The Berkeley Study:
On November 18, 2004 a University of California, Berkeley research team headed by Professor Michael
Hout told a press conference that a study the team conducted focused on electronic machine voting in Florida. While all 67 Florida counties were reviewed, the study
shows there is a statistical anomaly in three southern counties which gave President Bush between 130,000 and 260,000 or more
extra votes. At issue were Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade counties. In Broward County alone, Mr. Bush appears to have
received 72,000 excess votes. (See study summary.)
Hout said, “We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance.”
The research team is comprised of doctoral students and faculty in the UC Berkeley sociology department.
Dr. Hout is a nationally known expert on statistical methods and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley
Survey Research Center.
Hout explained that what happened in the three counties, “was out of pattern with what occurred
in the other 64 counties in the state. For the sake of all future elections involving electronic voting—someone must
investigate and explain the statistical anomalies in Florida. We’re calling on voting officials in Florida to take action.”
According to the study President Bush received a total of 1,157,435 votes when he should have received
between 900,000 and 1,020,000. Hout said, “All I know is that the smoke alarm’s gone off, it’s up to the
Fire Department now.”
If the extra votes were simply added to Mr. Bush’s total votes, his “stuffed” ballots
would have added 130,000 votes to his tally and the county totals should reveal the additional votes by comparing the signed-in
number of voters to the actual votes. If however, 130,000 votes were taken away from Kerry and converted to the use of Bush,
then Bush’s net gain would be 260,000 votes. Bush won Florida by about 311,000 votes, so investigators would have to locate another 52,000 or more unlawful votes in the state before Kerry
could claim the presidency based on Florida's votes.
The Freeman Study:
On November 15, 2004, Dr. Steven F. Freeman, faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania,
authorized the Yurica Report to post the latest draft of his research paper, “The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy.” #4-09 (Dr. Freeman’s areas of expertise include resilience, innovation and research methods.)
In this latest draft, Dr. Freeman emphasizes that the exit polls he used were “uncorrected” polls. It is not well
known that the media change their exit poll data to conform to the actual poll numbers following the close of the polls. However,
Freeman was able to obtain a copy of the uncorrected exit polls that reflect the accurate survey of voters. This is
the reason that some research teams have not had the same results as Freeman. (Other teams, Freeman said, “used data in which the count is assumed correct to prove that the count is correct—and
then used their report to dismiss allegations that anything is awry.”
Dr. Freeman's paper focuses on the three major battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Freeman said, “The conventional wisdom going into the election was that these three critical states would likely determine
who would win the Presidential election.” He was right.
Freeman said, “Most Americans who listened to radio or surfed the Internet on Election Day this
year, sat down to watch election night coverage expecting that John Kerry had been elected President. Exit polls showed him
ahead in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins.” Freeman pointed out, “Undecided voters
broke heavily toward the challenger, and the Democratic Party, possibly better organized and more committed than ever in their
history, generated extraordinary turnout.”
It was widely reported that Karen Hughes believed that Mr. Bush was going down to a sure defeat and
informed the President of that fact. Then something happened. According to Freeman, “In key state after key state, counts
were showing very different numbers than the exit polls predicted and the differentials were all in the same direction.”
Much has been said by the media that exit polls were not intended to verify the results of an election,
but Freeman points out the unique accuracy of exit polls. He wrote, “Exit polls are surveys taken of representative
respondents from the overall voting population.” People are asked how they voted—not how they will vote.
Freeman conducts an analysis of Kerry’s votes: The likelihood of Kerry receiving only 47.1% in
Florida, given that the exit polls indicated 49.7% is less than three in one thousand. Although Kerry did carry Pennsylvania,
the likelihood of his receiving only 50.8% given that the exit polls indicated 54.1% is less than two in one thousand. Similarly
the likelihood of Kerry receiving only 48.5% in Ohio, given the exit polls indicated 52.1% is less than one in one thousand
Freeman says, “The likelihood of any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together is
on the order of one-in-a-million. The odds against all three occurring together are 250 million to one. As much as we can
say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote
counts in the three critical battleground states could have been due to chance or random error.”
Freeman concludes his study by making it clear that it is the “responsibility of the media, academia,
polling agencies, and the public to investigate.”
I suggest that it is also the responsibility of the FBI to investigate on the grounds of suspicion
that the government of the United States has been defrauded.
The Ignatzmouse Study of North Carolina:
When blogger ignatzmouse looked over the North Carolina election returns, he thought "things looked funny." They were out of sync with the exit polls for one thing and no one
could believe Erskine Bowles lost his Senate race. After downloading the precinct data, Ignatzmouse noticed that the absentee
vote, which also included the early voting data, was huge. In fact he found that the file held more than a million votes and
nearly a full third of the total vote. (30%) It offered him the chance to compare an unadulterated voting pattern against
the strange results of election day. What he found out was stunning. By using benchmark absentee data against election day
returns, a compelling case for purposeful tampering of the electronic data is made. (See below.)
Ignatzmouse discovered what Dr. Freeman observed: with essentially the same vote demographics in the
absentee votes and the poll votes, there was a sudden shift of 6.4% of the vote toward the Republican. But when he compared
his data to the Presidential race, he met sheer absurdity. By all standards of reason, the other two-thirds of the vote should
be very close to the same result, or Kerry should have been behind by 6 points. Instead there was a sudden and unexplained
plummet in the very same electorate of nine points, which more than doubled Kerry's overall margin of defeat. This meant a
15 point edge for Bush in North Carolina on election day. Read the study and data here.
The Cuyahoga County, Ohio Study:
There are 93,000 Extra Votes In Cuyahoga County.
By Teed Rockwell
November 12, 2004
You may have seen the associated press story about the precinct in Cuyahoga county that had less than
1,000 voters, and gave Bush almost 4,000 extra votes.
But that turns out to be only the tip of a very ugly iceberg. The evidence discovered by some remarkably
careful sleuthing would convince any reasonable court to invalidate the entire Ohio election.
In last Tuesday's election, 29 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, reported votes cast IN EXCESS of
the number of registered voters - at least 93,136 extra votes total. And the numbers are right there on the official Cuyahoga
County Board of Elections website:
Bay Village - 13,710 registered voters / 18,663 ballots cast
Beachwood - 9,943 registered voters / 13,939 ballots cast
Bedford - 9,942 registered voters / 14,465 ballots cast
Bedford Heights - 8,142 registered voters / 13,512 ballots cast
Brooklyn - 8,016 registered voters / 12,303 ballots cast
Brooklyn Heights - 1,144 registered voters / 1,869 ballots cast
Chagrin Falls Village - 3,557 registered voters / 4,860 ballots cast
Cuyahoga Heights - 570 registered voters / 1,382 ballots cast
Fairview Park - 13,342 registered voters / 18,472 ballots cast
Highland Hills Village - 760 registered voters / 8,822 ballots cast
Independence - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast
Mayfield Village - 2,764 registered voters / 3,145 ballots cast
Middleburg Heights - 12,173 registered voters / 14,854 ballots cast
Moreland Hills Village - 2,990 registered voters / 4,616 ballots cast
North Olmstead - 25,794 registered voters / 25,887 ballots cast
Olmstead Falls - 6,538 registered voters / 7,328 ballots cast
Pepper Pike - 5,131 registered voters / 6,479 ballots cast
Rocky River - 16,600 registered voters / 20,070 ballots cast
Solon (WD6) - 2,292 registered voters / 4,300 ballots cast
South Euclid - 16,902 registered voters / 16,917 ballots cast
Strongsville (WD3) - 7,806 registered voters / 12,108 ballots cast
University Heights - 10,072 registered voters / 11,982 ballots cast
Valley View Village - 1,787 registered voters / 3,409 ballots cast
Warrensville Heights - 10,562 registered voters / 15,039 ballots cast
Woodmere Village - 558 registered voters / 8,854 ballots cast
Bedford (CSD) - 22,777 registered voters / 27,856 ballots cast
Independence (LSD) - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast
Orange (CSD) - 11,640 registered voters / 22,931 ballots cast
Warrensville (CSD) - 12,218 registered voters / 15,822 ballots cast
The Republicans are so BUSTED.
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us//BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top ...is the official website of the Cuyahoga county election board, providing irrefutable evidence that
the vote was off by at least 93,000. Kerry lost Ohio by approximately 130,000 votes, so this is not an insignificant figure
that can be ignored, particularly when there are numerous other indications of voter fraud in Ohio and elsewhere.
I think the only possible alternative is to invalidate the entire Ohio election, if not the entire
national election. I'd say the game's up.
America, it looks pretty much like you've been had.
Sonoma State University
 Evidence, Cases and Materials, Edmund M. Morgan, John M. Maguire, and Jack B. Weinstein, Fourth
Edition, The Foundation Press, Inc. 1957, Brooklyn. At page 1.
Katherine Yurica is a news intelligence analyst. She was educated at East Los
Angeles College, the University of Southern California and the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles
County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author
of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.
Send a letter
to the editor
about this article
How You Can Help And What You Can Do
Stolen Election 2004: The Voter Rights March Synopsis of Articles
A Comprehensive Case For Voter Fraud in North Carolina
The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy by Steven F. Freeman, PhD
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright © 2004 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.