http://www.invisibleida.com/New_Hampshire.htm

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As of November 5, 2004 @ 7:30 a.m. EST

INTRODUCTION:

This study was completed using actual voter totals from the New Hampshire Presidential Elections of 2000 and 2004 from the New Hampshire Secretary of State website (http://www.sos.nh.gov/) as of Thursday, November 4, 2004 a.m.

New Hampshire was chosen for the study due to the relatively small sample size, as well as the allegations that “voter exit polls” were “wrong” in numbers varying between 5% and 15%.

METHOD:

All third party candidate vote totals were lumped together by precinct.

“Rochester” precinct totals were lumped together due to an increase in number of wards from five (5) in 2000 to six (6) in 2004.

SUMMARY:

VOTER TURNOUT: Voter turnout INCREASED on average 19.3% from 567,805 in the 2000 presidential election to 677,563 in the 2004 election. Only five (5) precincts (1.7%) did NOT show an increase in voter turnout, accounting for a mere 9,122 (1.3%) of the total 2004 votes, which is NOT statistically relevant.

CONCLUSION: Anecdotal reported INCREASED voter turnout occurred.

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES: Actual votes cast for third party candidates DECREASED from 27,898 in 2000 (an overall 5% of all votes cast) to 5,930 (an overall 1% of all votes cast). Only five precincts showed an “increase” in actual votes cast, but since this was ten (10) in 2000 and twenty-four (24) in 2004, the amount is NOT statistically relevant.

CONCLUSION: With an INCREASED number of voters actually voting in DECREASING numbers for third party candidates, the third party candidate vote was NOT a relevant factor in the 2004 election.

VOTER TREND: When analyzing the “Bush/Gore” difference versus “Bush/Kerry” numbers, and taking into account exit polls that show a 5% to 15% lead for Kerry, the expected trend would be for an INCREASED PERCENTAGE of votes for Kerry. This trend holds true 229 out of 300 times (76%), with 71 instances (24%) where the precinct does NOT follow trend.

CONCLUSION: 76% of precincts follow expected trend; some variance is to be expected, and requires a closer look at sub-groupings to determine cause.

VOTER SUB-GROUP SIZE ANALYSIS: Precincts were subdivided by 2004 vote totals into seven (7) groupings, with the following results:

Vote Size
Total Precincts
Non Trend
% Non Trend

A
Under 200
19
3
16%

B
201 - 500
30
1
3%

C
501 - 1,000
43
6
14%

D
1,001 - 2,000
77
11
14%

E
2,001 - 5,000
109
39
36%

F
5,001 - 10,000
15
6
40%

G
Over 10,000
7
5
71%

(G)
Over 10,000
6
5
83%


Total
300
71
24%

(G) represents the ACTUAL precincts with total votes Over 10,000 by subtracting the “Rochester (All)” precincts, which were lumped together as explained above.

The INCREASE in Non-Trend precincts in Category E (36%), Category F (40%) and Category G (71%/83%) implies that voters in small and rural precincts in New Hampshire are MORE LIBERAL than their “big city” counterparts which is contrary to anecdotal evidence and recognized nationwide trends. Coincidentally, the increase appears to occur in areas where “more sophisticated” means of vote counting are employed.

CONCLUSION: These numbers are NOT within a reasonable margin of error, and further investigation is required.

VOTE COUNTING METHODS: Three main vote counting methods are used by the state of New Hampshire as reported on the Secretary of State's website as of January, 2004: ACCUVOTE, OPTECH, and "PBHC" - Paper Ballots, Hand Counted.

PBHC are used in approximately 50% (149) of all precincts, but the smaller size of the precincts means this method is responsible for only 21% (142,234) of the overall votes counted. PBHC account for 27% (19) of the "out of trend" precincts, but comprise only 8% (20,192) of potentially affected votes.

OPTECH is used in approximately 8% (25) of all precincts, and accounts for 12% (82,094) of all votes counted. The 8 "out of trend" precincts are 11% of the total affected precincts, and only 14% (35,839) of the potentially affected votes. There should be some concern for the equipment in Category E, which has a 42% "out of trend" precinct rate. The 50% ranking for both Categories F and G may simply be a statistical anomaly due to the small sample size.

ACCUVOTE is currently used only 42% of the time (in 126 precincts), but accounts for 67% or 453,235 of all votes counted. This method has the highest rate of "out of trend" precincts: 44 precincts, or 62% of the total "out of trend" precincts use this method of vote counting; of more concern is the fact that, due to the larger size of the precincts involved, this represents 78% of all votes in affected "out of trend" precincts, for a whopping 200,269 potentially miscalculated votes -- nearly 30% of all votes cast in the 2004 presidential election in the state of New Hampshire.

CONCLUSION: ACCUVOTE appears to be the #1 vote counting method used for "out of trend" precincts.

See http://www.invisibleida.com/New_Hampshire.htm for viewable charts and details.

RECOMMENDATION:

At a minimum, a MANUAL (hand) re-count where paper trails are available in a sampling of each category where Non-Trending occurs is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. No vote total should be accepted by any candidate without this basic verification of RAW DATA versus REPORTED DATA, as “assigned votes” appear to be inconsistent with projected voting patterns.

http://www.invisibleida.com/New_Hampshire.htm