| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Data AnalysesThere has been alot of effort put in to understanding the final canvass from the 2004 General Election held in November. New Mexico allows access to an amazing amount of detailed information, providing precinct level detail in their canvass. This information, combined with precinct level demographic data and voting machine usage uncovers some interesting anomalies that beg an explanation. This information comes from the Secretary of State via Stephen Fettig with Verified Voting New Mexico1) For Dona Ana county, Precinct 106, Absentee Ballots, the canvassing report gives the following information from pages 10 and 12:
Steve Fresquez at the Secretary of State's office says there was not time to count the overseas absentee ballots for the military into precincts, so the votes were just put in Precinct 106. That's why there are no presidential absentee votes in precinct 999, but there are 207 signatures. Thus, it seems this problem was a big clerical mis-handling (error?) forced by the lack of time given to county clerks to complete their vote reporting to the Secretary of State. 2) For the Grant County, Precinct 019, Election Day, the canvassing report gives the following information:
Steve Fresquez at the Secretary of State's office says this is a typographic error. The Bush vote was really 49, not 149. He didn't think the error would ever be officially corrected. CONCLUSION. Statistical Analysis of Voting Results
Please shareIf you have done any analysis on the election that you are willing to share, please email us. Don't forget to include your name and the group, if appropriate, that you are working with. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2004, United Voters of New Mexico -- Email: info@UVoteNM.org |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||