Re: LARGE Human factor problems in florida e-voting??

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Nov 04 2004 - 17:24:51 CST

Vote watch is looking at Northern Ohio and I forget which other state.

Best regards,

At 6:41 PM -0500 11/4/04, Kathy Dopp wrote:
>charlie strauss said:
>> Kathy Dopp gets credit for noticing this. She sent me the data she had
>> collected from all the precints in florida and noticed some funny
>> numbers. I made a plot showing the difference in voting patterns on
>> e-voting machines and optical scan.
>> the results can be found here for now:
>I am not following all of your charts or logic yet Charles.
>I've had two other mathematicians do regression analysis whose conclusions
>disagree with yours, and I am not sure on what data you used to plot some
>of those charts yet.
>In most of your charts, all the Red REP voters on the top of the 45 degree
>line, and all the Blue DEM votes underneath which shows a clear pattern
>for optical scan votes that is completely at odds with the touchscreen
>data and what one would normally expect.
>Another one of your charts shows clear unmistakable divergence too with
>most of the Repub on the top of the 45% line and most Dems below it for op
>scan systems, so that for some mysterious reason Dems voting on opscan
>machines seemed to abandon their party and everyone seemed to abandon
>their party, and join the Republicans
>> I'm still mulling it over, but it appears to me that there is VERY VERY
>> strong Human factors problem present.
>I agree with that because if op-scan voting machines were rigged, then
>definately it was done by humans. :-)
>I'm in the middle of a firestorm over this and still trying to obtain
>other data and other measures to look at.
>> the e-votes appears to follow party line (more predictable by the people
>> registered in a county to a given party) much much more tightly than
>> the optical scan process.
>Yes. Agreed. Op-scan is showing a very suspicious pattern, but it might
>yet be explained by other factors or demographics which people are working
>on putting together.
>> One hypothesis is that the serial nature of e-voting induces this effect
>> perhaps by making it harder to consciously split vote parties in
>> diferent races. Under this hypothesis The non-full-face, serial nature
>> of electronic voting is highly detrimental to the voting process.
>> Another hypothesis would be that optical scan machines are wildly
>> inaccurate or have incidences massive ( perhaps >30% !!) undervotes that
>> tend to favor Republicans a bit more often than Democrats. (Most
>It doesn't look like there were many undervotes at all in this race, but
>I'll look at it as soon as I get a chance.
>> optical scan machines prevent overvotes, though I cant say if florida's
>> machines do). Under this hypothesis electronic voting is significantly
>> more accurate and less biased than optical scan.
>I'm not so sure I'd attribute the difference to accuracy problems with
>op-scan systems, more like shannigans or very unusual demographics that we
>haven't quite figured out yet.
>I'm getting emails from some county election officials in FL right now,
>and calls from NY, so I'm kindof swamped by response to this study of
>mine, and people are sending me statistical analysis, spreadsheets and
>lots of advice, etc.
>> I lean towards the human factors explanation. But perhaps there are
>> other hypothesises you can generate. I dont have experience explaining
>> voting patterns.
>I agree with human factor, very possibly election-rigging, but I'm holding
>out for more info before declaring that to be the case. I've got people
>who are willing to pay money for more stats and others who have promised
>to dig up more by county election results for me. It took me until 2 p.m.
>to have breakfast and the emails are still coming in faster than I can
>quickly answer them.
>I don't particularly like your chart that maps actual votes for party pres
>vs. number of voters registered to party because it doesn't seem to take
>into account voter turnout in each county, or does it?
>Some people want possible interviews. Hopefully this may eventually give
>me a chance to mention OVC.

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Tue Nov 30 23:17:10 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:43 CST