Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
16 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Was the New Hampshire Primary Stolen on Behalf of Hillary?

By David Griscom  Posted by David Griscom (about the submitter)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Many election-integrity activists with good mathematical intuitions looked at the returns and exclaimed, “That just couldn’t have happened by accident.” What they were speaking of, of course, was the fact that Barack Obama led Hillary Clinton by 53.25% to 46.75% in the 35,864 votes cast for one or the other of them on hand-counted paper ballots (HCPBs), whereas he lost to her by 47.27% to 52.73% of the 81,753 computer-counted votes cast for one or the other of them on optical scanners (op-scans).

Since it has been so thoroughly demonstrated that the 1.94w memory cards on the op-scans and the GEMS central tabulator are easily hacked (for example, http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html ), it looked to be an open-and-shut case that that was exactly what had happened.

But this well justified suspicion (besides being ignored by the main stream media) was instantly discounted in a cacophony of unsupported arguments advanced by the stolen-election denier community ...as well as by some election-integrity activists fearing their cause will be discredited in the event that any of their arguments should ever be proven wrong. So the deniers get a free pass, while the hard working election-fraud sleuths feel they have to hold their tongues.

By contrast, there is no such “asymmetric warfare” in the world of science. All scientists make errors, but their principal concern lies, not with shielding themselves from embarrassment, but instead with advancing of science. So, whenever a given scientific problem proves too complicated to solve in one fell swoop, scientists “bravely” look for new ways to simplify the problem to the point where mathematics will give at least approximately-correct answers almost all of the time.

Here’s the classic example: In the early days of quantum mechanics (which, by the way, is 100% based on statistics) it proved absolutely intractable to calculate the quantum-mechanical behaviors of even small molecules. So in 1927 Max Born and J. Robert Oppenheimer published a paper proposing that, since electrons move so much faster than atomic nuclei, it might be useful to perform calculations that assume (for the sake of actually being able to do any calculations at all) that all nuclei are absolutely stationary. Absurd? Absolutely not! The “Born-Oppenheimer approximation” has proved its extreme usefulness for fully 80 years!

While I’m not a Born or an Oppenheimer, I am an accomplished physicist (http://impactglassresearchinternational.com/ ). So, what should I care if anyone should nit-pick the assumption I found necessary – and appropriate – for purposes of calculating the probability that the outcome of the Obama-Clinton contest in New Hampshire was honest?

Here’s what I know to be true (no assumptions yet): The boundaries between the HCPB precincts and the op-scan precincts in New Hampshire were laid out years ago by individuals who could not possibly have foreseen the Obama-Clinton contest of 8 January 2008. If they had had anything devious in mind, surely it would have been to give some advantage to Democrats or Republicans (depending on the sympathies of the deciders) in the General Election.

Therefore, I assume that, from the standpoint of the Obama-Clinton primary contest, these boundaries were chosen randomly.

Shades of Born-Oppenheimer. Under this modest assumption, instructive results can be obtained by proper application of statistics. And when I did perform the appropriate Binomial Statistical calculations, the results I got for the outcome of the Obama-Clinton contest were absolutely stunning – perhaps they will stand as the all-time record for the degree of “statistical impossibility” of any putatively accidental election anomaly! (http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/New_Hampshire_Binomial_Statistics )

In other words, I find 100% probability that the op-scan tallies were hacked!

So my challenge to all election-theft deniers is this: Prove me wrong! Give me your best shot. But please sign your proofs with your real name ...and don’t fail to append your scientific/mathematical credentials.

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Editor

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Credit Default Swaps: The "Gordian Knot" Standing in the Way of Economic Recovery

Passing judgment on HR 811: A classic case of "the blind men and the elephant"

Mr. Obama, Fire Geithner & Hire Krugman NOW!

The Folks Who Brought You this Financial Meltdown Are Still at the Helm

The (Non) Results of Monday Morning's Superior Court Hearing in Pima County, AZ

Taxpayers Arise! The True Meaning of Cramer-vs.-Stewart Debate

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 people are discussing this page, with 16 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

In other words, I find 100% probability that the o... by andi novick on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 8:48:27 PM
I'm so glad the qualified confirmed gut instin... by Rady Ananda on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 9:32:48 PM
Previusly, EDA posted the following results and pe... by Sam Adams on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 5:39:18 AM
I don't know the origin of the original number... by David Griscom on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 11:28:50 AM
CORRECTED Statewide New Hampshire 2008 Democratic... by Daniel Ashby on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 1:29:57 PM
Quote: "the undeniable fact that Obama appear... by Sam Adams on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 5:06:50 PM
You say, “The first set of data was remarkab... by David Griscom on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:48:42 AM
No, not your findings, Mr. Griscom. I totally acce... by Russ Wellen on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 10:21:11 AM
. Partly because they expect their criminal ballot... by meremark on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 1:39:46 PM
In order to hack an entire state’s election ... by David Griscom on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:22:47 AM
David, as far as I can tell, if your assumption of... by Mark Lindeman on Friday, Feb 1, 2008 at 12:14:28 PM
... “if your assumption of random assignment... by David Griscom on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 11:29:23 AM
Your calculation rebuts the assumption of no diffe... by Mark Lindeman on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 12:27:10 PM
Your words, Mark: “Your calculation rebuts t... by David Griscom on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 10:29:09 AM
Quote: "So why don’t you dig up those e... by Sam Adams on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 7:11:44 PM
O.K. Neither you nor I can afford to buy those exi... by David Griscom on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 11:50:29 AM