“Voting machines are being manipulated,” charges Kansas statistician

Somebody tell Nate Silver—who seems to think that NEVER happens in the
USA (and won’t even discuss it).


By Brad Friedman

Whether statistician Beth Clarkson, PhD, head of Wichita University’s National Institute for Aviation Research, is ultimately proven correct, today’s must-listen, in-depth interview with her on The BradCast should remind us all, once again, why neither election officials nor voting systems are simply to be trusted.

Without the ability to carry out public oversight, democracy vanishes. That’s what’s happening right now in the state of Kansas, where Sec. of State Kris Kobach is attempting to block Clarkson’s legal attempt to audit touch-screen voting system “paper trails” in Sedgwick County (Wichita), the state’s most populous county.


1 reply on ““Voting machines are being manipulated,” charges Kansas statistician”

Questions have been raised as to whether the number of elections analyzed is sufficient to draw conclusions. Given that approximately 20 million votes in 13 elections have been analyzed, the results are statistically significant. The analysis is confirmed by other forensic methods (True Vote Model, exit polls) for competitive and non-competitive races.

The analysis of cumulative vote shares (CVS) has revealed a consistent pattern. It is a well-known fact that Democrats are the majority in highly populated urban locations; the largest precincts are usually Democratic. Republicans are heavily represented in rural areas. But in scores of state elections there has been an increase in cumulative Republican vote shares in larger precincts. This anomaly has been noted by PhDs in Kansas and Vanderbilt University.

The basic premise is that Republican increase in cumulative precinct vote shares is counter-intuitive since the Democrats do much better in urban and suburban counties than in rural areas where the GOP is dominant. Precincts in Urban areas contain more voters than rural areas.

Since the GOP gains share in Democratic locations in virtually all of the competitive elections analyzed, it is highly suggestive evidence that Democratic precincts are where the majority of votes are stolen. In competitive elections, the correlation between county/precinct vote-size and the change in Democratic vote share is negative; Democrats lose share as county/precinct size increase. On the other hand, in non-competitive races, the statistical correlation is close to zero; there is virtually no relationship.

The numerical evidence in each election is clear.
1- In the 15 largest counties, Republican vote share increases from the 25% mark to the final.
2- In the other smaller counties, there is virtually no change in vote share from the 25% mark.
3- In counties where the Democrats led at the 25% mark, their vote share declined significantly.

This post links to CVS blog posts and related spreadsheets:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.