Response to Howard Stanislevic’sWatching and Waiting for a Return to Innocence”

 

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

 

Updated Jan. 21, 2011

 

This is a response to Howard Stanislevic’s recent post, Watching and Waiting for a Return to Innocence. I have included New York State recorded vote by county for the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections along with the 2004 state exit poll timeline.

 

HS

It has not escaped our attention, or that of our readers, that our last post was over a year ago, when it first became evident that New Yorkers would lose their voting system and have it replaced by a software-based system that our legal system is incapable of regulating. We called that post "The End of Innocence" and it covered quite a lot of ground.

 

RC

“Our legal system is incapable of regulating”.  What are you saying, Howard? That the legal system is corrupt? Then why don’t you focus on the corruption, rather than shill incessantly for a return to lever machines?  Yes, the 100 year history of lever machines was truly the “Age of Innocence”: New York voters were innocent of the fact that votes cast on levers were tabulated by corrupt humans and rigged computers .

HS
There hasn't been a need to post anything more since then; we would just be repeating ourselves. We've met with the powers that be in both houses of the State Legislature responsible for making election law, and they have taken our suggestions under advisement. No laws have been passed to verify election results. But we've seen lots of interest in the National Popular Vote (NPV), Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and other practically unverifiable voting methods. Even Internet voting!

 

RC

That is commendable, but what makes you think that NY politicians were ever for fair elections?

HS

Perhaps in light of the state's highest court's Dec. 20th denial of a hand count in the NY State Senate District 7 race in which computers -- rather than voters -- determined which party will control the Senate, it's time for a quick review of how we got here.

 

RC

Computers don’t decide anything; humans do. You need to change “computers” to “election officials”.

 

HS

New York has become the Florida of the Northeast when it comes to elections, or perhaps worse since we don't even attempt to count thousands of undervotes reported by the ballot scanners. Our new machines don't even warn voters of the effect of casting overvotes, which Florida has corrected after their unfortunate 2008 experience.

RC

So you are concerned about election officials not doing their jobs to hand count the paper ballots produced by optical scanners. You could never accuse them of not counting the paper ballots produced by mechanical levers - there weren’t any ballots to count.

HS

There is plenty of blame to go around so we've tried to summarize it for your convenience as we keep watching and waiting for a Return to Innocence. Those who are responsible for our current situation know who they are, although they may be in denial about it.

Here's what happened:
1.
New York has a history of paper ballot fraud (Tammany Hall) which lever machines were effectively designed to prevent. We don't trust PEOPLE or PAPER unless they can be watched. We do trust machines that can be locked against tampering, observed when opened, and that work on simple observable mechanical principles such as gravity and that can't switch votes during elections the way software can. They are part of a voting system and a legal system designed to prevent fraud. Reinventing that system to deal with computers is a lot harder than most people think. In fact, it's never been done!

2. Over the last several years, our public officials have heard very little from New York's precinct-count optical scanner (PCOS) advocates and "good-government" groups about the need for software-independent elections (software-independent voting systems are only the beginning!). The opinions of National Institute of Standards and Technology experts and other computer scientists about the need not to trust software, the ineffectiveness of the "certification" of software, BUGS in New York's actual voting system software, etc. have never been widely disseminated except in testimony to a few legislative committee members by people such as us and a few election officials, and on Internet mailing lists and blogs not read by the general public. We're sorry to say there are very few of us making the case against allowing computers to "decide" election results. We are unfunded and practically alone. Compared to the push for Instant Runoff Voting, National Popular Vote, and even PCOS itself, we are voices in the proverbial wilderness. And that's a shame.

3. The same lack of informed consent applies to the so-called manual auditing of elections counted by computers, which is the only way to restore some trust and the NYS-constitutionally required bipartisan administration of elections (that explicitly includes vote-counting). That constitutional requirement has been undermined by the use of vote-counting software. But almost no one wants to hand-count more than 3% of the vote. Counting substantially more than this means the machines were a waste of money. No one wants to hear this after spending $50 million on them, plus the recurring costs of ownership which will be much more over time. One notable exception is Columbia County in which, prior to the elections, both election commissioners agreed to conduct 100% hand counts. Before an election is the best time to make such an agreement since partisan disputes over winners and losers of contests will not arise. You can read more about that good news here, thanks to Commissioner Virginia Martin.

RC

Waiting for a return to innocence? You mean waiting for unverifiable levers? Just who is in denial?

New York has a history of paper ballot fraud”.  Once again, we get to your true agenda: you don’t trust paper ballots, but you love those mechanical levers. Howard, how quickly you forget: New York votes were CAST on levers but COUNTED on central tabulators. That is how votes cast on levers were switched. You must be aware of this fact by now yet continue to ignore it.

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

You are an engineer and this ain’t rocket science. So what is your explanation? We have been waiting a long time for onet.

After a seven year investigation, the NIST has finally agreed that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration – and yet still claim that it collapsed due to fires. You referred to “simple observable mechanical principles such as gravity” above.  And we are supposed to believe the obviously politicized NIST? What can you tell us about the “bugs” in the central tabulators that were used to COUNT the votes CAST on levers? You claim to be a “voice in the wilderness” as you continue your quixotic campaign to bring back those unverifiable lever machines while ignoring the fact that votes CAST on levers were COUNTED on central tabulators.

Finally, we can agree on something:  a robust manual hand-count of the votes CAST on optical scanners that are COUNTED on computers. Sound familiar? So why don’t you admit that votes CAST on mechanical lever machines and COUNTED on central tabulators was INFERIOR to the optical scanner/central tabulator system in which PAPER BALLOTS can be hand-counted?

Virginia Martin of Columbia County is to be commended. She is the only NY election official to do a complete hand count of the optical scanned paper ballots. Columbia had just 26,000 voters in 2000 and 2004. This is an interesting fact which confirms that Columbia is serious about having fair elections: It was the only one of 62 NY counties in which Bush’s vote share DECLINED from 2000 to 2004! 

 

New York State 2000 and 2004 recorded votes are provided for each county in the tables below.

 

One other interesting point to mull over:

In 2000, 2004 and 2008, the Democratic share of the late (paper ballot) votes recorded after Election Day was 7% higher than the Election Day share! Was it because the late votes were cast on paper ballots and Election Day votes were cast on Levers?

 

New York City and the suburbs were the focus of massive Bush 2004 election fraud. EIRS data shows that in heavily Democratic NY City, long lines and faulty machines disenfranchised thousands of voters: http://www.richardcharnin.com/NY2004EIRS.htm

 

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!

Are we expected to believe the implausible Bush vs. Kerry recorded vote changes in the most heavily populated New York Democratic counties? Here is the graph: http://www.richardcharnin.com/TIACountyVoteDatabase_24111_image001.png

 

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

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

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

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

5. Rockland: Bush’s recorded vote increased by 29% and Kerry’s declined by 9%!

6. Orange: Bush’s recorded vote increased by 27% and Kerry’s increased by just 9%!

7. Staten Island: Bush’s recorded vote increased by 40% and Kerry’s declined by 9%!

 

HS

4. Instead of the facts about NOT trusting computers to count votes, what our public officials and the media have been told is that:

  • New York has the most "rigorous software certification process";
  • paper ballots would be "available" for audits and recounts, "if necessary";
  • NY would "RELY on the paper ballots";
  • NY has a 100% "recount" law (the Election Law § 9-208 "recanvass," which never required recounts of ALL paper ballots, but only absentee, emergency and provisional ballots, and was recently amended only to require some form of ballot accounting).

All of the above provided New Yorkers who did not fact-check these statements with a false sense of security about our voting system, our election laws and our ultimate "reliance" on paper ballots to "verify" elections.

 

In other words, New Yorkers have been sold a bill of goods and the Legislature and Judiciary have heard very little to correct this record.

 

RC

OK. Let’s start by recognizing that the fault lies not in the optical scanners, but in the corrupt election officials, judges who refuse to hand- count the verifiable paper ballots as a check on the CENTRAL TABULATORS (I.E. COMPUTERS). And remember that there were NO paper ballots in the LEVER/COMPUTER voting system in which the votes were also counted by CENTRAL TABULATORS that are vulnerable to malicious unverifiable programming.

Have you been reading my posts? I already wrote about voters having a false sense of security in the UNVERIFIABLE levers:

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

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

 
HS

With respect to the SD 7 no-recount case, perhaps the attorneys should have had a computer scientist such as Ron Rivest or Rebecca Mercuri testify about the need not to trust software to count votes. But the judge didn't even want to hear testimony from an election auditing expert.

And please remember, the lawyers in the SD 7 case were working for the NY State Senate -- who also have their OWN lawyers who have written some of the very election laws in question in this case! This is part of the same Legislature that has not been properly educated about the risks of computerized vote-counting in the first place -- only to have it come back and bite them in their bids for re-election.

 

RC

You need to compare Oregon, which mandates random hand-counting of optically-scanned paper ballots to check the machine count, to New York which does not mandate.

 

And let’s repeat: votes that were CAST on levers and miscounted by central tabulators could not be verified since there were NO PAPER BALLOTS TO RECOUNT.

 

http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVsNYVoting.htm

http://richardcharnin.com/OregonVotingSystem.htm

 

And now that NY has optically scanned paper ballots, the corrupt election officials and judiciary REFUSE TO COUNT them as a check on the central tabulator (i.e. computer) machine counts!

 

Now why don’t you call out the corrupt NY officials who refuse to count the paper ballots and stop whining for a return to the ancient, corrupt, unverifiable, paperless, nontransparent mechanical levers. The levers can be rigged by shaving gears, not counting past 999 and break down in highly Democratic districts, disenfranchising thousands. Voters lucky enough to have their votes CAST can still have them miscounted on CENTRAL TABULATOR COMPUTERS – and never know it.

 

Do you get it yet?

 

HS

The future for election integrity looks pretty bleak in the Empire State, but we'll keep watching and waiting. The other major bright spot is of course Nassau County's bipartisan lawsuit to return to the lever voting system, which is ongoing.

 

RC

That is a bright spot? To bring back an UNVERIFIABLE VOTING SYSTEM in which votes CAST on LEVERS are COUNTED on CENTRAL TABULATORS? is not just a river in Egypt.

These are the facts that you conveniently ignore:                                                                                                      

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!

The 2004 NY exit poll showed a massive 12% discrepancy in Kerry's 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 2%). According to the Census Bureau, there were more than 300,000 uncounted votes in NY State, the vast majority for Kerry: http://www.richardcharnin.com/2004NewYorkLeverExitPollDiscepancies.htm

Bush won the recorded vote by just 3.0 million. 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.  Approximately 80% of his “mandate” was from these strong Democratic states.

Kerry won the national aggregate of the state unadjusted exit polls by 52-47%, but lost the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%. The average exit poll discrepancy (WPD) was 7.4%. The WPD for mechanical lever precincts was 10.6%, 6.6% for punch cards, 7.1% for DREs, 6.1% for optical scanners - but just 2.2% for paper ballots.

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

Kerry’s Election Day vote in lever machine precincts increased by 8.6% over Gore in 2000 while Bush increased by 23.1%. There was a net increase of 5.8% in Bush’s total lever margin. The increase was much higher than all other voting methods.

 

2000-2004 RECORDED VOTES BY VOTING METHOD

Note: For the 2000 election, voting methods in several states (approximately 6 million votes) are unavailable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voting

2004

2000

Vote

 

 

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

Share

 

 

Vote Change

 

Pct Change vs 2000

        Bush Net Increase

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Method

Precints

Vote

GORE

BUSH

NADER

GORE

BUSH

NADER

Vote

KERRY

BUSH

NADER

KERRY

BUSH

NADER

KERRY

BUSH

NADER

KERRY

BUSH

Margin

Margin%

Incid

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

184,824

96,717

46,737

47,406

2,574

48.32%

49.01%

2.66%

116,008

56,099

59,505

404

48.36%

51.29%

0.35%

9,363

12,100

-2,171

20.0%

25.5%

2,737

2.2%

1,966

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paper

4,737

1,518

653

819

46

43.0%

53.9%

3.01%

1,879

828

1,043

8

44.07%

55.52%

0.42%

104

156

-39

15.9%

19.0%

52

0.6%

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opscan

66,451

33,078

15,318

16,827

933

46.3%

50.9%

2.82%

41,411

19,525

21,776

111

47.15%

52.58%

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%

3.45%

15,663

8,279

7,259

125

52.86%

46.34%

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%

2.29%

13,037

6,384

6,638

15

48.97%

50.92%

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%

2.03%

33,467

16,178

17,198

91

48.34%

51.39%

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%

3.38%

10,550

4,905

5,592

53

46.49%

53.00%

0.50%

601

801

-232

17.2%

19.1%

200

-2.3%

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIMELINE

Total

GORE

BUSH

OTHER

GORE

BUSH

OTHER

Total

KERRY

BUSH

OTHER

KERRY

BUSH

OTHER

KERRY

BUSH

OTHER

KERRY

BUSH

OTHER

Margin

Change

 

 

 

 

 

 

Election Day

102,597

49,505

49,255

3,837

48.3%

48.0%

3.74%

117,074

56,227

59,686

1,162

48.03%

50.98%

0.99%

6,721

10,431

-2,675

-0.23%

2.97%

-3.01%

3,710

3.20%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Late

 

2,819

1,499

1,204

116

53.2%

42.7%

4.12%

5,213

2,800

2,354

58

53.72%

45.16%

1.11%

1,302

1,150

-58

0.56%

2.44%

-2.75%

(152)

1.88%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

105,416

51,004

50,459

3,953

48.4%

47.9%

3.75%

122,287

59,027

62,040

1,220

48.27%

50.73%

1.00%

8,023

11,581

-2,733

-0.11%

2.87%

-2.75%

3,558

2.98%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2004 UNADJUSTED EXIT POLL BY VOTING METHOD

WPD is Within Precinct Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voting

2004

WPD Adj

Share

WPD Adj

Vote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Method

WPD

Kerry

Bush

Kerry

Bush

Nader

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.62%

51.7%

48.0%

59,937

55,668

404

116,008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paper

2.2%

45.2%

54.4%

849

1,023

8

1,879

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opscan

6.1%

50.2%

49.5%

20,788

20,512

111

41,411

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lever

10.6%

58.2%

41.0%

9,109

6,429

125

15,663

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Punch

6.6%

52.3%

47.6%

6,814

6,208

15

13,037

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRE

7.1%

51.9%

47.8%

17,366

16,009

91

33,467

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other

2.0%

47.5%

52.0%

5,011

5,486

53

10,550

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

2004 Final National Exit Poll                                   

(forced to match the recorded vote)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000

Method:

 

 

 

 

 

Turnout in 2004   Unctd

 

 

 

 

Cast

Recorded

Unctd

Alive

Cast

Recorded

Unctd

Died

Gore

Bush

Gore

Bush

Other

 

 

110.8

105.4

5.4

105.3

125.7

122.3

3.4

6.1

98%

98%

75%

24%

1%

 

 

-

95.1%

4.9%

95.0%

-

97.3%

2.7%

5.0%

-

-

0%

100%

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National

Vote (mil)

 

 

Vote Share (%)

Vote (mil)

 

 

 

MoE

2000

Cast

Recorded

Alive

Turnout

Pct

Kerry

Bush

Other

Kerry

Bush

Other

Turnout

 

1.7%

DNV

 -

 -

 -

20.79

17.0

54.0

44.0

2.0

11.23

9.15

0.42

-

 

1.0%

Gore

55.44

51.00

48.45

45.25

37.0

90.0

10.0

0.0

40.72

4.52

0.00

93%

 

1.0%

Bush

51.38

50.46

47.94

52.59

43.0

9.0

91.0

0.0

4.73

47.85

0.00

110%

 

1.7%

Other

4.16

3.95

3.76

3.67

3.0

64.0

14.0

22.0

2.35

0.51

0.81

98%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

110.97

105.42

100.15

122.29

100%

48.27

50.73

1.00

59.03

62.04

1.22

122.29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electoral Vote

271

267

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000

Gore

Bush

Other

Recorded

48.27

50.73

1.00

59.03

62.04

1.22

122.29

 

 

Recorded

48.38

47.87

3.75

True – Rec

0.00

(0.00)

(0.00)

0.00

(0.00)

(0.00)

0.00

 

 

 

Cast

49.95

46.30

3.75

Exit Poll

51.97

47.08

0.95

63.55

57.58

1.17

122.29

 

 

ExitP

49.39

46.86

3.75

True – Exit

(3.70)

3.65

0.05

(4.52)

4.46

0.06

0.00

 

 

 

 

 

2004 National True Vote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000

Method:

 

 

 

 

 

Turnout in 2004    Unctd

 

 

 

 

 

Cast

Recorded

Unctd

Alive

Cast

Recorded

Unctd

Died

Gore

Bush

Gore

Bush

Other

 

 

 

110.8

105.4

5.4

105.3

125.7

122.3

3.4

6.1

98%

98%

75%

24%

1%

 

 

 

-

95.1%

4.9%

95.0%

-

97.3%

2.7%

5.0%

-

-

0%

100%

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National

Vote (mil)

 

 

Vote Share (%)

Vote (mil)

 

 

 

 

MoE

2000

Cast

Recorded

Alive

Turnout

Pct

Kerry

Bush

Other

Kerry

Bush

Other

Turnout

 

1.7%

DNV

 -

 -