Reply #8: Check out Miller's article on fraud in California Diebold counties in 2003 [View All]

If you are going to compare counties, I suggest that you compare Diebold vs Non-Diebold counties -- here is Mark Crispin Miller's article on irregularities in California Diebold counties in 2003 election.

CALIFORNIA (2003): Mark Crispin Miller, Professor at New York University, has described irregularities in California in the 2003 recall election
< http://www.opednews.com/miller1003_CA_Voting.htm >.

In the 2003 election, thirteen counties used Diebold voting systems: Touchscreens wre used in Alameda and Plumas; and Optiscans were used in Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Placer, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Trinity, and Tulare. These counties are spread geographically over the whole of California and do not appear to differ systematically from the state as a whole in socioeconomic status or other population characteristics that we might expect would impact candidate choice.

There were a total of 7,842,630 votes cast in the election state-wide, and 1,403,375 of these were cast in the thirteen Diebold counties. Thus 17.89% of all votes cast in the state were cast/counted on Diebold equipment. We would, therefore, expect that each candidate would receive about 18% of all of the votes they received in these counties. Twelve out of nineteen candidates show only a slight variance from an even statewide distribution. Schwarzenegger received 16.36% of all votes cast for him on Diebold systems, Bustamonte (18.78%), McLintock (19.08%), Camejo (18.9%), Huffington (17.79%), Ueberoth (15.74%), Flynt (15.88%), Coleman (15.02%), Simon (17.66%), Louie (18.7%), Roscoe (16.7%), Grosse (14.3%).

Seven of the 'lower ticket' candidates, however, have vote totals that are 2-5 times expected! Martorana received 39.28% of all votes cast for him on Diebold systems, Macaluso (39.36%), Price (47.18%), Quinn (50.8%), Sprague (65.10%), Palmieri (68.3%), Kunzman (97.5%).

Implication: Diebold affects the election outcome by moving votes from high ranked candidates to low ranked candidates (keeping the total number of votes cast constant but robbing some candidate of their votes).