|
Edited on Wed Nov-03-04 04:23 AM by lostnfound
Looking at growth in total votes in 2004 by county, vs growth in Bush votes by county, I found that in almost all counties in Florida, Bush votes 'grew' much more than total votes 'grew'.
The worst case was Palm Beach, where an extra 21,299 votes (+5%) were totalled, and 21,387 extra went to Bush (+14%).
Palm Beach 2000 Total Votes 430,762 2004 Total Votes 452,061 2000 Bush Votes 152,846 2004 Bush Votes 174,233 % Increase Total Votes 5% % Increase Bush Votes 14% Vote Increase Total 21,299 Bush Increase 21,387 Bush Inc / Total Inc 100% % Bush 2000 35%
In Pinellas, an extra 52,783 votes (+13%) were totalled, and 37,746 extra (+20%) went to Bush.
Pinellas 2000 Total Votes 396,092 2004 Total Votes 448,875 2000 Bush Votes 184,884 2004 Bush Votes 222,630 % Increase Total Votes 13% % Increase Bush Votes 20% Vote Increase Total 52,783 Bush Increase 37,746 Bush Inc / Total Inc 72% % Bush 2000 47%
In Broward, total votes were up by 19%, Bush votes were up by 33%.
Broward 2000 Total Votes 571,685 2004 Total Votes 682,717 2000 Bush Votes 177,279 2004 Bush Votes 235,332 % Increase Total Votes 19% % Increase Bush Votes 33% Vote Increase Total 111,032 Bush Increase 58,053 Bush Inc / Total Inc 52% % Bush 2000 31%
The exception The only major county in which Bush votes climbed at a slower pace than total votes was Miami-Dade, where total votes were up by 13% and Bush votes were up by 11%.
Analysis at county level All told, Bush got at least 20% more than "expected" of the new votes in 52 counties, and got 20% less than "expected" in only 2 (tiny Highlands and Gadsden). (Ten more counties are less noteworthy, mostly skewed a bit for Bush, and the other is Miami-Dade, mentioned as the exception above).
To clarify, when I say "expected", I mean if the # of Bush votes had climbed at the same rate as total voters. (I.e., for Miami Dade, 11% Bush growth vs 13% total growth => 11/13 => 88% of "expected" growth or "12% less than expected"; or for Pinellas, 13% growth vs. 20% growth => 153% of "expected" growth or "53% more than expected")
Conclusions So...What does this mean? Choose one: 1) the Bushies were MUCH better at getting their voters to the polls or 2) electronic voting machine fraud or 3) it's the net effect of their voter suppression efforts
Because all these new voters did Bush a whole lot more good than Kerry...66.4% of the "new votes" went to Bush.
I cannot detect any pattern with the voting machines (i.e., the 'fair' counties where growth was even included Diebold and optical and ES&S, as did the most distorted counties).
|