To Anyone Who Dissed Election Fraud Study Showing Benefits to Hillary: A Professional Statistcian's Analysis (My GOP Dad)
Yesterday, I posted here and at Booman Tribune, about a study by Rodolfo Cortes Barragan and Axel Geijsel, regarding potential election fraud in the 2016 Democratic primaries. Certain people in the comments section at Booman were critical of the study, its authors and their conclusions. In fact, I believe the most common sentiment related to me in those comments was that the study was "a joke" and "an embarrassment," and that I should not have posted about it because it lacked any semblance of validity.
I stated at that time I would contact the study's authors to respond to those objections. I emailed them, and they responded confirming receipt of my email, along with numerous others regarding their study. They informed me that they would do their best to respond to the comments I sent to them from this blog as soon as possible.
I also stated that I had sent the study to my father, Donald T. Searls, a statistician for his entire professional career, for his review.
My dad received his Ph.D in statistics in 1962. He worked in in both private corporations and quasi-governmental organizations, before becoming a professor of Mathematics and Applied Statistics in the mid-80's at the University of North Colorado until his retirement in 1996. A more complete bio of his professional career follows:
Donald T. Searls is a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado.
During the course of his career he was Vice President of WESTAT Research in its formative years (now Westat Inc.) working for corporate clients such as Budweiser; Director of Statistics for the Education Commission of the States and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); and as a Professor at UNC.
He received his Ph.D from North Carolina State University, where he worked with a number of prominent mathematicians and statisticians at the Research Triangle Institute back in the late 50's and early 60's.
He frequently had the opportunity to collaborate with such luminaries in the field as John Tukey, Getrude Cox and Frederick Mosteller.
He's been a member of the American Statistical Association for over 50 years. His last published paper was "THROW AWAY ZONES FOR PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS," presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, August 5-9, 2001. My brother, Trace W. Searls, who also holds a Ph.D in statistics was his co-author. He still maintains a consulting business at the age of 85.
I literally do not know how many papers, monographs, comments to journal articles, etc. my father has authored and published in his lifetime but the number exceeds 100.
I sent my dad the study regarding potential election fraud in the Democratic primaries in 2016, without telling him why I was interested in it, or that I had posted about it online.
I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote:
I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present.
The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own.
My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him.
Dad
I called him after receiving his response to clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself.
I will provide a report on the authors response to the criticism received here when I receive it.
Say whatever you like. I am going to let my father's words speak for themselves.
UPDATE: FWIW, I am adding the following comment at a reddit site to this post as it relates to the issue of why the study's authors likely included probability theory (the "P value") in the study, and reflects upon my father's own comment in the email and to me on the phone re: that issue.
I have a long history (Almost 50 years) with statistics as well. And I also agree with your father. The data speaks for itself. However, I disagree with him that the authors of the study should not have brought in probability theory. The reasons for that are entirely political. This is because reporting statistics has been bastardized in the media over the last few decades. every reported study needs a "P value" even though people reading it do not really understand what the p-value really is. However, this "p-value" has become dominant in the mind of the public. So you give the probability values just because in the minds of the reading public that is what gives the study its validity.
Comments
(No subject)
My apology
I was testing whether or not i could post a video and clicked the wrong clicker.
fyi,
this video is autoplaying.
ed: doh, nm!
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
agree. no words.
Go, Dad!!
85 and kicking, ya can't beat that. I'm only 60 and I have to practically drag myself out of bed each day.
Goes dancing, plays golf
Now if I could just get him to support Bernie.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
He supports democracy and the truth.
To me, his comment is almost worth more because he doesn't support Bernie.
That's a real American: "it is devastating even though I don't agree with him."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
One of the many reasons I am in awe of Bernie.
I am "only" 66 and some days I feel like you do.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Thank you for all the work you're doing.
I'm not a statistician but I do know how to read people and read stories, et cetera, and I know in my brain based on what I've seen that there has absolutely been election fraud.
If I had the time, I could/would find over 100 links to back up what I believe to be true, but I don't have that kind of time since I have a double full-time job and have a family and household to take care of.
Exactly. The exit poll data alone is enough to raise suspicion,
then there were the voter roll purges, vanishing polling places, etc., etc.
Even without fraud, consider the 50-state different-rules-for-each strategy. Consider California, you have to know to say you want to surrender your mail-in ballot and request a crossover ballot. Among many other mysterious rites of passage.
So who does this favor? Older, more established Dems, well aware that different states have different, sometimes very picky rules to follow. And/or candidates who they favor, to whom they will give the secret codes to the club.
Who does this confuse? New Dems, outsiders without a long history of paying attention to party rituals. Young people, who don't like rules and perhaps tend not to pay attention to detail.
The whole setup is designed to thwart an outside challenger.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Steven D,
You are genetically predisposed to write extremely well researched and analyzed pieces here and at Booman, GOS...
I hope your Dad will write in Bernie.
One can hope.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Bravo!
Il tuo padre è un buon uomo.
The Republican thing, well.........
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
if sampling was completely random and independent
then certainly the conclusions are valid.
The critics on the link are claiming that it was not random and/or independent. I don't think they understand the science of exit polling and margins of error. It is designed to be random and independent.
Then there are the detractors who want you to believe that most people have a bias toward lying and being dishonest to the exit polls. That's subjective and conjecture. Yes, in a criminal world or a prison or some crazy capitalist jungle where everyone is cheating and stealing from each other, that may be true but you have to assume people who are coming into, and going out of, voting precincts, they are basically good and are not compulsive liars.
Your father's statements are rational and logical. However I don't understand the "empirical data vrs. probabilty theory" statement. Yes, I know that one simple interpretation of empirical data can suggest that umbrellas cause rain, correlation implies causation, ect.
Opinions before you voted, that's a different kind of "data" than a statement after you voted. Assuming most people are not compulsive liars and can remember the most recent past within the last 30 minutes or so, the exit poll is the closest concept in my mind of real data, and using statistical quality control with that data, to make logical inferences within a certain confidence interval, or margin of error as it is used in the polling.
The best way is to take independent random samples of paper ballots, and then also use exit polling as a secondary method to insure the results are valid. That's what California is doing in the June 2016 primaries, which were not so much revealing any mechanical errors but is showing something much more nefarious and deliberately criminal.
Conservative or liberal, any sane person should be concerned about the failure of the democratic process here in the US these days.
As a Physicist
If I may be so bold as to comment: I use detectors to measure radiation. This "counting" process is by definition approximate. That is if my counter "clicks" 100 times I know that number is good to within ± 10, if my counter "clicks" 10000 times I know that number is good to within ± 100. The statistical variation of any measurement I make is the square root of the measurement I have made.
When I plot a graph of this data against time, I never put in the error bars. When I draw a curve (exponential) through the data I use the raw data to decide the "best fit".
Whether I now do a statistical analysis depends upon the intent of the project. If I am trying to identify the particular particles I throw the whole StatPac at it and grind out all the painful details for all to see. But, if I am doing a phenomenological study of the gross amount of radiation as a function of time the painful details add nothing to the discussion at hand. In this latter case the how "hot" value is by its nature approximate. Reporting a confidence as determined by statistics usually overstates your confidence to the point of being on the wrong side of the line between honest and not-so-honest.
i'm glad there's progressive thinkers left in America
I just saw "Fat Boy and Little Man" on Pluto TV last week. Oppenheimer was a fantastic scientist. Hard to imagine that he was such a leftist like that, and in the context of the pre-Cold War days.
The whole political spectrum has shifted the curve so far to the right, it's impossible to imagine how we will ever become 'normal' again. I hope Bernie doesn't compromise his lifelong progressive record by attaching his name to Hillary. Trump is a big bad wolf, but you can't scare me into voting for Hillary.
Hah! When you said you saw "Fat boy and Little Man" I thought
at first that you were about to launch into a story about Chris Christie and Trump, lol!
Man, this season has gotten me jaded if that is the first place my mind went...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Leftists at Los Alamos
While most people are rather apolitical I suppose, most of the scientists that I knew at Los Alamos were progressives of one type or another. In fact most scientists that I know from all over are mostly left of center. I am sure sampling error, self-selective association, self-censorship, and other confounding processes are at work. However, given the sampling of that type of population in Nebraska, Los Alamos has a much higher population of liberals than other places.
I suspect, having access to inside information as a reality check against the "official story" on a daily basis tends to be a radicalizing factor. Well, that's the way it worked for me, for what it is worth.
In the 1950s-60s, the image was of Herman Kahn and Edward Teller
Persons with a very Saruman-esque aura, who are said to have been the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove character.
If there were and are “progressive” (which in this context I would describe as favoring peace and disarmament) atomic scientists, except for The Bulletin they seem to have kept a very low public profile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller
Actually, like with Bernie, the MSM made it so . . .
I love Statistics, but they are for the Elite, Educated, Thought
The whole thing is a problem. As a person whose career was centered around computers and programming and systems analysis I can assure you that there is no reason why voting can't be hacked, changed and a timer added to remove all evidence.
Statistics can tell us a lot of things, but as far as voting goes, they are giving us an inkling as to whether voting has been hacked or not. Where can we go from there? Absolutely nowhere because all the evidence has been disappeared by the hacker.
How do we educate a population that has been trained to believe computers are infallible and furthermore, get them to demand a more verifiable system than that which we have? How do we make an argument without proof?
So the bottom line is that statistics might be our last resort for finding proof, but the public has long been trained to distrust statistics.
Ultimately, I don't think we are going to find any change until the people are starving. That is the model that capitalism will bring us to. But I suspect the 1% know that capitalism has reached its limits because thery have begun to parasitize the public treasury in order to keep that so-important "growth" going. But the question really is, what does the 1% plan to do once they have sucked every possible thing out of a finite planet?
I suspect they have a plan. They aren't stupid, and space exploration has become privatized. The general population is too busy trying to hold things together with kids and bills and rampant credit that they have zero time to invest in trying to figure out what is going on. Even if space exploration doesn't work out, they have built their fortresses, so when we, the people, begin to fight over water and arable land and livable space, they won't be there to be blamed because by then we'll be whipped up into hating one another's religion or politics or whatever and will be too busy killing each other to land blame in its proper place.
So yeah, the system is rigged. Statistics might be able to prove it or not. But the bottom line lies with those people struggling to keep up with their rent or mortgage and utilities and groceries and the guilt of not having enough time for their kids and the absolute suppression of any of their dreams. Because those people will not know how to interpret statistics nor will they have the time to investigate vote-rigging much less search out other sources of information other than those our parents and grandparents trusted.
We are at such a crucial point in history. I want a write-in for Bernie or Bernie on the Green ticket or a unified vote for Jill Stein. We are all over the place, not knowing what to do or how to handle it, and we will be freaking devastated should Bernie throw his support to the most complicit person of the corruption in politics we've ever seen.
Bernie's people need a unifying message. Either we write in Bernie or he takes the Green Party spot or we all vote for Jill. If we mass disenroll from the Democratic Party we need to do it after the convention as a severe condemnation of the party's unwillingness to consider our platform issues.
Bernie knows damned well he can't persuade us to vote for Hillary unless MAJOR changes take place in the party and platform.
Let's send him some more money and encourage him to not only stick it out through Philadelphia, but to do the RIGHT THING.
And the right thing is not scaring us with Trump = that card has already been played to no effect.
Some machines also have a paper trail
like the ones in my area of NY. Poll-watchers could insist on correlating the count of these with the machine totals. (I was a poll-watcher, and didn't think of doing this until days later.)
Just tonight I sent an email to the Carter Center, asking them to get involved with the election fraud in the primary. Should we bombard their office with requests? Could we make sure they are involved in monitoring the gen election, especially if Bernie is on the ballot?
Can we request that Carter be a speaker at the convention?
I would not do a write in...
there's too many states that just trash them. I agree that Bernie should go to the Greens-- Dr. Stein has invited him to their convention on August 7 to be on a ticket w/ her (she's sliding back to VP in this case). They are already on the ballot in 25 states and working very hard to get on more. I also agree that if Bernie doesn't want to run at all, we should all vote Stein. You are right: we need unification, so we can show/prove how powerful another party can be.
agreed
If Bernie ends his run at the convention, I will be encouraging every Berner I know to vote Stein.
If for no other reason than 'stayed at home' is difficult to quantify for the DNC.
Great essay!
Thank you for asking your father to comment on this. Having expert input strengthens an already very strong argument that election fraud has occurred.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I'm no statistician but looking at Bernie's rallies tells
the TRUTH. I don't know the difference between a p value and a proportional hazard ration. But I do know that when election sites are cut by 2/3rds, there is malign intent. I do know when over 100,000 voters in Brooklyn alone get disenfranchised, there is fraud. I do know that the probability of 6 out of 6 coin tosses favoring the same individual is as minute as the chances of a snowball surviving a trip across the Sahara.
actually binomial probability of 6 coin tosses
is 2^6 or 1/64, given 6 flips and six heads (or six tails). That's not super unusual.
It's more like finding the single grain of sand buried on planet Earth somewhere, you pick the right grain of sand the first time. You travelled all the way to the Sahara, braved ISIS and scorpions and sand storms, then dug down 50 feet at the exact spot. Somehow you know where that grain of sand was buried! That's what this primary election fraud is like.
I keep coming back to the information
that the United States government tracks exit polls for other countries and will not recognize an election where a Hillary sized discrepancy occurs. How many times did this happen during the primaries, and how many times did the MSM pets mouth the received knowledge that "Bernie does well in caucuses" meme? Sure he did better in caucuses because they couldn't be hacked (DNC official interference notwithstanding)!
Data is a plural noun
Consider the nits to have been picked. As for the statistics: I track and characterize low concentrations of short-lived isotopes in the environment. I know statistics, and I get very grumpy when some nattering nabob of negativism starts harping about the lack of some esoteric statistical unicorn in my work. The Data are all Horses, I don't need to look for unicorns!!!
I think I like your dad.
Data are a plural noun
Or perhaps data are plural nouns.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
data est in nomine pluralis
et a sinistro pede.
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
Data (the single word) is a plural noun
Yes, latin is better but my auto-correct is driving me crazy.
thanks
for following up on this.
Now only if Congress would.
I loved reading this
It's real.
It says all you need to know about Booman's site
that it's filled with people who would fight the truth. "boo"man is a CIA spook just like Markos, IMO. That's what seemed apparent from almost day one.
No he is not
I have been a front pager there since 2005. However his site has been infested by David Brock trolls. I find that sad.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Like that other site that shall remain nameless
I met Booman years ago at an early version of Netroots Nation. He is cool, unlike the owner of the other one. But his site has been trolled.
Thanks for helping make Rodolfo's study get traction.
I am a bit of a computer geek and I actually did teach advanced statistics and probabilities at a university in another lifetime. I hacked my first computer (a mainframe by today's standards) back in 1978. I believe that it is quite possible that computers doing the vote counts spit out controlled results, specially when there is no paper trail and specially in primaries. Conspiracies do exist and not just in theory.
The political revolution continues
I love this, Steven! Thank your Dad from us for taking the time
to analyze the report. Bookmarking and sharing!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Smoke but no fire
I think the problem is not really one of statistics, but one of understanding the system under observation.
The exit poll data seems like it would potentially be the most illuminating. At first glance it's odd that Clinton's final tally improved over the exit polls. However, the final tally will include early and absentee ballots in addition to those cast at polling places; I believe that absentee ballots often trend to the conservative side of the spectrum and thus might be expected to favor Clinton.
The paper trail vs no paper trail difference suggested would also seem to have problems. The bulk of the trail-less states are conservative and heavily black and would be expected to lean more heavily towards Clinton in this race. This strikes me as an example of correlation vs. causation (i.e., the crappy voting process is linked to southern GOP states which are linked to higher Clinton support).
Entire city blocks were purged off the rolls in Brooklyn.
Hundreds of verified cases of people's voter registrations were changed without their knowledge and consent. Verified in the sense of: they were used as evidence in a lawsuit, and the clearly unsympathetic judge could not throw the case out.
One gentleman checked his registration ten days out from the NY Primary. He was a Democrat. He checked three days out. He wasn't a Democrat anymore.
Similar things happened in AZ, PA, CA. It even happened to a member here.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Vote "purge" happened to me,
...so I must say it has happened to more than one member here. I had been registered Peace & Freedom, but I changed my reg to Dem two months out because I wanted to vote for Bernie. I continued to check my registration on line right up to the night before the election in California, and I was registered correctly as a Dem from many weeks before the deadline.
I'm a mail-in voter, and was astonished to find that the registrar had sent me a P & F ballot, not a Dem ballot. So, instead of mail-in, I had to go to my precinct and request a Dem ballot. I told the poll workers to check my registration on line. They saw I was registered as Democratic. Therefore I was given a "provisional" Democratic ballot. I asked the workers when it would be counted. She said, "In 28 days!"
If this had been a deliberate act of vote-suppression and happened to others, it could have had a significant effect. Many people who had been registered as either Green or Peace and Freedom had switched back to Democrat just as I did. This could have really effected the counting of votes for Bernie.
Talking about this fiasco with my mother of dementia
brought in a few new points of variance. Just from her butt-head denials.
--polled people lie instead of saying No Opinion. = ratfucking.
--pollster make up results. Possible, but with competition from other polling agencies, should that smooth the numbers and would seem unlikely, but possible they are all gaming.
--people lie on exit polls. Why? = ratfucking.
I really have to believe that most citizens are honest in most of their dealings. Or I am clueless person.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Or the Clinton campaign decided on their base.
I think they could easily have decided that publicizing early on how popular they were with Blacks worked well for them. "You are Black, therefore you know you have lots of reasons to vote for me." Then they could target heavily Black areas with voter machine fraud, and , voila, they were right! The Black, especially Southern, population voted as predicted. I'm just basing my thought on:
!. known election fraud in the North,
2. my experience phone-banking. I had some delightful conversations with elderly Southern Black voters who either were for Bernie or promised to get their younger family members to let them read about Bernie on the computer, and
3. my inability to comprehend why some areas of states went for H when others went for B. For instance, I concluded rural areas would not be worth the trouble of fiddling with voter machines so that some % of votes switched from B to H. Plus, with very small, tightly knit communities, people might smell a rat more easily than in more highly populated, more impersonal areas.
In other words, I think there was a lot of fraud & some areas plus some populations were targeted more than others. And I just can't buy that H won that many Black votes in the South.
Also, there may have been pressures that are hard to measure. One Southern Black man, father of two teen-aged girls, told me that he liked Bernie & would like to vote for him, but he was afraid "of the fall-out." He wouldn't explain further, but finally decided that he owed it to his children to vote for B. One Hispanic man in NV told me he'd "try" to vote for Bernie. I asked why he wasn't sure if he could. He told me he'd be voting in the casino with his boss watching. Yikes.
agreed
Valid points.
Which is why I think the California votes need to be scrutinized very closely. If Bernie won at the polls but lost through the mail, then the numbers should show that.
I'd also love to know about ballots that had 'issues' such as signature problems, to determine if Bernie ballots suffered this fate more often than $$Hillary ballots.
My experience in NY leads me to believe that the old farts infesting some precincts are not to be trusted.
Then explain the Republican exit polls being spot on please
Trump represents a similar position to Bernie in the republican prinaries. By your theory, conservative establishment republicans would have voted early or mail in (also, this is actually not true, early voting favors more liberal and younger voters, but we will allow it for sake of your argument.)
So, we should see the same exit polling shifts in the republican primary. But we don't. Every single state was within the margin of error.
Haven't scrutinized all of the data . . .
However, I don't believe the data is correct. Virginia is classified as a state without a paper trail. However, many jurisdictions have transitioned back to using paper ballots and optical scanners as of this election cycle (some started the transition in 2014).
Also, not clear how the 2008 data is being used as a point of comparison. Many of the states that are listed as "no paper trail" are in the south which had record turnout in 2008 due to Obama's historic candidacy. These are also states that have some of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the country, and many of those laws went into effect between 2008 and 2016. Most of these states were also not heavily contested by Sanders in 2016. e.g. no advertising, most of the ground organization was being done by local volunteers.
The authors also appear to have used Richard Charmin's data for exit poll information. Why not compile it from primary sources?
Could this lead to the nomination of Bernie?
BREAKING: This Lawsuit Might End Hillary's Run & Prove Election Fraud!
Here is the text on this video
Here is a book review of people here in Columbus OH who have been working on the issue of election integrity for years and written several books. I attended a Saturday Salon last night and there were hints about the suit. They said that Sanders actually won the primary and that the fraud this time was so bad that it can be detected. There will be more details when the suit is filed. They are waiting for more exit poll information.
Book Review: Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, THE STRIP & FLIP SELECTION OF 2016: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election Theft
I have been going to their events for a couple of years and are convinced that they do solid work.
In a way, voting is simple. In another way, it is an inside game and gets very complex.
Bob Fritakis, the lead person in Columbus on this work, related a story from his work as an International Elections Monitor. (Not sure if that is the correct title, but you get the idea).
He was in El Salvador during the civil war in the 1980's. He went into the contested areas. The only thing that the two sides agreed on was transparent elections. Here is the way to do it. Paper ballots. Ballot box transparent so you can see that it starts out empty. People put their ballot in the ballot box. Ballot box opened in public, probably filmed, and the ballots publicly counted.
Here in the US we have electronic voting machines with proprietary software and here in OH, the owners of the machines are right wing religious folks. And the electronic systems cannot be audited.
Hopefully this national shame will get the proper treatment now.
You can support this work
Visit them at http://trustvote.org/
They have delayed bringing their suit to include the CA vote theft data. I wish them the best!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Outstanding VIDEO - recommend people watch it
I attend the informal Saturday Salons once a month at Bob Fritakis's house.
Bob and Cliff are in the video.
I have heard these kinds of statements there, but here they are on record saying them
Bob says about our elections, "trust but don't verify"
It is the job of the atty general to investigate and the job of the public and groups like this to raise the issue
Note to StevenD - I sent you a private email because I was not sure how much of what I have heard is public. This video lays out all that I have heard. There are a couple of things I mentioned in the email that might not be on the video.
Interesting video on facebook
I realize it doesn't "prove" anything, but for those of us that suspect that the party apparatus is encouraging 'problems' in Bernie strongholds, this is very provocative.
https://www.facebook.com/HowHillaryClintonStoleTheNomination/videos/9010...
Look at the video posted above - years of experience on this
Visit them at http://trustvote.org/
Biggest problem is that people don't think it could happen here.
As I meant above, I like my neighbors and the people
who I associate with every day. Overall, we are a trusting lot. And most try to stay with honest dealings. Elections make those interested at all commit. Why lie then?
We believe it can't happen here, but it has and is. And many are asleep.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
It's so rigged, they don't even care if we know it's rigged.
"that can't happen in America." so many say to me upon finding out that me and my husband's "votes" were suppressed and our registrations wiped clean....
Not untill it happens to them I guess.
I will never register, if I am able to again, as a Democrat. The Ds are just Rs. No telling them apart. It's all one party. Party of Greed and Corruption.
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
They are talking about the election fraud here in Brazil...
I have friends that live down there and one just sent me this video that I hadn't seen yet of the fiasco.
Broken machines, provisional ballots because no voter rolls, etc.
Not sure how to go about linking a facebook video feed and can't seem to pull it out like a youtube video so sorry for the lack of embedding.
https://www.facebook.com/HowHillaryClintonStoleTheNomination/videos/9010...
This is some sorry shit. We would be mocking any other nation that conducted it's elections in such a manner.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Woman who wrote WA Post Article from Harvard and Sidney
Two WA Post articles in March about US elections ranked worse in Western Democracies
Here is the second one by Pipa Norris
PostEverything U.S. elections ranked worst among Western democracies. Here’s why. Americans are often proud of the democratic process here. Maybe they shouldn't be
I sent her an email with the video linked above by trustvote & the book review of the Strip and Flip Selection
I spent a little more time on her web page and she has written several books about election integrity
This is the kind of person with credentials needed for the fight against this corrupt primary.
Here is her web page and scroll down to fine the books on the left
https://sites.google.com/site/pippanorris3/home/contact-me
Good find on US election-process credibility, Don.
As an aside, by 2004, it was a known-known, globally, that US electoral outcomes during presidential cycles were not credible. But there are two main reasons that it doesn't matter, geopolitically, and the issue is ignored at the G-20, for example:
1. The two party system is not a credible process in the first place. A binary coin-flip political construct cannot scale to provide representational democracy in a complex and diversified society. Party candidates are preselected by the ruling junta long before the US general election.
2. No. 1 is accepted and approved by the American People, who pay to support US global murder and mayhem. The People do not protest the financial gutting of their county and their ever diminishing personal security. Thus, the People are complicit in suppression of their civil rights and democracy.
In other words, the American people own this.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Point out election fraud - be called a conspiracy theorist
Some years ago I went to a Saturday Salon with the people here in Columbus working on election integrity. I posted some stuff on TOP and was called a conspiracy theorist. There are recommended diaries up there already down playing election fraud in the presidential primary.
Recommend the long video linked above and linked again here at trustvote.org
http://trustvote.org/
Features Bob Fritakis and Cliff Arenebeck.
Cliff with others have been working for years to put Karl Rove in jail. Tampering with elections is a felony.
Last Saturday Cliff mentioned that Bob could have been assassinated. He broke the story years ago about the CIA using Rickenbacker airport here in Columbus for the Iran - Contra drug money activity.
They come across on the video just like they do in person.
What if, what if, there was a popular uprising that demanded excellent elections that moved the US from the bottom of the list to at least the middle if not higher? Along with money in politics, throwing elections is an American sport.
The fact that Obama has not freed Governor Siegleman is another example of the break down of our government. That was a Karl Rove engineered take down of a good governor. It was practice for corrupting politics like the Zionists use Palestinians to test out weapons systems and security systems that they sell around the world.
From Dec 2015
Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman held in solitary in prison, son says
One Pissed Off Liberal worked with Don in conjunction with his prison work in AL and thinks highly of him and has tried everything he knows to get him out of jail.
Thanks for the info, Don. Here's some for you.
This particular topic — voting fraud and political prisoners — is a difficult one for me. It is the bedrock of all assumptions that Americans have about their government, and it is the one place where reality can be seen at any time.
No one really wants to see it. So, the gov-pumped narrative default kicks in, labeling such discussions as "conspiracy theories." The whole pile of deceit makes me sad. I have no desire to do anything about it, either.
Same default kicks in for 9/11. Did you catch last Friday's veto-proof legislation where congress made it possible for victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for damages, since they were clearly behind it. The new Saudi King when first confronted with a question about it shot back, "It wasn't us. It was Mossad." Heh. This has triggered a Petrodollar jihad. Right before the elections, no less.
I'm not sure if this got past the US news filters.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Interesting that 9/11 families can sue Saudi Arabia
1. will the Senate make sure that the 28 pages of the 9/11 report are published?
2. will Obama carry through with his veto? But with a unanimous voice vote, they can over ride the veto
3. the Wahhabi support of the Royal Family is a deal for peace at home, but training fundamentalists around the world. Many ongoing terrorism problems from this effort. Will it come out
4. Thomas Drake found out that 9/11 could have been prevented. And many others probably know. If there is an open trial that could lead to a lot of stuff that the security state does not want brought out.
5. Former National Security Adviser for Eisenhower (and don't know all his tenure, maybe Truman and possibly JFK) said that the last time there was civilian control of the military was when Eisenhower was president. The military does not want exposure and the administration protects them.
This might be interesting.
Hillary Clinton did not win
Hillary Clinton did not win the Dem Primary
RICO ~ Election Fraud lawsuit filed June 6th, 2016
BERNIE SANDERS IS THE DEM NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
Case Closed ~ Bernie Sanders won.
Arnebeck said at the fair elections conference this week:
"There is no way the Democratic Convention is going to nominate somebody on the basis of obviously stolen votes…the facts are coming out and that’s a fact…We are suing the media as being complicit in the crime. They are acting as accessories after the fact. They are covering up evidence of criminal activity, it’s a crime"
https://youtu.be/_IAJ5fAm3Cs
You have to get past the first part of the video to hear about the charges for Fraud, be patient
What is #ExitpollGate
The Writing of John Laurits
"My friend, I’m delighted you’ve asked! #ExitPollGate is a major — and I mean YUGE — red flag that we are being screwed big-time! You see, exit polls are one of the most basic ways that we detect election fraud. An exit poll is pretty much like a survey that they conduct at poll-stations on election day. The people who are doing the survey approach voters as they are leaving the polls — then, there’s a ton of boring questions (like age, gender, ethnicity, party-affiliation, etc.) — but there are also very interesting questions — questions like “who did you vote for?”
"Unlike public opinion polls or pre-election polls — exit polls are done after a person has already voted. Remember that — it’s an important point. Other polls are more prone to being way off the mark because humans are often confused & they tend to change their minds in ways that no one can predict — but exit polls tend to be more accurate because they ask about something that’s already happened. Because of this crucial difference, a well-conducted exit poll should have a margin of error of ±2% — and that’s pretty accurate!"
This is the part where you get angry…
"Now, it’s not exactly a secret that a lot of the exit polls in the 2016 democratic primaries were way off. Naturally, this caught the attention of different organizations that try to watch out for us (like these guys - http://trustvote.org/) but, as it turns out, Edison (the exit poll company) doesn’t feel like turning over the raw exit poll data —
Oh wait! I forgot to mention that the US allows polling companies to “adjust” the polling data to match the final results and, to make it even more democratic, it might be totally legal for them to withhold the real exit-polls. Which is definitely not weird or suspicious, at all. Seriously, this is true — the law is buried in the ironically-named “Help Americans Vote Act.”
"Anyway — where were we? Oh — so, Edison, the exit poll company, won’t release the raw exit poll data and the corporate-media only shows “adjusted” exit polls to the public. Now, prepare to be infuriated — once we started making a bit of a fuss over having access to the raw (or un-tampered-with) exit poll data, the corporate-media canceled all the remaining exit polls. And that, my friends, is basically why #ExitPollGate is really important."
https://johnlaurits.com/2016/06/11/what-is-exitpollgate/
https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/major-election-fraud-...
http://electiondefensealliance.org/frequently_asked_questions_about_exit...
Hi Steven D! Someone from Snopes is looking for help ...
FYI, ec suggested that I get in touch with you, and so I am here.
There is a thread over on Reddit called
Do Exit Polls Prove Pro-Clinton Election Fraud?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kossacks_for_Sanders/comments/4pjzlh/do_exit_po...
It references an article on Snopes that involves the same study in your diary:
Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud Discrepancies Through Exit Poll Discrepancies
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-...
Apparently the author of that article, Kim LaCapria, is getting some pushback (as one might imagine, right?) and is basically trying to strengthen her case. She came to K4S and has made some posts in that thread, including a reply that was made to one of my comments ... if you care, you can see that here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kossacks_for_Sanders/comments/4pjzlh/do_exit_po...
ec suggested that I pass on your diary to Kim, which is what I am about to do. But I first wanted to cross-pollinate with you and let you know that I was going to take that action. I am going to suggest to her that getting in contact with you (and/or your father) might be a very good thing to do. I told Kim that my instinct is that what would be the most helpful to her would be to get in contact with people who have serious math cred. Perhaps you and/or your father might be able to help her accomplish that goal? Perhaps your father might BE that person? Perhaps he might have contacts with others who would also be willing to help Kim?
This was her reply to my comment:
Some other comments from her:
Finally, Kim was the author on Snopes who exposed the lies being told in Nevada about Sanders folks throwing chairs. I think it would be so awesome if we could help her to build a concrete case about whether or not the exit polling discrepancies are measuring fraud or not. Thank you!
~OaWN
Left you private messages
Re this matter.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Trying to Understand the Fraud
I am trying to understand if higher percentages of votes in larger precincts is really fraud or not. I see the same pattern in NJ with the Democratic Primary, but not the Republican one. Could this just be a demographic anomaly? Not sure, but I am hoping someone in the know can explain what this means. This is the same thing that was being seen in Louisiana.
Thank you