Peter W. Deutsch – 4/27/05

This page was last updated on August 31, 2005.

We need paper ballots; Dr. Peter W. Deutsch; Beaver County Times; April 27, 2005.

As you will read below, the letter’s author shows no apparent interest in learning the explanation for the data he cites. For more on this topic, see my critique of Catherine Gatian’s letter.

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

8/31/05 - Before you accept Mr. Deutsch’s comments, consider the following comment he made on the forum (August 23, 2005) for the Beaver County Coalition for Social Justice regarding the voting machine issue: “Perhaps provoking them [election officials] with stretched truths is an apporpriate [sic] tactic. But let’s see it for what it is … a tactic.” When do “stretched truths” become lies?

8/9/05 - Because Mr. Deutsch apparently signed his letter to the Times as “Dr. Peter W. Deutsch,” in the original critique I assumed this meant he was a medical doctor. I have since learned Mr. Deutsch has a Ph.D., not an M.D. He is a physics instructor at Penn State – Beaver Campus (Center Township).

“A number of us have been analyzing some under votes in the November 1996 and 2004 elections based on the Beaver County returns.”

[RWC] Who are “a number of us?”

Given that the sources for a previous letter were Democrat campaign directors and talking point documents, I’m skeptical Mr. Deutsch and his crew performed a true analysis. In my book, it’s not an analysis unless you at least make a credible attempt to explain the observed data. As I note elsewhere in this critique, nowhere does Mr. Deutsch indicate he attempted to learn the “why” behind the figures he cited.

“An under vote occurs when a ballot is cast but a vote does not register in a specified race, whether it be presidential, senatorial or any other race. It can certainly occur because a person deliberately chose not to select a candidate in that race. It can also happen for other reasons.

“Using voting records from the November 1996 election, the last presidential election carried out in Beaver County with paper ballots, we find a presidential under vote of 1.3 percent in my Center Township precinct (10-05). This is comparable to the other seven Center Township precincts that range from zero to 2.6 percent.

“For 1996, we find a total countywide presidential under vote of 820 out of 75,305 or 1.1 percent. Presidential under votes of 2 percent or less are considered acceptable by most who study these matters.

“By contrast, the 2004 presidential under vote in my same 10-05 precinct, then using the UniLect Patriot touch screen system, is a whopping 5.9 percent. This is considered well above the 3 percent threshold signaling a potential problem.”

[RWC] Who determined greater than 3% signals a problem? I’m not saying it doesn’t, but I’d like to know who says it does and to review their supporting analysis.

“The 2004 presidential under vote percentages for the other seven Center Township precincts ranged from 4.2 percent to 7.1 percent with a median of 5.6 percent. Our 2004 countywide presidential under vote was 4,551 out of 87,094, or 5.2 percent. This is likely only the tip of the iceberg.”

[RWC] An “iceberg” of what?

“Don’t walk, I say, run run to the paper ballots we had before the touch screens arrived in 1998.”

[RWC] What is it with the “dump voting machines” gang? They cite a bunch of data but apparently have no interest in learning the explanation.

Mr. Deutsch’s letter identifies him as a doctor. If he truly is a doctor, I wonder if he routinely makes treatment recommendations without understanding the cause of symptoms?