Just for Sh*ts and Grins, Has anyone checked BBV consistency?

[The Doctor.]

I have looked HARD for instances where these machines gave Kerry an advantage over Bush** in spite of exit polls and haven't found ONE.

Not ONE example anywhere it would have made a difference and given a Bush* county to Kerry.

Anyone See anything?

As if it isn't suspect enough, the gravity of such a statement would be potent if I were absolutely certain it were true...

[w13rd0]

1. Nope...

...wherever a mistake or machine failure has been found, it has mysteriously favored Bushie. Fascinating, isn't it?

[YellowDoginthehouse]

2. Nope

Not one instance of "errors" favoring Kerry.

[txindy]

3. The tide only went in one direction. Fascinating, isn't it?

I get the feeling that tide is fixin' to shift and drown those greedy vote stealers fairly soon. :evilgrin: Investigating in NH first is brilliant. They probably didn't count on us checking out a state that Kerry won. I wonder if they covered up as well there or thought they were safe because NH went for Kerry? Ruh-roh, Rove! Problem! ;)

[idiosyncratic]

4. Guess they aren't so smart afterall . . .

They were so greedy for every vote, they forgot this might look a tad bit suspicious if they didn't program the occasional error in favor of Kerry.

Oh well . . . too bad. If Martha is in prison for lying, I wonder what you get for ELECTION FRAUD!!!

[lakeguy]

5. well of course they aren't that smart...

have you seen the IQ average of the red voting states? no offense to the dem voters in red states that are obviously propping up the IQ level above the freeptard level of 70.

[Robert Oak]

6. not yet

But, why I want to see a nationwide analysis.

When we look at every state, including the red states and never see a (now termed) "computer glitch" in Kerry's favor..that's going to be one hell of a statistic in and of itself...

If we get it to one type of machine where the errors are skewing the results, then you could theoretically
claim a built in software error causing a skew which was due to the way the candidates are entered into the device, gave * a lead everytime.

but let's say we have a variety of machines, different programming,
different ballot layouts, yet they all skew in error to Bush..

well, that really smells to high heaven.

You have to look at this in total. It's not only more potent
but as hard as I have believing a systematic steal of 3.5M votes
(that's ALOT of votes)...I have been in shock repeatedly reading the agenda of the chimp and Co.

Here's another thing: If truly 3.5M votes were stolen or even if
fraud is massive...

either it's controlled in one place by a very few or we have a chance
for a whistleblower.

You cannot with x individual instances of computer hacking by y number of people, expect that not to get out eventually.

So, I would theorize if there is a systematic pattern, it's going to
be something that can be hacked remotely, on one type of system, or group of systems that enable this and that we're probaably looking at 1 team or one engineer doing the deed.

[Eloriel]

7. Have a look at this

George Bush's 8 Million New Votes Found – A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=19390&mesg_id=19390duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=19390&mesg_id=19390

[The Doctor.]

9. I was thinking along the same lines...

I also believe the original software engineers would know of a 'back door' in the programs.

This should be interesting.

[scottxyz]

8. Remember how deep they play

Once they figure out that we're noticing the BBV machines always favor the Republican, Rove will make sure a few machines give the Dem a break now and then to hide their trail.

The Dan Rather - Memogate episode was very instructive as to how they play. It's often one level deeper than you might expect.