Diebold Machines Yield
Fishy CA Results
Long-shot candidates do
startlingly well in Tulare County

My friend in South Carolina writes:
I ran a number crunch of CA counties that use Diebold machines to cast/count votes and found some weird figures that show a skim of votes from top candidates to people who were unlikely to affect the outcome. I did my hand calculator work on the California election results (from the secretary of state's site) when 96% of precincts had reported. The website showed:
Counties using Diebold Touchscreens: Alemeda, Plumas
Counties using Diebold Optiscan: Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Placer, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Trinity, Tulare.
There were a total of 1,403,375 votes cast in these counties combined. The CA total was 7,842,630 at this stage of the count. Thus 17.89% of all the state votes were cast/counted on Diebold equipment.
I had earlier noticed some lower order candidates (ones who couldn't affect the result) were getting unusually large numbers of votes in Tulare county. I decided to test to see if the these and other 'fringe' candidates might be used to receive skimmed votes in other Diebold counties.
I added all the votes cast/counted on Diebold equipment for each candidate and expressed it as a percentage of their total votes cast state wide. The following table lists: Candidate name, votes counted for them in Diebold counties, CA state total votes counted for that candidate and what percentage of that candidate's total votes were counted in Diebold counties.
It looks like, as one might expect, at the top of the list as if there is a slight variance from an even state wide distribution. However many 'lower ticket' candidates have vote totals that ONLY correlate with the use of Diebold equipment! I have included some names chosen at random from the result list that show that not all lower order candidates were used to receive skimmed votes. Note that Diebold's counties are spread geographically over the whole of California.
I have checked background on the skewed result candidates and they are not residents of the counties where they got very high percentage results. In one case, Palmieri, the candidate was surprised to hear about Tulare county (I emailed him) and had not been there nor had family or friends there. In fact, his platform was "Don't vote for me." He described this vote pattern as "strange."
State total 7,842,630.
Cast in Diebold counties 1,403,375
17.89% of the total votes cast.
Schwarzenegger 581,145 3,552,787 16.36% Bustamante 447,008 2,379,740 18.78% McLintock 186,923 979,234 19.08% Camejo 39,199 207,270 18.9% Huffington 7,498 42,131 17.79% Ueberoth 3365 21378 15.74% Flynt 2384 15010 15.88% Coleman 1869 12443 15.02% Simon 1351 7648 17.66% Palmieri 2542 3717 68.3% Louie 598 3198 18.7% Kunzman 1957 2133 91.75% Roscoe 325 1941 16.7% Sprague 1026 1576 65.10% Macaluso 592 1504 39.36% Price 477 1011 47.18% Quinn 220 433 50.8% Martorana 165 420 39.28% Gosse 60 419 14.3%
Based on the very unlikely distribution of votes for some candidates (a meteor hit my car twice this week sort of odds) a hand count of the affected counties to compare with the machine reported count should be done. This would show that the machines had been tampered with to alter the results. As we already know, it is not possible to audit touchscreen machines because Diebold refuse to allow printing of a ballot to be placed in a box as a back up for use in just such an apparent tampering with votes.
For those who are unsure of figures:
California is huge and has a population similar to many European nations. Lower order candidates had little or no ability to spread any sort of message to parts of the state beyond their own home and/or where they have previously lived. One would expect some of the 'fringe' candidates to do well in their home county and then to have a very even distribution across the rest of the state. That is not the case. In Diebold counties (those who use machines made by Diebold, a corporation that supports George Bush) the results are skewed towards low scoring candidates by unbelievably large amounts.
The probability of scoring twice the expected average county % could charitably be construed as the upper limit of the possible. Some candidates exceed that figure in Diebold counties by a four or five fold margin. If you have done statistics, you know that is so far beyond what might be expected that you would reject it as defective data. If it happened to one candidate in this election, I would be surprised but might accept it. There are a large number of candidates who have this same systematic pattern of receiving skimmed votes.
The California recall shows Diebold trying to affect the election outcome by moving votes from high ranked candidates to low ranked candidates.
By doing this, Diebold keep the total number of votes cast constant but rob some candidate of their votes. Before anyone makes this a partisan issue - it could be a Republican victim next time.




This Site Served by TheHostPros