Calling Out the NY Lever Shills

                                                        

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

 

Updated Jan. 24, 2011

Democratic Underground Posters "Bill Bored" and "Wilms" have been shilling non-stop for years as advocates for NY lever voting machines. The levers were replaced by optical scanners in 2010.

They want the levers back and constantly repeat that they are nearly foolproof from miscounts, unlike DREs and optical scanners. Their bogus argument is that the mechanical levers cannot be rigged through software. Yet they have never coherently addressed the fact that the votes CAST on levers were COUNTED on UNVERIFIABLE central tabulators.

They might as well be writing for the mainstream media; they assume readers don’t do their homework and oblivious to the facts. Instead of focusing on the real problem (corrupt NY judges, politicians and election officials who refuse to do robust hand-counts of the paper ballots) they continue their non-stop campaign for the levers.

And they mislead readers by claiming that no one can explain how votes could be switched on levers. 

It has been pointed out to them numerous times, but they continue to ignore the facts:

1. NY votes were cast on levers

2. The votes were counted on central tabulators

3, Central tabulators are computers

4. There were no paper ballots to verify the machine counts

5. The lever voting system was never transparent!

Bored calls the 2004 exit polls “crap” because they showed a massive 12% discrepancy in Kerry's NY margin. The exit poll timeline indicated that Kerry won NY by a constant 64-35%. But the recorded vote was 58-40% (the exit poll margin of error was less than 2%). According to the Census Bureau, there were more than 300,000 uncounted votes in NY State, the vast majority for Kerry.

Kerry’s New York margin was reduced by nearly 1.0 million votes due to election fraud. In California, his margin was cut by approximately 1.4 million. Bush won the recorded vote by just 3.0 million, so approximately 80% of his “mandate” came from the two biggest Democratic states.

Nationwide, Kerry won the aggregate of the state exit polls by 52-47%, but lost the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%.

The average exit poll discrepancy (WPE) for all voting machine types was 7.4%. It was 11.6% for mechanical levers, 7% for DREs and optical scanners - but just 2% for paper ballots (see  http://www.richardcharnin.com/NewYorkLeverFraud.htm).

I provided EIRS data showing that in heavily Democratic NYC, long lines and faulty machines disenfranchised voters: http://www.richardcharnin.com/NY2004EIRS.htm

 

This graph depicts the implausible Bush 2004 gains over his 2000 recorded vote in the 15 largest New York counties.

http://www.richardcharnin.com/TIACountyVoteDatabase_24111_image001.png

 

In 2004, there was a 17% increase over 2000 in the national recorded vote (105 to 122 million). Kerry captured 57-59% of new voters!

So how are we expected to believe the implausible recorded vote changes in heavily Democratic counties?

 

1. Kings (Brooklyn): Bush’s recorded vote increased by 75% and Kerry’s by just 5%!

2. Bronx: Bush’s recorded vote increased by 59% and Kerry’s by just 10%!

3. Queens:, Bush’s recorded vote increased by 36% and Kerry’s by just 5%!

4. Nassau: Bush’s recorded vote increased by 30% and Kerry’s declined by 2%!

 

But now they have gone too far. They resort to outright slander.

 

Wilms posted this lie:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x517188

 

Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list

Sun Jan-02-11 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #2

 

9. Exit Poll TIA thinks lever machines cause chads! More think HAVA requires their retirement.

 

 

 

 

Bored replied with this canard:  

 

Bill Bored (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list

Sun Jan-02-11 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #9

 

10. He also thinks they cause vote switching. I don't know which is further from the truth. nt

 

Pure nonsense!

 

This is typical misdirection on the part of relentless Lever advocates. I never claimed votes can be switched on levers or that levers cause chads. I stated that NY Central Tabulators, which tally votes cast on levers, can be programmed to miscount the votes. 

 

Bored recently linked to a post on FireDogLake.com:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x517162

 

I replied on FDL (I was banned from posting on DU in 2005).

http://my.firedoglake.com/jmlagain/2010/12/28/vote-count-not-a-factor-in-ny-election-outcome

 

Lever advocates who claim that the former unverifiable NY lever/central tabulator system is superior to the new verifiable Optical scanner/central tabulator system are just blowing smoke. It should now be obvious to anyone who has a brain the size of a pea: the NY voting system (as in virtually all the other states) is anti- democratic. It is DESIGNED to enable miscounts. If it’s not the election officials and/or the politicians fighting against hand-counts, it’s the judiciary.

Why don’t lever machine advocates focus their efforts on the source of the corruption? How can they be so blind as to not see what they are up against? Election fraud is systemic. The only solution is a government mandate to implement a robust chain of custody and hand-count the paper ballots. Isn’t THAT why the scanners were installed in the first place: to verify the machine counts? Follow the money.

 

If NY election officials really wanted fair elections, they would check out a near-foolproof system that works: 

http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVsNYVoting.htm

 

Why don’t the Lever advocates focus on the root cause of the NY scam: corrupt election officials who did not have to worry about hand-counting paper ballots using the 100 year-old Levers. Now that paper ballots are available, they refuse to count them. AND THEY STILL BLAME THE MACHINES!

Levers are non-transparent. And that is just what those who want to see them brought back want: business as usual. They are opposed to transparency at all costs. It’s no different than the PTB trying to shut down Wikileaks by any means necessary.

 

To (mis)quote Shakespeare: The fault is not in our machines, but in ourselves.

 

Posters saras and UnitedVoters also called Bored out.

 

saras (308 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list

Sun Jan-02-11 02:08 AM
Response to Original message

 

7. Utterly silly

 

What's really pathetic is there are ways of registering and counting the votes that would require gigantic conspiracies to effectively cheat, and would allow the public to watch the vote totals rise as votes come in and are counted, which makes statistical analysis much easier, to the point where problems are literally visible to the public in real-time.

And we waste our time debating the subtleties minor tweaks to horribly, fatally flawed systems instead.

 

 

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 

Bill Bored (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list

Sun Jan-02-11 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #7

 

8. Looking forward to hearing about even ONE such method that also guarantees a secret ballot. nt

 

 

 

 

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 

Bill Bored (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list

Thu Jan-06-11 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #8

 

11. Crickets.

 

Edited on Thu Jan-06-11 01:57 AM by Bill Bored

Also see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

 

 

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 

UnitedVoters (48 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list

Thu Jan-06-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #11

 

12. Crickets. What else do you expect?

 

You and one or two other posters have driven everyone to lurking or completely off this board. I'm surprised the crickets are even still around. You've been starting most of the recent threads, and attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you. And 95% of recent threads that aren't Voting News have been about New York and its Quixotic quest to hang on to Direct Recording Mechanical lever machines.

There is a wonderful line, originated by Ethel Merman in the musical 'Gypsy': "
New York is the center of New York."

That is all.

 

 

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

 

 

And Bored responds with this tripe about “leverless elections”, as if mechanical levers are the Holy Grail of transparent voting sytems.

 

Bill Bored (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list

Thu Jan-06-11 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #12

 

13. Are you going to answer my question or not?

 

Edited on Thu Jan-06-11 11:49 PM by Bill Bored

It's amazing that when asked for a plan to verify leverless elections, all you guys can do is crawl out of the woodwork and revert to your lever-bashing position as if that's a cogent response to the question.

I've been doing this far too long to be bullshitted like that. You've got nothin'. Admit it. You don't have a clue how to verify computer-counted election results, do you? 

You only know what a few advocates have told you about how it's better to have computers count paper ballots than not count paper ballots. 

You've got nothin'! So either come up with the goods or think of a better comeback than "Mechanical DREs." That's a specious analogy if I ever heard one. It shows a complete lack of understanding about the risks inherent in allowing software to handle critical functions such our democratic process.

If you can't explain to me how you're going to verify election results with your computerized voting system, sorry but I'll take a lever voting system that can't switch votes during elections by design.

The reason there are crickets here is because you and some others can't answer the question. So cut the crap and have a nice day.

 

 

Message from TIA to Bill Bored:

 

Hey Bill, admit it: YOU have nuthin’ - just an open agenda to shill for Levers that you must feed daily. When are you going to write a post demanding that NY get rid of the central tabulators when it goes back to the levers?  I won’t hold my breath. Mechanical levers and central tabulators (i.e. computers) were a powerful combination when it comes to casting and miscounting votes. The massive 2004 NY exit poll discrepancy proves it. No paper – no transparency.

 

You keep telling us that computers should never be used in any voting system. And yet you still have the gall to constantly shill for a nontransparent mechanical lever/central tabulator computer system. Give it up already. Your act has been a stale one for years now.

 

Consider that…
1)
Oregon votes by mail and NY by lever machines.
2) In the last three elections, late NY Democratic (paper) vote shares were 7% higher than Election Day (lever) shares.
3) In 2004, the
New York exit poll had a massive 12% average Within Precinct Discrepancy (WPE), cutting Kerry’s margin by 900k votes!

By contrast, the National WPE was 7% and Paper ballot precincts had a 2% WPE.

 

4) Kerry’s NY margin was 3.7% higher than Gore’s in Oregon (a battleground state), but 6.7% lower in New York (a strong Democratic state).
5) Kerry exceeded Gore’s margin in
Oregon’s largest county (Multnomah) by 8.9%; Gore exceeded Kerry by 8.6% in New York’s largest (Kings).

 

6) Oregon had a 1.8% discrepancy in the exit pollster telephone survey. The average WPE in 14 battleground states was 7.5%.
7)
Oregon matched the national aggregate of the state exit polls (52-47%) after allocating returning Nader/other voters.

8) Oregon paper ballots are available for hand recounts. There were no paper ballots in the NY Lever voting system.
 9) Gore won NY by 60.2-35.2%. Allocating the 4.6% Nader/other vote, Kerry wins by 63-36% – assuming equal Gore/Bush defection.

10) At 12:22am, the National Exit Poll indicated that 10% of returning Bush voters defected to Kerry and 8% of Gore voters defected to Bush.

Given these defection rates, Kerry’s NY margin (64-35%) exactly matched the unadjusted, Best GEO and Composite Exit Poll timeline.

 

11) Gore must have done better than his 60.2% NY recorded share given 180,000 net uncounted votes.

12) In the two elections Clinton was the incumbent, the NY exit polls had an average 0.6 WPD (no fraud).
13) In the three elections in which Bush was the incumbent, the NY exit polls had an average 8.0 WPD (massive fraud).

 

If one ignores all of the above, there is every reason for New Yorkers to “love those levers” – except for this: Even if everyone who came to the polls voted and all the lever machines performed perfectly, the fact remains that votes are counted by proprietary computer software, not open source, which can easily be programmed to switch votes that may or may not have been entered accurately. Ay, there’s the rub.

 

Oregon voters does not have faulty levers placed in heavy Democratic precincts, machine failures, vote counts terminating at 99, stuck levers, long lines, intimidation by poll workers or UNVERIFIABLE vote counts.

 

http://www.richardcharnin.com/2004NewYorkLeverExitPollDiscepancies.htm              

http://www.richardcharnin.com/NewYorkVotingAnomalies.htm

http://www.richardcharnin.com/NewYorkConfirmationKerryLandslide.htm

http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVsNYVoting.htm

http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVotingSystem.htm

http://www.richardcharnin.com/StanislevicNYLevers.htm

 

 

2000-2004 ELECTION DAY VOTES RECORDED BY MACHINE TYPE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voting

Total

2000

 Recorded

 

 

   Share

 

 

2004

Recorded

 

 

 Share

 

 

                              Vote

Change

 

      Percent Change

    Bush Net Increase

 

Method

Precints

Total

GORE

BUSH

NADER

GORE

BUSH

NADER

Total

KERRY

BUSH

NADER

KERRY

BUSH

NADER

KERRY

BUSH

NADER

KERRY

BUSH

Margin

Margin

Incid

Paper

4,737

1,518

653

819

46

43.0%

53.9%

3.0%

1,879

828

1,043

8

44.1%

56.1%

0.39%

104

156

-39

15.9%

19.0%

52

1.1%

0

Opscan

66,451

33,078

15,318

16,827

933

46.3%

50.9%

2.8%

41,411

19,525

21,776

111

47.1%

52.6%

0.27%

2,218

3,669

-825

14.5%

21.8%

1,450

0.9%

303

Lever

26,698

13,977

7,608

5,886

483

54.4%

42.1%

3.5%

15,663

8,279

7,259

125

52.9%

46.3%

0.80%

658

1,363

-358

8.6%

23.1%

706

5.8%

243

Punch

26,083

11,306

5,494

5,554

258

48.6%

49.1%

2.3%

13,037

6,384

6,638

15

49.0%

50.9%

0.12%

890

1,084

-243

16.2%

19.5%

194

1.4%

213

DRE

46,551

28,875

14,166

14,123

585

49.1%

48.9%

2.0%

33,467

16,178

17,198

91

48.3%

51.4%

0.27%

2,012

3,074

-495

14.2%

21.8%

1,062

3.2%

1,171

Other

14,304

7,963

3,497

4,196

269

43.9%

52.7%

3.4%

10,550

4,905

5,592

53

46.5%

53.0%

0.50%

601

801

-232

17.2%

19.1%

200

-2.3%

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ElectionDay

184,824

96,717

46,737

47,406

2,574

48.3%

49.0%

2.7%

116,008

56,099

59,505

404

48.4%

51.3%

0.35%

6,483

10,147

-2191

13.87%

21.40%

3,664

2.2%

1,966

Recorded

 

       104,298

    51,004

    50,459

     2,834

48.9%

48.4%

2.7%

 122,287

    59,027

    62,040

     1,220

48.3%

50.7%

1.00%

     8,023

    11,581

-1614

-0.63%

2.35%

3,558

3.0%

 

Late

 

           7,581

     4,267

     3,054

        260

0.58%

-0.63%

0.06%

     6,279

     2,928

     2,535

        816

-0.09%

-0.56%

0.65%

     1,540

     1,434

577

-14.51%

-19.05%

-106

0.74%

 

 

 

New York State County Recorded Vote Changes from 2000 to 2004

 (in thousands of votes )

 

New York

2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

 

 

Precincts

Total

Gore

Bush

Other

Gore

Bush

Other

Total

Kerry

Bush

Other

Kerry

Bush

Other

Election Day

15553

6,270

3,747

2,222

300

59.8%

35.4%

4.8%

6,892

3,993

2,796

104

57.9%

40.6%

1.5%

Total Recorded

15,553

6,822

4,108

2,403

311

60.2%

35.2%

4.6%

7,391

4,314

2,963

114

58.4%

40.1%

1.5%

Late

 

552

361

181

11

65.4%

32.7%

1.9%

499

321

167

10

64.3%

33.6%

2.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

County

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brooklyn   

1888

557

445.2

89.4

22.3

80%

16%

4%

630

468.5

156.6

5.2

74%

25%

0.8%

Suffolk   

1006

536

285.3

224.0

26.9

53%

42%

5%

618

303.4

301.7

13.3

49%

49%

2.1%

Nassau   

1070

554

319.1

214.2

20.7

58%

39%

4%

597

312.4

278.7

6.0

52%

47%

1.0%

Manhattan   

1100

522

409.8

78.9

33.1

79%

15%

6%

572

468.8

95.4

8.0

82%

17%

1.4%

Queens   

1470

512

379.8

115.3

16.6

74%

23%

3%

559

398.1

156.7

4.7

71%

28%

0.8%

 

Erie   

1007

384

217.7

143.4

22.5

57%

37%

6%

411

231.0

171.1

9.0

56%

42%

2.2%

Westchester   

948

306

178.8

114.5

12.9

58%

37%

4%

377

218.3

153.4

5.5

58%

41%

1.5%

Monroe   

792

300

152.5

132.5

15.4

51%

44%

5%

330

166.4

158.9

5.2

50%

48%

1.6%

Bronx   

912

279

239.9

33.2

5.9

86%

12%

2%

318

262.7

53.0

2.0

83%

17%

0.6%

Onondaga   

485

190

102.0

77.6

10.0

54%

41%

5%

199

107.4

87.7

3.5

54%

44%

1.8%

 

Staten Island   

333

133

68.9

60.1

4.1

52%

45%

3%

148

62.7

84.5

1.2

42%

57%

0.8%

Albany   

327

130

77.8

44.4

8.2

60%

34%

6%

136

81.7

51.3

2.6

60%

38%

1.9%

Orange   

284

118

53.8

58.4

5.5

46%

50%

5%

135

58.9

74.4

1.8

44%

55%

1.3%

Rockland   

250

117

65.3

47.0

4.5

56%

40%

4%

122

59.3

60.6

1.8

49%

50%

1.5%

Dutchess   

239

105

49.0

49.5

6.5

47%

47%

6%

114

53.0

59.1

1.8

47%

52%

1.6%

 

Saratoga   

168

89

40.4

44.5

4.2

45%

50%

5%

100

45.0

52.8

1.8

45%

53%

1.8%

Niagara   

180

87

45.2

37.9

4.4

52%

43%

5%

90

44.1

43.8

1.7

49%

49%

1.9%

Oneida   

209

87

39.3

42.7

4.6

45%

49%

5%

89

37.6

49.3

2.0

42%

55%

2.3%

Broome   

193

81

42.1

34.5

4.6

52%

43%

6%

84

42.1

40.2

1.6

50%

48%

2.0%

Ulster   

161

72

34.8

31.4

6.0

48%

44%

8%

84

45.4

36.3

1.9

54%

43%

2.3%

 

Rensselaer   

136

64

32.7

27.7

3.8

51%

43%

6%

67

33.2

32.5

1.5

49%

48%

2.2%

Schenectady   

131

63

33.3

26.1

3.2

53%

42%

5%

65

33.2

30.1

1.2

52%

47%

1.8%

Chataqua   

135

55

25.4

27.0

2.5

46%

49%

5%

57

25.5

30.0

1.1

45%

53%

1.9%

Oswego   

107

45

21.4

21.9

2.2

47%

48%

5%

49

23.2

24.7

1.0

47%

51%

2.0%

Ontario   

88

42

18.4

21.8

2.1

44%

51%

5%

47

19.6

26.3

0.8

42%

56%

1.6%

 

Putnam   

72

40

17.5

20.5

2.2

44%

51%

5%

44

18.1

25.1

0.5

41%

58%

1.1%

Steuben   

82

38

13.7

22.4

1.6

36%

59%

4%

39

13.3

25.3

0.7

34%

64%

1.7%

Wayne   

67

36

14.2

20.4

1.6

39%

56%

4%

39

14.6

23.3

0.6

38%

60%

1.7%

Tompkins   

67

37

19.7

12.3

4.5

54%

34%

12%

38

24.6

13.0

0.9

64%

34%

2.4%

St Lawrence   

99

37

20.0

15.3

1.8

54%

41%

5%

38

20.8

16.6

0.7

55%

44%

1.9%

 

Chemung   

82

35

16.0

17.3

1.5

46%

50%

4%

38

16.5

20.6

0.9

43%

54%

2.4%

Jefferson   

83

27

11.6

13.0

2.8

42%

47%

10%

35

15.3

19.4

0.7

43%

55%

2.1%

Cayuga   

61

30

14.5

13.2

1.7

49%

45%

6%

32

16.2

15.5

0.7

50%

48%

2.2%

Catargus   

74

32

12.7

17.2

1.6

40%

55%

5%

32

12.4

18.7

0.6

39%

59%

1.8%

Clinton   

64

29

14.4

12.5

1.6

50%

44%

6%

31

16.2

14.1

0.7

52%

46%

2.1%

 

Livingston   

57

26

9.8

14.3

1.4

39%

56%

6%

29

11.2

17.6

0.6

38%

60%

2.1%

Sullivan   

63

25

12.6

11.4

1.3

50%

45%

5%

28

13.6

13.9

0.5

49%

50%

1.9%

Madison   

51

26

11.1

13.7

1.4

42%

52%

5%

28

11.9

15.3

0.5

43%

55%

1.8%

Warren   

57

26

11.1

13.4

1.3

43%

52%

5%

28

11.9

15.3

0.6

43%

55%

2.0%

Herkimer   

61

25

11.2

13.0

1.2

44%

51%

5%

26

10.7

14.9

0.5

41%

57%

2.0%

 

Columbia   

54

26

12.4

12.1

1.9

47%

46%

7%

26

14.1

11.2

0.6

54%

43%

2.1%

Genesee   

53

26

10.5

14.4

1.4

40%

55%

5%

26

9.6

15.8

0.4

37%

61%

1.6%

Otsego   

58

23

10.7

11.3

1.5

45%

48%

7%

25

11.5

12.5

0.5

47%

51%

2.0%

Washington   

51

22

9.0

11.6

1.3

41%

53%

6%

23

9.8

12.9

0.5

42%

56%

2.4%

Greene   

52

19

7.7

10.4

1.2

40%

54%

6%

23

9.1

13.6

0.5

39%

59%

2.0%

 

Tioga   

46

21

8.6

11.4

1.0

41%

54%

5%

22

8.9

12.9

0.4

40%

58%

1.7%

Cortland   

42

20

9.2

9.2

1.2

47%

47%

6%

21

9.9

10.7

0.4

47%

51%

1.9%

Fulton   

49

21

8.9

11.0

0.9

43%

53%

4%

21

8.5

11.7

0.4

41%

57%

1.9%

Delaware   

59

19

7.7

9.9

1.0

42%

53%

5%

20

8.0

11.6

0.5

40%

58%

2.4%

Montgomery   

49

20

9.7

9.3

0.7

49%

47%

4%

20

8.8

10.6

0.4

44%

54%

1.9%

 

Chenang   

39

19

8.5

9.4

1.0

45%

50%

5%

20

8.4

10.8

0.4

43%

55%

2.0%

Allegany   

41

17

6.0

10.5

0.8

35%

61%

5%

18

6.1

11.6

0.3

34%

64%

1.7%

Essex   

39

16

7.3

8.1

1.1

44%

49%

7%

17

7.9

9.0

0.4

46%

52%

2.2%

Wyoming   

39

17

5.9

10.2

0.8

35%

60%

5%

17

5.8

11.1

0.2

34%

65%

1.4%

Franklin   

49

16

8.1

7.2

0.9

50%

45%

5%

17

8.7

7.9

0.3

51%

47%

1.9%

 

Orleans   

40

15

5.7

8.7

0.6

38%

58%

4%

16

5.6

9.9

0.2

35%

63%

1.6%

Seneca   

27

13

6.3

6.1

0.7

48%

47%

5%

14

6.4

7.4

0.3

45%

52%

2.1%

Schoharie   

29

13

4.9

7.0

0.7

39%

55%

5%

13

5.1

7.9

0.3

39%

59%

2.1%

Lewis   

30

10

3.9

5.6

0.4

40%

56%

4%

11

4.3

6.1

0.2

40%

58%

1.9%

Yates   

20

9

3.6

5.1

0.5

39%

55%

5%

10

3.8

5.8

0.2

39%

60%

1.6%

 

Schuyler   

17

8

3.1

4.1

0.4

40%

54%

6%

8

3.3

4.8

0.2

40%

58%

1.9%

Hamilton   

11

3

0.9

2.1

0.2

29%

64%

7%

3

1.1

2.2

0.1

32%

66%

1.6%

 

                         Vote change from 2000      -- Percent change--          ---Net to Bush--         EIRS                      

 

County

Kerry

Bush

Other

Kerry

Bush

Other

Votes

Margin

Incidents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brooklyn   

23.3

67.2

-17.1

5%

75%

-77%

43.9

14.4%

63

Suffolk   

18.0

77.7

-13.7

6%

35%

-51%

59.6

11.2%

0

Nassau   

(6.7)

64.5

-14.7

-2%

30%

-71%

71.3

13.3%

2

Manhattan   

59.1

16.4

-25.1

14%

21%

-76%

(42.6)

-1.9%

55

Queens   

18.3

41.3

-11.9

5%

36%

-72%

23.1

8.5%

23

 

Erie   

13.3

27.7

-13.5

6%

19%

-60%

14.4

4.8%

2

Westchester  

39.5

38.9

-7.3

22%

34%

-57%

(0.6)

3.8%

6

Monroe   

13.9

26.3

-10.2

9%

20%

-66%

12.5

4.4%

0

Bronx   

22.8

19.7

-3.9

10%

59%

-66%

(3.1)

8.0%

14

Onondaga   

5.4

10.1

-6.5

5%

13%

-65%

4.7

3.0%

0

 

Staten Island  

(6.2)

24.3

-2.9

-9%

40%

-70%

30.5

21.3%

0

Albany   

3.8

6.9

-5.6

5%

16%

-68%

3.1

3.3%

1

Orange   

5.1

16.0

-3.7

9%

27%

-67%

10.9

7.6%

1

Rockland   

(6.0)

13.7

-2.7

-9%

29%

-60%

19.7

16.8%

4

Dutchess   

4.0

9.7

-4.7

8%

20%

-72%

5.6

4.9%

1

 

Saratoga   

4.7

8.3

-2.3

12%

19%

-56%

3.7

3.2%

0

Niagara   

(1.2)

5.9

-2.7

-3%

16%

-62%

7.1

8.1%

0

Oneida   

(1.7)

6.5

-2.6

-4%

15%

-56%

8.2

9.2%

0

Broome   

0.0

5.7

-3.0

0%

16%

-64%

5.7

7.0%

0

Ulster   

10.6

4.8

-4.1

30%

15%

-68%

(5.8)

-6.3%

1

 

Rensselaer   

0.5

4.8

-2.4

2%

17%

-62%

4.3

6.7%

0

Schenectady  

(0.0)

4.0

-2.1

0%

15%

-64%

4.0

6.6%

0

Chataqua   

0.0

3.0

-1.4

0%

11%

-58%

3.0

5.3%

0

Oswego   

1.8

2.9

-1.3

9%

13%

-56%

1.0

2.1%

0

Ontario   

1.1

4.5

-1.4

6%

21%

-64%

3.4

6.6%

0

 

Putnam   

0.6

4.7

-1.7

3%

23%

-77%

4.1

8.8%

0

Steuben   

(0.3)

2.9

-1.0

-2%

13%

-59%

3.2

7.3%

0

Wayne   

0.4

2.9

-1.0

3%

14%

-60%

2.4

5.2%

1

Tompkins   

4.8

0.6

-3.6

25%

5%

-79%

(4.2)

-10.0%

0

St Lawrence  

0.8

1.3

-1.1

4%

9%

-60%

0.5

1.6%

0

 

Chemung   

0.5

3.3

-0.6

3%

19%

-38%

2.9

7.2%

0

Jefferson   

3.7

6.3

-2.1

32%

49%

-74%

2.7

6.4%

0

Cayuga   

1.6

2.3

-1.0

11%

17%

-59%

0.7

2.4%

0

Catargus   

(0.3)

1.5

-1.0

-3%

8%

-64%

1.8

5.6%

0

Clinton   

1.9

1.6

-1.0

13%

12%

-60%

(0.3)

-0.4%

0

 

Livingston   

1.4

3.4

-0.8

14%

24%

-56%

2.0

4.3%

0

Sullivan   

1.0

2.5

-0.8

8%

22%

-58%

1.5

5.8%

0

Madison   

0.9

1.7

-0.8

8%

12%

-63%

0.8

2.4%

0

Warren   

0.7

1.9

-0.8

7%

14%

-58%

1.2

3.7%

0

Herkimer   

(0.5)

1.9

-0.7

-4%

15%

-57%

2.4

9.0%

0

 

Columbia   

1.7

-0.8

-1.4

14%

-7%

-71%

(2.5)

-9.8%

0

Genesee   

(0.8)

1.4

-1.0

-8%

10%

-70%

2.2

8.9%

0

Otsego   

0.8

1.3

-1.0

8%

11%

-68%

0.4

1.7%

0

Washington   

0.8

1.4

-0.7

9%

12%

-56%

0.5

1.5%

0

Greene   

1.3

3.2

-0.7

17%

31%

-61%

1.9

5.9%

0

 

Tioga   

0.4

1.4

-0.6

4%

13%

-63%

1.1

4.1%

1

Cortland   

0.7

1.5

-0.7

7%

16%

-65%

0.8

3.8%

0

Fulton   

(0.4)

0.6

-0.5

-4%

6%

-56%

1.0

5.1%

0

Delaware   

0.2

1.6

-0.5

3%

16%

-50%

1.4

6.2%

0

Montgomery  

(0.9)

1.4

-0.4

-9%

15%

-50%

2.3

11.6%

0

 

Chenang   

(0.1)

1.3

-0.6

-1%

14%

-62%

1.4

7.1%

0

Allegany   

0.0

1.0

-0.5

0%

10%

-63%

1.0

4.8%

0

Essex   

0.6

0.9

-0.7

8%

11%

-67%

0.3

1.7%

0

Wyoming   

(0.1)

0.9

-0.5

-2%

9%

-70%

1.0

5.8%

0

Franklin   

0.6

0.7

-0.5

7%

9%

-62%

0.1

0.8%

0

 

Orleans   

(0.1)

1.2

-0.4

-2%

13%

-61%

1.3

7.3%

0

Seneca   

0.1

1.3

-0.4

2%

21%

-58%

1.2

8.2%

0

Schoharie   

0.2

0.9

-0.4

4%

14%

-58%

0.7

4.7%

0

Lewis   

0.3

0.6

-0.2

8%

10%

-54%

0.2

1.3%

0

Yates   

0.2

0.7

-0.3

5%

15%

-66%

0.6

4.9%

0

 

Schuyler   

0.2

0.7

-0.3

8%

18%

-64%

0.5

4.7%

0

Hamilton   

0.1

0.1

-0.2

15%

6%

-76%

(0.0)

-1.5%

0