[robson]

While this looks really bad (and I personally wouldn’t doubt there was fraud on a larger scale) this data is statistically irrelevant and doesn’t prove anything in its current form. If voters in each district had a random chance of voting either electronically or by hand, these results would be impossible without fraud. But each district either votes by hand or electronically as a whole. This simply shows that those districts that like romney and clinton are the same that have an electronic voter system rather than a paper method. ATure, it generally holds true across town size, which is further evidence that is MIGHT be fraud, but still unfortunately doesn’t prove anything.

[robson]

While this looks really bad (and I personally wouldn’t doubt there was fraud on a larger scale) this data is statistically irrelevant and doesn’t prove anything in its current form. If voters in each district had a random chance of voting either electronically or by hand, these results would be impossible without fraud. But each district either votes by hand or electronically as a whole. This simply shows that those districts that like romney and clinton are the same that have an electronic voter system rather than a paper method. ATure, it generally holds true across town size, which is further evidence that is MIGHT be fraud, but still unfortunately doesn’t prove anything.

[robson]

While this looks really bad (and I personally wouldn’t doubt there was fraud on a larger scale) this data is statistically irrelevant and doesn’t prove anything in its current form. If voters in each district had a random chance of voting either electronically or by hand, these results would be impossible without fraud. But each district either votes by hand or electronically as a whole. This simply shows that those districts that like romney and clinton are the same that have an electronic voter system rather than a paper method. ATure, it generally holds true across town size, which is further evidence that is MIGHT be fraud, but still unfortunately doesn’t prove anything.

[robson]

While this looks really bad (and I personally wouldn’t doubt there was fraud on a larger scale) this data is statistically irrelevant and doesn’t prove anything in its current form. If voters in each district had a random chance of voting either electronically or by hand, these results would be impossible without fraud. But each district either votes by hand or electronically as a whole. This simply shows that those districts that like romney and clinton are the same that have an electronic voter system rather than a paper method. ATure, it generally holds true across town size, which is further evidence that is MIGHT be fraud, but still unfortunately doesn’t prove anything.

[robson]

While this looks really bad (and I personally wouldn’t doubt there was fraud on a larger scale) this data is statistically irrelevant and doesn’t prove anything in its current form. If voters in each district had a random chance of voting either electronically or by hand, these results would be impossible without fraud. But each district either votes by hand or electronically as a whole. This simply shows that those districts that like romney and clinton are the same that have an electronic voter system rather than a paper method. ATure, it generally holds true across town size, which is further evidence that is MIGHT be fraud, but still unfortunately doesn’t prove anything.

[robson]

sorry for the repeat question, but i will add that the seasonal effect definitely does not account for all of it. Between ’82 and 06′ the November average of trustees is 211 while the December average is 239. for NODs it is 681 November and 733 December.

[robson]

sorry for the repeat question, but i will add that the seasonal effect definitely does not account for all of it. Between ’82 and 06′ the November average of trustees is 211 while the December average is 239. for NODs it is 681 November and 733 December.

[robson]

sorry for the repeat question, but i will add that the seasonal effect definitely does not account for all of it. Between ’82 and 06′ the November average of trustees is 211 while the December average is 239. for NODs it is 681 November and 733 December.

[robson]

sorry for the repeat question, but i will add that the seasonal effect definitely does not account for all of it. Between ’82 and 06′ the November average of trustees is 211 while the December average is 239. for NODs it is 681 November and 733 December.

[robson]

sorry for the repeat question, but i will add that the seasonal effect definitely does not account for all of it. Between ’82 and 06′ the November average of trustees is 211 while the December average is 239. for NODs it is 681 November and 733 December.

[robson]

2007 ends with 8,416 trustee deeds, slightly less than 1999-2006 combined (8,847). Any idea why the November numbers fell off a cliff only to return in December?

[robson]

2007 ends with 8,416 trustee deeds, slightly less than 1999-2006 combined (8,847). Any idea why the November numbers fell off a cliff only to return in December?

[robson]

2007 ends with 8,416 trustee deeds, slightly less than 1999-2006 combined (8,847). Any idea why the November numbers fell off a cliff only to return in December?

[robson]

2007 ends with 8,416 trustee deeds, slightly less than 1999-2006 combined (8,847). Any idea why the November numbers fell off a cliff only to return in December?

[robson]

2007 ends with 8,416 trustee deeds, slightly less than 1999-2006 combined (8,847). Any idea why the November numbers fell off a cliff only to return in December?

[Author]

Posts