Machine vs Hand - New stats table

wow, there sure are a lot of you reading these stats... :)

PM or message me with any questions/suggestions/corrections/etc...
 
Ronin said:
I'm not covering. All I'm saying is that the impact was far greater for the Dems. It would definitely be easier to argue a case for Obama. What we know is that Romney and Clinton got a significant bump. Both at around 5-7%.
Click to expand...

So is romney/guiliani the preferred ticket?
 
This data isn't enough to determine that, but it is strikingly odd that the numbers would work out like that and so strongly... 5 and 7% are not small deviations.
 
Out of all the candidates, three people do better on the diebold:

Clinton, Guiliani, and Romney.

Everyone else does worse on the diebold.

Of course, Obama doing worse, is still not too shabby. He is still a winner.

But, Hilary comes out on top.

Does that mean the dem ticket will be Hilary/Obama?
 
I think it's funny that the more likely a candidate is to ACTUALLY change the way things are done in Washington, the lower they place in the primary. All I have heard from candidates and voters that were interviewed is that they both want change. If the voters in NH actually voted for change, they sure didnt get it.

The biggest NON-CHANGE candidates in both parties had huge victories. Yay America!!
 
I just wanted to point out how significant Romney's increase was on the machines.

I did my own calculation of the amount of votes on the computers and hand counted.
197,259 votes were cast on the computers. 35,582 votes were cast that got hand counted.

Romney gained 14,926 votes with this increase.

Please do not think that this 7.567% is insignificant!!!

Maybe you could add that as a stat, to show how many potential votes each candidate lost or gained with the discrepancy of machine vs hand count
 
Last edited:
acmegeek said:
This data isn't enough to determine that, but it is strikingly odd that the numbers would work out like that and so strongly... 5 and 7% are not small deviations.
Click to expand...

Without Clinton getting bumped up 4.9 percent and Obama getting bumped down 2.3 percent, Clinton loses and the outcome is changed significantly.


It changes the election. Otherwise, Clinton loses and Obama wins.


The second big change is Romney. Romney gets bumped up 7.6 percent due to diebold. This doesn't change the election, it just makes him look more respectable relative to the winner Mccain.


Then Guiliani gains .427 percent from diebold and Ron Paul loses 2.103 percent which also significantly changes the election, causing Ron Paul to come in behind guiliani instead of beating him. This keeps guiliani viable for Florida. And, it keeps us from coming in fourth.


Very interesting.

But what really gets me is the hand count for Obama (38.7%) and Clinton (34.8%) strikes me as very close to last night's projection based on polls. Does anyone have that number or remember it? Obama was projected to win by a large margin, and I seem to recall it was similar to these hand count numbers.
 
Molly1 said:
Without Clinton getting bumped up 4.9 percent and Obama getting bumped down 2.3 percent, Clinton loses and the outcome is changed significantly.


It changes the election. Otherwise, Clinton loses and Obama wins.


The second big change is Romney. Romney gets bumped up 7.6 percent due to diebold. This doesn't change the election, it just makes him look more respectable relative to the winner Mccain.


Then Guiliani gains .427 percent from diebold and Ron Paul loses 2.103 percent which also significantly changes the election, causing Ron Paul to come in behind guiliani instead of beating him. This keeps guiliani viable for Florida. And, it keeps us from coming in fourth.


Very interesting.

But what really gets me is the hand count for Obama (38.7%) and Clinton (34.8%) strikes me as very close to last night's projection based on polls. Does anyone have that number or remember it? Obama was projected to win by a large margin, and I seem to recall it was similar to these hand count numbers.
Click to expand...

2.103% would be about 4148 votes

The dems I didn't add up, so I am not sure.
 
Hey people, this will be published by Black Box Voting very soon!!!

get ready for a firestorm... All we seek is the truth.
 
The Obama people are going to be pissed.

We only lost fourth place (we think), they lost first.
 
Down with Diebold!! We are onto the fraud, the numbers are too fishy. That's what happens, greed, stupidity, and hubris will be their downfall. If this is fleshed out more and the media is forced to report on this we will be back in the game in a big way. DOWN WITH DIEBOLD!!!!!
 
well it would sure alert the general population to some of the issues we routinely discuss.

First, they run out of ballots.

Then, they run out of tinfoil hats.
 
acmegeek said:
Hey people, this will be published by Black Box Voting very soon!!!

get ready for a firestorm... All we seek is the truth.
Click to expand...

Hey could you tally up how many votes were counted by the machine and then how many votes were counted by hand on your website for each republican and democrat.

I have the numbers for the Republican side, but not for the democrats.

Then use that number to determine how many votes a candidate could have gained or lost.

For example,
Romney gained 14,926 votes
Ron Paul lost 4,148 votes
Huckabee lost 5095 votes
etc etc.

thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
Project Decentralized rEVOLution: For a New Libertarian Party
Replies
6
Views
6K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
K
WTF CDC? Operational Considerations for Humanitarian Settings
Replies
3
Views
1K
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Swordsmyth
The CPI Is Underrepresenting Food Inflation By 40%: Here's The Proof
2 3
Replies
43
Views
6K
Fox McCloud
Fox McCloud
Marenco
Social Media and Social Control: How Silicon Valley Serves the US State Department
Replies
0
Views
4K
Marenco
Marenco
CPUd
How the Trump-Russia Data Machine Games Google to Fool Americans
Replies
7
Views
1K
CPUd
CPUd
Back
Top