Johnson declared winner in SD by Fox

Fox News | 11//5/02

[pabianice]

Wins by 800 votes.

[JasonC]

Jackpot. I don't have the comparison to previous results, but I did notice the following immediately. There is an enourmously strong correlation between % vote to Johnson and lower turnout percentage. In fact, if you multiply through the % to Johnson and the % turnout, you get a nearly constant 0.4. But Shannon, Todd, and Dewey show a greatly suppressed turnout and a greatly suppressed Thune vote, compared to the other reservation counties.

Imagine there are spoiled Thune votes in those three counties in the amounts of 1800, 900, and 600 respectively. Then Thune vote would be running approximately 0.3 of registered, Johnson vote 0.4 of registered, and turnout relatively constant at 0.7 of registered - right at the statewide average figure. That matches the performance on the other reservations, with minor statistical dispersion, just as you would expect.

The likely fraud signature, therefore, is pro-Thune ballots not counted (or spoiled) in Shannon, Todd, and Dewey counties. The amounts might be around 1500, 1000, 500 or around 25% of votes cast, and together would make up enough to eliminate the margin of 2800 that Thune possessed early in the reporting.

That is the spot the statistics suggest should be put under a microscope, and the method to look for is not double voting or votes by non-existent people, but non-recording or spoiling of pro-Thune votes in reservation areas where precinct workers consider such votes "incorrect".

Now, a potential statistical confirmation of the thesis is past turnout and vote split behavior, D vs. R, in those three counties. It is less the credible on its face that Johnson just happened to get his highest % of the vote in the lowest % turnout Indian areas, always getting 0.4 of the vote, while Thune got dramatically less than the 0.3 of reservation votes he pulled elsewhere, in exactly the lowest turnout reservation areas.

[MP5SD]

Even a blind squirrel can find his nuts :)

[FryingPan101]

"I will not reward a man I regard as morally reprehensible with my support for public office" -- Who in the heck are you?

[JasonC]

Well, now I am not so sure. Looking at 1998 party registration totals, the Thule vote in these counties does look low - particularly Shannon - but not enough to fit the previous picture. Registered republicans are thin on the ground in these counties, enough so that one would not expect e.g. a few thousand extra Thule votes in them. Maybe a few hundred.

[goldstategop]

Yup. The GOP should play hardball and go ahead and seat John Thune in January. There's a credible case to be made he won the election but for vote fraud and so is the state's legitimate Senator. And at least the GOP will be abiding by the letter of the law whereas in contrast the Democrats broke every rule in the book to help Frank Lautenberg. Its time to show the Democrats we aren't pushovers. Thune should be seated and next time the Democrats won't resort to electoral chicanery to win.

[JasonC]

I don't think that is quite the way to proceed. We should investigate fraud and insist on recounting. But bulling ahead without fraud evidence is a recipe for backlash, not success.

[fporretto]

Who am I? No one. No one at all. Just an American citizen, who has the absolute right to allocate his political support where and when he chooses, and the responsibility for living with the consequences. Are you suggesting that I should subordinate my moral judgment to yours? Who are you, that your whining about your preferred candidates' defeat and carping about minority parties and non-voters should take precedence over my judgment? If someone, or a lot of someones, were to tell you that you'd done wrong by supporting a Republican, would you pull in your horns and slink quietly away, or would you assert your absolute right to control your franchise as your conscience dictates, wihich is no more and no less than what I've done?

Grow up and stop trying to dictate others' choices. Making your own is hard enough.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[TeleStraightShooter]

Nice Analysis

The Libertarian candidate received > 0.35% in every county {usally around 0.5 - 1.0%}
Except:
0.20% - Shannon
0.25% - Clay
0.34% - Todd

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

[FryingPan101]

" should subordinate my moral judgment to yours? "

Nobody suggested that. However, you spew the need for moral judgements and then give an excuse for not taking responsibility for voting. Not voting is for cowards. Protest voting is foolish. After reading your venom, I went on two Lib sites and was astounded at the protest language. I used to subscribe to REASON magazine for five years. It was brilliant and lined up with many of my beliefs. Something has obviously changed in your movement. It's hate-filled, judgemental, emotional, and not inclusive and sounds like the junk coming out of the DU. This dialog is fruitless. I wasn't attempting to convince you. I was simply giving an opinion, but you not only didn't convince me...you alienated me to all your future opinions. You are not reasonable.

[FryingPan101]

There are hundreds of these articles in newspapers all over the country. This one regards the Governor's race in Oregon. The Libertarian candidate himself said he cost the Republican the race even though they had the same message. Asked about the impact of Cox's Libertarian campaign, which drew more than 50,000 votes to his anti-tax and limited government message, Mannix said, "If he hadn't been in this race, I would have won." The threat of future Libertarian candidates drawing votes away from Republicans will have to be confronted, Mannix said. Throughout the campaign, Cox dismissed the notion that he was a spoiler for Mannix's candidacy. On Wednesday afternoon, when Kulongoski led by a few thousand votes, he said he may have cost Mannix the election after all.

[fporretto]

These "spoiler" arguments are baseless and irrelevant to the larger question of how one selects a candidate for whom to vote.

"Spoiler" logic and "wasted vote" notions dominate the arguments against votes for a minor party (or not voting). Obviously, those who go ahead and do so anyway don't share those opinions; they regard their votes as being the only fit expression of their own opinions. Why does some onus rest on them to conform to a larger group? Why doesn't the larger group have an onus to conform to them? Sheer size? Is being right or wrong a matter of how large a gang you have assembled behind you?

Now, as to practical matters:

Asked about the impact of Cox's Libertarian campaign, which drew more than 50,000 votes to his anti-tax and limited government message, Mannix said, "If he hadn't been in this race, I would have won." The threat of future Libertarian candidates drawing votes away from Republicans will have to be confronted, Mannix said.

This is precisely why minor parties are an asset to the political spectrum. It is the strongest argument in favor of vigorous participation by these can't-win candidates, whether you like them or not: the threat of losing votes to them will impel the major-party candidates to take the issues they champion seriously, and to clarify their positions on them.

I am sick and tired of hearing people castigated for voting their consciences, as if their vote was something they owed to a major party candidate for being "the lesser of two evils." If that's made me more strident than you like, my apologies. My opinions stand. Whether you like them or think them "reasonable" is of no moment.

I suggest you give more consideration to the moral issues behind the employment of the electoral franchise. Political authority, all the way down to the authority of the individual vote, is force. One who wields force without due regard for moral considerations is a negligent hazard to others at best, a villain at worst. I'm sure you vote your conscience. Allow others the same privilege.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[copycat]

Can you imagine how nuts we would be about this if it was 49-49 right now?

[FryingPan101]

I'm still not getting the goal.