Bay 2017 Primary Elections Part 1: Interesting Numbers

I put together a spreadsheet with the Mayoral vote totals broken down by votes cast in person and the absentee ballots. Then I calculated “common size” vote shares.

BSL Democrat Primary Mayoral Vote[5.2.17]

What are the chances the absentees would so radically diverge from the in person results?

Additional background here.

42 thoughts on “Bay 2017 Primary Elections Part 1: Interesting Numbers”

  1. Nothing about the reasons for absentee voting absentee should correlate with a predilection for a vote for Les. The absentee votes should come in at pretty much the same ratio as for the personally cast votes. Unless. And, we all know unless what. But, on top of everything else we have seen, is it really that surprising? Not to anyone who has been paying attention the last eight years.

    1. Might want to take another look – if your theory were accurate, Ramsey must have sneaked in and destroyed a few absentee ballots cast for her. See my other post in the ” PSA: Bay St Louis Primary Election Polling Places” thread, but Fillingame is an entrenched incumbent with political base – it really shouldn’t surprise anyone that he got a relative few more early votes of a relatively small number of total early votes. Again, opponents going off down rabbitholes about fanciful alleged conspiracies will do nothing but help Fillingame.

      1. I assure you that wasn’t the case. I would’ve destroyed an even number of F&F votes. 😎

        1. Now there is some smart thinking (wink).

          You seem sincere in your desire to make Bay St. Louis better, and fixation on your degree aside (hey, with me, you’ll get the gristle with the steak), you seem to have some level of objective knowledge and experience to offer to accomplish it. Are you prepared to support Farve as well as Harding to defeat Fillingame? And if so, are you prepared to work with either to make Bay St. Louis a better place? If not, I’d like to hear why not.

          1. I gave a simple theory that one should have some higher education to run a city. I offered my qualifications, which included my degree and job experience.
            I will do what I can in a citizen activist position to protect and serve this yown I care dearly for.

            1. Fair enough. Don’t worry about any “kingmaking” bullshit, call Mike Farve and offer your help and support, call Harding suggest a realistic appraisal of the situation and call as many of your supporters as you can ID and ask them to not only support Farve, but to campaign and vote for him.

              As to a higher education, no, you don’t have to have it to run a city, and no, I wouldn’t have made it an issue (or even said too much about it, but to each their own) in this situation/election, and yes, only an idiot would say that it is bad thing to possess…see your problem? And for the idiots out there, yes, I am saying that a fair and growing number of folks and voters out there (from Bay St. Louis to Bangor, coast to coast and all points in-between) are idiots, God bless their ignorant hearts.

              1. PS – I would suggest that you ask them directly to actually commit to campaigning for, or at least voting for, Farve. When folks say, “Oh, sure, I’ll support…” you will be lucky if 25% actually do anything, but many more folks (yep, even idiots) who actually say the words, “Yes, Rachael, I will campaign and vote for Mike….” will follow through. And if someone says, “No, I don’t like him and no, I won’t vote for him,” respect that and move on without saying anything to anyone.

      2. No, one look is pretty much enough for anyone with any common sense. Nothing radical has occurred to skew votes to that degree since the period for absentee voting started. But, I have an advantage past that. I speak as someone who has investigated voter fraud as a law enforcement officer. Some people are hard wired to resist the idea of voter fraud. I get that. No one likes the idea of democracy overruled. But, it’s a lot harder to maintain that notion after you have caught and arrested people for doing that very thing.

        1. Oh, I have no illusions – “voter fraud” occurs. However, nothing about these numbers is particularly suspicious, either absentee or in person, Fillingame’s totals, or the combined totals of the opposition. The only numbers that would have required any specific “local knowledge” are Farve’s and Ramsey’s individual totals, i.e., how they were going to divide the 50-55% they split. I know a dozen people who could have predicted the “for and against” totals within 100-200 votes with no more information than a paragraph of key facts and a few numbers/stats. Heck, I predicted roughly these same numbers a week or so ago and provided some specific suggestions as to how the challengers could tip it their way.

          First, folks here accuse Fillingame of “buying votes,” but then, attempt to use the fact that _an entrenched incumbent_ got more early votes than his challengers (who were pointing out each other’s “flaws”) as proof someone fooled with the early votes/totals at his behest. If you investigated elections, then you ought to know that “buying votes” is a different from “rigging/tampering with vote totals.” Votes from folks who think they will get something from the candidate they are voting for are, generally speaking, legitimate votes because, generally speaking, the vast majority of voters vote for the person who they expect will do things that will be of benefit to them.

          But OK – do you allege Fillingame stacked the deck early on or at the last minute, and why early or last-minute?

          That question asked, I stand by my statement: if the “anti-Fillingame” folks make what thus far appears to be totally unsupportable allegations of vote-tampering, it will help Fillingame because those making such allegations under the currently-known factual circumstances will look like conspiracy nuts to a fair number of less-involved voters and can be made to look like it to many others.

  2. The Fillingame curse took 4 candidate’s out yesterday, Avery,Smith,McDonald and
    Bradley all heavily backed by Les and his cool aid drinkers. His next three victims are Desalvo,Zimmerman and Williams. He has been trying for years to get a puppet city council. That my friends would more dangerous than Kim Jong-un.

  3. Can’t have a fair and balance election with corruption coming from all angles. Bay St.Louis is starting to remind me of the politics of Louisiana

  4. Holy BS Baloney Ballots Batman;

    After a cursory examination of your spread sheet we may not only have BS absentee ballots but possibly lost Favre and Ramsey absentee ballots….. to support Nunn’s theory they may have just lost a few Ramsey ballots to remove manipulation suspicions……..ballots like keys to your car can get misplaced/lost………He,he,he

    P.S. Could the increased absentee votes come from friends who are
    dead, on the run or in prison?

    1. Hold on there, cowboy – I have no “theories” about absentee ballots for Ramsey getting “lost.” In fact, the only “theory” that I have at the moment about ANY absentee ballots (or in-person votes) is that the numbers look more or less legit and expected (and were predictable). That said, feel free to rave on. I’m sure any Fillingame supporters reading most of these tinfoilhatesque accusations are snickering and loving it. A few folks, especially ardent opposition and/or ex-challengers, raving in public about rigged elections and vote-tampering will help get him re-elected.

      1. We know your theory. Nobody ever does anything wrong. Just because you don’t get it, doesn’t mean those who do, are wrong. You must have lead an incredibly sheltered life. University professor, perhaps?

        1. Oh, Good Lord… Well, true enough, I’m sure I haven’t had the extremely dangerous, world-affecting experiences that a double-naught secret agent/election inspector like you must have. But then again, I don’t need 5 mg a day of Risperdal or any other meds to deal with the, um, “horrors (you’ve) seen…” either, so there is that. I figured such a intrepid, worldly person would use something like “The Name’s Doer, James/Jane Doer” rather than “Observer,” but to each their own.

          On the other hand, I’m 100% certain I have been involved. to varying degree, in more rigged elections (no, I have not rigged any) than you have investigated…or even voted in, absentee or in person, so there’s that, too. If I include just couple of folks in my cell phone, we’ve seen more election rigging than you’ve ever heard about. But that’s not really at issue – we’re talking about THIS election and you still haven’t explained the how, why and when as to your claims that the numbers indicate few meaningless absentee ballots are “rigged” in THIS election.

      2. Ok cowgirl I don’t own any tinfoil hats but you did theorize that since Ramsey had an incongruous ratio of absentee votes so thus the incongruous ratio of absentee votes of FillingBSgame is no big deal….

        So all I said was if I was manipulating absentee votes for one candidate that I would also make another candidate have incongruous ratios so a person like yourself would say , ‘well Ramsey has incongruous ratio so…. blah, blah, blah…’

        Now if you would open your eyes and ears cowgirl and think like a voter fraud expert you could realize the sense of such coverup, then again maybe you don’t WANT to think such thoughts….

        1. OK, so “rave on” is your chosen option…fair enough. So, y’all want to replace Fillingame or not?

  5. One trick to gain absentee votes is to be the first one to go into the nursing home where there are at least 50 residence or even at the hospital. If they start early enough and the candidate,or designated appointee, can get the future voter to register tats even better for them. Oh, don’t forget to bring a notary with you .

    1. It’s credibly easy to pull off. Look at Adams county in the early nineties. To paraphrase Jerry Reed, “They did what some say can’t be done!”.

    2. Uh, right…the Mayor (or anyone else in his employ) of a small gossipy town like Bay St. Louis prowling around nursing homes (or, apparently, “THE nursing home”) with a stack of absentee ballots and a notary wouldn’t draw the slightest notice, much less comment, from anyone…

      If anyone thinks spouting this kind of ridiculous nonsense is a good way to put the skids under Fillingame, do your fellow citizens a favor and keep it to yourself. Even if he disguised himself as a woman, got a notary commission for his cat, crept around a nursing home and did get 15-20 old people to drool on an absentee ballot, it won’t be what defeats him in either the runoff or the general.

      1. In BSL if one want’s to assume that something is too stupid to be done…there will usually be takers for the other side of that bet.

        If I remember correctly there was a discussion here about something like the BSL claims docket, and the BSL check register, and cutting checks, and then voiding checks, and not paying claims as approved by the council on the claims docket…but I can’t find that discussion which happened in comments.

    1. Someoneinnorthms:

      You didn’t burst my bubble but proved my point cause if friends in prison did vote they sure couldn’t go to the polls…..they would have to submit an absentee ballot…

      It’s simple, just compare signatures on all absentee ballots with registrar if exact then send an MD to check a pulse….

  6. Just saying, any candidate can garner absentee ballots, there nothing creepy or illegal, it’s their right. Never said Les did that, anyone of the candidates or you and I can gather absentee ballots. Don’t read and presume I’m accusing anyone of wrong doing. Maybe they can all storm the nursing home and etc., I really don’t give a hoot.

    1. My apologies if I was a little too snide. I think you’ll find the solicitation of absentee ballots at nursing homes is illegal in MS (you can take one to a family member or friend, but you cannot take a stack into a nursing home folks in general to complete). Going to eligible voters and asking for their vote, along with registering them to vote, isn’t illegal, unethical or “wrong” in any rational sense. And none of that is tampering with vote totals. The absentee ballot activity you described is a no-no, but it isn’t “election rigging,” either.

      Look, here it is plain and simple: Fillingame is the incumbent with beholden supporters and apparently a fair number of “favor-recipients,” so him getting literally a handful more absentee ballots isn’t at all surprising. Frankly, I’m slightly surprised that all the candidates didn’t get a few (20-100 at most) more, but no, I don’t think it would have affected the outcome one bit. Given the overall totals and situation, even if Fillingame did slip in a few iffy absentee ballots (it could only be a few, like 30 or 40 tops), it made no difference. And no one yet has even made a guess as to WHEN -early or at the last minute – they think he might have done it, which is pretty important.

      And again, making SWAGish accusations over what would only be a few such ballots will do more to help Fillingame than to hurt him or help his opponents. Think of it like this: if a person is guilty of shoplifting, but is falsely accused of bank robbery, folks have a natural inclination to overlook the shoplifting and concentrate on the false accusation – the person is still a thief and a criminal, but now, they are viewed sympathetically by the average casual, neutral observer. My strong advice is don’t create such a situation for Fillingame if you want to see him defeated.

  7. Les might have nothing to do with absentee voting, but his friends and drinking buddies could. Just look at what Tommy Kidd did.

  8. Let me explain why the absentee ballot distribution is odd from a mathematical standpoint.

    Think of the total number of votes for the three candidates and lets conceptualize the three candidates as different colored balls, blue for Mike Favre, red for Les Fillingame and white for Rachael Ramsey and the total number of votes as a bin holding these three different colored balls, 2208 of them in total. 46% of the balls are blue, 47% of the balls are red and 7% are white.

    You put a blindfold on and start picking balls out of the bin randomly. After picking 15 balls, we may not have a good picture of how many of each color ball makes up the bin but after around 30 balls a better picture emerges. As more balls are picked out of the bin the distribution of the colors between blue, red and white balls comes into much sharper focus. This is the essence of statistical sampling. The more balls we pick out of the bin the greater confidence we have that our sample of balls is representative of the whole. When you get to a sample sizes like 150 out of 2000 total, the confidence level in a sample should be off the charts. What are the chances that 163 absentee votes would be so skewed compared to the total population? Very slim.

    Central limit theorem – In probability theory, the central limit theorem (CLT) establishes that, for the most commonly studied scenarios, when independent random variables are added, their sum tends toward a normal distribution (commonly known as a bell curve) even if the original variables themselves are not normally distributed. In more precise terms, given certain conditions, the arithmetic mean of a sufficiently large number of iterates of independent random variables, each with a well-defined (finite) expected value and finite variance, will be approximately normally distributed, regardless of the underlying distribution.[1][2] The theorem is a key concept in probability theory because it implies that probabilistic and statistical methods that work for normal distributions can be applicable to many problems involving other types of distributions.

    To illustrate the meaning of the theorem, suppose that a sample is obtained containing a large number of observations, each observation being randomly generated in a way that does not depend on the values of the other observations, and that the arithmetic average of the observed values is computed. If this procedure is performed many times, the central limit theorem says that the computed values of the average will be distributed according to the normal distribution (commonly known as a “bell curve”). A simple example of this is that if one flips a coin many times the probability of getting a given number of heads in a series of flips should follow a normal curve, with mean equal to half the total number of flips in each series.

    This gets into some highfalutin math which is above my paygrade, but the reasons such a skewed distribution in the absentee ballots would attract questions from a mathematically oriented mind are contained in the concepts above.

    1. IMO-The question of whether this type of analysis applies

      Is there one bin (voters who know they will vote, and then decide to vote either absentee or in person vote) draw without replacement; or do the absentee voters come from a different pool? It’s a Democratic primary…but I can still envision the possibility of the pools differing. It’s also a small sample size as far as election predictions go.

      Voting by Absentee Ballot

      Some registered voters are eligible to vote by
      an absentee ballot because of age, health, work
      demands, temporary relocation for educational
      purposes or their affiliation with the U.S. Armed
      Forces. Please check with your Circuit or
      Municipal Clerk to determine if you are entitled
      to vote by an absentee ballot and to learn the
      procedures for doing so.
      If you know you will vote by an absentee
      ballot, you may contact your Circuit or
      Municipal Clerk’s office at any time within 45
      days of the election.

      I could see some reasons for diverging vote with the absentee ballots in a general election (assuming nothing to find occurred), whether those apply to a party primary…that seems less likely imo.

      Examining past municipal Democratic primary election results for elections in the BSL area could show if the absentee ballot vote in this primary election is abnormal.

      1. Simply put, electoral stats and “normal” stats are not the same and moreover, there are other issues with trying to emboss “normal” math on electoral math.

        In the bags of balls example…um, hey, it wasn’t my example…a set number of balls were assigned to each bag beforehand, but with an election, there are all sorts of random, ever-changing and last-minute events that occur for some subset of the pool of voters voting. Plus, in any given election, all manner of actually random events can cause seemingly random, but actually tangentially related, people determined to vote to do so early/absentee – for example, if candidate X had most of the Ole Miss alum and fans and Candidate Y had the State alum and fans as hard-core supporters/voters, and Ole Miss happened to schedule some big event that interfered with those folks voting in person, it would cause Candidate X’s voters to vote absentee at a much higher rate than the State voters who had no such event. Yeah, it’s a rough, simple example, but the bottom line is that “normal” stats often don’t apply to elections. Think about all the pollsters who were sure Trump was going to lose big.

        That said, if the results had been Fillingame 1000 in person and 500 absentee, with Farve getting 1000 in person and 50 absentee, with Ramsey getting 150 in person and 5 absentee, that would be suspicious, but think about it: Fillingame got what 100 and Farve got 60 or something – what numbers would have been OK? The EXACT same ratio? 10% variance? 20%?

        But most importantly and I wish at least one person making these allegations would answer, even a guess: when do you imagine these few absentee ballots were “slipped in,” early on or at the last minute? NOTE – I’m not saying any were, I’m merely asking as to when those that do think it occurred.

        1. Replying to both Nunn and RFP I think what Nunn described is exactly the kinds of independent random variables posited by the theorem. That said by definition a theorem, as “a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truth” is different than a scientific fact, which is proven. CLT posits a tendency of population subsets to a normal distribution but a tendency is not exact thus the 2016 Presidential election polling where most pollsters missed.

          I see a total population of 2200 plus and while I’ll grant the chances of skewness is greater in smaller populations and the smaller strata within the larger population, my experience sampling nonpayroll disbursements for example, that those populations overall tend to normal distributions the difference between different entities being the beta.

          I see the numbers and do a double take. Since the move act prohibits states from requiring a witness or notarized absentee ballots in certain circumstances the risk or potential for monkey business with them has certainly increased. I am not sure what could be determined examining an absentee ballot without it being witnessed or notarized in any event.

          To be clear I am not accusing anyone of anything. I did look at the raw data and do a double take however.

          1. When it comes to the financial shenanigans (shenanigans is my opinion -for example, what I call a “payday loan” borrowing by the city which is not allowed by state statute) in BSL they don’t tend to be well concealed or even in any kind of gray area.

            As far as the absentee ballots- no evidence I’m aware of other than the vote results. So: no evidence to0 support any allegations at this time.

            I am skeptical any sort of successful and well hidden absentee ballot operation either was executed in BSL, and if it did happen, I doubt it will remaining successfully hidden for long.

            Doug- can you point Nunn to the BSL check register and general ledger discussion the two of us had a while ago? Where the topic was BSL cutting and cancelling checks repeatedly and paying claims differently than approved on the claims docket, and also not in the order invoiced to BSL. I can’t find that discussion. It’s useful background imo.

            1. That conversation is with the other 46,969 comments but with some time I may can narrow it down. I think it was in the context of the performance audit presentation given by Sam Atkinson, which would have been in spring 2016 if memory serves. I’ll look for it tomorrow AM.

              1. I’ll save you time and effort – I have no doubt Fillingame is, by small town south MS wannabe somebody politician standards, slicker than owl shit and smoother than a new set of silk underwear to a lot of his supporters. He is a laughably crooked silly little shitass, too, of which south MS has a gracious plenty. So a lot of the minutiae isn’t going to matter to me. Frankly, if I can play a part in getting ridding the circus of clowns like him, I’m happy to do so.

              2. Please cancel that request.

                There are better things to do.

                Anyone needing info can find it right here at Slabbed.

                Those inclined to look at the BSL financials and audits can find and read them.

              3. Doug, and rfp,
                If memory serves me, that discussion was had, not only at the meeting with the independent auditors, but also with the representative from the State Auditor’s office. The Council would approve the docket, had every right to assume that the bills would be paid—–you guessed it!!
                Wasn’t the amount of accounts payable astronomical a few years ago? Something like a little over $400,000 is the number I remember being stated by Council. My guess is that is what happened in 2011 also because the DOJ money was unrestricted on the last day of the fiscal year—9-30-2011. Had a shortfall and didn’t tell Council??

          2. Fair enough, and really, much more of this is only helping Fillingame – do with that opinion what you will. If you don’t mind, I have a observation and a question:

            1) Can we agree that even if, let’s call it the “(nearly) absolute absentee ratio,” were applicable, the number of allegedly “iffy” absentee ballots would only be 25 to 40 at most – agreed? If so, that number of “skewed” votes wouldn’t and didn’t matter – why would any candidate risk, essentially, robbing a bank to steal only the nickels? Then, however is:

            2) Can you offer a theory or even a wild guess as to WHEN you think it would have happened? I don’t mean the exact time and date, only the general time frame: early on or at/near the primary?

            And again, I’ll say it for the umpteenth time – this is a rabbithole that will not produce positive results regardless of any monkey business. Look at the Ward 4 situation. Apparently, it turns out the whole thing only affected a few votes in the inconsequential GOP primary – no one cares about it and it just comes across as nutty conspiracy theories and tinfoil hat moonbattiness.

            1. Assuming there was monkey business, as to when it happened I would have no clue right off hand. I would agree with RFP that if it happened, with this bunch running things, it would bubble up rather quickly and by now word would likely be out.

              1. Exactly. The overwhelming odds are that no one manufactured a few absentee ballots for anyone, and even if they did do something so stupid, it had no effect on the totals. It is a rabbithole that will lead honest, earnest little bunnies off the safe trail. My advice is to drop it, focus on things that do and will matter and strongly encourage others to do the same. And unless some real info turns up, I will take my own advice at this point.

  9. Please just go out and vote for Favre and encourage all of your friends and enemies. It is for the greater good of BSL. Drain the Swamp we need of to clean City Hall of what we have now…
    Start over fresh with a new Mayor and get the city back on track for moving forward.

  10. How can you tell if absentee ballots are a fraud? Is there someplace you can look where these ballots are verified? Just because a person is registered does not mean the ballot counts. They could be deceased or moved. I know this sounds like it’s from a simple person, but what is the option? Who can we trust? I know I do not trust the current rolls. How long has it been since a purge? I vote, but I am disgusted with the current events. Unless there is change, my home will be sold. I don’t even have to take a loss. Will sell it cheap with the stipulation that Bay St. Louis is going down the tubes. It will take too long to recoup from the Fillingame regime. In fact, the longer he is in office, the more my home depreciates. I can’t even imagine the homeowners that are upside down on their property. Vote your conscience or your pocketbook……your choice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *