Election not passing the smell test.

The more I think about it, the more unlikely it would seem that over 8 million Bush voters would appear out of the woodwork, in contrast to only 1.5 million additional Kerry voters (as compared to the 2000 results), given the monumental effort Democrats and their allies put on to register and turn out new and existing voters.

I want to know:

a) where these new Bush voters showed up

b) whether they were in states with electronic voting machines with no paper trail

c) whether the results in precincts and areas with such machines differ in a statistically significant fashion from:

     i. similar precincts using other voting technologies

     ii. exit poll results in the precincts where the machines were used

     iii. historical patterns of turnout and voting

In fact, I’d be very interested to see if the numbers are funny in other areas, not just in the e-voting districts, but any district where the ballots are computer/machine counted (there are all sorts of places that games can be played with the vote tallying process, not just in the voting booth).

As I recall, someone did a statistical analysis of this sort after Chuck Hegel got elected to the Senate in Nebraska using these machines, and I think a similar analysis was done in Georgia after Max Cleland lost his election (the page linked to cites an article in the U.K’s “Independent” – see also Thom Hartman’s evoting article on Common Dreams). Can someone please track these mathematical whizes down and get them cracking on the numbers?!?

If more than one of these factors looks funny in a significant number of locations, I’d say further investigation is merited. We may be accepting a completely unexpected result far too calmly.

Thomas Leavitt