What are the chances that every District in California votes proportionately?????????

I saw this mentioned at LRC. Anybody know what the statistical chances really are that such a uniform result would happen in all districts except one? It's pretty creepy to look at.

Interesting that Duncan Hunter's District 52 is the ugly duckling.
 
I don't understand this thread. In what way was voting done "proportionally"?
 
Look at the link. All votes per district in California are proportional to each other. It takes the graph to see it. Nobody did better in any district, nobody did worse. The votes were proportionally spread.
 
okay, i just looked again.

if you scroll through it and just look at the graphs, they definitely look similar
 
There's very little variation between all of the districts. The same thing happened in SC and FL... and in NH the ratio of votes for each candidate held almost exactly the same throughout the night despite early votes coming in from different areas of the state (different demographics) from the later ones. i.e. the numbers just don't have the chaos of real votes. Rural areas vote differently than urban areas..

However, districts are supposed to be constructed so that they each have close to the same amount of rural/urban, minority/white, etc makeup so they should have similar voting results.. but.... those results are a bit extreme.. the people of Southern California voted almost exactly the same as those in Northern California? huh? The people of Santa Cruz voted within a couple of percentage points the same as those in LA? huh?

The question is, what do the people of California think of this? Are any journalists investigating this? Will the people of California demand the removal of the evil Diebolds?

And..... all those Paul supporters who voted by paper ballot and didn't have them counted on Tuesday - will your votes ever be counted?
 
Back
Top