A Wichita State University statistician in Kansas is tracking down electoral fraud, and is suing some Republican elected officials to gain access to the paper tapes that Kansas voting machines use to record votes permanently, and compare them with the electronic vote count.
Statisticians have discovered that there’s an anomaly in election results nationwide: whenever a precinct has more than 500 votes, the likelihood of the winner being a Republican increases significantly.
The statistician says the explanation for the pattern could be either an unknown demographic trend, or electoral fraud: she wants the paper tapes so she can eliminate the electoral fraud issue. Well, that’s what she says. I have a pretty good idea what she thinks.
Do all the voting places in any given precinct have the same number of voting machines, etc? Just spitballin’ here, but I’m thinking that voting places in affluent neighborhoods are more convenient, none of that waiting on line for hours to vote. A precinct with fewer than 500 persons would be less likely to have any economic divide affecting voter access.
That’s an excellent point. Still, the anomaly is disturbing. As I recall, one of the objections to electoral fraud carried out in a blanket sort of way is that in small precincts where most of the voters know each other well would be, “Hey, I KNOW al the voters and I KNOW Bob, Jim, Mary, Frank, Samantha and Slim didn’t vote Republican in that election!” Setting a cutoff of 500 votes cast would be one way to ensure that did not happen.
Yeah, my suspicion is that Clarkson doesn’t really care what the answer is, she just want’s to eliminate voter fraud as an option, or prove it out, doesn’t matter to her. She knows there’s an anomaly, and it’s being caused by SOMETHING, she just wants to know what it is. But the political implications if it’s voter fraud are huge.
And I also have to wonder why one of the nation’s most credible statisticians is having to sue Kansas’ top electoral official to get access to the paper tapes. I mean, if they’ve got nothing to hide, why are they hiding those tapes?
Anyone wishing to keep track of this certain to be slow-moving story can bookmark Dr. Clarkson’s blog where she’s written about a previous attempt at getting this information and a few other subjects, including her husband’s belief about his poor luck at poker. If you click on the VOTING link and scroll down to the first blog, she gives a much better rational for her project than the AP did.
I’m not going to pretend to understand much of this. My math training ended when I got my high school diploma. It could be interesting to see if this leads to anything. Dr. Clarkson has been at this since just after the 2012 election, so it could take quite a while.
What I want to know, as always, is why those who successfully find voter fraud are always private actors. Why is the government so uninterested in this topic? THe government insists there is no fraud, but private groups always find it pretty quickly when they are looking for it.
The government was very interested during the W Admin. Several U.S. Attorneys were fired for not looking hard enough for it. But, for all of that, they failed to find the kind of election fraud they were looking for (ineligible voters voting, etc.). This thread is about a different kind, the kind that takes an insider to pull off, like ballot-box stuffing.