Reply #15: Not quite true... [View All]

[regnaD kciN]

They were accurate when and only when there was a paper trail.

Looking at the graphic above, Florida seems to have had a change of around 4% and Ohio around 3%. But, by the same token, North Carolina shifted 5%, New Hampshire 6%, and Pennsylvania (which Kerry won along with NH) a whopping 9%. All those make the Florida and Ohio shifts look small indeed. Did all three of those use machines without paper trails? If so, which states did have paper trails?

For that matter, it appears that Maine and Wisconsin, which used paper ballots, had a Kerry drop of around 2%, which isn't that different from Ohio's 3%, as far as I'm concerned.

What's also significant to me is that none of the states, even those with paper ballots, showed what I would normally have expected: at least one case where the final result was one or two points higher for Kerry than the exit polls. That might point to a coordinated nationwide conspiracy, involving manipulation of paper ballots as well as eVotes (which moves it onto a somewhat higher level than Diebold and BBV, IMHO), or it might simply point to the formula used by the pollsters being outdated (as in, expecting turnout to break 38-35-27 instead of 37-37-26).

Once again, I'm not saying that the result, at least in Ohio and possibly nationwide, wasn't stolen. There are other ways to cheat aside from hacking touchscreen voting machines, and we certainly saw some of them in Ohio this year. But, throughout the past couple of days, I've heard a repeated mantra: that, in all states where paper ballots or a paper trail were provided, the results nearly matched the exit polling, while in those states without paper trails, there was a dramatic 5% shift to Bush between those two numbers. Based on what I see in the graph above, that simply isn't the case.