Do these Cleveland precinct results look right to you?

[Andrew]

This isn't voter error.

It's machine error, programming error, or fraud.

[Andrew]

hahaha . . . yes, how dare those figures be accurate!  There MUST be fraud here somewhere.

Or maybe those communities actually like the third party candidates better?  Nah . . . impossible.  How dare someone vote a third party candidate!

HAHAHA

In 2000, precinct 4F had four votes for the Constitution Party candidate.  Precinct 4N had one vote for the Libertarian.  Those communities do not actually like third-party candidates:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/boe/results/history/2000/110700_GE_Canvass.txt

For the record, I did not say there must be fraud here.  Fraud was one of three options I suggested.

[Andrew]

That's some great research, jimrtex.

It points out another of many problems in our voting system.

It's true that you need multiple things to happen in order to run into this problem, but it's also true that none of these things are unusual.

[Andrew]

It occurs to me that it's probably more likely that the machines were set up before they were placed around the room, and that some improperly set-up machines were in the wrong places (rather than people going to the wrong places to vote).  That's just a guess, though.

It could be a schmuck who didn't think about what he was doing, or a worker who wasn't told by his supervisor that the machines were different, or someone trying to cause votes to be shifted from Kerry (in these strongly democratic precincts, Kerry was the only candidate who stood to lose significant votes).

[Andrew]

Does anyone else think it's ironic that if you go to the wrong precinct, they will give you a provisional ballot that will later be disallowed, but . . .

They will put multiple precincts in one building, so that voters can vote in the wrong precinct under official supervision, screwing up the results?