Election Fraud Story Gets Worse: Irregularities Tied to E-Voting Machine Companies that Donated to Clinton Fund
From the same people who released the study showing the extraordinarily high probability that Hillary Clinton exceeded exit polling results in states that had no paper trail to use to audit the vote, we now get some even more "interesting" developments.
It seems that Hillary did especially well in which states where the owners of two of the three companies that make and support e-voting machines, donated to the Clinton Fund.
Interestingly, much information has recently come to light about the Clinton candidacy. Notably, the hacker Guccifer 2.0 released documents which he took from the computer network of the Democratic National Committee. Among these files, one tabulated a list of big-money donors to the Clinton Foundation. One fact has gone unreported in the media: Two of the three companies that control the electronic voting market, namely Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. Hart Intercivic), are in this list of big-money donors.
To examine the possibility that the products linked to these companies had been used to commit electoral fraud, we borrowed the methodology of a paper by Francois Choquette and James Johnson (C&J). Their paper is based on one of the basic principles in the biological and social sciences: As the amount of data increases, the measurement of the average approaches the ‘true’ average. In other words, as more data is added, the average fluctuates less and less. [...]
You see, these same voting irregularities had been shown to occur in the 2008 and 2012 elections in favor of McCain and Romney, respectively, by the researchers, Choquette and Johnson. In 2008 and 2012, McCain and Romney" were "financially interconnected with two of the major electronic voting companies." Both the companies who donated to the Clinton Foundation share a history of past election controversies and conviction for white collar crimes.
So, Rodolpho Cortes Barragan, Standford and Axel Geijsel, Tilburg University, used the same methodology Choquette and Johnson to examine the primary results in 2016. Here's what they found just in Louisana:
When we looked at the results of the Republican primaries, we did not observe that any candidate kept gaining a larger and larger share of the vote at larger precincts (meaning the lines were relatively stable as precinct size increased). However, when we looked at the Democratic primaries, we observed severe abnormalities. Namely, the share of votes that Hillary Clinton received kept increasing (leading to a whopping 25%). This type of statistical abnormality is seen in almost every parish (county). It does not appear in any parish for the Republican primary ...
Funny how no "funny business" ever occurred this year in the Republican primaries, only the Democratic ones. But I digress ...
In their new study, Barragan and Geijsel didn't look at the exit polling, which was immediately attacked by many Clinton supporters attacked the use of exit polls (often with little or no knowledge of statistics) as vaild, such as Ari Bermin in an attack piece he wrote for The Nation. This time Barragan and Geijsel looked at pre-election polls of likely voters, to see what effect the election results varied from those polls in states with and without a paper trail, on a county by county basis. Here's what they had to say:
[We uncovered] new information that suggests to a concerted effort to swing the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Specifically, we move beyond comparing the official results to the controversial exit polls. Instead, we examine a relatively neglected set of numbers: The expected result based on pre-election polls of likely voters. 337 such polls are listed on the database provided by Real Clear Politics, representing 139,231 voters across 34 primary states.
We found that while the polls were quite successful at predicting Clinton’s numbers in states with paper trails (just a statistically inconsequential 1% difference), Clinton over-performed by an average of 9% in the states that use electronic voting machines but fail to provide paper evidence of this vote
Heer's that result as expressed in a bar graph. The blue bars show what the pre-election polls predicted the percentage of votes Hillary would receive versus the red bars, which show the actual election result for Clinton.
As you can see, in states with no paper trail because the votes were counted on untraceable e-voting machines, Hillary improved by a whopping nine (9) percent increase over pre-election polling results for likely voters, whereas in states where paper trails existed, she only exceeded the pre-election polls by one (1) percent. Ironic eh, one percent? It's as if someone with a black comedic sensibility was writing this year's election "script."
In an ironic twist of fate, the basis if electronic voting machines being used to steal an election was actually reported in this 2004 article in The Nation, when they feared the Democratic Presidential nominee, John Kerry, would lose because of Republican manipulation of our votes. Now, however, that the Democratic Party Establishment candidate stands accused of benefiting from the same electronic voting machine that cannot be audited, they sing a different tune. No rigged election this time, despite numerous studies that have demonstrated votes have likely been manipulated by these exact same machines, whether comparing final voting results to exit polls or pre-election polls.
Here's Baragan & Geigsel's understated response to this result:
Thus, pollsters were quite accurate in predicting the outcome, but only in states where fraud is hardest to hide. This situation is completely flipped in the states where the placed vote cannot be verified, as the vote only ever existed in the machines. [...]
Why would voters in larger precincts favor one candidate over the other by such a wide margin? We have been unable to come up with a reasonable psychological or sociological reason that would apply only to voters voting in the Democratic primary.
In conclusion, the data suggests that Clinton won in counties and in states where Clinton Foundation donors are responsible for the voting machines. Thus, we strongly believe that the risk posed by unverifiable electronic voting should not be taken. Our country should go back to verifiable voting. An honest election is more important than a day of labor.
Cue the Correct the Record and Hillary supporters (or hired trolls) CT whiners in one, two, three ...