Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

South Dakota Suspicions
The National Review ^ | 11-07-02 | Byron York

Posted on 11/07/2002 8:23:41 AM PST by jwalburg

The very last precincts to be counted killed the hopes of GOP Senate candidate John Thune. Was something funny going on?

oday a team of Republican election experts is in South Dakota, looking into the circumstances of Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson's extraordinarily narrow, last-minute victory over Republican candidate John Thune.

While it is certainly possible that there were no significant irregularities involved in the voting, some Republicans are puzzled by the way the vote-counting unfolded. Early Wednesday morning, with 99.65 percent of South Dakota's precincts reporting, Thune held a narrow lead over Johnson. It was only when the last three precincts (out of a total of 844) were counted that Johnson finally edged ahead. What has made some Republicans suspicious is that those final precincts were located in a southwestern county that was in the news for allegations of voting fraud in the weeks leading up to the election.

MINUTE BY MINUTE For most of Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, the election returns looked promising for Thune. At 1:32 A.M. EST on Wednesday, an Associated Press report showed Thune had 134,904 votes to Johnson's 132,648 with 648, or 77 percent, of the state's precincts reporting. At 2.47 A.M., the AP issued another report, this one showing Thune with 153,952 votes to Johnson's 149,789, with 736, or 87 percent, of precincts reporting — a lead of more than 4,000 votes.

At 3:41 A.M., Thune was up 158,331 to 154,602, with 776, or 92 percent, of precincts reporting.

At some point after that, Thune's lead began to shrink. By 6:38 A.M., with 838, or 99.3 percent, of the state's 844 precincts reporting, Thune led Johnson by 166,588 to 165,639 votes. It was close, but Thune was still in the lead by nearly 1,000 votes with just six precincts left to count.

Then the lead narrowed dramatically. By 8:28 A.M., Thune had 166,747 votes to Johnson's 166,559, with 841, or 99.65 percent, of the 844 precincts reporting. Thune was up by just 188 votes with three precincts left to count.

Those last precincts killed Thune's chances to win. At 9:21 A.M., with 843 of 844 precincts reporting, Thune trailed Johnson, 166,707 to 167,252.

Finally, at 10:22 A.M., the last precinct was counted and reported. Thune trailed Johnson 166,954 to 167,481 — a margin of 527 votes. Johnson claimed victory.

It was a stunning finish to a race that was clearly tight but appeared for much of the night to be in Thune's hands. Somewhere in the last five precincts, Thune's Senate hopes disappeared.

QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES The vote counting has attracted the attention of Republicans because the precincts that defeated Thune — the ones that were counted last — were in Shannon County, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The county has been the target of intensive get-out-the-vote efforts by Democrats and has reported the largest gain in registrations, 17 percent, of any county in the state. In recent weeks, federal and local authorities have been investigating allegations of fraudulent voting practices related to some of those new voters (along with some in other counties around the state).

In mid-October, the Shannon County auditor said one in ten of the county's new registrations was under investigation for possible irregularities. On October 20, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reported that, "Auditors in 10 counties, all but one adjoining a reservation, have forwarded questionable registration forms or absentee ballot requests to the sheriff or state's attorney for investigation. Of the nearly 400 questionable documents discovered by the auditors, 338 came from Shannon and Pennington counties, where the two investigations into possible voter fraud are under way."

Shannon County went heavily for Johnson — out of 3,118 votes cast, 2,856, or about 92 percent, went to Johnson, while 248 went to Thune (a third-party candidate received 14 votes). That percentage, in itself, might not be particularly unusual; Native Americans in South Dakota vote heavily Democratic, and Johnson is popular with Native Americans. But one thing that has aroused Republican curiosity is the significant increase in the number of votes cast in Shannon County since the last mid-term election, in 1998, in which Sen. Tom Daschle won reelection.

In 1998, there were just 1,559 votes cast in Shannon (that is precisely half the votes cast this year — a statistical nicety that might signify nothing, but might still catch Republican eyes). Of the 1998 total, 1,228 went to Daschle and 239 went to Republican Ron Schmidt (a third-party candidate won 92 votes).

What some Republicans find interesting about the numbers is that the popular Daschle, who won in a landslide statewide, won just 79 percent of the votes in Shannon County — significantly less than Johnson won this year — while Schmidt, who lost by a huge margin in 1998, received about the same number of votes that the well-known Thune received this year. Even though the total number of voters in Shannon County has gone up dramatically, it appears that virtually none of them chose Thune.

The situation might be completely attributable to get-out-the-vote efforts; 17,000 new voters were signed up statewide in recent months, and Democrats were particularly aggressive in Shannon County and on the state's other Indian reservations. But Republicans signed up new voters, too, and now they want to have a look at the county's voting patterns.

Finally, the GOP wants to know more about the timing of the Shannon County returns. Although nothing is set in stone, some observers say it is not usually the pattern in statewide elections for Shannon County returns to be the last counted. Given the fact that the county provided Johnson's winning margin, and given the earlier allegations of corruption, Republicans want to know why Shannon was so late this time.

WHAT TO DO? At this moment, the South Dakota secretary of state's office is finishing its official canvass of the election. That process in effect rechecks everyone's math and comes up with a final vote total for all the races. It is not designed to uncover voter irregularities.

According to state law, Thune is entitled to ask for a recount. On Wednesday, he released a carefully worded statement that suggested he might choose to do so. "If there is a change in the numbers or evidence of irregularities after the official election canvass, I will look at pursuing the next step in the process, which is a formal recount," Thune said:

However, I do not wish to put the people of South Dakota through this process unless it is absolutely necessary. Therefore, if there is no change in the vote totals or any irregularities after the official canvass, we will pursue no further action and the results will stand...No one would be happier than I to see those numbers change as the process continues. However, if the numbers stand, I am prepared to accept the outcome and know that my supporters and all those who have stood with me during this process will accept the outcome as well.

Speaking publicly later on Wednesday, Thune seemed inclined to let the matter drop after the canvass. At this point, it is simply not clear whether he will ask for a recount or take any other action.

Republicans want to be careful in the course they choose. They have already won the Senate, and they do not want to embroil the party in a long, acrimonious fight over a contest that will not affect the balance of power in Washington. In addition, they do not want to embark on a Democratic-style legal battle if there is no solid evidence of fraud. But at this point, they want to know what happened. The circumstances of Johnson's last-minute comeback look a little odd, and Republicans want to learn the story behind the numbers.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: South Dakota
KEYWORDS: election; johnson; senate; southdakota; thune; voterfraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

1 posted on 11/07/2002 8:23:41 AM PST by jwalburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jwalburg; mr.sarcastic; Pippin; Hail Caesar; Marylander; hellinahandcart; KLT; Angelwood; ...
Can you say Glendening vs Sauerbrey? I knew you could.
2 posted on 11/07/2002 8:27:16 AM PST by sauropod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
So the Democrats hold out a few precincts to see how many votes they need to manufacture. Big deal. Just another stolen election. That's the only way they can win now. Nothing to see here. Move along.
3 posted on 11/07/2002 8:30:03 AM PST by Arkie2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg; AmishDude; aristeides
Even though the total number of voters in Shannon County has gone up dramatically, it appears that virtually none of them chose Thune.

Well written and researched article.

4 posted on 11/07/2002 8:30:04 AM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
Has Thune conceded?
5 posted on 11/07/2002 8:34:11 AM PST by Reelect President Dubya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
BUMP
6 posted on 11/07/2002 8:34:18 AM PST by RippleFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
However, I do not wish to put the people of South Dakota through this process unless it is absolutely necessary. Therefore, if there is no change in the vote totals or any irregularities after the official canvass, we will pursue no further action and the results will stand...No one would be happier than I to see those numbers change as the process continues. However, if the numbers stand, I am prepared to accept the outcome and know that my supporters and all those who have stood with me during this process will accept the outcome as well.

If Al Gore had taken this approach in 2000, the Democrats might not have lost the Senate this year, and Jeb! may have had a tougher time to win his second term. But when Al Gore declared war against the Republicans in 2000, the parameters in the equation changed.

If the Senate leadership hung in the balance, Thune's approach might need to be different. But, with things the way they are, the Republicans could lose more by fighting than by accepting the results, unless, of course, irregularities can be conclusively proven.

7 posted on 11/07/2002 8:36:17 AM PST by Real Cynic No More
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
No matter "that it will not affect the balance of power in Washington," voter fraud must be pursued and prosecuted with implacable vigor. There was voter fraud in Shannon County. Republicans must stand against it as forcefully as they did the Democrats' attempt to steal Florida in 2000 with "hanging chads."
8 posted on 11/07/2002 8:37:16 AM PST by Whilom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
I wonder if Trent Lott is going to put the kabosh on any effort to rectify this situation like he did in Louisiana when Landru illegally snatched the Senate seat from the Republican. She "won" because the riverboat gambling interests played with the loose slots in the ballot boxes.
9 posted on 11/07/2002 8:38:46 AM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Sounds like Baltimore in '94, when the last precincts counted in the city happened to have 100% turnout, all of which went to the Dems, and many of which only had a vote for in the governor's race... with the rest of the ballot untouched.

Nothing suspicious here... move along.

10 posted on 11/07/2002 8:39:09 AM PST by mr.sarcastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reelect President Dubya
No. According to the Washington Times he will wait for the recount results then decide what to do.
11 posted on 11/07/2002 8:39:25 AM PST by rvoitier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Reelect President Dubya
Technically, NO.
12 posted on 11/07/2002 8:40:41 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Whilom
You are right. Voter fraud should be treated like Treason. Generations of Democrats have treated it like an indoor sport.
13 posted on 11/07/2002 8:41:45 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
Velly intelesting...there is something rotten in Shannon county...

Look at Thune's totals in the last precincts:

1) 166,558 (838 of 844)

2) 166,747 (841 of 844), an increase of 189

3) 166,707 (843 of 844) - a DECREASE of 40!!!

4) 166,954 (844 of 844) - an increase of 247

Someone needs to ask some questions here. There could have been some corrections made in previous precinct tallies that resulted in a decrease of 40 votes from 841 to 843 precincts tallied. There could also have been fraud.

IMO, the registration lists (signatures on the registrations) and voting records (signatures at the polls) should be carefully compared in Shannon county, before the count is certified by the state.
14 posted on 11/07/2002 8:44:10 AM PST by RandyRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
Definately a Rat involved in the numbers. The FBI has already found some fraud.

The big question is, will they find enough and reverse the results?

Based on history,...............NO. (even if they do find enough)

15 posted on 11/07/2002 8:45:41 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
If we don't go in and fight this tooth and nail, we deserve to LOSE the Senate again.
16 posted on 11/07/2002 8:45:52 AM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
Hello Mr. Ashcroft! Whatever Thune does, it is time to sic the FBI on voter fraud in SD. Let's string up some exemplars as a warning. If an FBI probe and prosecutions show enough fraud to have swung the election, political punishment (recall?) can follow.
17 posted on 11/07/2002 8:48:09 AM PST by Uncle Miltie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
He doesn't mention the apparent fact that every man and woman in the county, save approximately two, are registered to vote.

This blatant fraud MUST be prosecuted, or our entire system of government is a sham.

18 posted on 11/07/2002 8:53:59 AM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
I wonder if Trent Lott is going to put the kabosh on any effort to rectify this situation ... You mean the Lottless that bowed at sinkEmperor's feet and tossed the House memebers out when impeachment reach the Senate? Need you ask? Lott is thoroughly blackmailable, as evidenced in his 'leadership' on crucial issues, just as Newt was with the Dornan defrauding by Sanchez henchfolk. Time for 'Trent' to go!
19 posted on 11/07/2002 8:58:46 AM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More
If the Senate leadership hung in the balance...

It does. Can you say John McCain and Lincoln Chafee?

20 posted on 11/07/2002 9:01:59 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All
Interesting piece...

Officials: Ballots only altered to make them readable
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SIOUX FALLS - It is not uncommon for election workers to make duplicate ballots if the original cannot be read by machines, said elections supervisor and Secretary of State-elect Chris Nelson.

His comments came amid reports that election workers in Shannon County darkened marks on ballots because voters wrote too lightly in Tuesday's election.

But Nelson said there is a procedure for dealing with cases where ballots were not adequately marked by voters. In such cases, a resolution board creates a duplicate ballot that was marked the same way as the original, but done in a way that it can be scanned by machines, Nelson said.

Nelson said he did not know specifically what happened in Shannon County, but it would only be a problem if workers were not making duplicate ballots.

''If they were darkening the marks on existing ballots and not making a duplicate, that's greatly troublesome,'' he said. ''We want to preserve that original in the exact fashion that the voter marked it so if there's any question ... it can be reviewed.''

Renee Dross, election clerk for Fall River County, which handles elections for Shannon County, said there was nothing unusual about what election workers did and that duplicate ballots were made. Such cases come up in all elections, she said.

''It really wasn't a big deal,'' Dross said.

from: http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/4459206.htm
21 posted on 11/07/2002 9:04:18 AM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

Can you say Sanchez and Dornan? Or Landrieu and Foster? How many of these fradulent elections are we going to put up with just to look like good sports? It devalues honest votes everywhere.
22 posted on 11/07/2002 9:04:28 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
Let's string up some exemplars as a warning.

Amen!

23 posted on 11/07/2002 9:04:40 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg; kevao
This is an execellently researched article - thanks for posting it. I wonder if Bon Homme County is near Shannon and the area suspected of fraud. Did you see this thread yesterday?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/783850/posts

Here's the gist of it:

I read in an earlier thread that, as of the March 2002 primaries, Bon Homme County had some 2,200 registered republicans and some 1,900 registered democrats. CNN shows that Johnson received 1,858 votes (nearly 100% dem turnout) versus Thune's 144 votes (only 7% republican turnout). How could the republican turnout be so low? Just a 50% republican turnout would have put Thune way over the top.


24 posted on 11/07/2002 9:06:27 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Hey, that's supposed to say excellent!
25 posted on 11/07/2002 9:09:15 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
GLendening vs. Saurbray!

lIKE THAT?

26 posted on 11/07/2002 9:12:37 AM PST by Pippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rvoitier
Every absentee ballot should be traced to a LIVE VOTER WHO VOTED THIS ELECTION. then declare a winner.
27 posted on 11/07/2002 9:15:03 AM PST by Uncle George
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
He doesn't mention the apparent fact that every man and woman in the county, save approximately two, are registered to vote. This blatant fraud MUST be prosecuted, or our entire system of government is a sham.

I agree that Shannon County merits investigation, but given that the county has a 2001 census estimated population of 12,783 it is certainly not impossible that 3,118 people voted.

We don't want to look like Sore-Loserman 2000 by going off half-cocked on this. It should be done professionally and without shrillness, especially since there is a special election in Louisiana on Dec. 7th that the Republicans will likely win if they can avoid turning off the middle with such tactics.

In short, let the investigation proceed, and perhaps we'll see the Dems hang themselves on this. (I'm about to post a related article if it isn't here already.)

28 posted on 11/07/2002 9:15:05 AM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
While Shannon and Bon Homme counties are both on the sourthern border of S. Dakota, Shannon is near the western edge, while Bon Homme is near the eastern edge. Also, while Bon Homme is 95.5% white, Shannon is 94.2% American Indian.

(see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/46/46009.html)

29 posted on 11/07/2002 9:18:46 AM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
you should send this analysis to Byron York and to 'info@johnthune.com'
30 posted on 11/07/2002 9:19:53 AM PST by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
PS - Americans will not be turned off by a request for a recount in such a close race, particularly given Thunes' gracious stance thus far and the prior reports of fraud. SERIOUSLY - the margin here is so small as to be reversed by simple recount alone. The further potential for excluding fraud could make a change in margin significant.
31 posted on 11/07/2002 9:21:45 AM PST by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
as of the March 2002 primaries, Bon Homme County had some 2,200 registered republicans and some 1,900 registered democrats. CNN shows that Johnson received 1,858 votes (nearly 100% dem turnout) versus Thune's 144 votes (only 7% republican turnout). How could the republican turnout be so low?

CNN has a typo. See the official site at:

http://www.state.sd.us/sos/results/allraces.shtml

Thune had 1,444 votes, not 144 in Bon Homme County

32 posted on 11/07/2002 9:25:10 AM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RandyRep
Someone needs to ask some questions here.

I agree with you 100%. And in Kalifornia too.

Someone with a bigger shovel might work on the cr@p done there.

33 posted on 11/07/2002 9:27:01 AM PST by Taiwan Bocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
Bump
34 posted on 11/07/2002 9:31:19 AM PST by sissyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: da_toolman
PING


...for great justice
35 posted on 11/07/2002 9:31:40 AM PST by jdogbearhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
We don't want to look like Sore-Loserman 2000 by going off half-cocked on this. It should be done professionally and without shrillness, especially since there is a special election in Louisiana on Dec. 7th that the Republicans will likely win if they can avoid turning off the middle with such tactics.

I agree, and I hope and pray that is the way we all can proceed on this. So far, it appears that is the approach Thune and the Republicans (and the media so far) are taking.

36 posted on 11/07/2002 9:34:29 AM PST by AFPhys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
McCain isn't going anywhere.
37 posted on 11/07/2002 9:35:20 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.
Americans will not be turned off by a request for a recount in such a close race

I agree, go for the almost-automatic recount -- as long as it's done in a low-key, routine manner. But even apart from raising the fraud issue (a major double-edged sword) sounding too much like you're haunted by a "grievance" when going for a recount is apt to injure one's future prospects (e.g., B-1 Bob Dornan, if I remember correctly, as well as Sore Loserman).

38 posted on 11/07/2002 9:43:04 AM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
The constitution guarantees every state (and by implication its citizens who comprise the state) a "republican" form of government. This means at minimum fair elections untarnished by blatant fraud. The fourteenth amendment guarantees "equal protection" of the laws. Allowing or facilitating election fraud certainly violates this provision since the truly elected candidate may be fraudulently denied office.

While I do not like the Florida example of using the courts to try to overturn elections I don't know where else a citizen can go to get a hearing and redress when they belileve their votes are being cancelled by fraud. It seems to me that legal voters in S. Dakota who suspect fraud would therefore have standing to sue the corrupt election or party officials who knowingly participated in a fraudulent election. If there is evidense of fraud, I would hope that thousands of S. Dakota citizens (not the political parties or the candidate but the actual citizens!) would file a class action suit demanding immediate action to investigate and correct the vote. It would be refreshing for honest citizens who just want a fair election to use the courts and the laws to protect their civil rights for a change!

39 posted on 11/07/2002 9:44:30 AM PST by politeia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkie2
Precisely what happened in Milwaukee in the Presidential election (Bush "lost" Wisconsin by 5,000 votes---easy to manufacture in Milwaukee's precincts)

Precisely what most likely happened this year in Wisconsin's Attorney General race, where the Dim won, pulling MORE VOTES than the Dim Governor nominee--and many suspect that votes from 3 counties (Sheboygan, Milwaukee(?) and EauClaire) were, ah, tainted.

40 posted on 11/07/2002 9:47:36 AM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
They should look into it, but quietly.
41 posted on 11/07/2002 9:47:53 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.
The reason this stuff happens the way it does, is because it is timed to happen in the dead of night, while everyone is sleeping. I stayed up watching the returns come in for the Talent v. Demonrat in Missouri. Talent had a 80,000 or so vote lead coming down the home stretch and the next time the numbers came in he suddenly had only a 35,000 vote lead.
Then it was down to 25,000 then down 16,000 until things turned around and I believe he may have won by 30,000 votes or so. It was a nail biter. Votes should not be held back like that in a normal situation, but apparently it is done that way so the dims can figure out how many fraud votes they need in order to pull of the win.
42 posted on 11/07/2002 9:48:45 AM PST by truth defector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Thank you for identifying Lott as one of the problems.

Wonder what IS in those FBI files now kept at Hillary's mansion???
43 posted on 11/07/2002 9:51:15 AM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman
It would certainly be a big deal if they did -both-...
44 posted on 11/07/2002 9:55:43 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
This be nice stuff is nonsense.


We need to widen our majority. We already had Chafee saying last night that making the tax permanent was 'extreme'. Give me a break.

I do not want to be blackmailed. Gore looked stupid because he wanted selective recounting after THREE recounts.


He wanted to keep the fraud votes and toss the military ones.

No equivalence. Sorry.

If we dont defend our base in SD we will lose the Gov and two SEnators for a LONG time.
45 posted on 11/07/2002 9:56:08 AM PST by fooman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
It is surprising to an outsider, not from the state, certainly. The turnout % is lowest on the Indian reservations, and the Dem % of vote is highest in the same places. If you look at registrations by party, there does not seem to be any great suppression of potential Thune votes - maybe a few hundred, but not more than that (There were only around 500 voters in the Republican primary, e.g.). The Dem vote is around 85% of active registered Dems.

I would want to check how "clean" the voter rolls are. It is possible there is just a lot of apathy among the Indians there, with some committed Dems but many apolitical. It is also possible there is a lot of "padding" in the registrations, in the form of leftovers still on the rolls. The country certainly stands out as anamolous in the state, but that may reflect genuinely different political behavior by county residents.

It merits a look, but not wild accusations...

46 posted on 11/07/2002 10:06:03 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
Shannon County, 1998 Senate:
1559 votes cast
1228 Dem candidate {78.8%}
0239 Rep candidate {15.3%}
0092 3rd candidates {5.90%}

Shannon County, 2002 Senate:
3118 votes cast
2856 Dem candidate {91.6%}
0248 Rep candidate {7.95%}
0014 3rd candidates {0.45%}

Shannon County, 2002 vs 1998:
1559 more votes were cast {exactly 2 times more}
+ 1628 Dem candidate {132% increase}
+ 9 ..... Rep candidate {3% increase}
- 78 .... 3rd candidates {84% DECREASE, the war paty must have chased them off the reservation!}

47 posted on 11/07/2002 10:06:04 AM PST by TeleStraightShooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandyRep
Sorry if you've seen this before.

The 1990 Census says that there are 5462 voting age people. 94.6% of total population is "Native American".

The 2000 Census says that there are 6819 voting age people. 94.2% of total population is "Native American".

That's over 10 years. Democrat registration increased 89% while voting age population increased 24%. The raw numbers are more striking.

(Before you discount census numbers, remember that the 2000 census at least had a huge minority voting effort, emphasizing Federal giveaways and the welfare numbers on reservations generally are staggering.)

Voter registration in Shannon county, from here:

Year R registrants D registrants Other % voted
1988 679 3073 328 36%
1990 663 2936 476 27%
1992 680 3142 582 37%
1994 461 2613 514 35%
1996 623 3817 783 43%
1998 526 3731 705 31%
2000 563 3909 866 37%
2002 505 5556 929 44%

Note that the jumps in registration numbers occur during years when Johnson is running for Senate. Hmmm...

From SoS website, Shannon county results:

Year Office R D Others
1988 President 256 1206 17
US House 250 1167 N/A Tim Johnson (D)
1990 US Senate 433 579 69
US House 304 720 N/A Tim Johnson (D)
Gov./Lt. Gov. 630 430 N/A
1992 President 225 1267 159
US Senate 165 1416 52
US House 130 1373 102 Tim Johnson (D)
1994 US House 159 973 102 Tim Johnson (D)
Gov./Lt. Gov. 46 985 102
1996 President 253 1926 105
US Senate 348 1949 N/A Tim Johnson (D)
US House 364 1843 96 John Thune (R)
1998 US Senate 239 1228 92
US House 623 912 96 John Thune (R)
Gov./Lt. Gov 182 1137 99
2000 President 252 1667 34
US House 619 1285 55 John Thune (R)
2002 US Senate 248 2856 14 Tim Johnson (D)
John Thune (R)
US House 208 2857 46

By numbers alone, I'd suspect at least 800 illegal votes. Common sense says that a mid-term election for Junior Senator from a county where the returns came in late with over 1150 more votes for the Democrat than usual but the same number for the Republicans more than smells fishy. It needs tartar sauce.

48 posted on 11/07/2002 10:18:02 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Thanks Fred. I put my info on this thread, too. Maybe people are sick of seeing it by now, but it did take some effort. :)
49 posted on 11/07/2002 10:19:39 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
Do not compare the votes to registration. That's where the fraud is. Once you get the people registered, filling out an absentee ballot in their name is easy. I want to know what the absentee ballot numbers were and the SoS doesn't put that data on his website.
50 posted on 11/07/2002 10:22:11 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson