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 (1000+ posts)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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