Some media claim: "Most researchers reject the idea that deliberate fraud is to blame"

[philb]

Some media claim: "Most researchers reject the idea that
deliberate fraud is to blame."

But by virtue of my constant contact via about a half
dozen election-integrity email groups, I feel that I
personally know "most researchers" and I can assure
you that they are quite convinced that fraud IS to
blame!

I keep coming back to the exit polls. Because
statistics is at the heart of much of physics (ALL of
quantum mechanics), I believe that statistical
analyses of exit polls can tell us the way people
really voted. In Germany where all ballots are 100%
hand counted (there are no DREs "innocently" flipping
votes) the exit polls agree with the hand counts
within 0.26%. Contrast that with the 2004 election
when a 2.6% Kerry lead in the exit polls turned into a
2.8% Bush win after the polls had closed. A
conservative statistical calculation (attached) gives
less than one chance in 959,000 that the final result
came out as it did by sheer chance. (Thus, there were
958,999 chances out of 959,000 that the votes were
miscounted.)

But the media immediately jumped in with "expert"
opinions that it is the exit polls that were flawed.
However, all of the proffered reasons, like the
"reluctant Bush responder" model, have been
mathematically disproved using available precinct
level data for Ohio (documentation on request).

Still, the notion that exit polls have become
unreliable has now been institutionalized. Although
the news services still commission a national exit
poll, only a few reporters locked in a room without
their cell phones or Palm Pilots are allowed to see
the raw data coming in. Then at 5 pm they make one
report, after which the polls are "corrected" to agree
with the official count. According to a Fox News
Senior Vice President,
"We looked at the exit polls and noted what we thought
was a pattern -- a 6 to 8 percent skew to Democratic
candidates,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802162.html


Well, this was not evidence of "another" big
Democrat-favoring "error" in the exit polls. No, it
was evidence that the irrefutably demonstrated
possibility of hacking of both voting-machine memory
cards and the Diebold GEMS central tabulators was once
again being exploited, this time flipping votes in the
range of 6-8% nationally, as contrasted with the
"mere" 5.4% flipping of the presidential vote in 2004.

But that’s just the national average. I attach an
Excel that was released only yesterday by a woman who
ran parallel elections at four Ohio precincts Tuesday
a week ago. On the average, 32% of the people who had
voted also participated in these parallel elections (a
hell of a good statistical sample!). If you scroll to
the right on the spreadsheet to find the individual
races, you will find evidence that 12 to 18% of each
Democratic candidate’s votes had been shifted the
Republican. (Fortunately, the races weren’t even
close.)

So this brings me to my theory of why George Allen
conceded to Jim Webb in Virginia without even
demanding a recount: A recount would have revealed the
vote theft that is presently being covered up by
suppression of the exit polls. So the perpetrators
decided that accepting a Democratic majority in
Congress for a couple years was a tolerable price to
pay for concealing their power to steal future
presidential elections (all eyes on 2006!). (Remember
that current regime believes in the "unitary
executive" theory that the president should have
dictatorial powers, so no need to worry about the
Congress.)
EP volunteer

[Atman]

1. k&r

I haven't been posting much since the election; trying not to be a Debbie Downer. We won alright. Just as demographics shifts in America have indicated since before the 2000 election. This is the first time they couldn't beat their own machines. But they'll be back. We've been tossed a bone, a little something to shut us up for a couple of years while their media machine re-introduces the phrases "Hillary-care" and "tax n' spend" to the vernacular. Already they're sending MORE troops to the ME, not withdrawing any. What do you think will come of this in a year? "The war ESCALATED once the democrats gained control!" Hey, it's nice to be in charge. But it's nicer when you're REALLY in charge, and not just being played by a bunch of authoritarian ex-CIA war-mongers.

.

[kster]

2. Slow down the movement, then they can keep parading the machines

across America, they have successfully disarmed us for the time being.

We have to see this thing thru!! You are 100% correct!!

[bleever]

3. Carville should be attacking THIS election failure,

if he really wants to be relevant, from a place of authentic power.

The rest is just more marketing crap.

[autorank]

4. "I am autorank and I endorse this message"

The election fraud issue is in the main stream. Crier was the attack dog, Lou Dobbs did a fine job. But now we have two events:

1) the NYT editorial on counting problems - well damn, I'll take that - tabulation is an issue we've not fully explored, no blame here just an observation. They've focused that issue. Let's bear down on tabulation and reporting.

2) Harry Reid wants a strong focus on "ELECTION FRAUD"...he is talking about robo calls, etc. but I'm getting a hold a detailed package, hopefully, of his concerns. Damn, he used the term election fraud...it's main stream now

This makes everything easier. Anybody who wants to question the legitimacy of this election or prop it up is free to speak. It takes time to review things and understand what went on.

My opinion, strongly held, is that the ABC attack on Foley and the House Republican leadership plus the other piling on by corporate media is a VERY STRONG indication that there is real dissatisfaction with * and company at the Hughes levels of this country. This was an old story, known for months, years. It was a "teardown" ... which looks very much like it was timed to destroy the Republican facade by exposing the Wizards as much worse than a portly little imp...

Given a split in establishment sympathy for *, there was obviously an inability to just roll up entire states in the most outrageous ways. We have specific examples of highly questionable elections. Let s see how the dust settles, where the numbers take us.

I totally agree on the exits. Conyers is asking for the 2004 raw data again. He'll get it. Lets get 2006 also, the 2006 exits prior to their adjustment to comport with the reported totals.

There's more to do, every single election. Why would anybody trust the winners of the last election to conduct a clean election given their self interest in getting re elected? That doesn't mean there's fraud, it means there's motive. We, the citizens, need to keep them honest.

[mom cat]

5. Even used car salesmen are more trustworthy!

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. I don't have time to argue with you

I do not feel that you personally know "most researchers."

A conservative statistical calculation (attached) gives less than one chance in 959,000 that the final result came out as it did by sheer chance. (Thus, there were 958,999 chances out of 959,000 that the votes were miscounted.)

That would be true only on the assumption that the exit poll could not be biased. This is not something that survey researchers ordinarily assume, to say the least.

If people would stop banging on arguments that have already been discredited, it would be easier to focus on the rest. But evidently it isn't meant to be. Too bad.

[In Truth We Trust]

7. K&R Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW!