|
|
Tags for This Article:
Obama-Barack (4516) Election-Voting Issues (2064) 2008 Election Presidential (1305) Election Reform (1104) 2008 Election Presidential Primary (1042) Vote Theft (874) Election Theft (762) Election Recounts Protests (442) Election-Voting Issues News (417) Propaganda GOP Rove (214) Election Crime (207) Lies Rove (194) Diebold (156) US Politics-Government (151) Secret Vote Counting (53) Clinton (50) Exit Polls (27) Crossover Voters (14)
|
(more...)
(less...)
Add to My Group
While there is no obvious explanation for the pattern observed, one hypothesis worthy of investigation is that one set of counting equipment (either early-voting or at-precinct voting) was accessed by malicious insiders and manipulated. If the pattern of pro-Clinton shifts were to hold, the place to investigate first would of course be the at-precinct voting equipment and county central tabulators. Having won Ohio and Texas, Clinton remained viable but still in dire straits, leading directly to the most polarizing and divisive phase of the nomination battle. 4/23/08: Pennsylvania In the 'quiet' interval during the six weeks prior to the Pennsylvania primary, the effects of Clinton's revived (but precarious) position had ample opportunity to play out. The Clinton campaign went on the offensive, with the type of personal, negative attacks that both campaigns had previously eschewed. Obama was relentlessly portrayed as elitist and out-of-touch by the Clinton campaign (and by Clinton herself), a depiction the mainstream media began to echo almost as relentlessly. And, sure enough, incidents emerged that played into this depiction-most notably Reverend Wright's sermons and Obama's own quote that seemed to both pigeonhole and patronize the working-class voters of Pennsylvania. These were replayed by the mainstream media in an endless barrage of coverage, all keyed to the theme that Obama might be too out-of-touch, and too close to the radical black fringe, to be president. Obama appeared to successfully counter that round of negative attacks, and it appeared to have little or no impact in his polling support nationwide – nor, indeed, in Pennsylvania. Obama went into the April 23 primary trailing Clinton by 5% or less in pre-election polls, with no late movement to Clinton detected. It was viewed as essential by mainstream media pundits that Clinton win "by double digits" to maintain her viability and pick up the momentum required to win decisive superdelegate support. First-posted exit polls for Pennsylvania reflected pre-election expectations, with Clinton leading 51.6% to 47.8%, a 3.8% margin. By late in the evening, however, with the count mostly in, it was Clinton by 9.4%--close enough for the morning papers, networks, and websites to lead with Clinton's "double-digit" win. As with New Hampshire, Ohio, and Texas, there was a wide range of irregularities, glitches, and vote suppression incidents reported. Again, an exit poll disparity beyond the margin of error. Again, a departure, in the familiar direction, from the range of pre-election polling. And once again the final result was that Clinton received just enough to sustain her campaign, her "double-digit" victory, courtesy of a generous round-off. The Upshot Just as with a spaceship's carefully-calibrated mid-course corrections that make an ultimate difference of millions of miles, it does not take much to radically change the course of a multi-election political contest. A few quick bursts from the retrorockets at the right moment(s) will do the trick. Of course the dynamics of a campaign can change legitimately, as a result of the thrust and parry process, exposure of weaknesses, refutation of apparent inevitability, etc. But the shift in dynamics of the 2008 Democratic nomination contest strongly correlated with a string of election results that raised serious red flags independent of their impact on the race. Glaring discrepancies far beyond the margin of error of exit polls and pre-election polls, and the confounding of the expected electoral dynamics, produced results that had the precise impact of prolonging and intensifying the nomination battle. Had the primary election results jibed with those independent measures and expectations, it would long since have been wrapped up. Anyone actually in a position to take advantage of the vast array of security vulnerabilities in the computers that run our elections would have an obvious interest in remaining undetected. The safest path would be to take only what you need to achieve your bottom-line goal, and not one vote more. Anything beyond adds risk without reward. Thus, in keeping with our hypothesis that the fundamental goal of primary contest electoral manipulation was to create "plausible defeatability" for the Democratic ticket in November, we would expect little additional manipulation in the last stages of the Democratic contest. It is apparent that an Obama defeat in November (and more extensive Democratic losses in down-ballot races) can be spun as a plausible consequence of the intra-party strife that has already been depicted as weakening the party and its nominee, and of apparent Obama weaknesses exposed in the course of the grueling nomination battle. With such a cover story safely in place, even an against-the-odds Republican "victory" in November could be successfully spun and sold to the candidates, their parties, the media, and the voters. The "mystery adjustment" factor in polling One final observation concerning the pre-election polling that sets expectations for candidates, the mainstream media, and the voters themselves. We are deeply concerned that these polls too paint a false backdrop against which the signs of computerized electoral manipulation by insiders will appear diminished in magnitude over time, or even disappear. The reason for this concern is obviously not that the fraternity of pollsters are knowingly acting to support or conceal systematic computerized electoral manipulation, but rather that pollsters simply cannot expect to stay in business if they consistently fail to predict the "actual" electoral results. The worst problem for a pollster is to be consistently "off" in the same direction. Put another way, pollsters are not paid for achieving some abstract statistical purity but rather for accurate predictions-however achieved. If one places oneself in the position of a pollster who, time and again, is faced with results that are, say 6 – 8% more Republican than their predictions, or shifted in the direction the right wing would desire, it becomes clear that one would begin making a "mystery adjustment" to whatever data emerges from a clean survey methodology. Such an adjustment can be easily generated by changes in demographic weighting that can at least in part be justified by reliance on data emerging from previous elections, themselves manipulated. Call it a fudge factor if you will, but it keeps the pollster in business while failing to make such a correction would be professional suicide. By way of corroboration of this phenomenon, in public dialogue with a major-party polling consultant the following shocking admission was made: if the Democratic candidate is not leading by 10% going into the election in their internal polling, they expect the race to be a toss-up. This internal candidate polling is-unlike polls published for public consumption-intended to paint a ruthlessly accurate picture of contest dynamics to help the party prioritize expensive get-out-the-vote drives and last-minute media blitzes. The fact that even major-party pollsters must adjust their own results to account for the "mystery swing" to the right is a strong indication that much the same distorting protocol is already being employed in public pre-election polling. When manipulated elections serve as the calibration tool for pre-election polling, we lose yet another independent check mechanism on the official computerized vote tabulation process. This only deepens the crisis.
www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org Jonathan Simon, a graduate of Harvard College and New York University School of Law, is a member of the Bar of Massachusetts. He is also a Chiropractic Physician and directs the clinic Hands-On Health Associates in Cambridge. As a result of his prior experience as a political survey research analyst for Peter D. Hart Research Associates in Washington, Dr. Simon became an early advocate for an exit poll-based electoral "burglar alarm" system, independent of media and corporate control, to detect computerized vote shifting in Election 2004. In the absence of such a system, he was nevertheless able to capture and analyze critical official exit poll data briefly posted on the web prior to its election-night disappearance, data which served as an initial basis for questioning the validity of Election 2004. He has subsequently focused on developing election forensics protocols appropriate to the new technology of computerized voting systems. Dr. Simon is a co-founder of the Election Defense Alliance (www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org), a national coordinating body for citizen electoral integrity groups and individuals. He also has worked closely with several other election integrity organizations. He has authored or coauthored numerous papers addressing statistical anomalies and other evidence of computerized election fraud, including most recently with Bruce O'Dell Landslide Denied: Exit Polls vs. Vote Count 2006 http://electiondefensealliance.org/landslide_denied_exit_polls_vs_vote_count_2006, presenting powerful evidence and analysis of systemic tabulation fraud, and (with O'Dell, Dale Tavris, and Josh Mitteldorf) Fingerprints of Election Theft: Were Competitive Contests Targeted? http://electiondefensealliance.org/fingerprints_election_theft , exposing the pattern of manipulation. He has also collaborated with O'Dell in the development of an effective handcount sampling protocol, Universal Ballot Sampling (UBS), to be deployed as a check mechanism where computerized vote tabulation is used.
|
