Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing
2 posters
Author
Message
individualized Tower
Posts : 5737 ᚠ : 6982 Join date : 2011-11-03 Location : The Stars
Subject: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:12 am
Once and for all I am going to lay out the case demonstrating that the election system is hacked in the US, probably in European nations too. For now I will focus on the US.
This will include evidence of illegal immigrants and other non-citizens voting; millions of uncounted votes; MSM voter fraud denial; Diebold and other voting computer companies altering the vote totals; distortion of exit polling data to cover their tracks; and outright hacking and buying the election. I will also throw in a small analysis about the implications of all this within the two major political parties (hint, they have been forced to sell out to the globalists in order to even remain electable).
Also in brief: Trump was right about the election being rigged, he was right about illegals voting and massive voter fraud, and he still dominated anyway. Conclusion: it is still possible to have a legitimate election but only if the voter turnout is incredibly massive (and perhaps also only if the Russians or others help by calling attention to the possibility of election hacking, basically throwing themselves under the bus in order to force more scrutiny of the electoral process).
individualized Tower
Posts : 5737 ᚠ : 6982 Join date : 2011-11-03 Location : The Stars
Subject: Re: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:17 am
Quote :
Electoral Studies December 2014, Vol.36:149–157, doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2014.09.001 Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections? Jesse T. RichmanGulshan A. ChatthaDavid C. Earnest Show more Highlights • First use of representative sample to measure non-citizen voting in USA. • Some non-citizens cast votes in U.S. elections despite legal bans. • Non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates. • Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress. • Voter photo-identification rules have limited effect on non-citizen participation. Abstract In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.
Keywords Non-citizenVotingImmigrantEnfranchisementVote fraudRegistration 1 Introduction This analysis provides some of the first available nationwide estimates of the portion of non-citizen immigrants who vote in U.S. elections. These estimates speak to an ongoing debate concerning non-citizen voting rights within the United States (DeSipio, 2011, Earnest, 2008, FAIR, 2004, Fund and von Spakovsky, 2012, Hayduk, 2006, Immigration Policy Center, 2012 and Munro, 2008; Song, 2009 and Von Spakovsky, 2012) and they also speak to broader global questions concerning the normative political place of non-citizens in democratic politics.
Most state and local governments in the United States bar non-citizens from participating in elections (the exception: a few localities in Maryland), but the question of whether non-citizen immigrants can, and should, participate receives varied answers globally (Earnest, 2008) with many countries offering at least some opportunity for some resident non-citizens to participate in local elections, and some countries offering full participation in national elections.
The United States also has a long history of noncitizen voting at the local, state and national levels. Aylsworth (1931) notes that “during the nineteenth century, the laws and constitutions of at least twenty-two states and territories granted aliens the right to vote.” From the founding of the Republic to the early 20th century, various territories and states enfranchised noncitizen residents for several reasons. During westward expansion, several territories offered the franchise to entice European migrants to settle so that territories would meet the population criterion for admission to the Union. Similarly, during Reconstruction several southern states offered the franchise to migrants who would replace slave labor. Later, some states enfranchised so-called “declarant aliens” (resident aliens who declared their intent to naturalize) to educate them about the interests and issues of their communities. Yet the practice of enfranchising noncitizens served less salutary goals as well. By enfranchising only propertied white European men, the practice of noncitizen voting reinforced extant prohibitions on voting by women, African Americans, Asian Americans, the poor and others. By the 1920s, however, following the large migrations of the early 20th century, all states had revoked the voting rights of noncitizens (Earnest, 2008, 25–26). Non-citizens voted legally in every presidential election through 1924. By 1928 the last state constitution that protected non-citizen voting (Arkansas') had been amended.
The decision to (dis) enfranchise non-citizens falls within the states' authority to define qualifications for voting. The nineteenth-century practices in various states produced a case-law legacy that most legal scholars conclude permits states to enfranchise noncitizens if legislators so choose. Similarly, on several occasions the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of noncitizen voting because states have the authority to set voter qualifications (Earnest, 2008, 25–26). The question of noncitizen voting is, in the end, a political rather than a legal one.
Within the context of the current nearly universal ban on non-citizen voting in the United States, this study examines the voting behavior of non-citizens. To what extent do non-citizens ignore legal barriers and seize ballot access in U.S. elections? We find that non-citizen participation in U.S. elections is low, but non-zero, with an unusual set of covariates with participation, and the potential to change important election outcomes.
2 Data The data used for this paper is from the 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, based on the files released by Stephen Ansolabehere, 2010 and Ansolabehere, 2011. The 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) were conducted by YouGov/Polimetrix of Palo Alto, CA as an internet-based survey using a sample selected to mirror the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population. In both years survey data was collected in two waves: pre-election in October, and then post-election in November. The questionnaire asked more than 100 questions regarding electoral participation, issue preferences, and candidate choices.
Four design characteristics make this survey uniquely valuable for our purposes. 1. It has an enormous sample size, which makes feasible sub-population analyses (n = 32,800 in 2008 and n = 55,400 in 2010). 2. It included a question about citizenship status. 3. Many non-citizens were asked if they voted, unlike other large surveys which filter out non-citizens before asking about voting. 4. Participation and registration were verified for at least some residents in nearly every state for the 2008 survey (Virginia state law barred voting verification).
Inclusion of a validated voting measure is particularly valuable in this context because of important and contradictory social and legal incentives for reporting non-citizen electoral participation. Although variation in the social desirability of voting may skew estimates (Ansolabehere and Hersh, 2012) as for other populations, legal concerns may lead some non-citizens to deny that they are registered and/or have voted when in fact they have done both. Validation of registration and voting was performed by the CCES research team in collaboration with the firm Catalyst. Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalyst matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database. The vote validation procedures are described in detail by Ansolabehere and Hersh (2012). The verification effort means that for a bit more than 40 percent of the 2008 sample, we are able to verify whether non-citizens voted when they said they did, or didn't vote when they said they didn't. For the remaining non-citizens, we have only the respondent's word to go on concerning electoral participation, although we do attempt to make inferences about their true participation rate based upon the verified portion of the sample.
About one percent of the respondents in each survey identified themselves as non-citizen immigrants (339 in 2008, 489 in 2010)2.In both years the sample likely includes individuals drawn from more than one category of non-citizen (ranging from permanent resident aliens to those on short-term student visas). In the context of the 2010 CCES, it is possible to identify the exact citizenship status of some respondents because many provided an open-ended response about their citizenship status when asked why they did not vote. For instance, “I'm a permanent resident,” “I have a green card,” “waiting on US Citizenship to come through!” and most commonly simply, “not a citizen.” No individual specifically identified themselves as an illegal or undocumented resident, although one did indicate that he or she hadn't voted because the individual “didn't have green card [sic] yet.” It is possible that some respondents were without any documentation whatsoever (popularly called “illegal aliens”), though this cannot be confirmed or rejected with the information available as no respondent specifically self-identified themselves as illegal or undocumented (but many did not specifically identify themselves as having permanent resident status).
A critical question for this project is whether respondents' self-identification as non-citizens was accurate. If most or all of the “non-citizens” who indicated that they voted were in fact citizens who accidentally misstated their citizenship status, then the data would have nothing to contribute concerning the frequency of non-citizen voting. Appendix 1 includes demographic, attitudinal, and geographical analyses designed to assess whether those who stated that they were non-citizens were in fact non-citizens. It builds a strong construct or concurrent validity case for the validity of the measure. We demonstrate that self-reported non-citizens who voted had similar racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics with non-citizens who did not vote, and that as a whole the non-citizens in our sample had racial, attitudinal, and geographic characteristics consistent with their reported non-citizen status. Given this evidence, we think that the vast majority of those who said they were non-citizens were in fact non-citizens.
For 2008, the median length of residence at the current address for non-citizens was 1–2 years, with 16.9 percent residing at the current address for less than seven months, and 25.7 percent residing at the current address for 5 or more years. This is considerably more mobile than the overall sample, which has a median length of residence of over 5 years (57.1 percent). In 2010 the median time spent at the current address by non-citizens was 3 years, and respondents were also asked how many years they had lived in their current city with a median response of 5 years. A few respondents have been in the U.S. for a long time. One 2010 respondent explained “I am English although I've lived here for 26 years and am balking at becoming a citizen for multiple reasons although I know I really need to do this for my family's financial future. So I am active in politics and know more than most Americans.”
It is impossible to tell for certain whether the non-citizens who responded to the survey were representative of the broader population of non-citizens, but some clues can be gained by examining education levels. Census bureau estimates (Census, 2012) suggest that the sample contains slightly more college-educated respondents (30.6 percent) than the overall foreign born population (26.8 percent), and many fewer respondents with less than a high-school education (8.3 percent versus 33.3 percent). The paucity of uneducated non-citizens in the sample would in most circumstances be expected to bias sample voting participation upward. However, given our results concerning the association between participation and education (discussed below) it may well be that the paucity of uneducated non-citizens in the CCES sample biases the turnout estimates down rather than up. We confront this issue primarily by weighting the data.
Throughout the analysis (with the exception of the appendix) we report results produced from weighted data. Weight construction began with CCES case weights, but then adjusted these by race to match the racial demographic of the non-citizen population. Our concern with using regular CPS case-weights was that weights were constructed based upon overall demographic characteristics without attention to the demographic character of the non-citizen population. For instance, the Census Bureau estimates (Census Bureau, 2013) that 6.7 percent of non-citizens are Black3. The unweighted 2008 CPS dataset slightly over-counts non-citizen respondents who identified their race as “Black” at 9.1 percent. The weighted 2008 CPS by contrast dramatically over-counts non-citizen respondents who self-identified their race as “Black” at 14.1 percent. We constructed a new weight variable that adjusted the CCES case weight to (1) preserve the actual number of respondents in the sample in the face of a tendency for non-citizens to be in demographic groups receiving higher weights, and (2) match Census Bureau (CPS, 2011) estimates of the racial characteristics of the non-citizen population. Results for weighted data were qualitatively similar to (but somewhat lower than) results with un-weighted data for the key voting variables. Weighting produces a non-citizen sample that appears to be a better match with Census estimates of the population. For instance, 32.5 percent of the weighted sample had no high school degree.
Posts : 5737 ᚠ : 6982 Join date : 2011-11-03 Location : The Stars
Subject: Re: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:39 am
Continued:
Quote :
3 Participatory stages Participation in U.S. elections requires that would-be voters complete a series of steps including: registering to vote, traveling to a polling place or requesting an absentee ballot and presenting any required identification, and casting a ballot. At each stage, legal barriers to non-citizen voting may lead to lower participation. Only if all stages are surmounted will the non-citizen cast a ballot in a U.S. election. At any stage, concern about the potentially high legal costs of non-citizen voting, or enforcement of official requirements for ballot access may prevent non-citizen voting.
3.1 Registration Non-citizen voter registration is a violation of election law in almost all U.S. jurisdictions, the lone exceptions are for residents of a few localities in Maryland. Most non-citizens did not cross the initial threshold of voter registration, but some did. In 2008, 67 non-citizens (19.8%) either claimed they were registered, had their registration status verified, or both. Among the 337 immigrant non-citizens who responded to the CCES, 50 (14.8%) indicated in the survey that they were registered. An additional 17 non-citizens had their voter registration status verified through record matches even though they claimed not to be registered. Perhaps the legal risks of non-citizen registration led some of these individuals to claim not to be registered. In 2010 76 (15.6%) of non-citizens indicated that they were registered to vote in either the pre-election or post-election survey waves.
In 2008, the proportion of non-citizens who were in fact registered to vote was somewhere between 19.8% (all who reported or had verified registration, or both) and 3.3% (11 non-citizen respondents were almost certainly registered to vote because they both stated that they were registered and had their registration status verified). Even the low-end estimate suggests a fairly substantial population of registered-to-vote non-citizens nationwide. Out of roughly 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the United States, this would represent a population of roughly 620,000 registered non-citizens4. By way of comparison, there are roughly 725,000 individuals in the average Congressional district.
The “adjusted estimate” row presents our best guess at the true percentage of non-citizens registered. It uses the 94 (weighted) non-citizens from 2008 for whom Catalyst obtained a match to commercial and/or voter databases to estimate the portion of non-citizens who either claim to be registered when they are not (35%) or claim not to be registered when they are (18%). We then use these numbers to extrapolate for the entire sample of non-citizens in 2008 and 2010. Because most non-citizens who said they were registered were in fact registered, and quite a few who said they were not were actually registered, the adjusted estimate is the highest of the three estimates, indicating that roughly one quarter of non-citizens were likely registered to vote (Table 1).
3.2 Voter identification Post-registration, another barrier to voting by non-citizens might come in the form of the credential checking that occurs before individuals are permitted to vote on Election Day. In 2008 14 respondents indicated that they did not vote because “I did not have the correct form of identification,” and in 2010 29 indicated that they did not vote because of the absence of necessary identification.
Nonetheless, identification requirements blocked ballot access for only a small portion of non-citizens. Of the 27 non-citizens who indicated that they were “asked to show picture identification, such as a driver's license, at the polling place or election office,” in the 2008 survey, 18 claimed to have subsequently voted, and one more indicated that they were “allowed to vote using a provisional ballot.” Only 7 (25.9%) indicated that they were not allowed to vote after showing identification. These results are summarized in Fig. 1. Although the proportion of non-citizens prevented from voting by ID requirements is statistically distinguishable from the portion of citizens5 (Chi-Square = 161, p < .001), the overall message is that identification requirements do not prevent the majority of non-citizen voting. The fact that most non-citizen immigrants who showed identification were subsequently permitted to vote suggests that efforts to use photo-identification to prevent non-citizen voting are unlikely to be particularly effective. This most likely reflects the impact of state laws that permit non-citizens to obtain state identification cards (e.g. driver's licenses).
3.3 Voting There is evidence that some non-citizen immigrants voted in both 2008 and 2010. In 2008, thirty eight (11.3%) reported that they voted, had their vote verified, or both. As with registration, claims of voting and validated voting did not intersect very often, in part because the voting question was not asked for all non-citizens who had verified voting, and voter file matches were not available for all non-citizens who claimed that they voted. Twenty seven indicated that “I definitely voted in the November General Election” and 16 had validated general election votes. Only five (1.5%) both claimed that they definitely voted and had a validated vote. In 2010 thirteen non-citizens (3.5% of respondents to the post-election survey) indicated that they voted. All 2008 and 2010 reported votes by non-citizens were in violation of state election law as no votes were cast by non-citizen respondents from the Maryland localities which allow non-citizen voting (Table 2).
How many non-citizen votes were likely cast in 2008? Taking the most conservative estimate – those who both said they voted and cast a verified vote – yields a confidence interval based on sampling error between 0.2% and 2.8% for the portion of non-citizens participating in elections. Taking the least conservative measure – at least one indicator showed that the respondent voted – yields an estimate that between 7.9% and 14.7% percent of non-citizens voted in 2008. Since the adult non-citizen population of the United States was roughly 19.4 million (CPS, 2011), the number of non-citizen voters (including both uncertainty based on normally distributed sampling error, and the various combinations of verified and reported voting) could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.
The “adjusted estimate” represents our best guess at the portion of non-citizens who voted. As with voter registration, we extrapolate from the behavior of validated voters in 2008 to estimate the portion of non-citizens who said they voted but didn't, and the portion who said they didn't vote but did. 71 non-citizens answered a survey question indicating whether they voted, and also had their vote validated. Among these, 56 indicated that they did not vote (but two of these cast a validated vote), while 13 indicated they voted, of whom five cast a validated vote6. The adjusted estimate of 6.4 percent for 2008 is quite substantial, and would be associated with 1.2 million non-citizen votes cast in 2008 if the weighted CCES sample is fully representative of the non-citizen population. To produce an adjusted figure for 2010 we cut by three quarters the estimated number of non-citizens who voted but claimed they did not (somewhat larger than the drop in the number who self-reported voting). This produces an overall estimate that 2.2 percent voted in 2010.
There has been significant debate in the literature concerning the ideological or political leanings of non-citizen voters. In Belgium for instance, Jacobs (2001) found indications that non-citizens often voted for right wing parties, while others (Bird et al., 2010, Howard, 2009, Janoski, 2010, Joppke, 2003 and Rath, 1990) find evidence that left-leaning parties and noncitizens tend to align together. In the 2008 and 2010 U.S. elections, non-citizen voters favored Democratic candidates. Non-citizens who reported voting were asked their candidate preferences, and these preferences skewed toward Democrats. In 2008 66.7 percent reported voting for the Democratic House candidate, while only 20.8 percent reported voting for the Republican candidate. 81.8 percent reported voting for Barack Obama compared to 17.5 percent for John McCain. The difference of proportions is statistically significant using both Chi-Square and z tests (p < .005) and substantively large for both the House and Presidential vote cases. Similarly in 2010, 53.8 percent of non-citizens reported voting for the Democratic House candidate while 30.7 percent indicated that they voted for the Republican.
Clinton’s popular vote “margin” is a myth: the Recorded vote is always fraudulent Richard Charnin Dec. 10, 2016
77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll LINKS TO POSTS
Clinton’s popular vote “margin” is a myth: the Recorded vote is always fraudulent.
Those who cite Clinton’s lead in the popular vote fall into the same old media-driven TRAP. They fail to realize the FACT that the recorded vote is ALWAYS fraudulent – as it was in this election. The True Vote Model indicates Trump won the popular as well as the electoral vote.
The primaries were rigged in favor of Clinton. The odds: 77 billion to one – based on exit poll discrepancies. But the 2016 election was different. The corporate media (the National Election Pool) which funds the pollster’s pre-election and exit polls were heavily biased in favor of Clinton.
Election analysts calculated that Clinton won the Electoral vote by 302-236 based on unadjusted exit polls which favored Clinton in four states that Trump won: WI, NC, MI and PA. But the analysis assumes that the exit polls were fairly conducted. The polls appear to have been the impetus for recounting MI, WI and PA. But why only recount states that Trump narrowly won? I asked the question in this post: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/the-2016-presidential-recounts-why-not-add-these-six-states/
Just because unadjusted exit polls were excellent indicators of fraud in the past does not mean that they were accurate in 2016. The polls also look suspicious in big states where they closely matched the recorded vote: CA IL MI TX MN WA NY. Clinton’s CA margin exceeded Obama’s by an implausible 6%. An unknown number of illegals were encouraged to vote by Obama. http://tdmsresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Presidential-Election-Table_Nov-17.-2016.jpg
The unadjusted and reported exit polls were compared to an estimate of the True Vote. The True Vote is based on the Gallup voter affiliation national survey from which an estimate of each state’s True Party-ID was derrived. The unadjusted exit polls over-weighted both the Democratic party-ID share as well as Clinton’s share of Independents. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/23/2016-election-scenario-analysis/
Posts : 5737 ᚠ : 6982 Join date : 2011-11-03 Location : The Stars
Subject: Re: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:17 am
This is an analysis of the 2016 Presidential True Vote. Clinton won the recorded vote by 2.8 million. But the recorded vote is never equal to the True Vote due to election fraud.
There is evidence that millions of illegals probably voted in 2016 (80% for Clinton). View this 1988-2016 trend analysis of Hispanic voter registration and turnout.
According to Greg Palast, over one million Democratic minority voters were disenfranchised via Crosscheck, a system which eliminated voters with duplicate names from voter rolls.
There is evidence that George Soros , a Clinton backer, controls voting machines in 16 states. Election analyst Bev Harris has posted Fraction Magic , an algorithm used to flip votes on Central tabulators.
Sensitivity analysis shows the effects of a range of assumptions on the vote count. The results confirm other analyses which show that Trump won the popular vote.
Let TV = True Vote RV = Recorded vote Then we have: RV = TV + Fraud
Given: Recorded vote in millions: Clinton 65.7, Trump 62.9, Other 7.6 Election fraud components: F =Vote flipping on maliciously coded, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators I = illegal voters (non-citizens) U = uncounted votes (spoiled ballots, disenfranchised voters)
Base Case Assumptions I = 3 million: 2.4 million voted for Clinton, 0.6 million for Trump U = 7 million: 5.6 million voted for Clinton, 1.4 million for Trump F= 4 million (net): 5.6% ( 1 in 18) of Trump’s votes flipped to Clinton on voting machines and central tabulators. Trump wins by 2.8 million: 67.7-64.9 (48.3-46.3%)
Assume the following changes to the base case assumptions: 3 million uncounted ballots (Clinton 90%); 2 million illegals (Clinton 80%); 4 million Trump votes flip to Clinton. Trump wins by 4.0 million: 66.8-62.8 (48.7-45.8%)
Sensitivity Analysis Given: U=7 million (5.6 million to Clinton, 1.4 million to Trump) Worst case: (I=4 million, F=3 million) Clinton wins by 0.83 million Base case: (I=3 million, F=4 million) Trump wins by 2.77 million Best case: (I=2 million, F= 5 million) Trump wins by 3.57 million
Posts : 5737 ᚠ : 6982 Join date : 2011-11-03 Location : The Stars
Subject: Re: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:19 am
1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model 1968-2012 Presidential Election Fraud: An Interactive True Vote Model
Richard Charnin Oct. 13, 2015
Look inside the books: Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004
The 1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model (TVM) calculates the True Vote for every election since 1968. Only two inputs are required: the election year and the calculation method (1-5). These simple inputs produce a wealth of information and insight.
The adjusted National Exit Poll is a mathematical matrix of deceit. It is always forced to match the recorded vote. In the 12 elections since 1968, there have been over 80 million net (of stuffed) uncounted ballots, of which the vast majority were Democratic. And of course, the advent of unverifiable voting machines provides a mechanism for switching votes electronically.
In the 12 elections, the Republicans won the average recorded vote 48.7-45.8%.The Democrats won the average True Vote by 49.6-45.0%.
In the six elections since 1992, the Democrats won the recorded vote by 48.8-45.0%. The Democrats won the True Vote by 53.5-40.0%!
The key parameters in calculating the True Vote are a) the number of returning voters from the prior election, b) new voters and c) corresponding exit poll vote shares. In order to calculate a robust estimate of returning voters, we must consider the mathematical biological constraint: The number of returning voters must be less than the number who actually voted in the previous election.
The TVM uses several estimates of returning voter turnout (“mix”). The current election vote shares are assumed to be the National Exit Poll shares that were applied to match the recorded vote.
TVM calculation methods are straightforward. Method 1 reproduces the adjusted Final National Exit Poll. One very important result is the turnout of previous election voters required to match the official recorded vote. In 1972 (Nixon), 1988 (Bush 1), 1992 (Bush 1), 2004 (Bush 2) and 2008 (Bush 2) returning Republican turnout exceeded 100%. This impossible result indicates massive election fraud.
Methods 2-5 calculate vote shares based on alternative returning voter assumptions from the previous election. Method 2 is based on the recorded vote; Method 3 on total votes cast; Method 4 on the unadjusted exit poll; Method 5 on the True Vote.
The first step is to estimate the number of uncounted votes.The Census Bureau surveys total votes cast in every election (the margin of error is less than 0.5%). We have the simple formula: Net Uncounted Vote = Census Total Votes Cast – Official Recorded Vote
The Final National Exit Poll is always forced to match the recorded vote, even if it requires an impossible turnout of returning voters (exceeds the number still living).
An estimated 5% of previous election voters pass on before each election (based on mortality tables). Turnout of previous election voters can be estimated from registered voter turnout. Historically, turnout has ranged from 90-98%, depending on voter interest. Given voter mortality and the estimated turnout of voters from the previous election, we calculate an estimate of returning voters. The number of new voters is simply the difference between total votes cast in the current election and returning voters from the prior.
The primary method used to adjust the National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote is by changing the returning voter mix. If that is not enough to match the recorded vote (as it was in 2004), vote shares will also be adjusted.
For example, in 2004 the National Exit Poll indicated that 43% (52.6 million) of voters were returning Bush voters and 37% returning Gore. But Bush only had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and one million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore, the maximum number of returning Bush voters was approximately 47.5 million. Bush’s National Exit poll turnout of 2000 voters was impossible; it implied 5.5 million more Bush 2000 voters than were living. There were 5.5 million PHANTOM Bush voters. Not only that, the Bush shares of new voters, returning Gore and Bush voters were inflated as well. Since an impossible National Exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote, then the recorded vote was also impossible. The election was stolen beyond any doubt.
Kerry Vote shares are calculated for 25 scenarios in each of the following: 1) Kerry shares of new voters and returning Bush voters 2) Kerry shares of Gore voters and returning Bush voters 3) Gore and Bush returning voter turnout percentages
Kerry won ALL 75 scenarios easily. In the worst case scenario, he had 51.96% and won by 6.75 million votes. In the base (most likely) case, he had 53.56% and won by 10.76 million votes. In the best case, he had 55.15% and won by 14.78 million votes.
Base Case: Returning 2000 Voters % of 2004 total votes cast: Gore 41.79% (PG) Bush 38.02% (PB) Other 3.11% (PO) New 17.08% (PN)
Kerry shares of Gore 91% (KG) Bush 10% (KB Other 64% (KO) New 57% (KN)
Kerry’s vote share is calculated over a range of Gore and Bush returning voter turnout percentages. The following equation is the formula for the base case (the central cell in the matrix). KV = 53.56% =($L$7*$H$7*H$45+$L$8*$H$8*$E50+$L$9*$H$9*$E50)/$J$12+$L$10*(1-($H$7*H$45+$H$8*$E50+$H$9*$E50)/$J$12) Vary Gore and Bush from 96-100%
The exit pollsters declared that the 6.5% discrepancy (WPE) was due to differential response of Kerry and Bush voters. The pollsters hypothesized that 56 Kerry voters responded for every 50 Bush voters – the so-called reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis. They had no rationale for rBr and did not consider fraud as a possible factor. In fact, rBr was contradicted by survey data which showed that response rates were greater in strong Bush precincts than in strong Kerry precincts.
The pollsters claimed that the 7% WPE for voting machine discrepancies did not indicate fraud. This was contradicted by the fact that paper ballots had a 2% WPE discrepancy. Lever machines located primarily in NY, CT, PA, LA and VA, had a whopping 11% WPE.
It is important to keep in mind that all exit polls (state and national) are forced to match the recorded vote. This procedure implies zero fraud. But the recorded vote never reflects the True Vote due to uncounted, stuffed and switched votes.
The timeline of the 2004 state exit polls show a steady decline in Kerry’s vote share: Unadjusted state exit poll aggregate: 51% (76,000 votes) National Unadjusted: 51.7% (13660 respondents) Best GEO: 51.0% (adjusted geographic weights) National Exit Poll: 48.3% (final adjustment is a forced match to the recorded vote)
Posts : 5737 ᚠ : 6982 Join date : 2011-11-03 Location : The Stars
Subject: Re: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:24 am
"A real-time demo of the most devastating election theft mechanism yet found, with context and explanation. Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access to perform this for any or all clients. It can give contract signing authority to whoever the user chooses. All political power can be converted to the hands of a few anonymous subcontractors. “It’s a product. It’s scaleable. It learns its environment and can adjust to any political environment, any demographic. It runs silently, invisibly, and can produce plausible results that really pass for the real thing.” Provides solutions and actions for immediate deterrence."
Posts : 5737 ᚠ : 6982 Join date : 2011-11-03 Location : The Stars
Subject: Re: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:30 am
Quote :
I am in possession of screen shots of unadjusted and final CNN exit polls in 22 states. The Democratic electorate is broken down by gender, and both genders are broken down by choice of candidate. It is an elementary mathematical procedure to calculate the combined percentages for both Clinton and Sanders.
In nineteen states, the margin between the candidates favors Clinton in the official results when compared to the unadjusted CNN exit polls. Either her official margin of victory was greater, or her official margin of defeat was smaller, than the unadjusted exit poll had indicated. Here are the disparities: Alabama (14.0%), Georgia (12.1%), New York (11.7%), Mississippi (9.4%), Texas (9.3%), Ohio (9.2%), Tennessee (8.2%), Massachusetts (8.0%), Indiana (5.8%), Michigan (4.8%), Arkansas (4.7%), Virginia (4.4%), Illinois (4.3%), Missouri (3.85%), Florida (3.4%), Pennsylvania (2.7%), Connecticut (2.2%), North Carolina (1.5%), and Vermont (1.1%). In three of these states (Massachusetts, Illinois, and Missouri), the winner and loser were reversed: the unadjusted CNN exit poll showed Sanders winning the primary, but the official results showed Clinton winning the primary. In three states, the official margin favors Sanders when compared to the unadjusted CNN exit polls: Oklahoma (6.2%), Wisconsin (2.0%), and Maryland (1.7%).
What no previous researcher seems to have done is to compare the exit poll data for black voters. Both the unadjusted and final exit polls report the percentage of the Democratic electorate comprised of black voters, and the percentage of black voters won by Clinton over Sanders. In 15 of 19 states, one or both numbers were adjusted upward in the final exit polls. If both numbers were adjusted upward, the effect is like compound interest. For example, if the percentage comprised of black voters is adjusted upward from 40% to 50%, and Clinton’s share of the black vote is adjusted upward from 80% to 90%, the percentage of the electorate comprised of black voters for Clinton is thus adjusted upward from 32% to 45%. Here are the numbers:
The percentage of the Democratic electorate comprised of black voters was adjusted upward in Alabama (from 47% to 54%), Georgia (from 49% to 51%), Illinois (from 27% to 28%), Indiana (from 17% to 19%), Mississippi (from 68% to 71%), Missouri (from 19% to 21%), North Carolina (from 29% to 32%), Pennsylvania (from 17% to 19%), Texas (from 16% to 19%), and Virginia (from 24% to 26%). In Michigan, the percentage was adjusted downward (from 23% to 21%).
The percentage of black voters won by Clinton over Sanders was adjusted upward in Alabama (from 87%-10% to 91%-6%), Arkansas (from (88%-12% to 91%-9%), Florida (from 78%-22% to 81%-18%), Georgia (from 83%-16% to 85%-14%), Illinois (from 69%-30% to 70%-30%), Michigan (from 64%-32% to 68%-28%), New York (from 71%-29% to 75%-25%), Ohio (from 67%-31% to 71%-28%), Tennessee (from 82%-12% to 89%-10%), Texas (from 80%-18% to 83%-15%), and Virginia (from 82%-18% to 84%-16%). In Oklahoma, her percentage was adjusted downward (from 75%-24% to 71%-27%).
The question is why the exit pollsters needed to do this. Were the numbers of black voters, or their support for Clinton, consistently underestimated in so many states, or were the official vote counts in the black communities altered, thus forcing the adjustments to the exit polls?
This question can only be answered by examining the ballots, where there are any. For example:
Sanders got less than 10% of the vote in 58 of 173 precincts in Jefferson County, Alabama, 47 of 121 in Montgomery County, Alabama, and 57 of 80 in Hinds County, Mississippi, and less than 20% of the vote in 48 of 270 precincts in Prince George’s County, Maryland, 25 of 83 in Brooklyn District 58, 23 of 93 in Manhattan District 73, 23 of 85 in Bronx District 83, and 55 of 336 precincts in Cleveland, Ohio — all with paper ballots marked by voters and tabulated by optical scanners. These precincts need to be audited.
Sanders got less than 10% of the vote in 68 of 315 precincts in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, and 42 of 114 in Memphis, Tennessee, and less than 20% of the vote in 90 of 347 precincts in Fulton County, Georgia, 27 of 182 in Charleston County, South Carolina, 41 of 106 in Gary, Indiana, and in two entire wards in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — all with black box voting, that is, electronic voting machines, with no “voter verified paper trail,” and no way to verify the vote count, except for absentee ballots.
In Massachusetts, Clinton owes her victory to 13 of 22 wards in Boston, especially Ward 12 (Roxbury), Ward 14 (Mattapan), Ward 17 (Ashmont), and part of Ward 18 (Precincts 1-6), where Clinton lost every precinct to Obama in 2008, and won every precinct against Sanders in 2016. There are paper ballots and optical scanners everywhere in Boston, and these precincts need to be audited.
Posts : 5737 ᚠ : 6982 Join date : 2011-11-03 Location : The Stars
Subject: Re: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:37 am
"I would have voted for Hillary Clinton three months ago. I believed that our elections are just, verifiable, and democratic—but then discovered how easy it is to hack a voting machine without a trace. I told myself that previous elections hadn’t necessarily been rigged—but then found evidence proving me wrong. I convinced myself that it didn’t mean this Democratic nomination was rigged — until I uncovered the truth. I am an ardent skeptic turned fervent believer. Over the course of this article, I will demonstrate that electoral fraud was committed favoring Hillary Clinton with a plethora of sources: exit poll data, statistics, mainstream and independent media articles, expert quotes and analysis, videos, anecdotes, and so forth. All of these sources can be accessed through clickable hyperlinks (the underlined text). How to Rig an Election First, our elections are remarkably easy to rig. The simplest and increasingly widespread way to do so is through our electronic voting machines. For example, a study from the Brennan Center for Justice found that 43 out of 50 states use machines at least 10 years old for 2016 elections, making their security systems outdated and extremely easy to hack. In addition, according to nonpartisan and non-profit organization, Verified Voting, some of the machines do not even print a paper receipt of the votes, so their results are unverifiable: “Far too many states use unreliable and insecure electronic voting machines, and many states have made their situation worse by adding some forms of Internet voting for some voters, which cannot be checked for accuracy at all. Even in states where verifiable systems are used, too often the check on the voting system’s function and accuracy is not done.” The leader of this voting machine movement is Election Systems and Software, which incorporates a company formerly known as Diebold Election Systems, whose machines have repeatedly been proven easy to hack. For example, on a Fox News segment in 2006, Princeton University Professor Ed Felten stated, “It only takes a few seconds to insert a virus into [Diebold’s] voting machine…and the computer virus [switches] the votes.” He demonstrated it by hacking a Diebold Accuvote-TS (touchscreen) machine on air, contending that others could do it “at any time before election date” and the votes would be flipped permanently. This isn’t restricted to just Diebold. In elections between 2002 and 2014, Virginia used touchscreen voting machines with the password protections “abcde” and “admin.” They could be hacked from each polling place’s parking lot. Meanwhile, in 2012, the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory discovered that some of our voting machines “can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education…while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind.” This contrasts elections all over the world, where the majority of countries strictly use hand-counted paper ballots, leaving citizens far more confident in the results. Yet, the United States spends substantially more time, money, and energy telling people to vote rather than ensuring the process in which they do so is just. As proof, in 2004, computer programmer Clint Curtis testified under oath that he helped hack voting machines in an election. He wrote computer software for Tom Feeney in 2000 to flip the vote to “whoever you wanted it to go to, and whichever race you wanted it to win,” not realizing it would be used for fraud. The election officials could “never see” the software and that, to detect it, “you would have to view it either in the source code, or you’d have to have a receipt, and then count the hard paper against the actual vote total. Other than that, you won’t see it…It’s a simple program…a hundred lines of code, tops.” Clint Curtis further testified: “If you have exit polling data that is significantly off from the vote, then [the election’s] probably hacked.” Which brings me to my next point… Exit Polls: Why They Have Been Significantly Off “Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable…Exit polls in Germany, for example, have never missed the mark by more than three-tenths of one percent. ‘Exit polls are almost never wrong,’ Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, noted after the 2004 vote. Such surveys are ‘so reliable,’ he added, ‘that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries.’ In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down. And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine — paid for by the Bush administration — exposed election fraud that denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. There are two main types of election polls: pre-election and exit. Pre-election polls predict how people will vote; exit polls tell how people voted. As Edison Research’s executive vice president Joe Lenski states, all exit polls are conducted by Edison Research and distributed to six media organizations: Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Associated Press. Exit polls are private, anonymous, and adjusted before release to account for every group or demographic that chooses not to respond for any reason. When the polls close in each primary, media organizations release the full exit polling data. Afterwards, Edison Research compares them to actual voting results and makes adjustments. For instance, the exit polls initially showed a 4 point win by Hillary Clinton in New York at 9 PM, but were changed to 12 points at 9:45 once Edison obtained voting results. Therefore, the best time to determine the actual exit poll results is right after voting closes. However, this year in the Democratic primaries, the exit polls have been consistently, significantly, and systemically off:
Table compiled by Theodore Soares and attained from richardcharnin.wordpress.com I verified the table with tweets from fivethirtyeight.com and PDFs of the first reported exit polling data, also accessible as images. This table was attained through Election Integrity, a Facebook and Google group of over 1,000 people dedicated to uncovering and preventing election fraud. While some confessed that election research and data can be a minefield, they unanimously agreed upon this: When the exit polls are way off, either the polls are wrong, electoral fraud was committed, or both. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. mentioned, research shows that exit polls are almost always spot on. When one or two are incorrect, they could be statistical anomalies, but the more incorrect they are, the more it substantiates electoral fraud. This is shown by the data, which is extremely suspicious: discrepancies in eight of the sixteen primaries favoring Clinton in voting results over exit polling data are outside of the margin of error. That’s half of them outside the margin of error: 2.3% greater in Tennessee, 2.6% in Massachusetts, 4% in Texas, 4.7% in Mississippi, 5.2% in Ohio, 6.2% in New York, 7% in Georgia, and 7.9% in Alabama. This is extremely, extremely abnormal. The margin of error is designed to prevent this, accounting for the difference in percentage totals between the first exit polls and actual voting results for both candidates combined (as noted by the table’s third footnote). For instance, if Hillary Clinton outperforms the exit polls by 2.5% and Bernie Sanders underperforms by 2.5%, and the margin of error is 5%, then the exit poll is exactly on the margin of error. When an exit poll or two is outside of the margin, this denotes failure in the polling; when eight defy it — egregiously so — that indicates systemic electoral fraud. Keep in mind, these are the discrepancies in favor of Clinton between exit polls and voting results, from lowest to highest: -6.1%, -1.9%, 1.1%, 1.7%, 3.4%, 3.9%, 4.1%, 4.3%, 4.6%, 5.2%, 8%, 8.3%, 9.3%, 9.9%, 10%, 11.6%, 12.2%, and a whopping 14%. The discrepancies alone demand an investigation of electoral fraud. These are not just small, isolated errors, but systemic and alarming differences that point towards Hillary Clinton beating exit polls in an impossible way. Nevertheless, one may still contend that 1) exit polls are “unreliable” and 2) Bernie supporters are more “enthusiastic” to take exit polls than Clinton supporters. However, if exit polls were done that poorly, we wouldn’t bother using them in the first place. In addition, they would be all over the place numerically, instead of consistently and considerably skewed towards Hillary Clinton. Besides, exit pollsters are, frankly, not idiots; they’ve had decades to hone, adjust, and perfect their methods, and have many elections to compare results to. Therefore, they account for any and all unlikely changes, including response bias — the possibility that Bernie supporters are more enthusiastic. Moreover, Donald Trump supporters are arguably more enthusiastic while deriving from a similar anti-establishment base. Since Edison Research compiles the exit polls singlehandedly and the Republican race has easily been more polarizing, divisive, and contentious, one would expect that Republican exit polls would be even more skewed. Except they haven’t been. They’ve been spot on almost every time. I was able to find tweets of almost all of the first Republican exit polls from fivethirtyeight.com, PhD student and election tracker Taniel, and CBS live blogs. Here is a table comparing their data and the actual voting results: If you have more data, feel free to add it in the comments. In every primary I could find data for, the Republican primaries have been almost exactly right, with every data point in the margin of error, during a more polarizing, contentious, and hard-to-predict race. Hence, this should be enough to prove my point: if exit polls were unreliable, then the Republican primaries would have equally bad exit polling data, but they don’t, not even by a long shot. It demands an independent investigation, with the nomination results and voting ballots thoroughly, fairly, and properly audited. But this isn’t the only evidence of electoral fraud…"
Subject: Re: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:25 pm
Voter fraud in the strict sense does not occur in the Netherlands, there is way to much control from all parties, no machines are allowed since 2009, its all manual. Valid ID is always required.
The manipulation was significant, in one form in particular: the PvdA had people inside every mosque to tell them Allah wants them to vote for the PvdA.
These worms have now been electorally pounded to pulp by the sordid consequences of their actions. However, the worms still occupy chairs of influence throughout all of the country's bureaucracy and institutions. A purging is required. But that will be a slow and extremely tedious battle, and you have to be Dutch to grasp that level of tedium. It's thorough, addresses all levels of discourse, thus there is never a 'big conclusion'. We can be assured of a sanitary trend taking hold though.
Trumps human temperament reverberates in all the halls of power across the globe. Leaders worth their salt waking up to the realization that fortune favors the bold.
Sponsored content
Subject: Re: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing
Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing
Subject: Once and for all: Voter Fraud and Election Stealing 
Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:12 am
