In Broward county:
The ratio between registered Democrats and votes for the Democratic candidate was 1 to .849 in 2000, and 1 to .850 in 2004.
The ratio between registered Republicans and votes for the Republican candidate was 1 to .667 in 2000, and, get ready for this, 1 to .862 in 2004.
Now, we have to consider voters registered in third parties -- who are actually included in the above ratios for each year because they mostly vote for candidates in the two major parties -- but this is ridiculous, especially since the Florida exit poll shows Independents going 57% to Kerry, and 41% to Bush.
In Broward county, Bush’s increase in votes from 2000 to 2004 was over 66,000.
A Bush increase of 66,000 would be as if the entire decrease in votes for third party candidates (1,221), the entire projected turnout for newly registered Republicans (66.57% * 16,907 = 11,254), AND the entire projected turnout for newly registered third party registrations (66.57% * 76,211 = 50,734), all went to Bush, and that’s only 63,210.
Something happened in Broward county. Maybe it was an extraordinary and massive shift in voting patterns, or maybe it was fraud and/or flawed tabulation, but something happened. Broward county needs to be investigated thoroughly.
Full Version: Something Is Rotten In Broward
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Archive
There were indeed some strange things that happened in Broward County, Florida during this past election. Here's information about one of them:
There was a measure on the ballot known as Amendment 4. The basic purpose of this amendment was to allow slot machines (and perhaps other casino style gambling) at race tracks and jai alai venues in parts of south Florida. Florida has a history of voting against gambling, but this measure included a provision for using some of the gambling revenues to fund educational programs. So it was expected to be a close vote.
The vote did indeed look close until Broward County discovered a mass of uncounted absentee ballots on Nov. 4 deadline set by the secretary of state for posting non-certified results. Counting these yielded about 78,000 additional votes on Amendment 4, 74,000 of which were in favor of Amendment 4. Can you say statistical anomaly?
There was a measure on the ballot known as Amendment 4. The basic purpose of this amendment was to allow slot machines (and perhaps other casino style gambling) at race tracks and jai alai venues in parts of south Florida. Florida has a history of voting against gambling, but this measure included a provision for using some of the gambling revenues to fund educational programs. So it was expected to be a close vote.
The vote did indeed look close until Broward County discovered a mass of uncounted absentee ballots on Nov. 4 deadline set by the secretary of state for posting non-certified results. Counting these yielded about 78,000 additional votes on Amendment 4, 74,000 of which were in favor of Amendment 4. Can you say statistical anomaly?
I don't suppose any of our fine MSM journalists will remember this because it happened such a long time ago. Gosh, you have to go all the way back to October 27, 2004 to find this story.
Broward County, FL -- about 60,000 absentee ballots seem to have been mailed but never received.
Broward County, FL -- about 60,000 absentee ballots seem to have been mailed but never received.
QUOTE(BNW @ Nov 19 2004, 04:03 AM)
In Broward county:
The ratio between registered Democrats and votes for the Democratic candidate was 1 to .849 in 2000, and 1 to .850 in 2004.
The ratio between registered Republicans and votes for the Republican candidate was 1 to .667 in 2000, and, get ready for this, 1 to .862 in 2004.
Now, we have to consider voters registered in third parties -- who are actually included in the above ratios for each year because they mostly vote for candidates in the two major parties -- but this is ridiculous, especially since the Florida exit poll shows Independents going 57% to Kerry, and 41% to Bush.
In Broward county, Bush’s increase in votes from 2000 to 2004 was over 66,000.
A Bush increase of 66,000 would be as if the entire decrease in votes for third party candidates (1,221), the entire projected turnout for newly registered Republicans (66.57% * 16,907 = 11,254), AND the entire projected turnout for newly registered third party registrations (66.57% * 76,211 = 50,734), all went to Bush, and that’s only 63,210.
Something happened in Broward county. Maybe it was an extraordinary and massive shift in voting patterns, or maybe it was fraud and/or flawed tabulation, but something happened. Broward county needs to be investigated thoroughly.
The ratio between registered Democrats and votes for the Democratic candidate was 1 to .849 in 2000, and 1 to .850 in 2004.
The ratio between registered Republicans and votes for the Republican candidate was 1 to .667 in 2000, and, get ready for this, 1 to .862 in 2004.
Now, we have to consider voters registered in third parties -- who are actually included in the above ratios for each year because they mostly vote for candidates in the two major parties -- but this is ridiculous, especially since the Florida exit poll shows Independents going 57% to Kerry, and 41% to Bush.
In Broward county, Bush’s increase in votes from 2000 to 2004 was over 66,000.
A Bush increase of 66,000 would be as if the entire decrease in votes for third party candidates (1,221), the entire projected turnout for newly registered Republicans (66.57% * 16,907 = 11,254), AND the entire projected turnout for newly registered third party registrations (66.57% * 76,211 = 50,734), all went to Bush, and that’s only 63,210.
Something happened in Broward county. Maybe it was an extraordinary and massive shift in voting patterns, or maybe it was fraud and/or flawed tabulation, but something happened. Broward county needs to be investigated thoroughly.
Well, another way of looking at this, other than: the 66,000 came from the entire thrid party decrease, all newly registered Republicans and all newly registered third party registrations is:
More Democrats voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000.
Sorry, but it has to be at least considered. I see so many Democrats who find it difficult to believe that ANY Democrat would vote for Bush (or for ANY Republican for that matter). However, for those who find it difficult, I would say: Not all Democrats are exactly like you.
Every possible explanation must be looked at.
QUOTE(brossignol @ Nov 19 2004, 12:12 PM)
Every possible explanation must be looked at.
I agree, but some things are just beyond the pale. You have a close race on a vote involving casino gambling and then absentee ballots turn up on November 4 with ~74,000 out of ~78,000 votes in favor of the casino folks?
Do you honestly think there is nothing fishy going on in Broward County, Florida? Is it just a coincidence that the Berkeley statistical analysis finds anomalous results there?
QUOTE(inquiringmind @ Nov 19 2004, 11:56 AM)
I agree, but some things are just beyond the pale. You have a close race on a vote involving casino gambling and then absentee ballots turn up on November 4 with ~74,000 out of ~78,000 votes in favor of the casino folks?
Do you honestly think there is nothing fishy going on in Broward County, Florida? Is it just a coincidence that the Berkeley statistical analysis finds anomalous results there?
Do you honestly think there is nothing fishy going on in Broward County, Florida? Is it just a coincidence that the Berkeley statistical analysis finds anomalous results there?
Yes. That is certainly interesting. I had not seen those numbers. Any links, out of curiosity?
But the measure passed by more than 160,000 votes before the other *error* was found which increased the margin to more than 200,000, did it not?
I don't think that the 74,000 votes really mattered at that point. But, it could certainly be surmised that someone planted the 74,000 to be *found* just in case.
In that case, certainly, if there can be fraud proven in the 74,000 ballots, even though they did not actually affect the outcome, find the perpetrators and hang them by their eyebrows!
check out the Cal study on FLA, which mentions Broward County:
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/index.html
And my own look at FLORIDA BY THE NUMBERS from a week or so agao:
67 counties
62 counties with vote margins better for W in 04 than 00
0 counties with fewer W supporters in 04 than 00
5 more counties with a pro-W majority in 04 than in 00
0 more counties with a pro-W minority in 04 than 00
485,000 more votes (approx) for W in 04 than 00 in counties currently using touch-screen voting machines
210,000 more votes (approx) for W in 04 than 00 in counties using Diebolds
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/index.html
And my own look at FLORIDA BY THE NUMBERS from a week or so agao:
67 counties
62 counties with vote margins better for W in 04 than 00
0 counties with fewer W supporters in 04 than 00
5 more counties with a pro-W majority in 04 than in 00
0 more counties with a pro-W minority in 04 than 00
485,000 more votes (approx) for W in 04 than 00 in counties currently using touch-screen voting machines
210,000 more votes (approx) for W in 04 than 00 in counties using Diebolds
QUOTE(brossignol @ Nov 19 2004, 09:12 AM)
Well, another way of looking at this, other than: the 66,000 came from the entire thrid party decrease, all newly registered Republicans and all newly registered third party registrations is:
More Democrats voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000.
Sorry, but it has to be at least considered. I see so many Democrats who find it difficult to believe that ANY Democrat would vote for Bush (or for ANY Republican for that matter). However, for those who find it difficult, I would say: Not all Democrats are exactly like you.
Every possible explanation must be looked at.
More Democrats voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000.
Sorry, but it has to be at least considered. I see so many Democrats who find it difficult to believe that ANY Democrat would vote for Bush (or for ANY Republican for that matter). However, for those who find it difficult, I would say: Not all Democrats are exactly like you.
Every possible explanation must be looked at.
um, i said in the first post "maybe it was an extraordinary and massive shift in voting patterns."
part of the point is just how big the shift is: "The ratio between registered Democrats and votes for the Democratic candidate was 1 to .849 in 2000, and 1 to .850 in 2004.
The ratio between registered Republicans and votes for the Republican candidate was 1 to .667 in 2000, and, get ready for this, 1 to .862 in 2004."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.