106% Voter Turnout In Wyoming?

So I don't normally get involved in the disputes over voter fraud but I couldn't avoid this.

It seems that Wyoming, according to their official webpage had a voter turnout of 106% percent. There is something like 230,000 registered voters, and 240,000 voted.

That's odd.

Here's the link, you can explore the site a little bit if you want, there is a page that has the number of registered voters on it too. Scroll down to the bottom of the chart, for the 2004 results. And there it is 106%

106% in the smallest state in the nation. I mean who watches Wyoming?

It strangely interesting that the percentage rates spiked about 30% during the last two elections. Hmmm.

What you never heard of 106%? It exists.

maybe they have provsional ballots like ohio ???

...

[Edited on Nov 27, 2004 by EthDem]

shit, i know the answer to this one! Wyoming isn't real. it just plain ain't there. you see, when they settled on the borders of America, there was a huge blank spot on the map. to correct it they would have had to re-survey the whole country. rather than go to all that trouble, they made up a name for another "state." they named it Wyoming.

is it really surprising that voter results from a fake state are fake?

I have spent some time on the page, and I don't think it is a provisional ballot issue.

If you consider the turnout difference between 2002 and 2004 it suggests something more then 6% percent of the population voting twice because of provisional ballots.

Who knows what it was, or where the error took place, but there are potentially tens of thousands of votes that were cast illegally in this state. I always told my friends that it would be the small red states that would be the easiest to commit fraud in, because no one polls them, and they are always automatic wins. If you want to up your pop. vote this would be the way to do it. Ten thousand here, ten thousand there...

What I want to know, and what the site doesn't show is if all these voters also voted in the state, and congressional races as well?

It's only 3 electoral votes, right? Who cares?

They also had 101% in 2000. Double hmmmmmm.

Exactly what are these numbers and what do they represent? I dont quite understand.

That the voting system in America is a bunch of numeric bullshit, I think.

They must have day of registration, where you can go to the polling office and register to vote then and there and be a valid voter. Therefore they have more than 100% of the registered voter turnout because they had more register that day.

Comments like this irk me. We CARE because it isn't RIGHT.

clearly sir, you are a genius.
no one's ever agreed with me on that before.
they called it lies! but you! you knew the truth!

and in close elections, sometimes 3 votes can matter.

Bush didn't need to steal Wyoming, at all...

John Kerry could have been running against Joseph McCarthy and McCarthy would have won in a landslide.

I'm sure there's a plausible explanation.

and here's a plausible explanation

http://soswy.state.wy.us/press/g-pvti.pdf

*sees, reads, shakes head, leaves*

yeah I figured it was something like that, but the drastic increase in 2000 followed by the inverse decrease in '02 only to once again rise again to 106% is still a little fishy to me. The polls read 60-70% consistantly except for the last two election years.

Midterms always have a lower turnout and there was indeed heightened intrest in this election, if I had to guess poll registration probably started in 2000.

Republicans outnumber Democrats in Wyoming 146,328 to 62,385. I figure that the extra 6% comes to 12,913 extra votes. Now, assuming everyone voted on the party they registered, the extra votes wouldn't have mattered because the state is red. Now, if this had happened in Ohio, Florida or some other state with a high electoral count, it would be a different story.

If the election was that close and it came down to Wyoming, then the republicans win.

But 12,913 votes here, 12,913 there is a lot of votes man. Bush took Ohio, and Florida, I'll give him that, but his popular vote lead was not that high, and like I said above, the best way to commit voter fraud in this nation would be to do it in the states that you know you'll win.

This has been explained, there was no fraud....

So that means they should get away with it? You're missing the point.