Skip to main content

Here is another in my occasional series of critiques of bad election fraud arguments. I realize that some people consider it counterproductive to criticize bad election fraud arguments for fear of trivializing real problems. I wish that these people were equally concerned that making bad election fraud arguments will trivialize real problems.

Today I consider the "Connally anomaly": the fact that in 2004, C. Ellen Connally, Democratic candidate for chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, received more votes than John Kerry in 12 of Ohio's 88 counties -- although Kerry received hundreds of thousands more votes than Connally statewide. The Conyers report, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Rolling Stone article on the 2004 election, and Richard Hayes Phillips' book Witness to a Crime all cite this result as suggesting fraud. Recently, Stephen Spoonamore has speculated that Republican IT expert Mike Connell is somehow implicated in the Connally anomaly. The problem is that the Connally anomaly isn't actually anomalous.

According to the Conyers report of January 2005, these results "appear to run counter to the established principle that downballot party candidates receive far less [sic] votes than the presidential candidate of the same party" (page 54, footnote 238). In Butler County, where Connally received over 59,000 votes and Kerry just over 54,000, the report commented, "It appears implausible that 5,000 voters waited in line to cast votes for an underfunded Democratic Supreme Court candidate and then declined to cast a vote for the most well-funded Democratic Presidential campaign in history" (page 55). Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. summarizes the case this way:

When the ballots were counted, Kerry should have drawn far more votes than Connally -- a liberal black judge who supports gay rights and campaigned on a shoestring budget. And that's exactly what happened statewide: Kerry tallied 667,000 more votes for president than Connally did for chief justice, outpolling her by a margin of thirty-two percent. Yet in these twelve off-the-radar counties, Connally somehow managed to outperform the best-funded Democrat in history, thumping Kerry by a grand total of 19,621 votes -- a margin of ten percent....

Kucinich, a veteran of elections in the state, puts it even more bluntly. "Down-ticket candidates shouldn't outperform presidential candidates like that," he says. "That just doesn't happen. The question is: Where did the votes for Kerry go?"

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?"

Actually, that just does happen. In 2000, Democratic judicial candidate Alice Resnick received more votes than Al Gore in 81 of Ohio's 88 counties. Granted, this election was unusual in that Resnick actually received more votes than Gore statewide. But even fellow Democratic judicial candidate Timothy Black, who trailed Gore by over 300,000 votes statewide, received more votes in 40 counties. In 1996, when the Democratic judicial candidates were uncompetitive (one lost by 17 points, the other by 32), one Republican judicial candidate received more votes than Bob Dole in 81 counties, and the other in 58 counties. In 2004, not only did every Democratic judicial candidate receive more votes than Kerry in at least 3 counties, but every Republican judicial candidate received more votes than Bush in at least 4 counties. In short, it is absolutely routine in Ohio for down-ticket candidates to outperform presidential candidates in at least some counties.

The counties where Connally received more votes than Kerry were among the most Republican counties in the state. This is not surprising. Judicial races are non-partisan on the ballot in Ohio, so many people who turned out to vote in the presidential race would have had no idea that Connally was Democratic, never mind "a liberal black judge who supports gay rights." The more Bush voters in a county, the more of them were likely to vote for Connally essentially by mistake. (Similarly, many Kerry voters voted for Connally's opponent, Thomas Moyer. In Cuyahoga County, Connally ran 7 points behind Kerry although it was her home county.)

Phillips offers a plausible -- but inadequate -- argument that the "Connally anomaly" counties are anomalous anyway. Phillips notes that Connally's vote share in these 12 counties is close to her vote share in the other counties won by Bush, but Kerry's vote share is about 11 points lower. So, are these 12 counties indistinguishable from the other "Bush counties" except for the 2004 presidential race? Actually not. In 2000, Al Gore did about 7 points worse in the "Connally anomaly" counties than the others. In 2002, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tim Hagan also did about 7 points worse in these counties. And in 2008, the Democratic share of the primary vote was about 6 points lower.

Someone may be saying, "Aha! That 11-point gap for Kerry is larger than the other three gaps!" Yes, it is, but we would expect that given how the "Connally anomaly" counties were selected in the first place. By definition, these are the counties where Kerry did worst compared with Connally -- so it isn't surprising that Kerry also did somewhat worse than Gore or Hagan. However, if one simply plots Kerry vote share against Connally vote share, these counties don't especially stand out. (The one county that does stand out is Erie, where Kerry won but Connally got only about 34% of the vote.) Nor do they stand out if one plots Kerry vote share against Gore vote share.

None of this is to vouch for the accuracy of the vote counts or the fairness of election administration in all (or any of) these counties. Other evidence can and should be considered point by point. But as for the Connally anomaly itself, well, it doesn't exist.

Originally posted to HudsonValleyMark on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:05 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tips, bricks, questions... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    regis, alexnovo, Void Indigo, Dragon5616

    I look forward to some diaries on things that actually did go wrong, but first I want to diarize about the theory that a bunch of House seats were stolen in 2006. Any other requests?

  •  I don't buy it! (3+ / 0-)

    it doesn't make sense that someone would stand in line for hours and then vote for a Judge and not vote in the Presidential election. Doesn't pass the smell test.

    My middle name is Hussein!

    by regis on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:09:25 AM PDT

  •  Mike Connell's YAF crew stole student elections (0+ / 0-)

    The material over at ePluribus Media is good research.
    Hell, yes.  This crew has been stealing elections and pulling black bag jobs since Nixon.

    My greatest fear is that the current crime syndicate in power will attempt something extraordinary to retain power.  We are already in a state of Constitutional crisis.
    A coup attempt would be fully in character.

    "I can't be part of a famous hippie commune. I have a career to think about" - Candy Crowley, 1973

    by MadCityRag on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:29:31 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for a thoughtful, well-researched (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HudsonValleyMark, alexnovo

    diary. As you say, there may have been voter fraud in Ohio in 2004, but we need to be careful not to buy every theory proposed just because it seems intuitively sensible.

    I'd rather know the facts before I start pulling out what little hair I have left.

    "It's no wonder more people call themselves Democrats; it's easy to identify with a party that identifies with you." --srmjjg

    by Dragon5616 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:44:47 AM PDT

    •  thanks, and excuse a semantic quibble... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Halcyon, Dragon5616

      "Voter fraud" generally refers to fraud on the part of voters -- people voting who aren't eligible, or voting multiple times. If you're speaking more generally, "election fraud" is probably the best phrase.

      The rigging of the recount (which was successfully prosecuted in Cuyahoga County but also occurred elsewhere) probably counts as election fraud, although I don't know whether that phrase has any particular meaning under Ohio law. I also don't know if the rigging of the recount had any real effect on the outcome. Some of SoS Blackwell's actions may not have met a legal standard of fraud, but it sure looked like partisan abuse of power. The machine allocation in Franklin County -- not sure how that went down the way it did. And so on. There's plenty of work to be done. I think we should pick our spots.

  •  HudsonValleyMark (0+ / 0-)

    Is nothing but a shill for Diebold.  All he does is create pseudo arguments against any and every  one who finds anything wrong with the current election system.   I don't have time to address these points now but be very critical before you accept anything he says.

    eschew obfuscation

    by jimG on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM PDT

    •  evidence? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alexnovo, Dragon5616

      To call me a "shill for Diebold" without the slightest pretext is, well, unimpressive.

      Tell us, "jimG," how many of the Connally anomaly counties used Diebold equipment?

    •  Personal attacks without supporting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HudsonValleyMark, alexnovo

      evidence are discouraged.

      I did look over HVM's history. He is definitely a contrarian, but he writes reasonably and uses sources and data to support his views.

      Personally, I don't mind a little skepticism. Instead of personal attacks, why don't you present your case? I would be interested in reading it as I don't necessarily accept that HVM has a monopoly on accuracy either.

      "It's no wonder more people call themselves Democrats; it's easy to identify with a party that identifies with you." --srmjjg

      by Dragon5616 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:50:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Sometimes voters pick candidates in one race but leave the others blank.

    But honestly I am glad that you're posting these messages. The problem with me is that, whenever a Democrat loses a close election, the same group of people comes out and screams "stolen election". And those folks basically damage the credibility of anyone trying to improve the election process since it makes it easier for the voting machine companies to paint those critics as "sore losers" or "conspiracy theorists".

    •  this mostly isn't about undervotes, but certainly (0+ / 0-)

      One of the reasons it is at least surprising for a judicial candidate to receive more votes than a  presidential candidate of the same party is that fewer votes are cast in the judicial races -- about 14% to 25% fewer in the elections I discuss here. (I've always called this "dropoff.") So Kucinich's statement seems like it ought to be true.

      The reason it isn't true is that the voting patterns in the judicial race are less polarized by party, so Connally tended to run ahead of Kerry percentage-wise in more Republican counties even though she ran behind him overall. Where her percentage advantage outweighed the "dropoff" -- voila, the "Connally anomaly." (I make this point in the diary, but without even mentioning dropoff; I was trying to keep things simple.)

      Yes, I think that some people have a track record of crying theft. But setting that aside, I just think reality-testing is a good idea.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site