OpEdNews Op Eds

Votergate Redux 2008: A Look At The Exit Polls

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

This is what I wrote in OpEdNews in 11/04 and was picked up by my friend John Zogby.
 
Votergate 2004; We Don't Need Paper to Prove Fraud, But We Do Need Money and Leadership, NOW.
BY  SHELDON DROBNY
Since last Tuesday there has been a justifiable uproar about the major differences between the exit polls in Ohio and Florida and the actual results.  Democrats and Republicans, who both saw the same exit polls that showed an electoral landslide in favor of Kerry, have confirmed this.  Investigative reporter Bob Parry confirmed from his sources that the Bush campaign was convinced they were going to lose. George H. W. Bush also confirmed this in an interview with The Today Show.  So why have the exit polls been so wrong in the last two elections?  It is clear that there must have been manipulation in the voting machines.
 
COMMENT: THEY WERE ALSO WRONG IN NH.

While there's been a lot of talk of problems with not having paper trails, computer fraud is uncovered most of the time without paper trails. As a former C.P.A and auditor, I have used statistical sampling throughout my career with great confidence. With electronic record keeping, it's easy to create  a program to falsify the books. But there are ways to uncover that. Auditors have developed statistical ways to cut right  through corruption in companies. You don't even need a paper trail. These statistical approaches can be used with almost 100% accuracy to uncover fraud. With the votergate 2004 it's a numbers game just like it is with corporate accounting, even easier. All you're talking about is one number-- total votes for each candidate.

 There's a huge difference between polling what WILL happen and polling something that has already happened. The reliability of polling something that has already happened is high as compared to predictive polls which have high margins of error. The reliability can be, not plus or minus 4 percent as we see with predictive polls,  but rather a much more reliable  plus or minus one half or one tenth of one percent with exit polls, because those are based on asking people who already voted.   I would even say that if the exit polling were done in the key precincts of Florida and Ohio, which it was, then these results should be practically "bullet proof."

COMMENT: I HAVE USED STATISTICAL SAMPLING FREQUENTLY IN MY FORENSIC WORK

It is important that people know how accurate random sampling of historical events can be in order for them to understand how unlikely it is that the exit polls were wrong.  So if you want to fight the battle correctly, you must get more statisticians and forensic accountants involved as well as the lawyers.  These statisticians can show with great credibility the probability of manipulation within the computer programs used for counting the ballots.  They do this kind of work all the time to uncover fraud based upon computer manipulation in commercial and corporate activities.  And these types of expert analyses are admissible in a court of law.........

The post election reports show that Ron Paul did not get any votes in a precinct where exit polls show that he did.  Zogby did a show for us at Nova M Radio and he is now on XM.  He and I have had many discussions about the statistical anomalies in the 2000 and 2004 exit polls.  Zogby and I are experts in the field of statistical sampling.  Zogby however is not an expert in forensic accounting.
 
Computer hackers can infiltrate any computer system from remote locations all over the world.  They are hacking into all the credit card companies and retail online sites.  That is why identity theft is so rampant.  Imagine how simple it would be for Diebold and the other voter machine companies to change the results.  They service the equipment.  It would be easy for anyone to program the total votes to skew in favor of one candidate.  And they can do it without changing the votes for the one they want to lose.  Keeping the loser at the number that the exit polls show gives a false impression that the winner did not get any help.  All they have to do is shift some of the results from the low % candidates to the winner to reconcile with the total vote.  Perhaps that is why Ron Paul did not show up in the results even though the exit polls had him getting some votes in one precinct.

The old "ponzi scheme" approach works for elections in that you transfer numbers from one place to another without changing the total.  I uncovered a major fraud by a money manager by the name of Jay Goldinger who was managing $40M for one of my clients.  When I did an onsite audit using statistical sampling I found out that he was manipulating his customer accounts on a rotating basis to send out results that made his clients happy.  He would then move those amounts to another account when necessary, but the total amount of money under his management was correct. 

The next question I ask in my work is who benefits?  That's pretty easy to answer in this Presidential election.  I can easily eliminate the Clintons.  The real benefactors for this 'ponzi" job is corporate owned media.  Despite the bashing of Hillary in the NH primary, the exit polls belie the so-called sympathy factor.  Even the gal who raised the question to Hillary which resulted in her emotional response claimed she did not vote for her.  The internal polling for both Clinton and Obama did show that Obama would win by a significant margin.  Had Obama won the NH primary, the media horse race would probably have ended very soon.  The result being that the advertising and ratings in all the primary states would go down significantly.

I can say with a high confidence level that the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual results were not an anomaly.  The Democrats especially should want to follow-up on this ASAP.  The idea that the so-called Bradley affect created a racial bias against Obama is nonsense. That is a lie that is meant to divide the Dems on gender and race.  I am reminded of a movie line in The Exorcist when the old priest advises his younger assistant about the devil.  The old Priest Merrin says to Karras his assistant:

"We may ask what is relevant, but anything beyond that is
dangerous. He is a liar, the demon is a liar. He will lie to
confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack
us. The attack is psychological , Damien. And powerful. So don't
listen, remember that, do not listen."

That is my perception of the corporate media.  They are liars who will mix truth with lies to confuse us.  And as Merrin said "do not listen."

 

www.paradigmventure.com

Sheldon Drobny was the co-founder of Nova M radio and Air America Radio. He has supported many philanthropic causes. Mr. Drobny specializes in business and tax matters and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Tax Court as a non-attorney. Less (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
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 Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags

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

OIL COMPANY PRICE INCREASES: FACT OR FICTION

Saving the Wealthy Class from Itself

Eisenhower "I Shall Go To Korea " Speech

"In God We Trust": The Worship Of Money

What's Happening To Obama?

McBush Is Stupid Or Lying About Offshore Drilling

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  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

what an interesting hypothesis! i never gave a tho... by Joan Brunwasser on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 6:17:41 PM