Mathematical Proof that TV Network Exit Polling data is FRAUDULENT [View All]

[Petrodollar Warfare]

Some suggested my analysis deserved its own thread, so here it is.

Mathematical Proof That Reported TV Network Exit Polling Data is Fraudulent

In this post I am going to prove via simple mathematics that the "reported" TV Network exit polling data is not based upon the actual exit poll samples from the 4th/final "real" exit polls that were conducted around 6-7pm. This divergence from the original exit polling data helps explain why last week's Presidential Election results in the states of Ohio and Florida are based on fraudulent manipulation of the "network's final exit poll" data in an effort to reflect what is obviously "mistabulated" machine votes.

The two critical issues listed in the data set from the below post are 1) the sample sizes of the final exit polls, and 2) the time stamps for when the networks "revised" the exit poll data to better reflect the machine counts.

A Must Read ** Breakthrough ** – EXIT POLL ANALYSIS FOR 47 STATES
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x36314

OK, for anyone who finished High School, this math is pretty simple stuff, and it shows that we are being lied to on a profound scale in at least two of the critical states in last week's election. First, please disregard any "spin" you might have heard from GOP operatives and media pundits about how they had to "re-weight" some of exit polls because they polled "too many African-Americans," or too "many women" in the early exit polls, etc. That is all irrelevant as far as the following analysis is concerned. Let's stick to basics.

Below is the exit polling data for Ohio which includes the final 6pm data based on a sample of 1963 voters with Kerry in a comfortable lead (at 7:32pm), along with the mysterious 1:41am update of the data that suddenly showed Bush with a comfortable lead. Please note the sample size of voters increased from 1963 to 2020, a total of 57 exit voters.

Ohio 47.9 52.1 1963 7:32 PM 3.1
(Ohio 50.9 48.6 2020 1:41 AM 0.3)

Let's do the math. From the final exit polls till after midnight it showed Kerry in the lead:

Bush (.479 x 1963 voters) = 940 voters
Kerry (.521 x 1963 voters) = 1022 voters

...but at 1:41am exit poll update/"sweep?" occurred via AP and suddenly Bush gains a huge post-midnight advantage....but is this possible if the sample size only increased from 1963 to 2020, a total of 57?

Let's do the math:
Bush now (.509 x 2020) = 1028 voters
Kerry now (.486 x 2020) = 981 voters

Well, how is it possible that Bush gained 88 voters (!) given the sample size increased by only 57, while Kerry lost 41 voters? Let me repeat something for the faith-based community and or treasonous media pundits who ignore what we in the reality-based community see as obviously fraudulent data. The simply reason is...

THIS IS NOT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE!

Do you want confirmation of the data? No problem, the below thread actually has screen shots of CNN as they mysteriously changed the data at 1:41am...and it even includes the gender break-downs, etc.

Kerry winning Exit Polls - FRAUD LOOKS PROBABLE (See posts 196 & 215)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1290765

Well, maybe the exit polls in Ohio were wrong? No sir, the same post-midnight update/sweep that shows manipulation of the exit polling data also occurred in Florida at 1:01 am...and the similarity is striking. Here's the 12:21am data that reflects the final real exit poll data, along with the post 1am exit poll "sweep" of the data...

Florida 49.8 49.7 2846 12:21am 2.5
(Florida 51.4 47.6 2862 1:01am 0.6 )

So, at 12:21 am...
Bush had (.498 x 2846 voters) = 1417 voters
Kerry had (.497 x 2846 voters) = 1414 voters

...but at 1:01am the final exit poll sweep occurred via AP and suddenly Bush gains a huge post-midnight advantage....but how? The sample size only increased from 2846 to 2862, a total of 16 voters(!)

Again, let's do some High School math:
Bush now has (.514 x 2862) = 1471 voters
Kerry now has (.476 x 2862) = 1362 voters

Hmmm, if we are to believe this, at 1:01am Bush gained 54 voters (never mind the sample size only increased by 16), while poor John Kerry lost 52 voters (again, never mind that the sample size increased by only 16). Regardless of whatever the latest spin is about "crashed servers" giving late exit poll updates the fact is these "updates" are not mathematically possible within the known Universe. Does our subservient media think their treasonous acts against The American People will go unnoticed? Not for this Patriot.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE!

So folks, either we have entered the Orwellian Universe where the laws of mathematics simply do not apply, or the 1am "exit poll sweep" attempted to match the unauditable machine counts with the real exit polls, but in order to do so it had to violate the laws of mathematics, and reverse the data from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and final exit polls that showed a Kerry victory.

In the reality-based community that is called FRAUD, but in the faith-based community this is called "conspiracy theory."

Based on my background in Information Security (INFOSEC), I would suggest we may be looking at someone who performed around 1am blatant manipulation of the AP "exit poll" data with an incremental increase in sample size that was done sloppily and in violation of mathematical laws, and a remote hack of the Windows-based machines that tabulated the states total votes (Both Ohio and Florida could be hacked from anywhere if the modem access numbers were compromised), or we could be looking at perhaps a "man-in-the-middle" attack to change county/state totals in which the county or counties dialed up a 'rogue labtop,' who then forwarded the "massaged" data on to the central GEMs computer/server for the state's tabulated results.

This is not improbable given that INFOSEC/Computer Scientists have documented and tested how simple it is to manipulate the data in the GEMS server. This is simple to accomplish given the known security flaws in the Diebold system (and possibly the ES&S system), and it is not difficult to change what is in essence a Microsoft Access Database.

All you really need are the modem access number(s), and maybe a simple password cracking program, assuming you were an "outsider" hacker without any help from the "inside" (ie. Diebold/ES&S or a county/state elections employee).

Would you like verification of that statement? No problem, and I should note the following are only two of seven findings from an independent review of the Diebold touchscreen system which they set up in a "real-world" environment to test its security from hacking - the results were shocking. (Many of these issues likely applies to ES&S as well). Note, this study was done in January 2004:

"1. The GEMS server lacks several critical security updates from Microsoft. As a result, the team successfully exploited a well-known vulnerability using a software product known as Canvas"..."By successfully directing Canvas at the GEMS modem interface, the team was able to remotely upload, download and execute files with full system administrator privileges. All that was required was a valid phone number for the GEMS server." (page 20 of 25)

"6. Social Engineering/Phone line hijacking: The procedure by which precincts upload votes to their LBE (Local Board of Elections) is vulnerable to a "man-in-the-middle" attack. This is the result of an incomplete implementation of the SSL protocol."..."Specifically, the team demonstrated how a labtop could act as a GEMS server. If one could convince the precinct judge to dial into an attacker's labtop then that laptop would not only receive the election results, it would be able to acquire the name and password to access the GEMS sever. With this name and password in hand, the attacker could upload modified results to the GEMS server - all in real time." (page 21 of 25)

Trusted Agent Report Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting System (January 20, 2004)
http://www.raba.com/press/TA_Report_AccuVote.pdf

Here’s the issue the media would be discussing is they were upholding their obligations to the People in an effort to inform them, instead of following the corporate/government dictates. The AP "revised" the final 4th/real exit polls which significantly affected the “reported” results in Florida (Bush +7%), Minnesota (Bush +7%), New Hampshire (Bush +15%), Pennsylvania (Bush +5%), North Carolina (Bush +9%) and Wisconsin (Bush +4%). All of these states with the possible exception of Wisconsin fall well outside the Margin of Error (MOE) and deserve careful analysis for Election Fraud.

What we desperately need are the associated sample sizes of the 4th/final exit polls that were posted on various Network/ Internet sites from about 7pm till perhaps 10-11pm, versus the sample sizes for the suspect AP "exit poll sweep" that occurred later that night. Things began to happen late on evening of Nov 2nd and early in the morning regarding shifts in "revised exit poll" data that was designed to "better reflect" the machine counts - regardless of what the first 4/real exit polls showed. If anyone has similar exit polling data with sample sizes for the 5 swing states in question and preserved it on "screen shots" durng election night that would be sincerely appreciated! I'll do the calculations, I just need the backup.

Bottom Line: We are being lied to about the actual exit polling data, and the networks are not addressing the divergence that seems to plague only certain states, which either in part or in whole use e-Voting machines. Moreover, the final exit poll variances in some of the "swing states" is both divergent from the (pre-sweep) exit polling data, and based on the above analysis it was not a random event as would be expected if the exit polling methodology was somehow flawed. Everything reported past 1am was skewed towards Bush, regardless of previous multiple polling data/trends.

We also know these e-voting systems do not provide a paper audit trail, and have been proven by numerous computer scientists and INFOSEC experts (RABA Technologies) to be easily hackable. Indeed, computer scientists at Johns Hopkins and Rice University candidly stated in their 2003 technical analysis of serious security flaws in the Diebold source code and warned of the following:

“We present a security analysis of the source code to one such (e-Voting) machine (Diebold) used in a significant share of the market. Our analysis shows that this system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts"..."We conclude that this system is unsuitable for use in a general election. Any paperless electronic voting system might suffer similar flaws, despite any “certification” it could have otherwise received. We suggest that the best solutions are voting systems having a “voter-verifiable audit trail,” where a computerized voting system might print a paper ballot that can be read and verified by the voter.”

Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
http://avirubin.com/vote/analysis /

Furthermore, RABA Technologies - an INFOSEC firm, conducted an in-depth "test environment" that simulated Diebold voting systems as they were deployed last week all across America. Their findings of security flaws are even more disconcerting given their team's ability to easily and transparently hack the system and change the results that mimicked Diebold's actual voting system in operation.

The only way to verify if these well-documented and easily exploited vulnerabilities actually occurred would require an INFOSEC forensic investigation of the source code in the computers which did the actual county and/or state tabulations, and an analysis of all modem/network activity from the county to the central tabulators in the weeks before and during the election. This could be accomplished by a team of expert network analysts and INFOSEC experts - and for less money than that "army of lawyers" that we heard so much about.

However, despite the obviously imperative need for a full INFOSEC investigation based on the publicly known data - I do not expect this type of investigation to occur in a willing manner within our current political structure. Too many of us have become too arrogant, too complacent, whole swaths of citizens seem unable to think critically like our forefathers did, and we as a nation are unable to face the reality that is staring back at us - that our slow decent into Fascism was solidified with last week's Fraudulent Election.

Thus, it is with great sadness and anger I must profess my analysis of extreme variances in the data strongly supports the our Election was indeed hacked in at least two states, possibly more, and that We The People no longer live under a functional Democratic Republic. Thomas Paine stated at the founding of our nation:

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away thus right is to reduce man to slavery."