By Oliver Terence Dawshed
Revision 2.0 4/16/05
Subject to revision. Corrections are welcomed.
are your findings?
for detecting electoral fraud from electoral results.
The most important accomplishment of our work was to show
how one would go about detecting electoral fraud. We went
through, step by step, to show exactly how tampering with
conventional paper ballots would show up in electoral results.
Based on simple logic, we developed statistical methods
to analyze voting patterns. Briefly, we found that two items
(spoilage and crossover) were sufficient to describe most
forms of ballot tampering. The advent of electronic voting
facilitates tampering, but the same principles hold.
in 2000 election hit Democrats. For the 2000
election, we concluded that the votes cast but not counted
(so-called "spoiled" votes) were disproportionately
those of Democrats. We accepted the conclusion of the US
Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) that spoiled ballots
were disproportionately those of African Americans. African
Americans are disproportionately Democrats. Our results
therefore mesh with those of the USCCR.
second factor, pseudocrossover, defined. We
further concluded that there was a second important
statistical anomaly in the 2000 election, one that superficially
resembles crossover voting, but is not fully consistent
with real crossover. Real crossover is seen as a difference
between the number of votes for one party's president and
the vote for that party's senator. For example, in Florida
2004, the crossover ratio is Kerry votes/Nelson votes.
What was observed in Florida differed from real crossover
because in 2000:
it was not explainable by regional candidate preferences,
it was not explainable by simple models of crossover,
it varied by precinct in a manner that was closely correlated
to partisan outcome,
it seemed to occur in the same counties that partisan-targeted
it was almost as powerful an explanatory factor as spoilage,
alternative explanations, notably the "Dixiecrat
called this second factor pseudocrossover. Between
pseudocrossover and spoilage, we were able to explain the
majority of Al Gore's electoral performance in almost all
of the counties we looked at. In several counties, there
was almost no random variation!
elections confirmed the observations. For
the 2004 election, better electoral practices in Florida
drastically reduced spoilage, but there were still counties
in which spoilage appeared to have occurred disproportionately
in Democratic precincts. Pseudocrossover remained an important
factor. However, the patterns of individual counties appeared
to be substantively different from 2000, consistent with
the notion that the crossover voting observed is an artificial
Were the elections of 2000 and 2004 stolen?
presidents and senior members of Congress say yes.
We do not need statistical evidence to reach the
conclusion that the 2000 and 2004 elections were not free
and fair. Indeed, former President Jimmy Carter said that
the 2000 election in Florida did not meet the basic standards
for a free and fair election.[2.1] Bill
Clinton has repeatedly stated that he believed Al Gore won
Florida.[2.2] In 2004, a formal inquiry
led by Congressman John Conyers, Ranking Member of the House
Judiciary committee found abuses in Ohio in 2004 that were
so serious that the committee could not state with any certainty
that the president had been lawfully elected.[2.3]
For only the second time in the nation's history, in 2004,
Congress challenged the legitimacy of a presidential election.
and fair elections require fair reportorial, electoral,
and judicial process. The problems were much
deeper than what Carter, Clinton, and Conyers were willing
to concede. The news media grossly misreported basic facts
about the Democratic candidates and suppressed information
adverse to the candidacy of George W. Bush. We know that
senior Florida Republicans, in flagrant violation of a court
order, mandated the removal of a large number of legal (and
mostly Democratic) voters from the voting rolls. Legal scholars,
including a number of conservatives, have stated that the
judicial process used by the Supreme Court to intervene
in the election was itself lawless.[2.4,
2.5, 2.6] If the events
of Elections of 2000 and 2004 had occurred in any other
country, we would have called that country a banana republic,
democratic nations vigorously defend free elections.
The Founding Fathers would have regarded any one of these
abuses as intolerable. They would have denounced any nation
that did tolerate them as corrupt beyond redemption. Voting
is a right that is prior to all others. If elections are
not free and fair, or even if a populace comes to wrongly
believe that they were not free and fair, the consent
of the governed is absent and the rule of the government
rests on sand. The failure of most of our electoral officials
to defend the principle of a free election in all its dimensions
speaks of a political process that has rotted out. If leaders
have forgotten what a country is about, why should average
you allege that there was electoral fraud in Florida
in 2000 and/or 2004?
Not to be fussy, but words have meanings. "Allege"
does not mean "think" or "believe."
Certainly, based on a great deal of consideration and analysis,
we believe that there was electoral fraud. However,
to make an allegation of fraud, one must prove (or attempt
to prove) the commission of a specific crime. To
illustrate the limitations of statistics, consider that
they can show that the DNA of a murder suspect matches that
of material found at the crime scene to a given level of
certainty. But if it were found that fingerprints on the
murder weapon were not those of the suspect, the DNA evidence
would have no value in the courtroom, no matter how high
the certainty of a match.
statistics can show, to a certain level of certainty, that
the voters of a certain district did not vote in the way
that was officially reported. But statistics give very little
help in figuring out who altered the vote or how it was
accomplished. One would need evidence of "who?"
and "how?" to make an allegation.
take an obvious example, disproportionate ballot spoilage
in African American precincts almost certainly represents
a violation of law. But was the means by which it was accomplished
electoral fraud? Or was it simply a violation of the Voting
Rights Act? If ballots were deliberately altered, electoral
fraud was committed. But if the least well-maintained voting
machines were sent to African American districts through
bias rather than conscious intent, it might not rise to
the level of electoral fraud. And in theory, it's always
possible that the voters deliberately spoiled the ballots,
in which case no crime at all would have been committed.
So, statistical analysis is not sufficient on its own
to make an allegation of electoral fraud. Which individual
would we accuse? Of which crime would we accuse
our work accomplishes is demonstrating that the results
probably did not occur by chance and that they are consistent
with electoral fraud. The analysis points to a relatively
small number of precincts where any fraud would most likely
be found - if there were a proper investigation. We have
called for such an investigation, but have not pre-judged
what it would find.
did Dawshed and Jordan conclude that there was probably
electoral fraud in Florida 2000?
simply, because electoral fraud was the most plausible explanation
of the many we considered for the observations of Florida's
2000 election. Statistical reasoning is a key element of
deciding what is plausible and what is not, but it is only
one key element of several. In New Hampshire, 2004, for
example, election officials - though obviously not eager
to host a recount - showed simple respect for the law. They
did not attempt to obstruct reasonable steps to recount.
That behavior seemed to suggest that they had nothing to
hide. Had Florida behaved with equal grace in 2000, there
would not be a cloud over George Bush's election. We also
know that Al Gore would have almost certainly been declared
reasoning. Statistical analysis was one step
in concluding that there was probably electoral fraud. Statistics
showed to a very high level of certainty that:
spoilage of ballots was about ten times higher in African
American precincts than in white or Hispanic precincts,
independent of voting machine type.
There was an unusual pattern of voting, called pseudocrossover,
in many Florida precincts. The voting patterns for
President and for US Senator were so inconsistent that
the result was almost certainly not by chance. No plausible
explanation other than fraud has been presented.
two preceding observations are independent of one another,
yet occur in the same counties in a striking number
cannot be explained by simple models of crossover voting.
Very complex models have to be assumed, and it has to
be assumed that voter behavior changes radically from
election to election.
supplements statistics. At some point, reason
has to take over from statistics. If we find a cabinet in
disarray, we wonder what has happened. If, in another house,
we find a smashed window, we wonder what has happened. But
when the two observations pertain to one house, indeed to
our own home, we start to suspect that a crime has occurred.
Just so, the finding of unexplainable crossover and targeted
spoilage provides context to suggest that neither is accidental.
political context of Florida 2000. In Florida
2000, there were plenty of warning signs of fraud.
There was an atmosphere of lawlessness in Florida, and it
came from the top.
prominent Republican, Miami Mayor Xavier Suarez, was
implicated in a vote buying scandal, in which a top
aide (Humberto Hernandez) and 56 other people were convicted.
The Republican Party put him in charge of its absentee
vote effort.[4.1, 4.2,
4.3, 4.4] In another
absentee vote scandal, Republican activist Isis Segarra
was accused of manipulating disabled, elderly, and non-English
speaking voters. She had been convicted of electoral
fraud in 1983, but the conviction was overturned.[4.5]
is well known, the Secretary of State's office ordered
a purging of the voter rolls just before the election.[4.6]
What is not so widely known is that the manner in which
the purge was done, which wrongly removed primarily
African Americans from the voter rolls, was a flagrant,
in-your-face violation of existing court orders.[4.7,
basic ethical principles, the senior election official,
Secretary of State Katherine Harris chose to also co-chair
the Bush-Cheney campaign, served as a delegate at the
Republican convention, and campaigned along with Governor
Jeb Bush on behalf of George W. Bush.[4.9]
Jeb Bush sent out a letter under state seal urging that
voters vote absentee despite the fact that Florida law
forbids the use of the state seal for partisan purposes
and requires that absentee voting be done only by necessity
and not for convenience. This was challenged ahead of
the election. The judge, Terry Lewis, said that there
should have been criminal prosecution for misuse of
the seal. In Bay County, Judge L. Ralph Smith, Jr. said
there should have been criminal prosecution of misuse
of the seal and abuse of absentee ballot.[4.10]
in Escambia and Manatee Counties admit to having deliberately
disabled overvote protection. However, strangely, it
functioned in Republican precincts, at least in Escambia.
In Orange and Columbia Counties, overvote protection
was overridden manually - but not in Republican precincts.
One precinct in Bay County proposed initially that a
power failure had invalidated ballots 15 percent of
ballots in one precinct. When that explanation failed
to hold up, they blamed the use of improper pens. That
precinct was 67% Democratic.[4.11]
Escambia, despite its claimed frugality in forbidding
voters a chance to correct errors, duplicated 2,400
absentee ballots - 11% of all ballots that were similarly
treated in the state - to make them machine readable.
Documentation of this practice was so loose that no
one could say how many were duplicated because of problems
with the presidential race.[4.12]
Bay County, 1,478 ballots were not machine readable
and were duplicated. In flagrant disregard of the Sunshine
Law, officials refused to permit inspection of the original
Commission on Civil Rights concluded that there were
violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, specifically
a denial of voting rights.[4.13]
The Ashcroft Justice Department conceded that there
had been disparate treatment of minority and disabled
places were unlawfully moved without notice or closed
state troopers placed at least one unauthorized police
checkpoint in what clearly appeared to be an attempt
at voter intimidation.[4.13]
Governor's Office of Executive Clemency, responsible
for restoring voting rights taken away from felons convicted
in Florida unlawfully attempted to force felons whose
voting rights had never been taken away to apply for
of absentee ballot applications done in Martin and Seminole
Counties was almost certainly illegal. The judge for
a related civil case in Seminole County said that the
County Clerk should have been prosecuted, not sued in
civil court, for her role in this. At least in Seminole
County, where remediation was done in the county clerk's
office, security of voting records for the entire county
was compromised.[4.10, 4.15,
County did an automatic recount, as required by law,
but when this resulted in 51 more votes for Al Gore,
the Republican commissioners unlawfully reported the
original result. They simultaneously, and unlawfully,
added in a ballot that had not been previously counted,
a military ballot with no date or postmark.[4.17]
Party operatives, on the payroll of the US government,
staged an unlawful demonstration for the purpose of
interfering with the lawful execution of duties by Miami
officials. They are alleged by Luis Rosero to have committed
at least one act of violence. [4.18,
computer programmer, Clint Curtis, filed an affidavit
alleging that a senior Republican official, then Florida
Representative and now US Representative Tom Feeney,
commissioned the production of a prototype of software
to steal votes in September 2000.[4.21]
It is not known whether the effort went beyond prototyping.
insisted on the counting of 680 overseas ballots which
violated state law in lacking postmarks, having been
mailed after the election, having been mailed from within
the US, having been Faxed in, or lacking witness signatures.
Nineteen ballots were from voters who had already voted!
Seventeen percent of the ballots were not postmarked,
vs. 1% of military mail that normally misses a postmark.[4.22,
Steven Buyer and other House Republicans requested telephone
numbers or e-mail addresses for members of the armed
service whose ballots had been disqualified, in an attempt
to use them in a public relations efforts on behalf
of the Bush campaign. This was a use of taxpayer dollars
for political efforts and a violation of the requirement
that military personnel stay free of politics.[4.24]
in the Florida legislature refused to accede to the
rule of law, planning to legislatively direct electors
to vote for Mr. Bush, no matter what the real outcome
of the election or the finding of the court. This was
plainly unconstitutional, since the Constitution provides
that a dispute over electors is to be resolved by the
House of Representatives. Governor Jeb Bush also acted
with unseemly haste to file the certificate of ascertainment
that formally delivers the slate of electors to the
federal government. [4.25]
Escambia County Commissioners were later indicted on
charges such as bribery, racketeering, and money laundering
in relation to land deals. While crooked land dealing
doesn't imply crooked vote stealing, it does reflect
poorly on Panhandle sensibilities of morality.[4.26,
our own attempts to get data, we encountered a shocking
disregard for Florida's Sunshine Laws. Counties spent
months replying to simple requests or simply refused
filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the
Pentagon to get information about military ballots.
The disrespect for lawful procedure I experienced was
astonishing, though apparently all too typical.
The Republican Party behaved as if there had been fraud.
of George Bush filed actions in court to block any recount,
acted to stall lawful recounts with frivolous challenges
- at least 15,000 in Palm Beach alone - and, as described
above, unlawfully interrupted recounts in progress.[4.29,
4.30] In addition, Jeb Bush's acting
general counsel, Frank Jimenez, intervened to cause
the head of the Division of Elections, Clay Roberts,
to rule that hand recounts were illegal, even as the
George W. Bush campaign had hand recounts yielding 418
Bush votes done in 6 northern counties.[4.31,
Harris allowed Republican partisans to work in her office,
may have attempted to unlawfully erase files from her
computer's hard drive, and deleted e-mails to and from
Governor Jeb Bush almost certainly to cover up a misuse
of state property and time for partisan purposes. As
additional evidence of her indifference to the law,
she also had prohibited political materials on the computer,
had written a November 26th, 2000 speech
showing she had pre-judged the Palm Beach recount, and
was even unlawfully registered to vote in two counties
(willfully voting in the wrong place in Florida could
cost one five years in jail, as one Edwin McGusty discovered
to his dismay). Jeb Bush's office made 100 calls to
his brother's campaign at taxpayer expense; even though
10 were made by Jeb Bush himself, he denied knowing
what they were about.[4.33, 4.34,
4.39] The unmistakable impression
was of a state government filled with officials who
lied as easily as they breathed, whose notion of the
law was that it was a convenience to advance their wants
or deny those of others.
Stafford, supervisor of Duval County, is said to have
misled the chairman of the Gore campaign in northeast
Florida, Mike Langton, about the massive number of spoiled
votes in Duval County, presumably to prevent Langton
from filing a timely protest of the Duval results.[4.40]
In violation of Florida's Sunshine Laws, Stafford refused
to permit the inspection of Duval County ballots and
had to be taken to court to force the disclosure.[4.41,
appointees of the Supreme Court contradicted their own
earlier finding in Bush v. Gore and ignored the actual
arguments that were presented in session before them
to declare that recounting of ballots would be a violation
of equal protection before the law. This ruling has
been widely critiqued by legal scholars, including conservatives,
as an unprecedented case of judicial activism amounting
to lawlessness, even according to at least one of the
Court's members, Justice Steven Breyer, who called the
decision "outrageous" and "indefensible."[4.43,
the exposure of the deliberately fault voter purge scheme
- one that flagrantly violated court orders consented
to by the state - the Republican-controlled Florida
legislature apparently attempted in August of 2001 to
continue the illegal purge through a budget amendment.
Though downplayed by the media at the time, in fact
the Division of Elections went ahead with a new defective
purge, lending credence to suspicions voiced at the
time by Bob Fertik of Democrats.com that the Legislature
was trying to secretly proceed with purging. The state
abandoned the attempt only when confronted with the
fact that the list contained no Hispanics, who are in
Florida an overwhelmingly Republican constituency.[4.46,
Joseph Scarborough felt he had done exceptional work
to place George Bush in office.[4.49]
A Scarborough associate, Dennis Gilson, said that Scarborough
might be rewarded with a cabinet post in the Bush Administration,
suggesting that the work was exceptional indeed.[4.50]
Scarborough's district included Escambia County in which
voting machines in African American precincts showed
astonishing rates of ballot spoilage of 10% and up -
this in a county where the average rate of spoilage
stated, some counties obstructed our attempts to research
what had happened.
The electoral statistics are consistent with fraud. So far,
the statistics are not consistent with alternative explanations:
simple logic, excessive spoilage and strange values
of crossover are exactly what is expected in
the case of electoral fraud. While other explanations
could also be valid, electoral fraud does serve to explain
the observations and must be considered a reasonable
average, on review of 3 million Florida ballots, there
was approximately an 80% linkage between the party a
voter chose for President and for US Senate in 2000,
with Democrats being slightly more likely to vote a
straight ticket.[4.51] So there
is a fairly well-defined range of expected crossover
ratios (defined as votes for Democratic president divided
by votes for Democratic senator), between about 0.8
and 1.2. While there can certainly be regional variations
due to local candidate popularity or unpopularity, this
was not observed.
"Dixiecrat hypothesis," a key focus of disputes
about whether peculiar statistics in northern counties
can be explained by historical voting patterns, has
been debunked in a paper titled Trends in
levels of statistical significance are very high, higher
than one generally sees in the medical, physical, and
biological sciences, to the point that one can call
the pattern "systematic."
more counties were pooled into a larger meta-analysis,
the level of significance continued to rise, suggesting
that the two factors were identified were more important
than other factors known to be involved in electoral
outcomes, such as voting machine type and ballot design.
statistical improbability is only a part of why we concluded
that there was likely widespread electoral fraud. Based
on what we know, a full recount would have meant that it
would have been Al Gore’s election. Presumably that
is why the Republican Party had to "shut it down,"
in Congressman John Sweeney’s immortal words.
big question is how did they know in advance that they had
to "shut it down" in order to "win"?
would be impossible to keep a massive vote tampering conspiracy
conspiracies and recounts. Critics are right
to raise the question of how ballots from many different
counties could have been tampered with without detection.
At first glance, it may seem impossible that it could have
been pulled off. However, in 2000, we questioned only about
7,100 ballots from 11 counties in a state where over six
million ballots were cast and the outcome hung on just 527
ballots. Surely that would not require such a very large
as the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s proved, even fairly
large conspiracies can go undetected for many years if the
watchdogs are lazy and the conspirators discreet. The claim
that it would be impossible to tamper with, say,
one ballot in a hundred without arousing suspicion does
not hold water. Retail stores often write off that much
as shrinkage. A few percent is certainly not "massive."
More to the point, it doesn't matter how many votes were
stolen, if stolen they were. What matters is if there was
knowledge of electoral tampering by one or both of the campaigns.
No candidate who facilitates or silently permits self-government
to be taken from the American people deserves to hold a
position of leadership.
one considers the detailed mechanisms by which electoral
tampering can be done, it's obvious that there need not
be any coordinated conspiracy. For example, suppose a county
worker is charged with distributing ballots to a precinct
with 70 Democratic voters and 30 Republican voters in an
optical scan county. The worker decides to make small marks
in the Bush oval on 20 ballots. If the voter who gets a
pre-marked card votes for Bush, the vote will be counted.
If the voter who gets a pre-marked card votes for Gore,
the vote will be an overvote and will not be counted. So
instead of the precinct turning out 70 votes for Gore and
30 for Bush, the precinct will have 56 votes for Gore, 30
for Bush and 14 spoiled ballots.
the neighboring county, the technician who services the
optical scan reader could align the machine such that it
counts every Bush vote, but misses every twentieth Gore
vote. And in yet another neighboring county in which tabulations
are accumulated centrally without the precincts ever seeing
the results, a county supervisor could alter the results
at will, with no one being the wiser. With so much of the
operation of vote counting in the hands of technicians from
voting machine companies, it's possible for fraud to be
committed without the knowledge of a single county resident.
All it takes for electoral fraud to occur on a broad scale
is for there to be strong partisanship, weak ethics, and
2000, there were recounts. There was, initially, a machine
recount of many counties. Three large counties, Palm Beach,
Miami, and Broward began full recounts, but only Broward
was allowed to complete its recount. A statewide recount
was ordered, but was interrupted by the Supreme Court's
decision. We do not know what was discovered in that effort.
Miami Herald, The Orlando Sentinel, and National
Opinion Research Center (NORC) undertook recounts of spoiled
ballots. There are questions about the exact details of
how each recount was accomplished. Of the three, NORC's
methodology was the most transparent. But as Douglas
Jones noted in the report I critiqued, in some counties,
there appeared to be a substantial mismatch between the
number of spoiled ballots reported to the state and the
number discovered on recount. And, of course, since there
was no assurance that ballots were securely maintained,
even a perfect match might not mean anything. A county supervisor,
especially in some of the small, rural counties could presumably
have removed or added ballots at will. All recounts, deficient
as they were, showed a decided swing toward Gore.
is the key point: political and social leadership failed.
The situation in 2000 cried out for an investigation.
Here, in a state which only 35 years earlier African Americans
had been denied many of the basic rights of citizenship
- denied many basic human rights - there was evidence that
they and, as a consequence, tens of millions of other Americans
had been denied the right to choose their political leadership.
Countries in which people do not choose their leadership
are called dictatorships, so the situation called for a
few journalists and political leaders, notably Greg Palast
of the London Guardian, Roger Roy and David Damron
of the Orlando Sentinel, and Mary Frances Berry of
the US Civil Rights Commission responded appropriately,
using the resources they had available to try to find out
what had happened. A few academics, notably Allan Lichtman
and Philip Klinkner, responded to the call. A few citizens,
notably those who protested the inauguration, fulfilled
their duties as citizens of a free country. But the vast
majority of the country, especially its journalists, academics,
and political leaders acted like the citizens of a country
that was not free: timid in criticism or vociferous
in trying to silence critics.
question of whether the election was fraudulent is almost
of secondary concern. There are always bad people around,
people trying to steal freedom, as though human rights were
something that could be legislated away. But nations stay
free as long as there is a "righteous remnant,"
willing to defend due process and the rule of law. Political
leaders who could have acted and did not - candidate Al
Gore, U.S. Attorney General Reno, Florida Attorney General
Butterworth, journalists especially in the electronic media,
academics in political science and statistics - these people
could have forced a probing investigation that would have
either dispelled or confirmed the fears of electoral tampering.
They bear responsibility for what has ensued. But so does
every citizen who stood on the sidelines, saying, "Defending
the sanctity of elections is not my job."
2004 election. In 2004, the reported election
results were not nearly as close as they had been in 2000,
yet the sense that something was amiss remained widespread.
The exit polls, in particular, did not match the results.
While more academics came forward, the response from journalism
was again tepid.
Laughlin and colleagues from The Miami Herald undertook
to do a recount of three counties (Suwannee, Union, and
Lafayette) and found what they thought was an acceptably
close match to the original result.[5.1]
This is certainly evidence against ballot tampering.
But it is probably less conclusive than Laughlin seems to
think. To start with, we were only able to obtain precinct
data from Suwannee, so we don't know that the 2004 results
from Union and Lafayette were suspicious. Also, we don't
know what criteria Laughlin used to select counties for
a recount. In particular, we don't know whether any supervisors
declined a request for recount. It's possible that the three
counties self-selected because they believed that a recount
would show the count was accurate.
important, Paul Lukasiak asked Laughlin if any ballots on
which votes had not been recorded by machines had been hand-counted
and, accurately or not, reproduced. This practice was widespread
in 2000, and although apparently legal, creates an obvious
opportunity for significant fraud. Inexplicably, Laughlin
refused to reply. She also refused to supply me her data
in electronic form, insisting that it could only be supplied
by FAX and then only if I answered questions about why I
wanted it. I declined her conditions.
even from the data in Laughlin's article, there appeared
to be a small but unmistakable pro-Bush bias in the count.
For example, she wrote: "The Herald total: 3,393
votes for Bush, 1,272 for Kerry. Fifteen votes couldn't
be counted clearly. The county's official total: 3,396 for
Bush, 1,251 for Kerry and a few dozen that couldn't be counted."
In other words, the recount produced a 24 vote swing toward
Kerry - that's half a percentage point! (Note also the vague
language "a few dozen," which makes it impossible
to get a firm grasp of discrepancies between the official
count and the recount.) In Lafayette County, Laughlin's
recount produced an 11 vote swing toward Kerry, just 0.1%
of the total vote, but again in Bush's favor.
description of an apparently partial recount of Suwannee
was so vague that it was impossible to be sure just what
she did. Apparently she recounted the most heavily
Democratic precincts. Apparently the results were
close to what the county had reported. However, our work
showed that unusual values of crossover, a possible sign
of electoral fraud, were found primarily in Republican
precincts. (In 2000, spoilage in Democratic precincts was
a possible indicator of fraud, but spoilage in 2004 was
far lower than in the preceding election). So Laughlin
may have chosen exactly the wrong precincts to recount.
fairness to Laughlin, she was looking to refute questions
of vote tampering on a large scale that originated from
the observation that Democratic registration was high and
Democratic vote low in certain counties. She succeeded in
knocking down that particular straw man. Still, this is
the best evidence against the hypothesis of electoral fraud:
a partial recount of unspecified precincts for one
county for which the investigator won't freely supply the
data and will not answer questions about whether ballots
were originals or reprints. With such watchdogs, would
it really be impossible for a few hundred Kerry votes to
have been flipped to Bush in Suwannee County?
was provided with a draft of this item from the FAQ and
asked for her comments. She did not reply.
statistics just BS?
public can be forgiven for thinking that statistics is mumbo
jumbo. Battered with bogus numbers from The Tobacco Institute,
the energy companies, and The Heritage Foundation, people
have grown wary. That's good. But to people versed in statistics,
there are only very rarely arguments about what the numbers
indicate. The basic arguments revolve around the following:
level of statistical significance is meaningful?
Although statisticians conventionally take 95% confidence
as the benchmark, this is arbitrary. One would probably
want to have 99.9% confidence that one's food is safe.
In preparing for a picnic, one might well accept 50%
confidence that it won't rain. Job seekers routinely
accept 1% confidence or less in submitting resumes.
variation really random?
One of the main assumptions of statistics is that variation
follows the familiar Bell (normal) curve. While large
excursions from normality are often permissible, and
while methods can be developed for any distribution,
standard methods can break down. To take a simple
example, breast cancer is probably not normally
distributed according to height. This is because breast
cancer is rare in men, who also tend to be taller. So,
in a graph of incidence of breast cancer according to
height, the curve is likely to be skewed, with many
more cases occurring among shorter people. If the results
for men and women were graphed separately, however,
one would expect both curves to be symmetric.
factors should be used to divide data into different
groups? This is often the most difficult
question in any statistical analysis. One can always
make an argument for saying that certain data are somehow
"different," and ought to be treated separately
from other data. One of the major issues debated on
this website is whether the counties of north Florida
are "different" from the rest of Florida.
Certain counties do appear to be different in
terms of the difference between how people register
and how they vote. However, in crossover, there is no
persuasive evidence that they are in any way unusual.
If data are obtained from a controlled experiment, one
can propose as many factors as desired, increasing the
number of data points as needed. When the experiment
is uncontrolled, post hoc assignment of factors
can be deceptive. After all, if there's a finite chance
of finding statistical significance by chance, if one
invents enough factors, one is all but guaranteed of
finding statistical significance where there is none.
does it mean if two factors are found to be correlated?
If one found an association between height and breast
cancer, it would likely be a false correlation. As pointed
out, gender is related both to incidence of breast
cancer and to height and is probably the primary factor
in determining who gets breast cancer. Environmental
exposure, genetic predisposition, diet, and other factors
are probably also important. So, the simple fact that
two factors are correlated does not mean that
one factor causes the other. Small stature does
not cause breast cancer. Still, even false correlations
need to be understood and explained.
can statistical evidence be disregarded?
There are several cases when statistical methods are
so badly flawed that one is justified in throwing up
one's hands. First, post hoc methods that fail
to consider what could be obtained by chance are justly
disregarded as "data mining," if not outright
obfuscation. Given enough factors, one factor will surely
seem significant by pure chance. Second, if strongly-related
factors are used for analysis, statistical significance
can be lost. For example, if we include both
gender and height in studying breast cancer, we may
miss the association to gender, because a factor related
to gender, namely height, may muddy the waters. This
issue is known generically as multicollinearity.
Finally, false conclusions may be reached if distributions
are very non-normal.
statistical analysis is just plain wrong. The
usual benchmark of statistical significance is 95%.
This means that one time in 20 the result is wrong by
chance. For this reason, it pays to aim for much higher
levels of significance. More important, one needs to
crosscheck the implications of one's work. For example,
if one concluded that height is the key factor in breast
cancer, it would make sense to contrast incidence rates
among groups known to be very short and very tall. It
would also make sense to look at a primary mechanism
underlying the proposed factor of height, such as pituitary
function. False findings are often quickly unmasked
by simple logic.
is, above all, a tool to supplement logical analysis. Professional
liars may be able to torture the numbers into giving the
result they desire, but the flaws in their work become apparent
by application of simple logical analysis. One of the silliest
papers I have ever seen claimed that spoilage in African
American districts is higher because African Americans sometimes
refuse to vote for whites. As we have seen in Florida, spoilage
in predominantly African American precincts - as in all
precincts - plummeted with the introduction of new technology.
Given this larger context, does the hypothesis of African
Americans discriminating against white politicians really
make sense as a primary factor in spoilage?
the key question the reader should ask him/herself: "How
certain do I want to be that an official holding office
was really elected?" Perhaps many people accept a
large level of uncertainty. I would suggest that we should
insist on very high levels of certainty, since the cost
of uncertainty is political instability. The consent of
the governed cannot said to have been obtained if tens of
millions of Americans believe that an election was stolen,
and the consequences play themselves out in many subtle,
did the work by Dawshed and Jordan avoid these pitfalls?
in reviewing how we approached the problem of analyzing
Florida voting, I found that there were certain general
features that explained how we happened to be so lucky.
Most of all, we were very fortunate in having the work of
Allan Lichtman and Phillip Klinkner on ballot spoilage as
a good example. Although we (gently) tweaked Klinkner for
the manner in which he introduced factors, and also suggested
that his data may show a minor effect of education on spoilage,
his work is beyond reproach.
here's why our work is sound:
established a clear logical link between strategies
in electoral fraud and electoral outcomes, and defined
our key variables (spoilage and pseudocrossover) appropriately.
looked at the role of many other factors, but at the
county level. We eliminated factors as less important
or because of multicollinearity (redundancy) at this
point, and chose the two key variables before proceeding
to end results. Only then did we begin the real
analysis, which examined precinct-by-precinct data.
Separating the design of a model from its testing by
working at different demographic scales is an effective
way of excluding personal bias from factor selection.
focused on as few factors as possible. As pointed out,
with enough factors, one can end up with seeming-statistical
significance purely by random chance.
model worked better as more and more counties were brought
into it, suggesting that it's a general model. When
other factors, such as voting machine type were brought
in, they did not improve the model.
went back and checked conclusions with past elections
and with counties not included in the original analysis.
We have considered how our results square with other
observations such as the results of recounts.
made available our data and provided our analysis to
other scholars; we actively solicited their opinions.
Only two, Peter Caithamer and Walter Mebane, have raised
a question or challenge specific enough to answer. We
answered Mebane on whether certain northern counties
have unusual crossover with a full-length paper, Trends
in Florida voting. A brief report. Rev. 2.0.
We seriously considered Caithamer's point on the normality
of distributions, and will be addressing it in updates
A Model for Interpreting Voting Patterns with Application
to FloridaRev. 1.0.
methodology, including our own, is immune from criticism.
Real-life problems are infinitely variegated, and there
are multiple methods to analyze them. These methods are
typically very similar, but every statistical analyst has
his or her own pet method, resulting in academic catfights
of very little real interest. So, there's no rigid protocol
to say how a problem should be approached, and that opens
the door to those who maliciously use statistics against
the public interest.
So, what are the weaknesses of your work?
greatest weakness arises from the huge amount of data, the
fact that some counties report results in a convenient data
format while some do not, and the fact that the data are
scattered among 67 Florida counties, most of which have
been helpful and a few of which have been outrageous and
perverse. One would rather look at all of the data
in one huge run. Unfortunately, given limited resources
of (unpaid) time and computation, we did what we could.
Offers of substantial funding to expand the effort will
probably not be refused.
issue of how closely spoilage, precinct by precinct, matches
with Democratic vote vs. African American population needs
a detailed examination. Is it more accurate to say that
spoilage was targeted against African Americans or that
it was targeted against Democrats? One of the next projects
is tackling Florida's notorious FREDS
database to see if the relevant data can be extracted.
also have not exhaustively examined the issue of whether
the data follow a normal distribution. For small counties,
it may not be possible to be certain. In 2004, spoilage
almost certainly does not follow a normal distribution,
so the preliminary analysis we performed in A
Model for Interpreting Voting Patterns with Application
to Florida Rev. 1.0 will need to be looked at again
to see if other methodology would be more apt.
variation of the crossover ratio by year also deserves close
examination. There are certainly examples where it seems
to vary widely between elections. Are there some counties
in which it seems to be reasonably consistent?
addressed the issue of turnout only superficially, not performing
precinct level calculations. Recently I have been favorably
impressed by work by Richard Hayes Phillips
and Joe Knapp
showing how to identify strategies of voter suppression
through electoral statistics. While this work is not fully
systematic, it is persuasive that voting machine shortages
cost Kerry thousands of votes in Ohio. I believe it may
be possible to generalize this work to include certain ballot
Theisen and Warren Stewart
added an important element of analysis by examining the
disparity between absentee votes recorded and signatures
in the sign-in book, what they called "phantom votes."
This is an important element of auditing that can detect
fraud. On this site, Paul Lukasiak has also done excellent
work, particularly in showing that the
pattern of overvotes in Escambia County in 2000 was implausible.
and most important, there is the question of trying to match
the statistical model against real-life observations. Repeated
pleas for assistance from Floridians have not been answered.
I get the sense that residents of north Florida are afraid
of getting involved. Matching up the statistical model with
newspaper accounts is similarly frustrating. In 2004, for
example, Meg Laughlin of the Miami Herald was involved
in a recount of three counties.[8.1]
She declined to provide the precinct data to me by e-mail
and refused to respond to an inquiry by Paul Lukasiak as
to (a) what precincts had been recounted in Suwannee County,
and (b) whether the recount had been done on original ballots
or on copies, a practice that Lukasiak noted had only been
revealed long after the 2000 election. I will certainly
report Laughlin's report on the recount as a fact at odds
with the model Jordan and I developed. However, over the
years I have seen so much deviation between what newspapers
reported and what eventually emerged that I don't automatically
assume her story of the recount is credible.
the Republicans credit. They have been very persistent in
spreading falsehoods to deflect attention and confuse people
about what actually happened. Here's a short list:
ballots were counted and recounted.
law requires that every ballot for which voter intent
can be ascertained must be read. If any ballot cannot
be read by machine, but voter intent can be ascertained,
the Beckstrom case established that the ballot was
defective and must be duplicated to be read by machine
or else hand read. The black letter law is unambiguous
on this point.[9.1] As proven by
the NORC recount, such ballots did exist among those
rejected by the machine count and were never
included in the official count. The interference
of the Secretary of State in the checking of ballots
by hand was a flagrant violation of established law.
Furthermore, as pointed out by Newsweek, 1,436
uncounted votes disappeared between the original count
and the NORC recount. One may speculate this was normal,
due to chads from punchcards that had had been partially
detached, but not quite enough for the machine to
read the vote, fully detaching. But who did those
votes go to? If they were punchcard ballots, they
probably came predominantly from Democratic counties.[9.2]
is all about "butterfly ballots."
is the major red herring used to divert attention
from the real issue: electoral fraud. It's true that
the design of the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot"
did not accord with state law. Since the violation
was technical and not obviously committed intentionally,
it's unlikely any court would have found in it reason
to overturn an election, and indeed the Supreme Court's
ruling was consistent with that.[9.3]
However, there may have been other and substantive
issues in Palm Beach having to do with ballot machine
maintenance and misprinted ballots (a point that the
article just referenced miraculously seemed to miss,
despite the fact that such issues had been raised
by Rabbi Yellin and others from the beginning).[9.4]
It should be noted that Professor Douglas Jones of
the University of Iowa also did a nice piece of research
showing how punchcard machines with more than a few
hundred votes jam due to accumulated chad.[9.5]
recount showed that George Bush won.
headlines said so, but the body of the articles and
the data themselves said that if there had been a
full statewide recount, Gore would have won. The New
York Times article was headlined "Study of
Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did not Cast
the Deciding Vote" and the first paragraph asserts
that "George W. Bush would have retained a slender
margin over Mr. Gore . . ." [9.6] But
read a bit more deeply and one learns that "a
statewide recount . . . could have produced enough
votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what
standard was chosen to judge voter intent . . . If
all of the ballots had been reviewed under any of
seven single standards and combined with the results
of an examination of the overvote, Mr. Gore would
have won, by a very narrow margin." To translate
from Times-speak, if they had counted all the
ballots, by any standard Gore would have won. Only
by not counting some ballots would Bush have won.
Indeed, the judge overseeing the case, Terry Lewis,
intended to count all the votes, not merely undervotes.[9.7]
Republicans were cheated by an early call of the election
before poll closing in the Panhandle.
first call of Florida was made less than 11 (eleven)
minutes before poll closing in the Panhandle. There
was no significant effect on the election. Ludicrous
claims have been made, such as a claim by the Republican
Leadership Council that 6.8% of Bush voters in the
Panhandle decided not to vote in those 11 minutes.[9.8]
If this were remotely true, there would have been
lines down the block, roughly 50 Republican voters
per precinct if one uses Escambia figures. One must
further imagine that in each line someone with a portable
radio calls out, "The networks say Gore won!" Emitting
a collective groan, all Republican voters - but none
of the Democrats - go home. Amazingly, true believers
continue to come up with such silliness.
ballots weren't counted.
Defense Department review of the military's system
for handling overseas absentee ballots found no major
problems that would have delayed their delivery to
state offices during the 2000 presidential election
. . . "[9.9]
Democrats spoiled their ballots.
have studied what effect education and familiarity
with voting had on spoilage rate. There has been little
evidence that either factor is significant. Phillip
Klinkner definitively disposed of the possibility
that educational level is a factor in spoilage.[9.4]
I think there's a possibility that his data could
show that Level 1 literacy is a minor factor. The
Miami Herald concluded that recently registered
voters were no more prone to having their ballots
spoiled than veteran voters. [9.10]
ballots could be altered by recounting, since a chad
could fall out.
so, says the Wall Street Journal: "In
the end, nothing short of a direct poke with a sharp
object could make a chad come loose." "The
end" included curling and microwaving ballots,
as well as rubbing them against a cat, running over
them with a car, and passing them through a clothes
dryer.[9.11] Of course, if someone
intent on committing electoral fraud were to dislodge
a chad from a legitimate ballot, the result would
be an overvote. There were indeed many overvotes .
. . especially in heavily African American precincts
of Duval County.
legal voter was prevented from voting on Election Day.
was one of the most cynical lies prevalent on talk
radio at the time of the election. The USCCR documented
a number of cases. People understandably did not want
to be named in a public document, but they testified
under oath. Still, newspaper accounts of the period
are filled with individual names of disenfranchised
voters. To take just one example, Curtis Mayville
stated to the Palm Beach Post that he was denied
the right to vote on the false claim that he was a
felon barred from voting. The Post said that
it found 1,100 people who had been wrongfully removed
from the voter rolls. There were many, many more.
Estimates of the error rate on the purge list vary.
In Leon County, the error rate was documented to be
9.14] The journalist who discovered
the purge list believes that 90% of those on the purge
list were legal voters; though only 10% of Florida's
population is African American, half of those targeted
for the purge were African American.[9.15]
of illegal Democratic felons voted, so the Democrats
have no complaint if some of their voters were blocked
no sound data on the issue, but even the highest estimates
suggest that the votes in question are orders of magnitude
less than spoiled votes or people ordered illegally
purged. According to the Florida Times-Union,
the Miami Herald and Palm Beach Post claimed
to have found that between 5,000 and 6,000 thousand
felons improperly voted. On closer inspection, there
are numerous flaws. The Herald study is clearly
based on extrapolation. The Post and Herald
differ widely on how many of those were registered
Democrats (and neither apparently took into consideration
the fact that in some counties, registered Democrats
often vote Republican). From a conversation with Greg
Palast, I understand that there may be a very serious
methodological flaw in that the lists used to track
supposed felons apparently used the same tainted database
that the state had used to generate the purge list.
Absent the careful follow-up necessary to verify that
if the name on the list was in fact a convicted
felon, the person was actually forbidden to vote,
the true numbers could be far lower. As noted, felons
whose crimes had not been committed in Florida were
very likely eligible to vote, and even some Florida
felons had had their rights restored through clemency.
In any event, if felons voted, there's absolutely
zero evidence that this was an effort coordinated
by the Democratic Party and much better evidence that
it was due to simple error on the part of voters.
The Times-Union editorial board was apparently
unable to find even one good example of a voter who
had knowingly voted improperly, noting only one woman
who had been convicted of participating in a lottery
20 years earlier. The Herald did better, finding
two convicts who had voted, of 452 votes by felons
(out of over half a million) in Broward County. At
least one of them had been misinformed and told he
was able to vote.[9.16, 9.17,
was justified because John F. Kennedy cheated in 1960.
one succeeds in being both corrupt and false. In fact,
Richard Nixon's operatives opened up investigations,
including a lawsuit and a grand jury. Neither found
anything. But even if it were found to be true, believing
that two wrongs can ever make a right is morally bankrupt.[9.19,
stole votes through "snowbird" voting.
is only partly mythical. There are disturbing reports
of people voting both in Florida and in another state.
For example, 493 residents of New Jersey and New York
were claimed by the Republican National Convention
to have voted in both their northern residence and
in Florida.[9.21] However, there's
no clear answer to how many snowbird voters are Republican
and how many are Democrats. It's difficult to believe
that a group of people comprised of owners of multiple
residences would not be heavily Republican.
wanted a selective recount that would benefit him,
not a real count of the votes.
law requires that in the first phase of an election
challenge, specific protest - substantiated by specific
complaints - be lodged county by county. Only after
certification could the election be contested on a
statewide basis. [9.22]
asserted by John Lott.
media and some academics have also been responsible for
spreading certain myths. While not as obviously perverse
and false as the Republican myths, they have served as blinders
to prevent people from fairly evaluating what is before
Machine type and ballot design explains excess spoilage.
I explained in my response
to Douglas Jones, those factors can explain differences
between counties. But what about within
a county, where the ballots (at least at the top of
the ballot) are identical from precinct to precinct?
Clearly machine type and ballot design cannot
affect such variation. We did the obvious thing:
we tried adding in machine type and ballot design
to our analysis of 11 (eleven) northern counties and
found those had little additional explanatory power.
So, sure: Marksense (optical scan) systems are less
prone to spoilage than punchcard systems. But in looking
for electoral fraud or violations of the Voting Rights
Act, the first step is to look at disparate treatment
of precincts where the equipment is the same.
Palm Beach voters spoiled so many ballots because
they were old, blind, and not very smart.
Miami Herald reported that several punchcard
counties had a defective part and were delivered misprinted
ballots. Election Data Corp. supplied plastic templates
that misdirected the punchcard stylus, particularly
when used with Sequoia Voting Systems ballots. Katherine
Harris was warned of the problem and did nothing.
But Pinellas, Lee and Indian River Counties somehow
got the word and fixed their systems, while Palm Beach
conspiracy theorists" (or substitute the new
media whipping boy, "Bloggers") are alleging
a vast conspiracy.
a few ballots in a hundred are in dispute. The total
ballot spoilage for Florida, after all, was 3%. In
the case of crossover, we have not produced a precise
estimate for all of Florida. In the 11 (eleven) Florida
counties we looked at, we proposed that 7,100 ballots
might have been affected by spoilage and crossover
combined. Call it whatever else you will, 7,100 ballots
out of six million cast is not massive. It is only
one ballot in a thousand.
aren't objective. You have an agenda.
are many in academia and journalism who think that being
fair means giving equal time to NASA and the Flat Earth
Society, to Galileo and to the Inquisition.
am not one of these.
defending what is plainly error, people who are faking objectivity
are taking sides, indeed, actively supporting wrongdoing.
When those people's paychecks depend on the approval of
legislatures or press barons, it doesn't take much imagination
to suppose that looking out for Number One might have influenced
their critical thinking skills. It's better to openly hold
strong opinions. Better yet is to have opinions, yet be
willing to change them in the face of facts and reason.
spent six months, a few hours a day, hunkered over a spreadsheet
trying to make sense of Florida 2000 electoral statistics
before I concluded there was evidence enough to believe
that there had been fraud. I challenge anyone who says I
am not objective to put in the same effort before making
up his/her mind.
anyone were interested enough in my opinion to inquire,
she/he might be surprised by the result. My opinion is that,
according to facts were known at the time, Florida was a
statistical tie: tiny errors inherent in counting millions
of ballots made it likely that different outcomes might
result from repeated recounts, even if the counters were
scrupulously fair. Therefore, the logical outcome would
have been to put the question to the Republican-controlled
House of Representatives, not to the Supreme Court. The
House would have installed Bush in power. That would have
made plain that Bush's appointment was a political
act and left the courts untainted. It might also have recommended
to Bush greater caution and attention to the opinion of
the congressional minority than he has so far displayed.
also think that the facts as we knew them even in December
of 2000 very likely merited convening a Grand Jury to consider
the indictment of Secretary of State Katherine Harris and
Division of Elections head Clay Roberts for their role in
the selective purges of African Americans. A searching investigation
of violations of the Voting Rights Act, especially in Escambia
and Duval counties was also merited. As judges reviewing
civil actions in the Martin and Seminole Counties said,
criminal indictments of the County Clerks those counties,
as well as indictments of local Republican officials were
also indicated. We additionally now have reason to suspect
that members of the military may have knowingly submitted
illegal ballots after Election Day. We deserve to know whether
they were put up to it by commanding officers. Through those
investigations, the question of whether there had been systematic
electoral fraud would have been explored. The press, no
matter how well-meaning it may be, has just made a hash
of it. Serious investigations should be done by the courts
and under oath.
Get over it! Move on!
sorry: no, not ever. If the man serving as president was
not elected, then no legislation signed by him, no nominee
presented by him for public office, no Executive Order signed
by him, no war started by him is legal. The American Republic
is dead while he holds office and nothing short of uprooting
every one of his works will serve as reparation for the
wrong done to the American people.
many Democrats seem to think that all they need to do is
win an election or so to set things right. They could not
be more wrong. One cannot put a lie at the heart of governance
without incurring serious damage. In the historical precedent,
the Tilden-Hayes election of 1876, the Republicans illegally
maintained power by cutting a deal to end Reconstruction.
The consequence was generations of racial apartheid
and injustice. We cannot afford the same.
a pen name is an indication of moral turpitude.
get a good laugh out of academics who complain about my
use of a pen name, saying that somehow that's evidence I
don't stand behind my work. Ann Landers, Mark Twain, Stephen
King, O. Henry - these are all pen names.[13.1]
Some of them were taken to preserve privacy, others to improve
marketability. Lewis Carroll is the pen name Charles Dodgson
used to separate his mathematics work from his children's
literature. Indeed, many female professionals write under
their maiden names. For my part, I joke that using a pen
name ensures that all the hate mail gets to its e-mail address
sorted by topic. I've kept this e-mail address active over
many years specifically to answer questions.
true that by using a pen name, my credentials are not on
think that's a good thing. It means that people must judge
the work right on its merits and not because of my social
position or the degrees I hold.
certainly not ashamed of my credentials. Indeed, in corresponding
with about 30 academics, including professors Rebecca Mercuri,
Allan Lichtman, Henry Brady, Douglas Jones, and Pamela Karlan,
I wrote under my given name and sent them Bush's
as my work. But the academic credentials of those who
rely on academic credentials to reach judgments about
the accuracy of work are fig leaves over a deficit of talent.
am a direct lineal descendant of one of the leaders of the
first American colonies. When sensible people were
Tories, my ancestors were fighting them in the Revolutionary
War. When sensible people were pro-slavery, my ancestors
were Abolitionists. When sensible people thought
women should be denied the vote, my ancestors were marching
for suffrage. When sensible people wrote to Dr. Martin
Luther King in Birmingham jail saying that justice could
wait, my ancestors said, "No, justice can wait no longer."
Doctors and clergymen, jurists and congressmen, financiers
and lawyers, scholars and soldiers, they served their country
by speaking truth to power.
sensible people think we should "move on"
from Election 2000 (and 2004).
am not one of them.
think that preservation of government "of the people,
by the people, and for the people" is a challenge for
our generation no less worthy than the Revolutionary War,
Abolition, Suffrage, or Civil Rights. This is the historical
moment when the American people say, "We are free people
with a right to choose our own leaders."
. . . who are you?
which side are you on?
Jimmy. "Still Seeking Florida Fair Vote."
Cook County News-Herald, September 30, 2004.
Holland, Steve. "Clinton Says Republicans Won By
Stopping the Vote." Associated
"Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio?",
January 5, 2005.
Renata. "Irreparable Harm." The New Republic,
July 30, 2001.
Savage, David G. "Court Scrutinized for Supreme
Intervention." Los Angeles Times, August
Lancaster, John. "Report: Recount Vote Left
Wounds in Some."
Washington Post, September 10, 2001.
Branch, and Manny Garcia. "Suarez Adviser Investigated
in Vote Buying." Miami Herald, February
Weaver, Jay. "Suarez Lawyer Denied in Court."
South Florida Sun-Sentinel, February 10, 1998.
Mayor Sues Miami Herald Over Depiction As Unstable."
Associated Press, September 25, 1999.
and Peter Whoriskey. "Major Parties Prepare for
Absentee Legal Fight. Democrats May Challenge."
Miami Herald, November 9, 2000.
LaPeter, Lenora and Kelly Ryan. "When Is Helping
Voters Too Much?" St. Petersburg Times,
December 18, 2000.
Palast, Gregory. "Florida’s Flawed 'Voter-Cleansing'
Program." Salon Magazine, December 4, 2000.
Cupples, Deborah. "Speaking Out: Citizen
Involvement Could Have Prevented Disenfranchisement."
Gainesville Sun, June 30, 2001.
Deborah. "Florida's Pre-election Voter-roll Purging: Threats to Voting rights.", September/October 2001.
Jake. "The Woman Under Fire." Salon Magazine,
November 13, 2000.
Serrano, Richard. "Absentee Vote Did It for Bush."
Los Angeles Times, July 15, 2001.
Roy, Roger and David Damron. "New System Fumbles
Votes." Orlando Sentinel, May 6, 2001.
Damron, David and Roger Roy. "Mangled Ballots Resurrected."
Orlando Sentinel, May 7, 2001.
U.S. Commission On Civil Rights. Voting Irregularities
in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election
with associated Appendix,
Holland, Jessie J. "Justice Department to File
Lawsuits Against Florida for 2000 Vote." Salon
Magazine/Associated Press, May 21, 2002.
Gold, Scott. "A County’s Back-Room Goings-On Bring
Los Angeles Times, November 28, 2000.
Moss, Michael. "Martin County. New Instance of
Absentee Irregularity Is Charged." New York
Times, November 29, 2000.
Milbank, Dana. "Republican County Decides Recount
Doesn’t Count." Washington Post, November
Reinhard, Beth and Susan Ferrechio. "Republicans
Demonstrate in Two Counties; Lieberman Accuses GOP of
Intimidation." Miami Herald, November 25,
Kulish, Nicholas and Jim VandeHei. "GOP Protest
in Miami-Dade Is a Well-Organized Event." Wall
Street Journal, November 27, 2000.
Padgett, Tim. "Mob Scene in Miami." Time
Magazine, November 26, 2000.
Babcock, Alex. "Feeney Implicated in Vote Fraud."
Seminole Chronicle, December 16, 2004.
Barstow, David and Don Van Natta, Jr. "How Bush
Took Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote."
New York Times, July 15, 2001.
Boehlert, Eric. "Bending the Rules Boosted Bush
Salon Magazine, December 11, 2000.
Chivers, C. J. "House Republicans Pressed Pentagon
for E-mail Addresses of Sailors." New York Times,
July 15, 2001.
Barstow, David and Somini Sengupta. "The Florida
Legislature: Jeb Bush Is Said to Be Willing to Sign
Bill Ensuring Republican Victory in Florida."
New York Times, November 28, 2000.
Amie K. "4 Escambia Commissioners Face Felonies,
Misdemeanors." Pensacola News Journal, May
"Ex-Florida Senate President Loses Appeal."
October 8, 2004.
Cooper, Richard. "A Different Florida Vote - in
Hindsight." Los Angeles Times, December
Toobin, Jeffrey. Too Close to Call, 2001 (Random
House, New York), pp. 149-159, pp. 164-8.
Bridges, Tyler. "Bush Worker Contacted State Worker
About Legal Opinion." Miami Herald, November
Dickenson, Molly. "Burning the Village in Order
to Save It", TomPaine.com, November 18, 2000.
Canedy, Dana. "Official Defends Her Conduct in
the Vote Counting in Florida." New York Times,
July 17, 2001.
"Harris' 'Firewall' Is Falling Apart." Pensacola
News-Journal, August 10, 2001.
"The Imaginary Firewall." St. Petersburg
Times, August 9, 2001.
Clark, Lesley and Tina Cummings. "Democrats Pressure
Harris to Quit Post." Miami Herald, August
David. "Data Permanently Erased From Florida Computers."
New York Times, August 8, 2001.
Ash, Jim. "Harris Voting Mix-up Unnoticed for Months."
Palm Beach Post, August 9, 2001.
Squires, Chase. "He Cast His Ballot in Pasco But
Admits That He Was Not Living in the County During the
November Election." St. Petersburg Times,
August 23, 2001.
Reynolds, Mark. "If Able to, Gore Campaign Wants
Recount of Duval county." Florida Times-Union,
November 12, 2000.
Lila. "Herald Sues to Review Duval Ballots."
February 2, 2001.
Long, Phil. "Herald Gains Access to Duval Ballots."
Miami Herald, February 28, 2001.
Adler, Renata. "Irreparable Harm." The
New Republic, July 30, 2001.
Savage, David G. "Court Scrutinized for Supreme
Los Angeles Times, August 26, 2001.
Lancaster, John. "Report: Recount Vote Left Wounds
Washington Post, September 10, 2001.
Lauer, Nancy Cook. "Capitol
Corner: GOP's 'Stealth' Amendment. Is It Valid?"
Tallahassee Democrat, August 31, 2001.
Scraps Flawed Felon Voting List." New York Times
/ Associated Press, July 10, 2004.
Carter, Jimmy. "Still Seeking Florida Fair Vote."
Cook County News-Herald, September 30, 2004.
S. Rep. Scarborough Leaves Congress Quietly." Associated
on Okaloosapolitics.com, December 16, 2001.
Keating, Dan. "Post Study Finds That Marks Tended
to Follow a Pattern Along Party Lines." Washington
Post, November 12, 2001.
Laughlin, Meg and David Kidwell. "Florida Newspaper
Finds No Evidence of Election Fraud." Seattle
Times, November 28, 2004.
Meg and David Kidwell. "Florida Newspaper Finds
No Evidence of Election Fraud." Seattle Times,
November 28, 2004.
Weaver, Jay. "Law: Check 'Defective' Ballots."
Miami Herald, April 4, 2001.
Isikoff, Michael. "New Documents Raise Questions
About News Media’s Findings On the 2000 Presidential
Election." Newsweek, November 19, 2001.
and Data: The Butterfly Ballot Episode." Henry
Michael. C. Herron, Walter R. Mebane, Jr., Jasjeet Singh
Sekhon, Kenneth W. Shotts, and Jonathan Wand. PSOnline
(Political Science and Politics), March 2001.
U.S. Commission On Civil Rights. Voting Irregularities
in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election
with associated Appendix,
Engelhardt, Joel. "Chad Theories Continue to Pile
Up." Palm Beach Post, December 31, 2001.
Fessenden, Ford and John M. Broder. "Study of Disputed
Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding
Vote." New York Times, November 12, 2001.
Isikoff, Michael. "New Documents Raise Questions
About News Media’s Findings On the 2000 Presidential
Election." Newsweek, November 19, 2001.
"Did Networks Discourage Voters." CBS News, November 16, 2000.
Burns, Robert. "Overseas Balloting Deemed Efficient.
Associated Press, June 22, 2001.
Vigliucci, Andres. "Ballot Design Caused Most Spoiled
Votes." Miami Herald, November 7, 2001.
Gomes, Lee. "Just How Tough Are Chads?" reprinted
from The Wall Street Journal in South Coast
Today, November 26, 2000.
Hiassen, Scott, Gary Kane,
and Elliott Jaspin. "Felon Purge Sacrificed Innocent
Voters." Palm Beach Post, May 27, 2001.
Ludwig, Harriet M. "Purging System Gets a (No)
Vote." Gainesville Sun, June 10, 2001.
Palast, Gregory. "The Wrong Way to Fix the Vote."
The Washington Post, May 10, 2001.
Palast, Gregory. "Vanishing Votes." The
Nation, May 17, 2004.
Arthur, Lisa, Geoff Dougherty,
and William Yardley. "452 Felons Cast Votes Illegally
in Broward." Miami Herald, January 19, 2001.
"Hundreds of Felons Cast Illegal Votes in Florida."
Associated Press/LA Times, December 2, 2000.
"Fraud Is a Fact." Florida Times-Union,
June 1, 2001.
Posner, Gerald. "The Fallacy of Nixon’s Graceful
Exit." Salon Magazine,
November 10, 2000.
Greenberg, David. "The Legend of Nixon’s 1960 Loss."
>, November 7, 2000.
Deborah. "Double Dipping At the Polls." New
York Post, June 14, 2002.
Cooper, Richard T. "A Different Florida Vote -
Los Angeles Times, December 24, 2000.
Lidwell, David and Joseph Tanfani. "Faulty Part
May Have Voided Ballots." Miami Herald,
November 12, 2001.
© 2005 Oliver T. Dawshed. All Rights Reserved.
Permissions for reproduction or extensive quotation may
be obtained from