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

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_at_directell_dot_com>
Date: Thu Nov 04 2004 - 23:49:56 CST

charlie strauss said:
> If you look at the blow up graph you see that most of the touchscreen
> (solid points) lie amongst the scatter of the paper ballots. So I dont
> understand the comments. The means trend of these sets seems to be
> close. One could argue they are not close enough statistically. But

It is not just how far apart they are. How likely is it that ALL the RED
(Republican) values are above ALL the BLUE (Democratic) values? Not at
ALL if the results were random.

Charlie, I've now got the numbers and analysis for PA that don't seem to
show the same pattern at all, so would you be willing to do the same plots
for the PA numbers too please? And the 2000 FL analysis when I get it
done? Apparently these numbers are going to be used for some
decision-making tomorrow and I would like to have as many facts to present
as possible.

How do you want me to get the numbers to you?

> that argument is not neccessary because the fact that the paper trails
> APPEAR to have a larger scatter alone indicates that people dont vote
> the same way on touch screens as on paper ballots. I dont entirely
> understand why some counties are outliers. I would have expected these
> to be damped out when averaged over an entire county. That remains
> curious, and I cant explain it.

Again, I agree if you are only looking at the pattern without regard to
color (DEM or REP). It is not the pattern itself that is odd. It is the
color of the pattern and the fact that DEM and REP pattern is not randomly

> the region of strongest divergence is in the smaller counties and those
> are only optical scan. there is no point to compare with e-voting.
> thus I dont see how you conclude that e-voting is not following optical
> scan in this region. perhpas you did not realize the e-voting is the
> solid dots?

The point is that the e-voting counties all have a much more normal mix of
Repubs and Dems. I did the numbers and it LOOKS like the election was
rigged in op-scan counties by about 300,000+ votes taken from DEM and
added to REPUB (a 600,000 vote change which is more than the amt that the
REPs won FL) if this pattern (OF COLOR) is any sign.

That is why we must do similar analysis of 2000 election and other states
for comparison. Would you help if I forward you the numbers?


> The place on my figures that I think is the most controversial is the
> lower lefthand corner of the blow up. are the optical scan democratic
> counties that lie well off the trend line of the e-voting disagreeing
> with the e-voting? I think you (kathy) would say yes. I'm less
> certain. Perhaps this is edge of the onset of the second trend I
> noticed that peeled the republican and democrat lines off this trend.
> It is hard to say. That's why I blew it up so the reader could decide.
> It's a tough call. I lean towards agreeing with what I think you are
> saying but I' reluctant to go the whole way.

I don't know which plot is the "blowup" but the lower left corner, if
you'll notice, the red open circles are equally if not more farther (great
English) from the 45 degree trend line in two of your charts at least but
I'm not sure I'm all here right now.

> yes there could be many factors here. its a good guess that opscan
> districts are poorer though not neccessarily so. One person (edward)
> suggested that the media market might be correlated with the county size
> and thus they might have seen different advertising sets. Perhaps the
> media market could be correlated with voting machine type as well (via
> affluence perhaps).

There was a study recently I read that showed that older voting technology
was more likely to be used in richer districts, but I do not trust such
social science studies. It is definately correlated with county size I

>>> 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

Why would undervotes favor Republicans??!

>>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.
> agreed undervotes explaining that are a long shot. That second
> hypothesis was a long shot just placed there to offer a counter point to
> the previous hypothesis that serial voting distorts the voting process
> when compared to paper.

Thank you.

I have pages of emails so if anyone really wants to reach me, call


= 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 23:17:11 2004

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