Undervotes yet more evidence to 4th ward voter fraud
This article is an analysis of the under vote oddities in the fourth ward special election by former Hoboken resident and Planning Board alternate David Denning. He departed Hoboken just this morning with his wife Mary for Paris, France.
An analysis of undervotes in the recent election
An undervote occurs when a candidate or issue receives fewer votes than possible total votes. Throughout Hoboken the undervote on the congressional race averaged 3% in the 32 voting districts outside the Fourth ward. The number of voters who made no choice in the congressional race was consistently between 1-7% except for the 3-2 with a high of 9.1%. On average, there was a small drop in votes for the Sheriff’s race, 6% fewer than for Congress, and a much larger drop in votes on the public question, 46% fewer votes than Congress.
In the Fourth the council race apparently causes a difference in undervoting. While the drop in votes between the congressional and Sheriff’s race and the public question is consistent with the rest of Hoboken, the council race appears to be the most important race leading to higher levels of undervoting in all these races. The council race is undervoted in 4-1 and 4-2 by 10% and 3.4% and the 4-3 and 4-4 have similar rates of 9.6 and 7.7%. In 4-1 and the 4-2 the congressional undervotes of 14.9% and 12.1% are larger than any district outside the fourth. This is, perhaps, the expected result of an intense council race taking precedence over the congressional race. The big difference in undervotes is in the congressional race. In 4-3 the undervote is 30% and it is a whopping 50.4% undervote in the 4-4. This makes the voting behavior of the 4-3 and 4-4 very different than their Fourth ward neighbors and Hoboken at large. This jump in undervoting accounts for at least 140 more votes, for the council race, than if they’d follow the voting pattern for 4-1 and 4-2.
Residents in 4-3 and 4-4 must have been strongly motivated to vote exclusively in the Fourth ward council race such that a third of 4-3 and half of 4-4 did not bother to vote in the congressional or Sheriff’s race. What motivated them?
Confusion due to ‘noise on the ballot’ isn’t likely. The council race was in the middle position, if anything the council race’s position away from the top left corner hurt it.
A better argument is that the residents of 4-3 and 4-4 were so offended by the Lenz campaign’s incredible charges of voter fraud that they came out in force to vote against him. However in every other area in Hoboken, nearly all people who voted in the headline congressional race also voted for Sheriff. In the Fourth, where the Council race was presumably the headline race, it seems silly to make the trip to the polling location without one additional button press for Congress.
It is my belief that money made the difference. The special election for Fourth ward councilman gave us a unique opportunity to see that something was very wrong in by showing what wasn’t there. Normally there are no other issues are at stake in a municipal election, a bought vote produces no impression in the voting record. The missing votes for Congress are like the shadow of a knife in a horror movie. There was no vote for Congress because a cellphone photo of a correct council race vote was all that was needed to get paid. Occhipinti won an unbelievable 93% of the vote in the 4-4 which had over 50% undervote on the congressional race. The 4-4 is also entirely in the Housing Authority and it is where Occhipinti got the majority of his paid ‘workers.’ In the 4-3, which also contains part of the Housing Authority went to Tim by 63%. I am looking forward to Tim’s ELECs. There I expect to see over 100 last minute election workers, who didn’t vote by mail. This should provide yet more evidence of vote buying and manipulation assuming these ‘workers’ weren’t paid cash.
Total vote Council% Congress% Sheriff% Council
Undervote Undervote Undervote Total Lenz TO
4-1 462 10.0 14.9 16.2 416 223 193
4-2 651 3.4 12.1 19.5 629 445 184
4-3 303 9.6 30.0 30.7 274 102 172
4-4 339 7.7 53.4 60.8 313 21 292