Going into the Tuesday, January 8, 2008 New Hampshire Primary, all polls showed a commanding lead in favor of Democratic Presidential candidate Barak Obama over his rival candidate Hillary Clinton. Even the exit poll s showed that Obama had won the state. (See http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535).
Exit polling has been refined into something approaching an exact science. It had been almost infallibly accurate to within a half percentage point. At least this was true until the current decade when easily hackable electronic voting machines operating on source code that is known only to the commercial vendor providing the machines, and which is forbidden by law from being divulged to any governmental or private entity, began tallying our votes. Then coincidentally exit polling ceased to be accurate and reliable.
We know with absolute certainty that this is indeed a coincidence because all election analyses, on all mainstream media (MSM) outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, PBS etc.) of all seemingly questionable election results have, without exception, completely omitted discussion of this possibility. Since we have a free and open press, it is, therefore, not possible that using unsecure electronic voting machines can cause any effect whatsoever on the accuracy of the vote tally. Anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously a crackpot conspiracy theorist! If you suffer from such delusions, please stop reading this study NOW and immediately seek professional therapy from your friends at the Department of Homeland Security.
MSM reports have attributed the apparent vote discrepancy to a sudden shift in female voter’s preferences away from Obama and towards Clinton at the last moment. This shift according to infallible MSM pundits (all of you who do not believe that the MSM is infallible should be on your way to Homeland Security by now) was caused by Clinton’s display of emotion the afternoon before the vote. MSM pundits determined that this caused female voters to identify with Clinton and thus shift their votes from Obama to her.
This explanation is so clearly airtight as to not need further consideration. However, incredibly, I ran across some doubters on the internet. Why these pinko, liberal, jihaddis’ aren’t in Gitmo undergoing therapeutic waterboarding, electroshock “therapy”, sexual degradation, etc. is unclear—I suppose Congressional Democrats failed to appropriate sufficient funds to provide shock therapy for all who need it in a timely manner. Another reason to vote Republican!
Anyway, after seeing such delusional thinking I was compelled to remove any and all doubts as to the veracity of MSM explanations as to what occurred. A simple analysis proves MSM accuracy.
I began by using standard research format and methodology: ∆ IV à ∆ DV. A change in the value of the independent variable (IV) causes a corresponding change in the value of a dependent variable (DV).
The study assumes that: Ballots are either counted by hand, or are counted electronically.Voters know in advance which counting methodology will be used to count their ballots.
The study hypothesizes that: Female voters voting preferences change according to the voting methodology selected. Specifically, if votes are counted by hand, then female voters vote their actual candidate preferences. However, if votes are counted electronically, female voters do not vote their actual candidate preferences.
Conversely, male voters (except for gay males) voting preferences are insensitive to which voting methodology is employed. This means that males and females are different in certain ways, for example, males lack the sensitivity (male explanation) or sensibility (female explanation) which females (and gay males) innately exhibit when faced with different voting methodologies. The study assumes that whatever this difference is, it is intuitively obvious to all, and thus need not be explained further.
Thus we arrive at our study’s Research Question:
How does foreknowledge that one’s ballot will be counted electronically (independent variable) cause female voters to suddenly vote for Clinton/against Obama (dependent variable).
Standard research methodology advises using an N (number) of cases which is greater than zero. Therefore I chose to employ an N of cases for my study of 1. One female voter would be utilized. This increased the validity and reliability of my study over using an N of cases equal to zero, ah, by an infinite amount. Can’t get better than that! We’re talking science here!
Where to find a female? I happened to be married to one and she was nearby. Therefore, I asked my wife Ramona, if she had any insights into this matter of accounting for the apparent voting discrepancy?
She replied by stating that: “When women realize that an impersonal, infallible, machine will count their ballot, as opposed to a real flesh and blood human, being it causes them to rebel against impersonality and thus vote for whichever candidate had shown the most emotion most recently.” She added: “If, subsequently, an exit pollster asks them how they voted, they will state their initial preference, which is how they would have voted if their vote would have been hand counted. Thus this behavior cannot be detected by exit polling”
To irrefutably prove this hypothesis all that is required is to demonstrate that votes were skewed towards Clinton and away from Obama in machine counted voting precincts. Actual data support this hypothesis:
1 | 2