No, not in a row. It's roughly 400 perfect votes in a division, 59 times. There are over 1000 divisions, obviously not all divisions are 100% Obama country. But undoubtedly 100's of them are. So 59 perfect scores out of at least a few hundred tests.
As I said above, the best explanation is gatekeeping where the voter who "might need help" gets some help pressing the right button. A perfect 400 out of 400 is possible without gatekeeping but gatekeeping would make it almost certain.
Other than that, the voting machine is ridiculously easy, there is a large square that turns into a check mark next to Obama. The error rate is going to be very low although I need to look for some academic papers on how low.
And if I get your point, the “gatekeeper” is assigning the vote and in turn committing the fraud? That’s where the process is being influenced by a special cause because common cause variation has to be part of anything we all do and people do and will make errors. Even exceptionally well trained pros, not Philly voters, make errors and they have many elements refined for their success.
I agree that these might be the most Dem precincts but that still assumes that 5% or so are totally defect free and thru over 19000 attempts there are perfect results? Seems like a fairy significant probability that something other than the Philly folk was present to ensure such a level of perfection.
I wouldn’t bother with the academic stuff looking back, instead how about we start checking the stats to see how normal; this is against a larger sample size from this election? How often does this occur, and to what level of confidence?
That would actually be informative for myself and others and really allow us to generate some real data about where voter fraud may or may not be occurring as far as statistical probabilities goes.