout

Mel Watt DEM 26236
Ada Fisher 8340

Total......34576 counted + 4,111 uncounted = 38687 total voters

With 4,111 undervotes... about 8%. Almost one half of the district 8 undervotes.

**********************

District 8, NC has nearly the same percentage of undervotes that district 13 in Fla. had. Autorank is being viciously attacked. I can only think that is happening because he is on to something and the worms are coming out of the woodworks to keep him from blowing the cover on this crap. Go Auto!

[kster]

17. All one needs to do is look at the evidence

Auto says:

Your election law says

"NC State Law
§ 163 182.7. Ordering recounts.

(a) Discretionary Recounts. – The county board of elections or the State Board of Elections may order a recount when necessary to complete the canvass in an election. The county board may not order a recount where the State Board of Elections has already denied a recount to the petitioner.

I think that we should both call for a complete recount of District 8 regardless of legal requirements or other factors given what’s come up and what is discussed below. The state has “discretionary recounts” – this is the time. I’ll respond to all of your comments."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464643&mesg_id=464699

If this was a court case and I was the Judge, I would
Auto-matically lean to Auto's side, Why? because he wants to do a recount, the one and only thing that would put to rest, the case (debate) before me.

[BeFree]

18. Here come the judge!

Oh, how I wish we had judges like you. People who were for the People and not corporations.

What bugs me about this controversy is that folks who ought to know and act better are not acting like they know better. Why get in Auto's face about this stuff, and why are they trying to sweep it under the rug?

I don't get it... Kster, do you have a clue why so many are acting so funny about this possibly stolen election?

[kster]

21. Oh the memories

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=1242&aid=2080

But all kidding aside, In the words of the vice president, They (THE SECRET VOTE COUNTING PEOPLE?) are in their last throes" We ,are. their Katrina our mission WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED, with or without them, SCOTUS 2000, Fl 13, Ohio Recount Rigged, We gOt them, Only a matter of time, my freind. ONLY a matter of time.


The TRUTH will be told, they can COUNT ON IT!!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

22. surely you've read Orwell

and you should be recognizing this

[FogerRox]

20. I went to KOS and read the SD diary

there seemed to be ome thoughts that said there was a difference between undervotes in a ores year and a mid term year....

And left this comment:

I think the relevant camparison is.. is the race on the top of the ballot or second, even. The way I understand things is its not about what cycle it is...presidential or midterm. I dont care if its a muni race with 6% turnout. The top of the ballot is the top of the ballot.

...in a presidential year... drop off as you go down ticket should be roughly equal to a midterm year. No? I think the comparison should not be presidential vs congressional cycle, but the ballot position. Wouldn't the race thats second on the ballot in '04, see roughly the same drop off as the race thats second on the ballot in a mid term ('06)?

Isn't the major difference in Presidential years vs Congressional years, turnout? I have seen little or no data that suggests otherwise.

Now... I might say that in comparing a primary to a general election, you might see different drop off rates as you go down the ticket. Primary voters being more dedicated, and more willing to vote every race. Right? Thats truly apples and oranges, right? But I see general election being compared to general election. AND I don't see anyone comparing 2nd on the ballot in '04 to 2nd on the ballot in '06.

I would offer that if you are going to use the apples to oranges analogy, WE NEED to consider the Delicous vs Macintosh analogy.



http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/1/18/111023/378/46#c46

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. well, it's an empirical question

whether the top-of-the-ticket undervote in a presidential year equals the top-of-the-ticket undervote in a midterm year. Honestly, I haven't seen much data that investigates this issue either way. (Full disclosure: I'm pretty darn sure some folks have written undervote papers that I haven't read yet.) In a while I will see if I have enough Ohio data to give an estimate for 2002 gov versus 2004 pres.*

I think your intuition here is basically sound: top-of-ticket undervotes should be pretty low regardless of the cycle. But I wouldn't assume that they ought to be the same. Or that they shouldn't. It's an empirical question. I guess I would expect more variability in House top-of-ticket undervote rates than in presidential top-of-ticket undervote rates, because there is more chance that someone who turns out in a midterm election to vote on a bond issue doesn't know about the House candidates than that someone who turns out in a presidential election doesn't know about the presidential candidates. But that is, how does one say?, a SWAG.

What I'm saying is that I find the comparisons on that Earthlink website more convincing, because they are comparing House top-of-ticket to House top-of-ticket. That doesn't mean that we need to ignore other comparisons.

(To reiterate, since there is probably some confusion, somewhere, on this point: I think the House undervote rate in Meck was around 4%, and I think that rate was somewhat higher than it 'should' have been. Southern Dem disagrees about that, apparently. It's a hard question to bang the table about. I think you've suggested that an ordinary DRE top-of-ticket undervote rate is 3% -- I think it's lower, actually. If it were 3%, well, the difference between 3% and 4% is hard to distinguish amidst ordinary variability.)

* EDIT TO ADD: The median presidential undervote in Ohio 2004 (precinct level) was 1.39%. The median gubernatorial undervote in Ohio 2002, for the precincts for which I have data, was 3.45%. Restricting the presidential analysis to those same precincts, the presidential undervote median is 1.51%. So I provisionally conclude that in fact, the top-of-ticket race in Ohio in 2002 had a higher undervote rate than the presidential race in 2004. Of course, the Ohio governor's race was not at all competitive; I wouldn't try to generalize from this result. Also, I'm working fast, so numbers are subject to correction.

[eomer]

24. Mecklenberg County Undervote Rates

I assembled the BOE data, rearranged it, and calculated undervote rates.

I was in a bit of a rush so I'd appreciate if anyone can review and let me know if there are any glaring errors.

Data is from the same source as referenced in the OP:
http://www.meckboe.org/ENR_MediaDownload/full.txt

Edit: looks like there is some limit on length of a post that I exceeded so I'll post the various tables as replies to this post.

[eomer]

25. CD8

CD8:

  Precinct  Kissell    Hayes    Votes   Voters  Undervote %  Registered
         2      491      169      660      678         2.65        2575
         4      441      217      658      696         5.46        2112
         5      223       75      298      320         6.88        1363
         6      350      124      474      483         1.86        2496
         7      321      167      488      510         4.31        1736
        15      742      234      976      997         2.11        2805
        17      255       41      296      314         5.73        2084
        29      400      175      575      595         3.36        2175
        33      324      152      476      498         4.42        2009
        34      379      216      595      626         4.95        2183
        45      239      198      437      470         7.02        1613
        46      392      180      572      591         3.21        2557
        61      401      296      697      737         5.43        2492
        62      329      165      494      520            5        2204
        63      308      139      447      461         3.04        1918
        64      215      156      371      387         4.13        1278
        84      324      184      508      543         6.45        2122
        95      284      143      427      448         4.69        1933
       108      331       88      419      441         4.99        2478
       109      428      163      591      623         5.14        1886
       117      284      197      481      495         2.83        2263
       123      372      184      556      581          4.3        1682
       124      458      142      600      628         4.46        2315
       130      260      162      422      448          5.8        1719
       141      143       47      190      193         1.55        2564
       149      631      234      865      898         3.67        3442
     204.1      581      217      798      827         3.51        2144
       205      382      374      756      779         2.95        2024
       237      464      201      665      693         4.04        2753
     Total    10752     5040    15792    16480         4.17       62925

[FogerRox]

34. Ok, thanks eomer, anybody got a problem with eomers numbers?

NC-08 mecklenberg, looks to be Kissle land. Looks like the DEM won every precinct.

The race was decided by 329 votes, right?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/NC/

What about the other counties?

Anson, Cabarrus, Cumberland & Hoke..... In fact Cabarrus looks to be Hayes strongest county, so to me that begs the question ..... what is the Congressional undervote rate in Cabarrus county, Hayes strogest county?

My thinking here is that if the


-best DEM county has a 4.17% undervote rate

-best repub county has a WHAT % undervote rate.


Because if Hayes gets like 1.7 % in Cabarrus county then this shit looks fishy. ANd then we are lookig at a situation where N-08 looks more like FL-13.

Anybody got links to the other counties

[FogerRox]

35. no precinct level data yet for cabarrus

http://www.co.cabarrus.nc.us/Elections/archive/2006/general.html

On Edit..

Here is the PDF


http://www.co.cabarrus.nc.us/Elections/results/ResultsByPrecinct.pdf

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. here's a graphic summary by an NC activist

http://home.earthlink.net/~meckvote06/id1.html

No doubt the undervotes were higher in Meck than in the other counties, in all three races. (Unless somehow the numbers are off, but I believe them.)

What's not like FL-13 is that the undervote rate in Meck isn't correlated with precinct partisanship. Not that that proves anything.

More in a moment....

ETA: I see you've seen that there don't seem to be full stats yet for Cabarrus. (They've given the precinct-level VOTES to the state, I think, but I don't think turnout is available yet.) Cumberland is here.

[FogerRox]

37. You missed, you whiffed, strike one.

"What's not like FL-13 is that the undervote rate in Meck isn't correlated with precinct partisanship. Not that that proves anything."

WHat was Jennings best county?
What is Kissles best county?

If the undervote rates are highest in the DEMS best county and lowest in the REpubs best county... well you get my drift now?

IN NC & FL arent voting machines bought at the county level...... elections organized at the county level.

OTOH ....I dont want Mecklenberg data, I want the other counties, consider yourself beat over the head ... severly.... repeatedly.


>sigh<

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. I already got your drift, sir

Please reread my previous message. Did I really need to spell out that obviously Kissell didn't do as well in those other counties (with lower undervote rates) as he did in Meck? I mean, he did win Meck by over 2:1.

Now, to check whether you got my drift. In Sarasota County, there was a strong correlation between Jennings' vote share and the undervote rate. In Meck, there was no correlation (actually a slight and statistically insignificant negative correlation) between Kissell's vote share and the undervote rate. Not that that proves anything.

Why am I being beat over the head?

ETA: Just reading from the graph I linked to earlier, it would be roughly this:

Mecklenburg 68% Kissell // 4.2% undervote
Cumberland  46% Kissell // 2.1% undervote
Cabarrus    40% Kissell // 1.6% undervote

[FogerRox]

39. I will beat you on the head until I make you laff, is that clear?

Mecklenburg was Kissles best county and had the highest Undervote rate... right..

Sarasota was Jennings best county and had the highest Undervote rate... right..

Do I have that right?

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. ah, caught me in a humor-impaired moment

What with one thing and another, I'm a bit fried....

Actually, it's Kissell, but that aside, yes, you're right, as far as I know. NC-08 spans ten counties, and I don't have undervote rates for the other seven, because that website doesn't. But I would be surprised if any of them is higher than in Meck.

If I'm reading the verifiedvoting.org map correctly, Meck is the only county in the district that uses DREs. In FL-13, Sarasota was the largest county that used DREs -- Charlotte did too, but it was much less consequential. Basically, I guess I think that excess undervotes are inherently suspicious (or shall I say noteworthy?) whether the county is Dem, Rep, or pretty balanced. But if, say, I wanted to cost a Democrat votes through a deliberately confusing ballot design, certainly I would rather do that in a Democratic county. I'm not saying that that happened in Mecklenburg; it's a general observation.

[FogerRox]

47. The same DRE, and generally speaking the same tactic or effect.

Sarasota & Mecklenburg

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. well...

In neither case do we know the mechanism(s) that generated the excess undervotes, although we have ideas. (I like ballot design for Meck, not that I can exclude other causes, but I think the ballot design is obviously poor. In Sarasota, although the ballot design was poor, it's not at all clear that that could account for the extent of undervotes, the pattern of undervotes, or the other things we know.)

In Sarasota we have huge undervote rates and oodles of voter problem reports. In Meck, we have undervote rates modest enough to permit serious debate about whether there are excess undervotes at all, and I'm not aware of any voter problem reports for this race (but maybe philb can correct me on that). Also, in Sarasota the undervote rates are higher in Democratic precincts; not so in Meck.

In FL-13, I'd say there's a professional consensus that Jennings would have won if not for the excess undervotes. In NC-08, it's very unlikely that excess undervotes in Meck could have altered the outcome.

So, "generally speaking the same tactic or effect" isn't wording I would choose -- but excess undervotes in both places (in my present opinion), yes, and ballot design implicated as a possible/contributing cause in both places.

[FogerRox]

49. Meck 08

turnout.... 19287

Kissell gets 68%

Hayes........32%

What was the undervote rate 4.17% ?

Whats 4.17% of 19287?

No, thats not fair, lets say for arguments sake that 2.17% is cool..

Lets assume that Kissel would get 68% of the remaining 2% of 19287

Does 385 votes=2% of 19287

68% of 385 is 261 votes, not enough for Kissell to win

But Cumberland county's undervote rate was about 1.6%

1.6% + 2.57% = 4.17%

Lets overlay 1.6% on the Meck numbers

495 votes = 2.57% of 19287

68% of 495 = 337 votes

Kissell needs 329, gets 337

Please check my horrid attempt to do math..

If my math is correct it is entirely possible that Kissel would have won.

How likely is it that Kissell would have won, I dunno...

http://home.earthlink.net/~meckvote06/id1.html

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D8.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. I think a few problems

Smaller problem: you're using that bogus turnout figure, the one that includes all the absentee, curbside, and provisional ballots throughout the county. We don't know the exact turnout figure, because it would depend on an allocation of absentees etc. But eomer in post #25 shows 688 touchscreen undervotes for CD8.

Bigger problem: you don't seem to be giving the other 32% of votes to Hayes. One way to tackle this is to think of each excess undervote = 0.68 - 0.32 = 0.36 "net" Kissell votes. (Hey, clear as mud, but I really need to go to bed soon.) So to overcome a 329-vote deficit, you need about 914 excess undervotes (that's 329 / 0.36). We don't know how many of those undervotes are excess -- 300 to 350?

There are probably some excess provisional undervotes -- and how about provisionals not counted? That could start to shake up the arithmetic.

But in Sarasota, the undervotes are conclusive on their own.

[FogerRox]

51. Hayes 32% - right.

"Smaller problem: you're using that bogus turnout figure,"

So turnout would be smaller?

Jacking up the % of undervotes?


----------------
But Cumberland county's undervote rate was about 1.6%

1.6% + 2.57% = 4.17%

Lets overlay 1.6% on the Meck numbers

495 votes = 2.57% of 19287

68% of 495 = 337 votes

Kissell needs 329, gets 337

Plus Hayes 32%-158 votes

Hayes still wins, but by 150.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. look again at post #25

The 4.17% is figured against 16,480 DRE voters in CD 8. Then there's an unknown number of abs/curb/prov voters. We don't know how many there were in CD8 nor the undervote rate -- looks like excess undervotes among the provisionals -- but we can't blame those on DREs.

So that will alter your numbers somewhat. But allocating excess undervotes will certainly reduce Hayes' lead.

[FogerRox]

54. curbside voting in FL- Broward cnty was with DREs

....carried out to a handicapped voters car,during early voting and on election day.
Early was reported each day to the campaigns, .


Hmmm.

SO I have to take the 16k turnout and refigure @ 4.17 %, right? arg, LOL.

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. actually, for the CD8 precinct undervotes, just subtract

Note that eomer's post for CD 8 lists 15792 votes, 16480 voters, 4.17% undervote. The percentage is calculated from the other two numbers. That's 688 undervotes. 688/16480 = .041748.

eomer's table for "Other votes" shows only 4 curbside undervotes in the whole county, so I don't think I will bother to check how those votes were cast in Mecklenburg. However, there were over 200 provisional ballot undervotes countywide. If those are at all evenly distributed through the county, then only 25 or so were in CD 8. Still, it seems a bit odd.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

57. curbside uses optical scan ballots, iVotronic too bulky, on stand

In NC, if you vote curbside, you are going to be voting on an optical scan ballot.

The new machines are too heavy to carry out to the curb, I guess you could take the
Automark out if you put it on some sort of wheeled cart.

Here is what the iVotronics' with the "toilet paper" ballot look like:



With the stand, they aren't all that stable, and they are about 50 lbs I think.

What's the remedy, whats the story?
As to the undervotes - if they were 15%, then there would be a big story.
But the undervote is 4+%.

That is higher than the surrounding counties,(which were all optical scan).

With undervotes, its not always clear what happened -
- did the person skip that contest,
- miss that contest, or
- did the machine fail to count their vote?

Mecklenburg is an unusual county, so some of the local politics may have
had an affect.

For more on that, and differences between the neighboring counties, the different
districts, please go read the discussion by local politicos at the Blue NC blog in the comments
http://www.bluenc.com/time-to-doff-the-tin-foil-hats-no-suspicious-undervote-in-meck-nc-08

Take a look at the ballot.
If you look at the ballot (as it appears on the touchscreen) for Mecklenburg County,
see how the NC 08 - the top contest - is actually at the bottom of the ballot under
some nearly unintelligable instructions on how to vote straight ticket.
http://www.meckboe.org/Pages/SampleBallots/2006General/71.pdf

Then look at the ballot for Guilford County, another touchscreen county,
and see what you think- they have the congressional contest in a much more visible location.
http://www.co.guilford.nc.us/elections_cms/docs/ballottypes/BS_1.pdf

The legal remedies were expended by the person with legal standing, the candidate
Larry Kissell.

When all state precinct turnout data is available, more analysis can be done to
look for anomalies for all counties, all precincts.

[FogerRox]

58. In FLThey are laid in the lap of the driver

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

59. NC can't, because the "paper trail" makes DRE ginormous

before we required paper, many of the DREs could be carried out to
the car, just like a laptop computer.

But not today.

[BeFree]

63. Holt's new bill addresses this type issue, eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464451&mesg_id=464592

This bill was introduced by Rush Holt in Dec. 2006.

109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006)
H.R. 6414<109>: Vote Tabulation Audit Act of 2006
HR 6414 IH
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6414
To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish standards for the open and accurate tabulation of votes and aggregation of vote counts in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 7, 2006
Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

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

A BILL
To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish standards for the open and accurate tabulation of votes and aggregation of vote counts in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Vote Tabulation Audit Act of 2006'.
SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR OPEN AND ACCURATE TABULATION OF VOTES AND AGGREGATION OF VOTE COUNTS
...

the rest here -
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-6414

[galloglas]

52. It looks like its on the square, IMHO

It is amazing that so many people seem to want not to find the truth out about NC-8.

Guess they want to let sleeping EDs lie.

[eomer]

26. CD9 - Part 1

  Precinct    Glass   Myrick    Votes   Voters  Undervote %  Registered
         1      253      327      580      610         4.92        1630
         8      304      606      910      954         4.61        2171
         9      509      373      882      934         5.57        2724
        10      427      273      700      728         3.85        2160
        18      206      574      780      825         5.45        1576
        19      285      400      685      716         4.33        1746
        20      424      378      802      836         4.07        2141
        21      335      253      588      614         4.23        2090
        32      219      634      853      907         5.95        1909
        35      225      268      493      516         4.46        1553
        36      402      656     1058     1129         6.29        2747
        37      259      322      581      606         4.13        1944
        38      242      243      485      504         3.77        2242
        47      326      539      865      904         4.31        2392
        48      237      639      876      929         5.71        1846
        49      300      341      641      670         4.33        2118
        50      252      274      526      548         4.01        2082
        51      405      437      842      887         5.07        2898
        57      273      437      710      757         6.21        2161
        58      179      218      397      424         6.37        1307
        59      214      208      422      455         7.25        1461
        65      246      390      636      671         5.22        1492
        66      286      382      668      693         3.61        1584
        67      276      439      715      769         7.02        1587
        68      195      260      455      476         4.41        1949
        69      479      961     1440     1492         3.49        3866
        70      340      648      988     1041         5.09        2164
        71      196      605      801      848         5.54        2280
        72      218      446      664      695         4.46        1651
        73      220      363      583      605         3.64        1780
        74      242      551      793      845         6.15        2109
        75      431      947     1378     1457         5.42        3253
        76      453      786     1239     1287         3.73        3075
        83      364      402      766      803         4.61        2904
        85      341      503      844      874         3.43        2609
        86      217      714      931      974         4.41        2090
        87      328      478      806      824         2.18        2988
        88      267      458      725      753         3.72        3054
        89      508      770     1278     1352         5.47        3976
        90      222      384      606      626         3.19        1738
        91      481     1024     1505     1549         2.84        4207
        92      326      647      973     1010         3.66        2911
        93      231      498      729      766         4.83        1798
        94      257      248      505      539         6.31        1830
        96      275      459      734      765         4.05        1998
        97      157      121      278      291         4.47        1508
        99      153       64      217      221         1.81        2289
       100      330      555      885      910         2.75        2656
       101      285      580      865      910         4.95        2782
       102      391      382      773      801          3.5        3984
       103      488      832     1320     1359         2.87        3263
       106      315      517      832      867         4.04        1834
       110      185      407      592      622         4.82        1404
       111      361      623      984     1032         4.65        2808
       112      204      613      817      844          3.2        2285
       113      359      819     1178     1205         2.24        3201
       114      347      716     1063     1100         3.36        3135
       115      217      213      430      445         3.37        1612

[eomer]

30. CD9 - Part 2

  Precinct    Glass   Myrick    Votes   Voters  Undervote %  Registered
       116      251      163      414      432         4.17        1518
       118      270      556      826      853         3.17        3293
       119      228      352      580      624         7.05        1824
       120      204      112      316      329         3.95        3007
       121      460     1036     1496     1537         2.67        4068
       122      496      712     1208     1254         3.67        4888
       125      193      154      347      364         4.67        1147
       128      438      478      916      955         4.08        2468
       129       86      109      195      198         1.52        1553
       131      215      480      695      719         3.34        1710
       133      327      719     1046     1081         3.24        3336
       134      486      785     1271     1304         2.53        4727
       136      167      464      631      643         1.87        1965
       137      331      980     1311     1357         3.39        3983
     139.1      264      561      825      844         2.25        2601
       140      479      904     1383     1413         2.12        5140
       142      327      669      996     1047         4.87        4226
       143      486      894     1380     1429         3.43        4445
       144      388      710     1098     1130         2.83        3564
       148      504      836     1340     1377         2.69        4782
       150      292      324      616      643          4.2        2631
       151      466      269      735      764          3.8        2898
       200       31       51       82      344        76.16         272
       201      638      634     1272     1312         3.05        4435
       202      518      766     1284     1332          3.6        4787
       203      453      420      873      895         2.46        3125
       207      327      713     1040     1066         2.44        4089
       208      418      959     1377     1429         3.64        4199
       209      416      639     1055     1103         4.35        3294
       214      462      381      843      880          4.2        2716
       215      283      611      894      928         3.66        2987
       216      453      768     1221     1262         3.25        3816
       217      249      505      754      785         3.95        2802
       218      254      670      924      953         3.04        2759
       219      185      436      621      651         4.61        1852
       220      235      579      814      852         4.46        2004
       221      313      931     1244     1291         3.64        3454
       222      476      500      976     1034         5.61        3404
     223.1      526      677     1203     1236         2.67        3726
       224      176      336      512      533         3.94        1890
       225      127      232      359      380         5.53        1643
       226      367      602      969      998         2.91        3573
       227      494      886     1380     1421         2.89        3951
       228        0        1        1      693        99.86           0
       229      382      748     1130     1168         3.25        3480
       230      436      475      911      946          3.7        3191
       231      315      463      778      800         2.75        3631
       232      477      959     1436     1484         3.23        4372
       233      448     1074     1522     1577         3.49        3954
       234      257      461      718      741          3.1        2929
       235      285      597      882      910         3.08        3110
       236      255      787     1042     1071         2.71        3092
     238.1      437      494      931      958         2.82        2715
       240      335      741     1076     1108         2.89        3900
       241      340      542      882      917         3.82        3090
       242      235      732      967      998         3.11        2430
       243      593      748     1341     1375         2.47        4354
     Total    37021    61590    98611   103502         4.73      313352

[eomer]

27. CD12

CD12:

  Precinct     Watt   Fisher    Votes   Voters  Undervote %  Registered
         3      373       71      444      471         5.73        2244
        11      812      254     1066     1105         3.53        5034
        12      302       21      323      332         2.71        3841
        13      303       96      399      416         4.09        2419
        14      352       19      371      394         5.84        2283
        16      966       27      993     1048         5.25        2745
        22      380       62      442      457         3.28        2799
        23      235       40      275      283         2.83        1816
        24      292       41      333      344          3.2        2085
        25      540       14      554      592         6.42        2396
        26      685      167      852      893         4.59        2959
        27      320       39      359      376         4.52        2620
        28      312       88      400      414         3.38        2091
        30      323       63      386      397         2.77        1624
        31      404       16      420      444         5.41        2297
        39      282       28      310      320         3.13        2282
        40      332       85      417      439         5.01        2299
        41      312       36      348      363         4.13        1908
        42      702       28      730      764         4.45        2797
        43      445      127      572      611         6.38        2618
        44      372      153      525      543         3.31        1467
        52      578       18      596      638         6.58        2585
        53      366       80      446      461         3.25        2499
        54      529       19      548      564         2.84        2681
        55      437       11      448      459          2.4        1585
        56      235        0      235      244         3.69        1382
        60      552       41      593      622         4.66        2053
        77      452       53      505      527         4.17        2051
      78.1      227       93      320      325         1.54        1704
        79      286      202      488      516         5.43        1670
        80      417      228      645      670         3.73        2689
        81      573      222      795      826         3.75        3159
        82      469       46      515      561          8.2        2926
        98      349       96      445      466         4.51        2691
       104      642      102      744      779         4.49        2888
       105      460      170      630      643         2.02        3113
     107.1      552      237      789      822         4.01        2988
       126      420      182      602      620          2.9        1881
       127      542      684     1226     1267         3.24        2943
       132      330      188      518      545         4.95        1735
       135      610      197      807      847         4.72        4112
       138      228      139      367      382         3.93        2158
       145     1037     1040     2077     2155         3.62        6521
       146      628      211      839      874            4        3819
       147      510      136      646      682         5.28        3555
       200      117      131      248      344        27.91        1143
       206      836      463     1299     1359         4.42        3960
       210     1180      163     1343     1397         3.87        4403
       211      831      419     1250     1286          2.8        4627
       212     1018      409     1427     1468         2.79        5819
       213      486      191      677      704         3.84        2618
       225        0        1        1      380        99.74           7
       228      394      278      672      693         3.03        2731
       239      424      290      714      748         4.55        2552
     Total    25759     8215    33974    35880         5.31      145872

[eomer]

28. Other votes

Other Votes:

  Category  Kissell    Hayes    Glass   Myrick     Watt   Fisher    Votes   Voters  Undervote %
       AB1       74       73      341      466       83       44     1081     1095         1.28
       AB2        5       20      126      194       61       35      441      443         0.45
       CS1       17        7       38       47       72        2      183      187         2.14
       CS2        0        0        6       23       26        2       57       57            0
       PR1       76       16      161      190      216       32      691      902        23.39
       PR2        7        1       39       46       19       10      122      123         0.81
     Total      179      117      711      966      477      125     2575     2807         8.27

[BeFree]

43. So

The compilers of the official results added the total of voters in these "other votes" columns to the turnouts totals. ie 2807? So the official results, as they stand are incorrect?

Hell, if they can't get that right, what can they get right? How can they be trusted? They can't. Good job, eomer.

[eomer]

29. Totals

Totals:

  Category    Votes   Voters  Undervote %  Registered
       CD8    15792    16480         4.17       62925
       CD9    98611   103502         4.73      313352
      CD12    33974    35880         5.31      145872
       AB1     1081     1095         1.28           0
       AB2      441      443         0.45           0
       CS1      183      187         2.14           0
       CS2       57       57            0           0
       PR1      691      902        23.39           0
       PR2      122      123         0.81           0
     Total   150952   158669         4.86      522149

[eomer]

31. One problem I see in the BOE data as a result of doing this

is that they've counted some voters twice in precinct 200.

The total of precinct 200 voters is 344 for CD9 and 344 also for CD12.

Clearly those 344 voters were really split between CD9 and CD12 and have therefore each been counted twice.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. thanks for doing this; three precincts are 'double counted'

in CD9 and CD12, much as the absentees etc. are triple-counted.

#200, 225, and 228

(in both 225 and 228, just a single vote was cast in the "other" district).

There's no way (at least no easy way -- the voter history files might do it) of determining how many voters in these precincts were in each CD. So one has to approximate somehow. Your undervote rates for CD9 and CD12 are out of whack.

Thanks for pulling these numbers together and posting them -- I lacked the imagination to figure out how to put them in front of people.

[BeFree]

45. Yes, good work eomer

looks like your way of doing things made it understandable. Took me a while.... too long, in fact, but when you put it the way you did it became quite clear. Thank you.

Maybe you should consider a job as a teacher, or professor maybe?

[BeFree]

33. Neato

So, the official results page shows that there were 19,287 voters in CD 8, and your figures show just 16480. So somehow, someway, there is a big problem, right?

19,287 minus
16,480 =
2,807 voters that are in question.

Where'd they go? It all boils down to that.

Of course, the media download file is NOT official, so there is that.

[BeFree]

41. Neato again, nice work, eomer

So lets compare the *MediaDownload* with official results.

*MD*
Kissell.....Hayes.....Votes.....Voters

10,752.....5,040.....15,792.....16,480

Official Results
10,931.....5,157.....16,088.....19,287

Difference

...179.......117.......296.......2,807

Which shows the reasoning behind the caption of the OP: Use official results numbers. As you and others have discovered, there are other errors in the *MD* page, and here we see notable differences between the two sets of numbers.

I wonder what set of data SD at kos used? He doesn't say. He provides no independent links, but we can surmise that his supporters think he used the *MD* files. Files which are known to be messed up. Of course, SD's supporters never say, so as I say, we can surmise.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. the *MD* numbers match your numbers

which is not surprising, since your numbers are derived from the *MD* numbers, by adding. You know, there is actually a reason that they are available for download from the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections in January 2007. Whatever is "messed up" in the *MD* numbers is also messed up in your numbers.

To find your 179, 117, and 2807, look in eomer's "Other" post.

Then you can look in the other two House districts, and confirm that the same 2807 voters are added to the turnout figures for those districts. This, along with the double-counted split precincts I mentioned upthread, explain the discrepancies between the official House turnout figures and the official total turnout figures. Let's look one more time:

http://www.meckboe.org/pages/Election/Summary.html (also says "Official Results")
first box gives county turnout as "157252 out of 521987"

CD 8 turnout is given as "19287 out of 62913"
CD 9 turnout is given as "106309 out of 313238"
CD 12 turnout is given as "38687 out of 145836"
total: 164283 out of 521987

But if you continue down the summary, you'll see the figure 157252 for turnout, over and over again, for countywide races.

So, like I said, whatever is "messed up" in the *MD* numbers is also messed up in your numbers. The absentee/curbside/provisional voters are counted in the turnout for all three districts -- and three precincts are counted in both CD9 and CD12. As I've mentioned.

[BeFree]

44. Yep

hate to say it but you are right. The BoE official results are screwed up.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. cool n/t

[autorank]

56. My Present Take on All of This

The Republic of Venice represents one of the longest periods of prosperity and tolerance in the history of civilization. From a few homes built on pylons to avoid the invading hordes, The Most Serene Republic grew to dominate a market that covered Europe and the near East. While they lacked the popular suffrage, the leader was selected by a consensus vote of their leadership council.

The election was ratified in a way that explains a great deal of their success. The Venetian ruling council had each leader or Doge, as he was called, sign a comprehensive contract that anticipated every type of corruption and fraud imaginable at that time and for the individual leader. Every relative, friend, and associate was inscribed in the contract as someone barred from any state business selected by the Doge, directly or indirectly. This was just the start.

The Venetians had trust in human nature, trust that humans are inherently corruptible, subject to temptation, and willing conspirators in their own folly and calumny. This stance worked well for them. Since the leader was a mere human, his limits were clearly stated. Any temptation outlined was barred before he ever took office.

Why would anyone become the leader? Because this was Venice of course.

I would dearly love to have confidence that our leaders, public servants, and government contractors had our best interests at heart and didn’t need intense scrutiny. That scrutiny is not in place. Rather, we avoid it and comfort ourselves by chastising those who are suspicious..........who scrutinize. Some, occasionally many, of the elected and those who serve through appointments fall victim to major corruptions, petty violations, and, significantly, neglect of the job at hand.

We presently have no mechanisms to guide performance that anticipates the various corruptions and neglectful performance that are always around us. In fact, to suggest even trying would require a boldness of spirit not typically rewarded or even found in modern politics, civil service or among those who contract with the government.

I wrote an article using official figures about the disparity between turnout and votes cast in three congressional races. Hence the flames directed my way shortly thereafter were quite a surprise. The official figures I used have not changed so if I were in an obstreperous mood or bothered to a greater degree by the spectacle of defamation directed against me, I might just say, change the figures. They stand.

But seeing the collective and cooperative work of everyone on this thread was impressive enough to convince me think that the intellectually honest response is this: we simply don’t know precisely how the voting turned out. There are real reasons to question and scrutinize the official voting figures. The substitute version of the vote teased out here gets high marks in my opinion. It was open and without much rancor. This leads to a high degree of confidence in our members and the DU ER

I don’t know what the final outcome will be in this instance or the other places that have unique customs that require a secret code to know that what’s posted is really not intended for serious consumption and a decoder ring to determine what is.

I do think that a process like this one would add greatly to resolving controversy. It is unfortunate that this has to be an ad hoc process; one that in is preceded by all sorts of wasted effort and emotion.

Reading the discussion which took place following BeFree’s original post, I was literally shocked because what followed was clearly a collaborative process that demonstrated how well talented people can work together.

We need a custom here of real research threads that are self policed to assure that the task is carried out and the goal of free and fair elections is actually paramount. It’s the type of thing that can only happen here at the DU Elections Forum due to a degree of tolerance for the topic by the host site and a collection of talent able to take good advantage of that tolerance. It’s a fragile thing, ultimately, but worth pursuing as an ongoing process. I have many questions and I’m sure others do as well that would be answered in the natural process of this type of inquiry. Thanks for a big step in clearing up this issue and the questions around it.

Michael Collins / autorank

[galloglas]

60. An astute analysis

I don’t know what the final outcome will be in this instance or the other places that have unique customs that require a secret code to know that what’s posted is really not intended for serious consumption and a decoder ring to determine what is.


However it has come about, if it is indeed the case, that Election Districts (and any other governmental entities) have created venues of "Official Results" that are meant to be confusing, opaque and inaccessible to public, it should be stopped.

Defenders of such practices do a disservice to their fellow citizens. It is neither fair nor defensible for private citizens to cozy up to, or try to protect from scrutiny, those governmental agencies which try to bamboozle the public by making their workings, and "official communications", as confusing as possible.

If "official results" are harder to interpret than Pig Latin, then the officials themselves should be brought to task. And, until they are, it will be up to honest citizens to shed light upon what has really happened.

I think autorank has made an excellent observation about how, without rancor, this thread has brought much light to shine on the inadequacies of the NC-8 race. Working together to a common end has its own rewards and helps to undo much of the harm done by public servants who want to be masters, and try to do so by making their work product impenetrable.

[Kurovski]

61. Thank you to all who posted in good faith to this thread.

Particularly BeFree for starting it, galoglas for his four-day ER sentry watch :-), eomer and FogerRox for stepping in and working hard, and that other guy, um, whatsisname...Oh yeah, autorank.

[BeFree]

62. In good faith

Those words carry an awful lot of weight. In Good Faith.

When I saw the attacks on our colleague, especially those from another site, which were unfair and very denigrating, I just about flipped. I looked at the official results pages, did the math from the simple numbers, taking on faith that the BoE had added the other simple numbers together correctly, and decided that there was subterfuge afoot.

You do not attack a friend of mine and not attack me also. So I was pissed. I read what had been written here and there and what I saw mainly was attack, attack, attack on my friend Autorank. Those attacks were not done in good faith, imo. So I was pissed.

Nowhere in all those attacks was listed the simple truth. The BoE had placed numbers in their official results page that were wrong, and those numbers had been there for a month! Not until Eomer had done the work anyone of us should have done was the simple truth finally displayed so that I could make sense of where the mistake was made.

In Good Faith. I did not always post in good faith these last few days. But my friend was obviously under attack and as I said, I was pissed. No excuses from me. I was deceived by the official figures and in that deceit rose the rest of the path before me.

I learned some real lessons from this discourse, and my respect for what DU can be to someone like me still astonishes me.

Yesterday an election was stolen, and tomorrow they will steal another election: unless we can stop them.

I believe we shall overcome, if we can work together in good faith.

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. in good faith

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

I accept that you believe that some attacks were denigrating. I could lead you through past posts and point you to some attacks that I think are much more denigrating than anything said about autorank. My point isn't to keep score -- I don't keep score. It's just a matter of diverging perceptions.

It's an open secret about me that I tend to take it personally when smart women are ignored. It has to do with my mother's life story. So when I learned that autorank had talked with Ellen Theisen before running the Scoop story, and ran it (apparently unchanged) anyway despite her warnings, I was shocked. Really. What's the point of having colleagues?

Nowhere in all those attacks was listed the simple truth. The BoE had placed numbers in their official results page that were wrong, and those numbers had been there for a month!

Well, I direct you to WYVBC's post of Tuesday, January 16:

The county is reporting incorrect turnout figures on the website, a fact that can be easily seen by examining the precinct data. available from the County website. Go here and select the second link from the top on the left side. http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/enrs/main_primary.asp?ED=11xx07xx2006&EL=GENERAL&YR=2006&CR=A

You will see that the numbers of "ballots cast" are grouped together for vote-by-mail precincts, curbside "precincts", and provisional ballot "precincts". These groups of ballots cast are then attributed to every contest -- even when they don't apply, so that the total ballots cast is too high for every contest.

If the Mecklenburg precinct details are correct, the problem is that the county officials have reported inaccurate numbers on the website, not that the undervote is excessive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464643&mesg_id=464724 (emphasis in original)

I thought that was pretty clear! (Actually, the precinct results are the top link on the left side, but they're clearly labeled.)

You can back up to her original thread on this subject, here. The OP is a model of civility, as far as I can see. Check out her post #7 there: "The Scoop story has Mecklenburg's undervote in double-digits, maybe the author didnt realize that all county absentee voters are lumped together in the turnout figures for each of the three CDs." I went over similar ground repeatedly. (For instance, on Thursday the 18th: "The main problem was the inclusion of all absentee, curbside, and provisional ballots in the turnout figures for all three House districts in Mecklenburg. Even though most of the district was in NC-12, all the NC-12 (and NC-09) absentee etc. ballots were included in the NC-08 turnout.")

I'm not going to draw any morals. I'm just referring you back to some things that you may have missed at the time because they didn't fit into your perception of what was happening.

[BeFree]

65. Ya know what

That is the first time I ever read that post, and it is almost clear about how the mistake transpired.

But I did read this, and it is not so clear:

There is a bigger problem with his article, however. Collins either intentionally uses an inflated undervote figure to make Mecklenburg County's undervote appear more sensational, or he has no idea how to figure the undervote from the iVotronics returns.

In stating that Mecklenburg County's undervote is greater than 15% he failed to exclude all paper absentee, curbside and provisional votes. Provisional votes naturally create a huge undervote since so many are discarded. Once those are removed the actual undervote of 4.2% is revealed. With the correct undervote total, Collins' entire argument is rendered moot.

Like I said, not until eomer posted up the numbers here, did it become clear to ME. But then I am a little slow sometimes. Tell ya what, had I been responding to someone like me, and I held the facts, I would have explained it all this way:

The Meck BoE created this mess by making a mistake adding up the numbers. They included numbers in the turnout totals which should have never been there. Why they continue to include the numbers in the totals is a mystery to me. It really is a stupid mistake and has misled people to conclude the turnout numbers posted as official returns are correct when in fact the official result turnout number is wrong.

Do not believe the official result Meck BoE numbers.

Anyway, you are somewhat correct, the attacks forced a perception -enforced by the incorrect official results - leading me to not see the whole picture.

It really is incredible that the BoE could create, and keep posted all this time, such an incorrect official result. But then, I really should have known better than to believe them, eh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. I agree, Southern Dem's post was less clear on that point

and I was quick to say so here. In fact, I may have confused some folks in the way I did so, describing it as "one quibble" with SoDem's diary. (And what I posted there was pretty brief.) My bigger "quibble" with SoDem is that I still think there actually were excess undervotes in Mecklenburg -- hundreds, not thousands. I talked about them, for instance, here on Tuesday the 16th.

I personally don't find it incredible that the board posted incorrect House turnout figures, because (1) I don't know that the House turnout figures have any legal standing or importance, and (2) it might be very hard for the board to figure correct figures. Now, probably they would have been better off omitting the figures altogether. I guess I'm beyond being amazed by that sort of thing. So, I guess I'm agreeing with you.

See ya.

[galloglas]

67. Like a Patriot !

Truly written, mon amí!