Saddam only got %100 turnout when he was "elected"

They spun this the same week....

Casper Star Tribune story

kind regards.
tracy

ps... THANKS. On this Thanksgiving I'm definitely giving thanks that the
entire US hasn't gone completely insane, and that there may be a way to
expose this at the least, as an invalid election. Thanks for your
commentary, your dedication, and your perseverance. Happy Thanksgiving.

Thank you Tracy. For both the link, and the very kind words...Have a great and safe holiday.

At first reading this sounds really juicy but looking closer I'm afraid you have misunderstood the data presented. While I'm not a real statistician or a whiz at math I don't think it takes more than a bit of analysis and a few simple percentage calculations to confirm the mathematical accuracy and logic of their data. While I could have this wrong, I think that the problem is caused by confusion of the terms used and unfamiliarity with the reporting methods rather than any type of fraud, as I will explain below.

They are talking about two distinct categories of voter, i.e., eligible voters and registered voters, which I take to mean respectively all those who have the right to vote merely for being living residents over 18 and all those with that right who actually did in fact register. Those are two different categories useful in analyzing election data and which can easily get confused, mainly because in America, unlike in Europe, one can be eligible to vote but unable to do so unless one registers first. As you know, many more people are eligible to vote than actually register, and many more register than actually vote.

To give a really accurate picture of an election the data should report on all three of these groups. However, of the three, an analysis of the number of total votes in relation to the number of eligible voters is more important and gives a truer picture because it shows what percentage of the total electorate--defined as those who meet the eligibilty requirements to register regardless of whether they actually do so--voted. Looking only at the percentage of registered voters who voted gives a false picture since nearly nearly 100% of the registered voters could vote but that might still be only a small percentage of the total eligible electorate in a year with a small turnout.

If you look at the column on the far right of the Wyoming webpage, it gives the turnout of eligible voters as 65%. I understand that to mean that 65% of Wyoming residents over 18 who meet all the other eligibility requirements voted, and this seems to be a reasonable figure for this election. The way one could check the accuracy of this would be to find the exact current population of those over 18 in Wyoming who are not otherwise ineligible to register and see if the number of votes cast--reported as 242,309 on Washington Post.com--is in fact 65% of that number as Wyoming has reported on their site.

The main problem in arriving at an exact figure lies in finding the exact population figure, and the Wyoming site offers little help since it gives the census figures for 2000.

The most recent census data that I found available on a quick search was on the U.S. Census Bureau site with an estimated 2003 population of 501,242. Subtracting the 26.1% of this that they say is the percentage of residents under 18 gives an estimated total of 370,919 eligible voters. Taking 65% of that figure does in fact result in a vote total of 241,097, which is only 1,212 votes shy of the official total in this year's election. Considering the estimated nature of the population data available to me, that is practically right on the money and seems to dispel your implications of fraud through data inflation given that Bush won by over 31,000 votes.

Similarly, the figures in their left hand column--registered voters as a % of eligible voters--and their middle column--turnout of registered voters--calculate out almost exactly as given, 62% and 106% respectively. This latter figure does at first seem strange, and obviously accounts for your suspicions, but I think it is easily explainable. If Wyoming does in fact allow people to register on election day but tabulates a separate total of registered voters for the two groups, i.e., one for registerees prior to election day and one for the total turnout of registered voters on election day including the last-minute/same day registerees, Then indeed the total turnout would be higher than the number of prior registerees.

From all the above I think it is clear that if voter fraud was committed in Wyoming the figures disprove your suspicions that it was done by merely adding bogus votes. And in that case they certainly would have altered the data to hide that fact. It would have to have been done through hacking or other electronic methods but given that Wyoming is a traditional long-time Repug state, I doubt that Bush needed to steal votes there in order to get the reported 31,000 vote margin.

I forgot to point out that a misplaced decimal point has led to your assertion that "some 36% of the total electorate registered on Election Day in Wyoming" being totally wrong. With 370,919 eligible to vote in Wyoming, the 13,393 voters who registered on election day represented only 03.6% of the total electorate, something which is not at all far-fetched given the hard-fought nature of this election.

Listen, I believe that Bush stole the election once again with the connivance of the mainstream media and our elected so-called representatives, but it was in Ohio and Florida not in places like bumfuck, rightwing, Cheney-loving Wyoming where he doesn't need to steal votes because they would vote for him no matter what. Flying off the handle and claiming voter fraud in places like that based on faulty math just clouds the issue and obscures the case for the real fraud.

I'm puzzled. Here in Minnesota (the "Civic State")we have been proud to report that we had the highest voter turnout in the nation --- again. Our voter turnout was over 77%. We have a long way to go to overtake 106%. How did the statisticians overlook Wyoming?

I'm puzzled. Here in Minnesota (the "Civic State")we have been proud to report that we had the highest voter turnout in the nation --- again. Our voter turnout was over 77%. We have a long way to go to overtake 106%. How did the statisticians overlook Wyoming?

Thanks to the Electoral College and the distortions that the EC brings to all presidential elections, an individual vote in Wyoming is worth approximately 2.4 votes in North Carolina. The South had incredible political clout from 1789 to 1860 because of the way slaves were counted as being "represented" in the U.S. government. That abuse was stopped with emancipation, but we continue to be stuck with a system that rewards sparsely populated states and states that have a low voter turnout. And you thought that the Ukraine has problems? Duh!

Tracy, your last comment points out the sad fact that due to the conflicting, confusing, and bureaucratically complex registration requirements U.S. citizens must fulfill, which vary from state to state, and which can be used to prevent citizens from voting, universal sufferage does not in fact exist in America. In a true democracy voting is a right granted automatically to all citizens for the mere fact that they are citizens, not a privilege awarded to those who are able to overcome the obstacles inherent in meeting complex registration requirements which often are in place expressly to disenfranchise segments of the population. As a result the USA is not a real democracy (although surprisingly red-neck Wyoming by allowing same-day registration seems to be closer to the ideal than the rest of the country) and this is most clearly apparent in the outcomes of the last two so-called elections.

I think it is instructive to compare voting in the U.S. with the voting systems in most European countries to see the truth of my assertion. In Spain for example, voting is an automatic right granted to all citizens and as such there is no necessity nor obligation to register in order to vote. For the mere fact of one's nationality, Spaniards are automatically listed on the voting rolls in the precinct corresponding to the address where they are currently censused and merely have to present themselves on the day of the election in order to vote. Ballots are mailed well in advance to all citizens so that if they are unable to go to the polling place they can vote absentee. Doing so does not, as in the U.S. require one to make a prior application.

I might add that elections are always held on a Sunday, which being a holiday avoids conflicts with work and thus allows everyone a greater opportunity to vote. Balloting is done manually, not electronically, and the system is uniform throughout the country. The handling and tabulation of votes is similarly above suspicion because it is carried out in an open, highly scrutinized manner with a variety of controls in place to eliminate the possibility of fraud.

I'm not trying to say that other types of political corruption or voter disenchantment with the system and politicians doesn't exist in Spain or elsewhere in Europe, because it is impossible for any country to be free of those ills, but at least the voting process is totally democratic and corruption-free.

The U.S. needs to get off it's high horse and follow the model of "old Europe" because democracy is much more viable and alive here than in the Banana Republic of America.

Interesting how Wyoming one can register and vote the same day, but here in Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell did everything in his power to *Limit* registrations --- where, just a few weeks before the election (end of september) he decided that paperstock for absentee ballots had to be a certain weight (his reasoning on Tavis Smiley was that 10 yrs ago many ballots got destroyed in the mail...) --- this was dropped because of public pressure. He also changed provisional ballot law at the last minute, making things quite confusing --- and of course, we had the machine disparity, too...

Thanks for the statistical analysis. It's still damn weird.

A *very* quick response to a couple of points made in Miguel's earlier comments above:

"Flying off the handle and claiming voter fraud in places like that based on faulty math just clouds the issue and obscures the case for the real fraud."

For a start, I believe I neither flew off the handle nor claimed voter fraud in this case. I simply supplied the interesting information as to allow others to make of it what they will. At the very least, I believe it adds to the case that the MSM ought to be looking into these various "anomalies".

As to my quick math, I was using Ohio's large registered voter turnout (appx. 70%) as a baseline for Wyoming. Assuming that they had as high a registered voter turnout (those registered *prior* to election day) as did Ohio. That's a generous assumption, mind you, since I can't imagine interest in the election would be as vigorous in WY as it was in OH this year.

So after that (best-case-scenario) 70% of registered-prior-to-election-day voters showed up in WY, that would mean that day-of registrants would have been some 38% of the final total of voters on Election Day in WY.

To me, that seems a very high percentage. Perhaps it's perfectly normal and not-fishy-at-all. If so, I'd love some real reporters to do some checking and report on either the regularities or irregularities found.

Lastly, losing the popular vote in 2000 clearly had stuck in the craw of BushCo over the last four years, and the need to receive a *majority* of the *popular* vote this year was clearly a top priority.

Were I hoping to achieve same, and were I interested in goosing the numbers to do so, I'd not have dumped a bunch of "votes" in Ohio and Florida, but rather, dumped enough votes in Ohio and Florida to take those states, and then added votes to other states much less likely to be checked for accuracy in order to achieve a popular vote margin large enough that I could then declare a "Broad national majority". As they did.

After all, a few thousand extra votes in WY? Who would bother to notice --- or care about --- that?

As always...just putting the ideas out there. Make of them what you will.

It's an open and shut case:

Anything with a 'W' in it benefits from inflation; you get way more credit than you should.

Does that mean Washington state's Mt. Ranier is really 5 miles higher than the map records?

You betcha.

Let's all move there by 2008, and we can PROVE that 1000% of us vote.

I can't believe the media hasn't picked up on the voting irregularities yet! There are sooo many! I can't believe people don't get it! I would like to know exactly who REALLY won this election!!!

In addition to Miguel's comments above which contend that America isn't a democracy, I would like to point out that secret balloting is a pillar of democracy which has been undermined in America. People who are engaged in voter registration should be prohibited from asking the registrant any questions about political affiliation. Yet, on the forms presented as evidence of registration fraud in Nevada recently, there were checkboxes for political affiliation.

I thought that only "registered" voters could vote. I thought that it didn't matter if you was "eligible", you HAD TO BE REGISTERED. If they let "eligible" voters vote that wasn't "registered", than that's voter fraud.

What If . .

What if the United States voters took to the streets to object to a fraudulent election as they did in the Ukraine?

Where are our leaders?

Are we proud of this country? What a total joke!...I tell my kids to recite "one nation under fraud" during the pledge. This is no longer a democracy. Is anyone looking into the names and addresses of the supposed 106% of registered voters who voted in Wyoming? Did they vote on the other ballot initiatives and candidates? I find this all impossible to believe. I'm in dipsh*t redstate Nevada and we were deluged with political adds and come ons to vote. We didn't come close to 75%. IT IS TIME TO CHANGE THIS COUNTRY. WHERE ARE OUR LEADERS?

Just to clear something up, I used the registered voters to do my math, not eligible. I used the same math Wyoming used, and I came to the same conclusions they did.

And in 2001, when they had 101% turnout, they didn't let people register on the day of voting. So there.

I call bullshit in Wyoming, and I just called bullshit in Wisconsin. See my site for details.

~A!

First, same day voter registration was allowed in 2000 and 2002. (There were no statewide elections in 2001.)

Wyoming allows same day voter registration meaning that an unregistered person who is eligible to vote can register at their polling place on election day. As a result, more people cast votes than were registered prior to election day. Additionally, Wyoming purges from its list of registered voters each person who does not cast a ballot in the previous general election. This has the effect of significantly decreasing the number of inactive voters. The overall result is that voter tunrnout (as a percentage of voters registered prior to election day) exceeds 100%.

In my experience, most of the groups that use Wyoming's turnout percentage to make claims of election fraud are misinterpreting the data to reach an inaccurate and misleading conclusion. These groups generally fail to account for same day voter registrations which necessarily raises the turnout percentage above 100%. These groups also fail to acknowledge that this is not isolated to one election, but rather indicative of all recent elections in the state where same day registration has been allowed and voter lists have been purged in the manner described above.