[WL-law]

Here's the excerpt from the Judd Wanninski letter you mentioned:

"In Philadelphia, I understand, the numbers are laughable. The population is less than 1.3 million and there are 1 million registered voters, which implies there are almost no children and all the adults are civic-minded. The turnout was 70% on November 7, with some black precincts reporting 100% turnout and 99% for you, and you carried the city by 300,000 votes!! That's roughly 500,000 to 200,000. The explanation I get from Republicans who live there is that there are so few Republicans in the black community that all the precinct workers are Democrats, which makes it easy for voting "irregularities" to appear. I've spoken to a few black political leaders I know who tell me they are not surprised, that "irregularities" may occur whenever one party is so concentrated in an election district. It's hard for them to argue with these numbers."

[WL-law]

So -- the letter claims that the voting was 100% for Bush, not that 100% of the registered voters voted, -- although the % of participating voters does seem unnaturally high as well.

[BohDaThone]

"In Philadelphia, I understand, the numbers are laughable. The population is less than 1.3 million and there are 1 million registered voters, which implies there are almost no children and all the adults are civic-minded. The turnout was 70% on November 7,"

Thanks for finding the Wanniski quote. Here's the problem. He says:

Population under 1300K

Registration of 1000K

Turnout Over 70% of registration.

If you go to census and SecState figures, you find that, instead, as of 2000,

Population 1518K
Registration 1025K
Turnout 442K Gore + 99K Bush + Minor = Turnout a bit over 50%

So, he's just way off. I've looked at the indivudal ward figures, and the few wards that got into the mid-60s in turnout were mostly the better-off white wards.