CA-50: who is Paul King?

Busby loses the special election by 6128.

In the special election PAUL KING got 2201 votes, but King a libertarian, in his own Primary only got: 536 votes. Where did the 1665 votes come from?







The above 2 examples show some consistancy in the election. If you recall Paul King, as a libertarian got 2201 votes in the CA 50 special election. Lets look at Libertarian performance in the other races.

I'm guessing that is where the increased numbers come from

BRIAN BILBRAY -69617 votes in the special election.....

But Repub votes in the Primary: 68392 between 11 candidates.

It seems that Bilbray got 1225 more votes in the Special election than Repubs voted in the Primary. I would think that Bilbray attracted more voters, instead of dissaffecting them......

Afterall he outperformed all 11 "R" candidates in the Primary, including himself.

or the total number of votes in the special election, and the total number in the primary election? It sounds as of there would be something of a gap, with the special election total being larger.

in the special election than they did in thier respective primaries

Busby spec: 63489
Busby Primary:46585

BRIAN BILBRAY -69617 votes in the special election.....

Repub votes in the Primary: 68392

W. GRIFFITH - IND- gets 5318 votes in the Special election. I didnt look real hard but it seems there is no large effort by the IND party, as far as candidates in other races.

said he wasn't behind the calls.


Could've been fans of his, or Busby followers trying to peel GOP votes away from Bilbray, but in any case it would account for his surge in votes.

and all democrats, and probably all greens, peace and freedom would vote for busby.
so can we get the number of dems and republicans and independents who voted in san diego?
That would help.

"SurveyUSA's turnout model assumes 49% of Likely Voters are Republican, 34% of likely voters are Democrat, and 17% are Independent."

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=c4c2efa1-cdaa-461f-8c18-733493cb9e2c

Did not Ms. Busby have some Democratic primary opposition? Her total in the primary wouid not be all the Demcoratic primary votes, would it?

FRANCINE BUSBY - DEM
46585
89.78%

CHRIS YOUNG - DEM
5304
10.22%

This is a post of mine from Nov/Dec 2004 -- Scroll down to see Mark Crispin Miller's report about California 2003.

Fingerprints of Vote Fraud, Part I:
Siphoning Votes from Democrats to Third Party Candidates

======================================================

ABSTRACT: One way to make the case that vote fraud occurred in the 2004 Presidential election is to demonstrate a similar pattern of unusual results in this election and previous elections in which vote fraud has been suspected. For example, unusually high vote tallies for third party candidates may result from moving votes cast for Democrats to third party candidates. The total number of votes cast remains the same, but the performance of the Democratic candidate is damaged as compared to the Republican. This paper will summarize evidence that suggests that votes were siphoned from the Democratic candidate to the third party candidate(s) in three US elections: 2000, 2003, and 2004. In two cases, the unusually high vote tallies for the third party candidates are apparent in the final vote counts. In two cases, votes appear to have been moved from the Democrat to third party candidate(s) to temporarily damage the Democrat’s performance as precincts were reporting during election night – in one case the votes were returned to the Democrat a few hours later, in the other the votes may have been transferred to the Republican candidate. Perhaps it is coincidence that the voting systems involved in these cases are Diebold, Global Election Systems, and ES&S – all with ties to Republicans.

======================================================

Two cases in which unusually high vote tallies for the third party candidates are apparent in the final vote counts: California (2003) and Ohio (2004)

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).

OHIO (2004): An analysis of votes cast in each precinct in Cleveland, by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D., reveals unusually high vote tallies for third party candidates in at least 5 of the 21 wards. Dr. Phillips complete report is here <http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/cleveland.htm>. Cleveland, Ohio voted using ES&S punch card system.

Statewide, Michael Badnarik received 0.28% of all votes cast and Michael Peroutka received 0.26% of all votes cast. Thus, any precinct in which they are reported to have gotten as much or more than 1.0% of all votes cast would differ significantly from an even statewide distribution. In at least 5 of Cleveland’s 21 wards we see unusually high vote tallies for either or both candidates:

Ward 3 consists of 21 precincts. In precinct 3B, Badnarik received 6.7% of all votes cast (93% of the total he received in that ward). In precinct 3I, Peroutka received 12.7% of all votes cast (89% of the total he received in that ward).

Ward 4 consists of 19 precincts. In precinct 4N, Badnarik received 32.7% of all votes cast (93% of the total he received in that ward). In precinct 4F, Peroutka received 40.8% of all votes cast (86% of the total he received in that ward).

Ward 5 consists of 21 precincts. In precinct 5B, Peroutka received 15.7% of all votes cast (44% of the total he received in that ward).

Ward 8 consists of 19 precincts. In precinct 8G, Badnarik received 15.7% of all votes cast (86% of the total he received in that ward). In precinct 8I, Peroutka received 9.6% of all votes cast (73% of the total he received in that ward).

Ward 13 consists of 26 precincts. In precinct 13X, Peroutka received 14.3% of all votes cast (62% of the total he received in that ward).

======================================================

Three cases in which votes appear to have been moved from the Democrat to third party candidate(s) to weaken the Democrat’s performance as precincts were reporting during election night: Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) – Hamilton and Lucas Counties.


FLORIDA (2000): Black Box Voting < http://www.blackboxvoting.org > details what happened in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. At10 p.m. on election night, a Democratic Party election official, Deborah Tannenbaum, called the county elections department and found that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000 votes. But when she checked the county’s Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore’s count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000 - all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters.

Additional research reported by Black Box Voting revealed that Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a –16,022 when votes were uploaded at approximately 10:30 p.m. on election night. On January 17, Volusia County employee Lana Hires asked the technical staff at Global Election Systems for help. “I need some answers!” she wrote. “Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16,022 hen it as uploaded.” Talbot Iredale of Global Election Systems replied: “Only the presidential totals were incorrect…The problem precinct has two memcory cards uploaded. The second one is the one I believe caused the problem. They were uploaded on the same port approx. 1 hour apart. As far as I know there should have only been one memory card uploaded.”

What was the impact of Volusia ‘error’ on the election? Again, Black Box Voting reports: At some point between 10:16 pm and 1:12 am Bush took the lead in the state and the gap between Bush and Gore widened by an amount sufficient to cause FOX, NBC, CBS, and ABC to call Florida for Bush. By 4:00 a.m. the Volusia ‘error’ had been corrected and CBS News retracted the call for Bush. According to a CBS internal report, “the call for Bush was based entirely on the tabulated county vote. There were several errors that were responsible for that mistake. The most egregious of the data errors has been well documented. Vote reports from Volusia County.”

OHIO (2004): The Ohio Secretary of State’s website showed that with 11.25% of Hamilton County’s precincts reporting, 34,804 votes had been cast George W. Bush; 39,541 for John F. Kerry; and 39,541 for David Cobb <http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/1152 >. The Ohio Secretary of State’s website now shows, (with 100% of precincts having reported) 215,639 votes for George W. Bush; 190,956 for John Kerry; and 0 for David Cobb < http://election.sos.state.oh.us/results/RaceDetail.aspx?race=PP >. Hamilton County used ES&S voting systems according to VerifiedVoting.org.

OHIO (2004): The Ohio Secretary of State’s website showed that with 6.06% of Lucas County’s precincts reporting, 1,917 votes had been cast George W. Bush; 0 for John F. Kerry; and 4,685 for David Cobb <http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/1152 >. The Ohio Secretary of State’s website now shows, (with 100% of precincts having reported) 85,405 votes for George W. Bush; 128,874 for John Kerry; and 0 for David Cobb < http://election.sos.state.oh.us/results/RaceDetail.aspx?race=PP >. Lucas used Diebold voting systems according to VerifiedVoting.org.

Important: In the cases above it appears as if votes were moved from the Democrat to third party candidate(s) to weaken the Democrat’s performance as precincts were reporting during election night. In Florida (2000) the votes initially given to the Socialist candidate were apparently returned to Gore. In Ohio (2004) it is not clear that the votes were returned to Kerry.

ok. what do we do?
I'm ready.

or at least the number registered libertarians in san deigo county.
(which divided by the voter turnout percentage would give us an approximate number of voting libertarians.)

race was for Secretary of State: GAIL K. LIGHTFOOT - LIB- 1782

I think you should point this out to brad at bradblog. he is the one person who is really talking about the busby race.

whoops, meant to reply to the beginning of the thread. edited.

libertarians voting consistently right up and down the races.
That Paul King vote is most definitely an outstanding anomoly.

There was a last minute jump in by a candidate who brought in FIFTEEN PERCENT?

What's wrong with this?

does anyone know who they went to in that race? (generally speaking)

Republicans could not vote in the Libertarian primary - so he had a smaller group of people available to vote for him. But in the general election to finish the rest of Duke's term everyone could vote. That is why he was able to get many Repub protest votes.

BTW, aren't you the guy in February that was saying the the Repubs were going to impeach Bush by August in exchange for Alito getting on the Supreme Court?

candidate. he gained votes. so that is not the explanation.

It technically wasn't downticket, but it got the same effect because the primary was not competitive, but the Dem/Repug face off was. All eyes and attention (nationally) was on the race fill Duke's term. It is not at all surprising that a lot more votes were cast in that race. Everyone already knew who was going to win the primary and that there would be rematch in the fall.

Also having an effect was the Minute Man endorsed candidate. The final result really isn't all the surprising given the composition of the district.

LOL. I guess they will pander with the gay marriage ban...

Good memory you have.....

In this district. Now Paul King gets 1.5% in a special election, one that didn't have a Green candidate on the ballot.

In '04, the Green candidate received 2.2%. There was also an American Independent candidate, Green and Libertarian in '04. They totalled 5%. In '02 with only a Libertarian, he got 3.3%. In this special election there was an American Independent and a Libertarian and they received 5.3% total.

I must be missing something if this is strange or evidence of fraud. Looks like between 3.3 and 5.3% of this district rejects the major party candidates, depending on how many other choices they have.

But let's keep beating these dead horses and ignore an opportunity to get an actual look at the inside workings of these machines.

:banghead:

which is failure to account for the ballot rotation?

Not vote-skimming as I might have thought, but simply ballot rotation.

Also the only reason it was detected is because someone did a recount. If they did a recount in CA-50, who knows what might have come to light?

If you've got an article on that, I'd be interested in reading it. I haven't seen anything that explains what happened there. Besides, if machines can "accidentally" be programmed to miss the ballot rotation, then that's something everybody has to be aware of. The only way to know whether it's happened "accidentally", is to verify every election with a percentage of the vote hand-counted. We might have a chance to get that if we focused on the number of elections that have had very real machine errors. The point is to get honest elections and we're getting nowhere by claiming every election is stolen.

For exactly the reason that you mention, i.e., that the machines can "accidentally" be programmed to miss the ballot rotation.

This is the article I'd seen: www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1378&Itemid=51

But CA-50 is also well worth talking about if there's a way that it will prompt at least a partial recount.

Is John Gideon guessing that ballot rotation is the problem? Because I haven't seen that problem identified in any other Iowa news source. There were also more glitches around the state than just that one problem, including an incident where the wrong candidates were on the DRE print-out. But it's all about gone from Google news anyway, in a day or two it'll be like none of it ever happened. I guess whatever it takes to keep pretending these problems only happen to Democrats.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060606/NEWS09/60606016&SearchID=73247346219535

I think it happens by accident sometimes, due to the poor design and unsuitability of proprietary software counting votes.

I think it happens intentionally, also, often.

What should we do to keep (or get) the Iowa case in the news?

and the endless threads and web sites and books about the Republican conspiracy to steal elections from Democrats. All my imagination. Right.

Conversation over.

I don't know what I said to get under your skin, but have a happy day.

CA SoS site and SD County Registrar site yesterday (Fri 6/9) and there was absolutley NOTHING posted about the Spec Election for CA-50. Nothing. All other races and precincts reporting. It was very weird. It was like the CA-50 Spec Election didn't exist. So, WHEN did you get these numbers? And what was happening to these ballots and electrons in the meantime? And, are the Absentee Ballots all counted down?

FogerRox, did you see my comment about 666 (6 being the number that needs to be added to the 11x derivation)? That's very odd, like a techie joke or something.

At your starting OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x433070

I watched the totals change on election night. About 15 minutes after the polls closed was the first dump of absentee ballots - those received at least the day before the election. This first vote total favored the Repub by just under 8%. The results of votes cast the day of election started to come in around 10pm or so. As the night wore on into morning more results showed up on the site. People voting on election day only favored the Repub over Dem by 48% to 46%. There were a few threads here on the night of the election where people would post updates as they were posted on the site. I followed until around 1am when the result was pretty obvious and my how-did-I-get-this-old-so-fast body demanded sleep.

I dowloaded the registration breakdown data sheet on the day of the election from the SOS- because - it changed after certification of votes in 2004 in LA the registrar had 70,000 less.

Here is the reg voter data as of the last day of reg for the primary 2006 in SD

County San Diego

Eligible = 1,984,298

Registered = 1,356,018 = 68.34%

Democratic = 466,175 =34.38%

Republican = 538,100 = 39.68%

American Independent = 30,822 =2.27%

Green = 9,460 = 0.70%

Libertarian = 8,867 = 0.65%

Natural Law = 3,913 = 0.29%

Peace and Freedom = 3,017 = 0.22%

Other = 6,525 = 0.48%

Decline to State = 289,139 = 21.32%


US Congressional 50

Total Registered = 355,409

Democratic = 105,504 =29.69%

Republican = 156,437 =44.02%

American Independent = 7,812 =2.20%

Green = 2,373 =0.67%

Libertarian = 2,232 =0.63%

Natural Law = 666 =0.19%

Peace and Freedom = 582 =0.16%

Other = 1,791 =0.50%

Decline to State = 78,012 =21.95%

Do you know of a place with that info by any chance?

edited for typo

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/Special/cd50/elections_cd50_genresults.htm

As of June 9, 2006 at 7:27 a.m.
Precincts Reporting 100% (500 of 500)
Registered Voters 355,409
Ballots Cast 134,302
Turnout 37.79%

Heres a follow up posted Sunday night....Maybe worth a REC?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2673616&mesg_id=2673616

Roj

Your question: "In the special election PAUL KING got 2201 votes, but King a libertarian, in his own Primary only got: 536 votes. Where did the 1665 votes come from?"

I made the same mistake you did. In the runoff, anyone could vote Lib. In the primary elections, you had to be a registered Libertarian to vote for the Libertarian candidates. Look at the 2004 primary and general election results and you'll see the number of people voting Libertarian really jumps - probably because a lot of people want to vote for candidates in another party's primary, rather than Libertarians which doesn't have a lot of candidates and they're not terribly strong contenders.

See messages 31, 32, & 37 here: (31 & 32 are where I compared the way you did; 37 is where I corrected that mistake)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2671568&mesg_id=2671568

from message 37 in this thread:
===========================
In the 2004 general election, the LIB and IND candidates for the 50th dist House seat got a lot more votes than was the total for all LIB and IND candidates in the Primary.

This suggests the 2006 difference between the Primary and run-off is not so strange.

===========2004 primary results.==========
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/voters/Eng/archive/200403...
50th dist House seat
a total of 1037 votes were cast for IND in the 50th district
a total of 804 votes were cast for LIB

======Comparing 2004 primary to 2004 general election=================
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/voters/Eng/archive/200411...
2004 general election
50th dist House seat
a total of 4723 votes were cast for IND in the 50th district
a total of 3486 votes were cast for LIB