one in 600 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.

[robert l. bentham]

Wisconsin: None dare call it vote rigging

excerpt:

One of my favorite mathematicians is Richard Charnin, who on his website using readily available public information, calculates the odds of the so-called ‘red shift" occurring from the 1988 to 2008 presidential elections. The red shift refers to the overwhelming pick up of votes by the Republican Party in recorded votes over what actual voters report to exit pollsters. See Richard Charnin's article

In Charnin's analysis of exit poll data, we can say with a 95% confidence level – that means in 95 out of 100 elections – that the exit polls will fall within a statistically predictable margin of error. Charnin looked at 300 presidential state exit polls from 1988 to 2008, 15 state elections would be expected to fall outside the margin of error. Shockingly, 137 of the 300 state presidential exit polls fell outside the margin of error.

What is the probability of this happening?

"One in one million trillion trillion trlllion trillion trillion trillion," said Charnin.

More statistical proof of Republican operatives, zealots and sympathizers tampering with the vote is found in the fact that 132 of the elections fell outside the margin in favor of the GOP. We would expect eight.

Say you have a fair coin to flip. We would expect that if we flip that coin there would be an even split between heads and tails – or in this case, Republicans and Democrats. Election results falling outside the margin of error should be equally split between both parties. Yet, only five times, less than expected, did the extra votes fall in the direction of the Democratic Party.

So what are the odds? According to Charnin, of 132 out of 300 state presidential elections exceeding the margin of error in the direction of the Republicans – one in 600 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.

The corporate-owned media does not want to mention that the problems with the exit polls began with the ascendancy of the former CIA Director George Herbert Walker Bush to the presidency in 1988. It is also that year when the non-transparent push-and-pray voting machines were introduced in the New Hampshire primary by Bush ally John Sununu. Bush, who rigged elections for the CIA throughout the Third World did unexpectedly well where the voting machines were brought in.

In any other election outside the U.S., the U.S. State Department would condemn the use of the these highly riggable machines based on the discrepancy in the exit polls. It's predictable what would happen if an anti-U.S. KGB agent in some former Soviet Central Asian republic picked up an unexplained 5% of the votes at odds with the exit polls. A new election would be called for, as it was in the Ukraine in 2004. We would not have accepted the reported vote from the corrupt intelligence officer.

The CIA Director's son wins with laughable exit poll discrepancies in 2000 and 2004 and the mainstream media sees no evil. The media's perspective is to discredit the exit polls, which they sponsor, and call any who points to the unadjusted, or actual, polls "conspiracy theorists."

In 2004, 22 states had a red shift to the CIA Director's son, George W. Bush. Usually such improbably results are signs of a Banana Republic. Now we have a too-close-to-call neck and neck recall race in Wisconsin that show an obvious red shift for a right-wing red governor. Nobody wants to look at the non-transparent black box machines. Electronic election rigging has prospered. Democracy is dead. Long live the "adjusted" vote totals.

http://freepress.org/columns/display/3/2012/1936

 

[Fade]

RLB you'll have to take this argument up with Faethor.
He is the one saying that vote fraud is insignificant.

What say you Faethor?

 

[robert l. bentham]

RLB you'll have to take this argument up with Faethor.
He is the one saying that vote fraud is insignificant.

What say you Faethor?

i had to have a late night bowl of spaghetti and i saw this... i wish you well with your apples and oranges...

but here... spin on this till he comes around...

It hasn’t been a good month for the GOP and election fraud. Two weeks ago, a Maryland jury convicted a Republican official who oversaw illegal voter-suppression tactics in the 2010 election. This week, a state judge found that Indiana’s Secretary of State, Republican Charlie White, not only committed voter fraud in 2010, but wasn’t even eligible to seek the office to which he was elected.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/another_gop_official_caught_co034290.php

when you see the facts... its the republicans discouraging the vote.... don't feel bad... many dinosaurs did not give up the fight easy either

 

[faethor]

RLB you'll have to take this argument up with Faethor.
He is the one saying that vote fraud is insignificant.

What say you Faethor?

It is highly, highly unlikely you will win the $300Million lottery but someone does. Does that mean that person defrauded the system? No.

What this is a mathematical analysis. Assuming it's right (I don't see anyone double checking his math) it tells us we should look closely at the election. Nor does it tell us where/how the fraud occurred.

Fade your big bugaboo is a belief that millions of dead voters continue to cast ballots. And you believe checking ID at the polls will fix this. Did that happen here? We don't know we don't have any evidence. If one was going to commit large scale fraud it's much easier to do it during the counting rather than the voting. Which, interesting enough, there were some studies of the Diebold electronic vote counters and they appeared to always favor Republicans, hmmm. But, they say they can't give us the source code. I guess how a vote is counted in the public sphere is too important to actually know.

In short - Fade you're drawing a conclusion from a postulate. Then you're pointing blame in a direction with insufficent knowledge of the problem.

 

[ilwrath]

Fade your big bugaboo is a belief that millions of dead voters continue to cast ballots. And you believe checking ID at the polls will fix this. Did that happen here? We don't know we don't have any evidence. If one was going to commit large scale fraud it's much easier to do it during the counting rather than the voting. Which, interesting enough, there were some studies of the Diebold electronic vote counters and they appeared to always favor Republicans, hmmm. But, they say they can't give us the source code. I guess how a vote is counted in the public sphere is too important to actually know.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong... But if you have dead people fraudulently showing up and voting... That WOULDN'T show any discrepancy in the exit poll, because the vote count would roughly follow the exiting people, assuming the fraudulent voters also talked to the pollsters. So let me play devil's advocate, here...

The problem with exit polls may well be the sample they take. They are a "random" sample. Of course, if there's an error in choosing this "random" sample, the results will have that error magnified. A truly random 2% sample should include 2% of all Democrats and 2% of all Republicans voting at that location, right? But what if 0.1% of Democrats dart out the back door and decline the exit poll, and 0.3% of Republicans do? That sample isn't so random, anymore, and that error will be magnified when extrapolated, as there isn't really any way to correct for a bias created by someone who doesn't talk. Are people who vote Republican simply embarrassed to admit they did it, and more likely to duck out?

Now, all that said... Those Diebold machines are turkeys, and need to be removed from service at once. We need a secure and verifiable voting mechanism. The lack of transparency and the lack of verification on those machines means that they never should have been approved in the first place. And it is very suspicious that they were approved by the very party they favor.

 

[faethor]

That WOULDN'T show any discrepancy in the exit poll, because the vote count would roughly follow the exiting people, assuming the fraudulent voters also talked to the pollsters

You are correct this would not show up on exit polling. Though exit polling is not the only way to audit. Voter poll records (who voted) are public information. For an accurate measure of dead people voting one would take the list of dead people and see if there is a signature behind the names of such an individual. Why not do this and demonstrate ACTUAL issues instead of guess it's happening?

The problem with exit polls may well be the sample they take

And well the other problem is people can, and do indeed lie. Which introduces an element of error in polling which doesn't exist in voting.

And indeed the lack of transparency and verification of polling machines mean they should be eliminated. If we're using computers we need to enable everyone able to read the actual code, and a mechanism to certify before, during, and after elections that actual code is running. It's simply amazing that companies cannot build a voting machine that is as accurate as a Cash Machine. But, in testing it appears the machines aren't as good as the local ATM.

 

[ilwrath]

It's simply amazing that companies cannot build a voting machine that is as accurate as a Cash Machine. But, in testing it appears the machines aren't as good as the local ATM.

The local ATMs aren't very good, either. Diebold has a terrible record with computer transaction security, in general. The only difference is it's easy to catch the fraud on your bank statement... The voting machines don't even produce a useful statement or method of verification.