US Election Fraud II: Discrepencies from Official Results Evidence of Election Fraud Dale Tavris

[Tace]

Dale Tavris -- World News Trust

June 20, 2018

Election Fraud in the United States: 2004 to Present

Part II. Evidence for Election Fraud in Exit Poll Discrepancies from Official Results

In Part I of this series (see link below), I discussed the very substantial vulnerability of U.S. elections to the fraudulent manipulation of votes counted by our electronic machines. In this article, I will begin to discuss the strong evidence that this vulnerability has been used repeatedly in U.S. elections since at least 2004 to manipulate the vote count and steal elections.

I begin with data showing that exit polls have repeatedly deviated by large amounts from official vote counts, and that this deviation is always or almost always in the same direction: Whenever the deviation is large, the more conservative candidate receives a larger share of the vote than what would be predicted by exit polls. When this happens, the deviation of the exit poll from the official vote count is known as a “red shift” -- suggesting that official votes may have been shifted from the less conservative candidate (usually the Democrat) to the more conservative candidate (usually the Republican). A “blue shift” would be a finding in the opposite direction. Statistically significant blue shifts very rarely occur in the United States.

As many have pointed out, the presence of exit poll deviation from official vote counts does not alone prove that election fraud has occurred -- although it may be highly suggestive of that. But when it happens on a massive basis in every election cycle, always pointing in the same direction, in the context of an electronic vote counting system that is highly vulnerable to fraudulent manipulation, and accompanied by a good deal of other evidence of electronic manipulation of the official vote count, as well as substantial evidence of other types of election fraud pointing in the same direction (for example, massive voter suppression), then all of the evidence taken together becomes overwhelmingly suggestive of election fraud. As I hope to make clear in this series, that is the situation that currently exists.

Yet our national corporate news media continues to ignore this situation, or worse, actively and aggressively disparages the reliability of exit polls, typically using invalid or misleading arguments (as I will discuss later). Beyond that, they generally demand a level of proof that is totally inappropriate for the situation. A statement by the well known professional pollster Mark Blumenthal (commonly known as the ‘mystery pollster’) reveals the type of thinking that facilitates or justifies denial of the dangers to our election system even among highly educated people:

The question has always been whether the exit polls provide affirmative evidence that fraud did in fact occur. This involves a very basic concept of statistical inquiry: We assume no effect until one can be proven, or more technically, we assume a "null hypothesis" until we can prove some alternative. The same principle exists in law as the presumption of innocence. We do not assume a crime has been committed and work backwards to try to disprove it. We presume innocence until enough evidence has been established to prove guilt.

This line of reasoning is inappropriate on several accounts. First, the question posed by most people who are seriously concerned about large deviations of exit polls from official election results is not whether exit polls provide proof that fraud occurred. It is whether or not the deviations represent a danger sign that tells us that we need to seriously question and thoroughly investigate the possibility of election fraud. Second is Blumenthal’s statement of the concept of statistical inquiry. It is true that a general principle of science is that we should not assume a finding to be valid until it is proven. Though that is a general principle of statistics as used in science, statistics is not simply an abstract discipline. It needs to be applied to the realities of life. Proof of election fraud should not be required before action is taken to thoroughly investigate it. In fact, perhaps the opposite philosophy should apply to national elections to our highest offices: that they should not be accepted as valid until serious doubts about their validity have been thoroughly addressed. Similarly, Blumenthal’s analogy to the presumption of innocence in criminal law is not applicable here. I agree that we should not send people to jail or execute them until their guilt is proven. But neither should we award a person the presidency of the United States until we have reasonably good evidence that the election results are correct.

With all that in mind, let’s now consider a brief history of red shifts associated with U.S. elections since 2004:

(more)

https://worldnewstrust.com/election-fraud-in-the-united-states-2004-to-present-part-ii-evidence-for-election-fraud-in-exit-poll-discrepancies-from-official-results-dale-tavris

Here's Part I of the story on WNT:

https://worldnewstrust.com/election-fraud-in-the-united-states-2004-to-present-part-i-vulnerability-of-electronic-vote-counting-in-u-s-elections-dale-tavris

Here's Part I posted earlier today on DU:



https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1016210294

Here's Time for change's introduction to the story series on DU last week:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210782481

This is an important story by DU's Time for change, Dale Tavris, M.D. This is a controversial story, yet I have complete confidence in Time for change and this story. --Tace

[Hoyt]

1. Probably a percentage of exit polled don't want to admit they voted for deplorable GOPer racists.

I'd be inclined to suspect the polling process rather than some coordinated GOPer conspiracy that would take a lot of folks to pull off and would likely have yielded some solid proof by now besides discrepancies in exit polls and vote count.

If there were ever an election that the white wing conspirators would have intervened, it was 2008 and 2012. Yet, we won.

Getting out the vote will win for Democrats in 2018 and 2020.

[Time for change]

3. Do you have faith in the integrity of our elections?

Are you aware that a large percentage of our votes are counted by machines owned and operated by private corporations, many or all of them who have strong ties to the Republican Party?

And are you aware that the vote counts on many of these machines cannot be verified by any means available to us, and that the public is not allowed to inspect the machines for malicious software, on the rationale that they are privately owned?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

7. I'm with you Time

I'm glad people are writing about this. The counts re being manipulated. Like the author said...since probably 2004. That takes into consideration a Supreme Court who anointed Bush. Imagine what a dt supreme court would feel brazen enough to do. People don't usually lie to exit polling. I refuse to believe that that many people say one thing and vote another. Folks who vote are usually sincere and proud to discuss why they voted for whom.

[Hoyt]

9. Pretty much. I grew up when ballot boxes were stolen or stuffed. I think computers are safer.

I do think there should be some paper to verify, but punched ballots didn't help in 2000.

Fact is, we don't vote, hence we lose when it counts. Folks can try to make a conspiracy out of that if they want. I'm sending my ballot in with confidence that it will be counted correctly and we'll win if everyone else does the same. I do believe in due diligence, but I'm no more fearful of a private company making voting machines than I am county officials -- who have strong ties with GOPers -- handling everything. Those machines are checked out by GOPer and Democrats.

"Could" it happen, of course. Has it happened except maybe in some small community, I don't think so. Of course, I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landing was faked, the FDA is withholding a cancer cure, in the 1960s someone developed a carburetor that would get 150 miles per gallon, etc.

[RandomAccess]

27. Those machines are NOT checked by Dems and Republicans

They're not "checked" by anyone. Their code is "proprietary" and the companies refuse to allow anyone to look at it, inspect it, or even to check it. No matter what.

Further, for the most part there's no way to do post-election audits or recounts that could be useful. Any "recounts" are simply reiterations of what already happened, not new counts.

AND, think of this: Any 1st semester computer programming student can write code that would cause one result to show on screen, another result (or the same ) to be printed on a "receipt" while a completely different result goes into memory for later tabulation. It would also be simple to cause the tabulation - or even individual machines-- to self-correct when too many D votes started happening. For every 4 Dem votes, make the 5th an R vote.

Don't call this a conspiracy theory. Get in there and examine the evidence -- all of it -- and THEN come back and denounce it.

[Hoyt]

34. Sorry, that's what it is. You haven't offered any evidence, just unsubstantiated

speculation. If it happened as much as you think, there would be hard evidence.

Gothmog’s opinion below sounds believable and closer to what I understand.

Your vote, and all our votes, will count.

[RandomAccess]

38. Hard evidence?

I was around and active when the machines were being installed in my state and I KNOW what went down. And I can assure you: things have NOT gotten better since then because the Republicans have had a nice, long run of it since.

So go ahead and call me a liar if that's what floats your boat, but I can assure you: you're clinging to a view that's counterproductive for you to believe.

[Hoyt]

39. Show me some evidence like federal investigations and indictments, or a whistleblower.

[RandomAccess]

41. Oh, please

I think that demand was handled in the OP ---

BUT, it would think it's obvious we're trying to get to the point of GETTING federal investigations which would then result in indictments. I mean if we'd had indictments and stuff, we wouldn't be worried about the problem, we'd be FIXING it. These posts are clearly pre-fix.

Though I'll say it again: Terry McAuliffe was smart enough to replace the machines with paper ballots and that was one helluva collection of wins in Virginia last year. Yeah, tremendous turnout, but the paper ballots helped a lot too.

So what would your objection be to simply moving to paper ballots? That would foil the Russians, too.

[Hoyt]

43. No, it wasn't handled in OP, just more speculation. Turnout is what won in VA,

Maryland, Alabama, etc. It will prove true in November unless folks sit home or vote crazy because of unsubstantiated voter integrity concerns. You can screw with paper ballots too, 2004 is proof as is stolen, stuffed ballot boxes in earlier decades and altered tallies.

Again, I believe in verification and prevention, but we will be voting in November with the voting methods we have.

Have no objection to moving to paper ballots, but it won’t happen by November. Again paper ballots are subject to manipulation and problems.

When some Democrats win in traditionally red areas, I assume you will not be posting your concerns.

[RandomAccess]

44. What does that mean --

When some Democrats win in traditionally red areas, I assume you will not be posting your concerns.

Dems have already won in some red areas and I expect more. BUT -- if you'd look at some of the evidence, you'd find some very amazing statistics.

But I guess that's too much trouble? Or your mind is made up and so you have no reason to let new information in? Or -- ??

Turnout was the major factor in VA. It wasn't the only one. McAuliffe dumped the machines precisely because they weren't that reliable. Guess he knew something you didn't -- ??

[Hoyt]

48. So, how did Obama win in 2008 and 2012? Did the manipulators take off?

I suspect backlash to trump and GOPers had more to do with Virginia. Chalking it up to paper ballots is a bit premature. Heck, my red state will probably shift to paper receipts in next few years, but GOPers aren’t likely to lose because there are just too damn many ignorant white wing racists here. If they do lose, it’ll be because Democrats vote.

[RandomAccess]

49. Overwhelming turnout -- esp.

among the youth. They're much harder to track because they don't use landlines and a lot of them hadn't voted before.

You seem to be missing the point re Virginia: It's NOT either/or -- it's this AND that. Overwhelming turnout is -- well, overwhelming. BUT paper ballots were important too.

[Gothmog]

60. This conspiracy theory hurts voter turnout which helps the GOP

In the real world, these machines are tested and no issues have been found. There are procedures for testing and certifying these machines that have to be used.

The only way to hacked these machines is at the election office before these machines are put into operation. We have teams of persons who watch the testing and sealing of these machines. Zero tapes are run before any machine is sealed and after the polls are closed the election judge check the number of votes recorded against the number of voters checked in.

Pushing a bogus conspiracy theory can depress the vote which only helps the GOP

[triron]

50. So, what's your evidence of what you claim?

[Hoyt]

53. Look up "hanging chads" and stolen ballot boxes in 50s/60s. As to unsubstantiated conspiracies,

your lack of evidence, oteher than it could have happened, is the proof.

[triron]

54. No this is not just "unsubstantiated speculation"!

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2018, 02:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree there's little hard evidence but there is abundant circumstantial evidence.

[Gothmog]

59. So the election officials in all 254 counties in Texas are violating the law?

This is from the Texas Election Code https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.129.htm

Sec. 129.051. PRE-ELECTION SECURITY PROCEDURE. (a) The general custodian of election records shall create and maintain an inventory of all electronic information storage media.
(b) The general custodian of election records shall develop a procedure for tracking the custody of each electronic information storage medium from its storage location, through election coding and the election process, to its final post-election disposition and return to storage. The chain of custody must require two or more individuals to perform a check and verification check whenever a transfer of custody occurs.
(c) The general custodian of election records shall establish a secured location for storing electronic information storage media when not in use, coding a medium for an election, transferring and installing the medium into voting system equipment, and storing voting system equipment after election parameters are loaded.
(d) An election information storage medium shall be kept in the presence of an election official or in a secured location once the medium has been coded for an election.
(e) The general custodian of election records shall create a procedure for tracking the custody of voting system equipment once election parameters are loaded.
(f) The general custodian of election records shall create a recovery plan to be followed if a breach in security procedures is indicated. This plan must include immediately notifying the secretary of state.
(g) The general custodian of election records shall conduct a criminal background check for relevant election officials, staff, and temporary workers upon hiring.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 682 (H.B. 2524), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2009.

Sec. 129.052. TRANSPORT OF VOTING SYSTEM EQUIPMENT. (a) The general custodian of election records shall adopt procedures for securely storing and transporting voting system equipment. The procedures shall include provisions for locations outside the direct control of the general custodian of election records, including overnight storage at a polling location. Procedures relating to the chain of custody must require two or more individuals to perform a check and verification check whenever a transfer of custody occurs.
(b) The general custodian of election records shall create a recovery plan to be followed if a breach in security procedures is indicated. This plan must include immediately notifying the secretary of state.
(c) The general custodian of election records shall provide a training plan for relevant election officials, staff, and temporary workers that addresses the procedures authorized under this section.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 682 (H.B. 2524), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2009.

Sec. 129.053. ACCESS TO VOTING SYSTEM EQUIPMENT. The general custodian of election records shall secure access control keys or passwords to voting system equipment. Use of access control keys or passwords must be witnessed by one or more individuals authorized to use that information. The use of an access control key or password must be documented and witnessed in a log dedicated for that purpose that is retained until the political subdivision disposes of the equipment.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 682 (H.B. 2524), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2009.

Sec. 129.054. NETWORK CONNECTIONS AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY. (a) A voting system may not be connected to any external communications network, including the Internet.
(b) A voting system may not have the capability of permitting wireless communication unless the system uses line-of-sight infrared technology that shields the transmitter and receiver from external infrared transmissions and the system can only accept transmissions generated by the system.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 682 (H.B. 2524), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2009.

Sec. 129.055. EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE. The sole purpose of voting system equipment is the conduct of an election, and only software certified by the secretary of state and necessary for an election may be loaded on the equipment.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 682 (H.B. 2524), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2009.

Sec. 129.056. PLAN FOR MACHINE FAILURE. The general custodian of election records shall create a contingency plan for addressing direct recording electronic voting machine failure. This plan must include the timely notification of the secretary of state.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 682 (H.B. 2524), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2009.

Sec. 129.057. USE OF MACHINE IN EARLY VOTING. A direct recording electronic voting machine deployed for early voting may not be deployed on election day.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 682 (H.B. 2524), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2009.

I have served as an election judge numerous times. I have participated in the procedures used to test machines and maintain the chain of custody of these machines. I have made a number of trips to deliver the Judge Booth Controller to the election office and the first thing they check is the seal on the JBC.

[RandomAccess]

61. Probably not, but I missed the part where

it provided for outside independent review of the code. All the code.

It provides for the Secty of State to certify -- and that's good. BUT, they usually know bumpkuss about code. As a rule, they merely take the word of the manufacturers.

I'm also not reassured by this provision: (a) A voting system may not be connected to any external communications network, including the Internet.

How are the results sent to the central HQ for votes -- either the county or perhaps straight to the state? If they go to the county for tabulation there, how do the county results get conveyed to the state?? PROBABLY BY PHONE. Ooops, no problem there.

As for the fine testing ya'll do -- and thanks, btw, for working elections. I applaud you. But as for those, it would be trivial to program the machines to work as everyone expected throughout the tests, and then the rigged code click into high gear when the election actually begins or slightly after, or not even until the polls close -- or not at all if it can be handled at county HQ or state level.

UNLESS you can examine the code itself, ALL Of it, and ensure that no other possible code can be added later, you simply cannot guarantee there is no funny business going on with electronic voting machines.

The ONLY safe -- truly safe -- alternative is paper ballots, hand counted in full public view. AND, as I also said, that helps trip up the Russians as well. And yes, I know paper ballots have been mishandled in the past. So you count the ballots in full public view immediately after the election, and you post the results on the wall, and you tell the press, and whatever else you can do to make sure it's accurate and you forestall any funny business.

Nothing's perfect, probably, but this would be far better than relying on non-verifiable, easily hackable electronic voting machine systems.

[Gothmog]

19. These claims are false

I work on voter protection each cycle and I have been an election judge. The machines are owned by each county and are tested each cycle. Here are posts on the provisions of the Texas Election Code

https://democraticunderground.com/1016210294#post5


https://democraticunderground.com/100210782481#post99

Bogus claims of election fraud are used to depress the vote. When I went to Florida for the Kerry Edwards voter protection team, the DNC lectured us on this fact. If voters think that the machines are working, then turnout is depressed. It is easier to depress the turnout of Democratic voters and so these tactics are used by the GOP.

[FSogol]

24. +1, exactly. n/t

[RandomAccess]

28. Uh huh. And who writes the code?

Who tests them?

How are the tests conducted?

How can you be sure there isn't code in the machines that is programmed to kick in at 6:59 a.m. on election day (assuming polls open at 7)? OR, conversely, 7:01 pm on election day (assuming a 7 pm close) -- so that the internal tabulations are appropriately modified?

You can't.

[triron]

51. In addition (to add support) the vulnerability may be greatest in the central tabulation step.

I don't have any idea how they could manipulate precinct data without it being discovered
but bet there are computer geeks out there who might spread some light on it.

[RandomAccess]

63. It's not that tough, actually

And it wouldn't be easy to discover IF no one went looking for it.

And trust me, those voting machine company created contracts -- which ended up coded in law (at least in my state and I'll bet you others as well) -- that totally prevented anyone from looking -- for any reason.

They also shortened the window in which a candidate could ask for a recount, sometimes dramatically, and they did whatever else they could to close those windows of discovery after the fact. In my state they limited the conditions under which a failed candidate could file, IIRC.

[RandomAccess]

26. That's the excuse those who DON'T want to face the truth

trot out to try to cover up the problem, quell questions, let life go on as always.

And no, it wouldn't take a lot of folks to pull off. NOT AT ALL.

[Vinnie From Indy]

29. Please explain why the discrepancy is always a red shift?

Why is there never a blue shift?

[Hoyt]

35. Read the posts here. And I'm convincedmost people aren't going to admit

to voting for a deplorable white wing GOPer, among other polling errors.

[Gothmog]

2. Exit Polls, and Why the Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders

Here are some facts to counter the fantasy in the OP https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-the-primary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html

Now, how can this happen? There are a lot of sources for exit poll error — even more than in an ordinary poll. Here are a few:

■ Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out.

■ Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected aren’t representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isn’t so helpful in a primary.

■ Absentee voters aren’t included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote.

For all these reasons, exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. With this kind of history, you can see why no one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do.

But why were exit polls so tilted toward Mr. Sanders? It’s impossible to be 100 percent sure, but the best-known bias in the exit poll offers a very good explanation: young voters.

Young voters are far likelier to complete the exit polls than older voters, according to data from Edison Research, the organization that conducts the exit polls. The gap is particularly pronounced when the interviewers are also younger, but the gap persists even when older interviewers are conducting the exit interviews.

Exit polls are not reliable in the real world

[Time for change]

8. The main argument here is that exit polls have been "wrong" in the past so you can't trust them

But that is circular reasoning.

When exit polls differ from the official vote count, that means that either the official vote count is wrong or the exit polls are wrong. The only way to settle the matter is to do a recount of paper ballots, or inspect the electronic vote counting machines for malicious code. But the public has never been allowed access to these machines, with the rationale that they are privately owned. Doesn't that sound suspicious to you?

And when paper ballots are available for verifying the results of an election, they are are never recounted adequately. For example, consider the 2016 general election. Jill Stein requested a recount in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (She tried to get do so in Florida and North Carolina, but couldn't raise enough money to do so).

In Wisconsin, a recount occurred, but only half of the counties agreed to do a hand recount of paper ballots. The other counties agreed only to a "recount" using the same machines that gave us the official results, with no means of verifying that they were correct. Obviously, if the fraud occurred in the counties that refused to do a hand recount, it could never be detected. In Michigan a recount began but was stopped by the courts. In PA, the courts ruled that no hand recount could be done.

[Gothmog]

10. I live in the real world and I trust Nate Silver over silly conspiracy theories

[Time for change]

13. Here's my detailed response to Nate Silver's article

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12511992709

You are aware that he is part of our corporate news media, right?

Do you actually understand what he is saying and my response to him, or are you just taking his word on blind trust? Anybody with any extensive background in statistics would realize that it makes no sense.

Do you want to try responding to my response to him, or do you just have more links from our corporate news media?

[Gothmog]

15. You were wrong then and you are wrong now

Your article was actually amusing and fun to laugh at. I am sure that Nate was not worried about your attempt at analysis.

Your fake claims are really only help depress the vote. In the real world, we do not want to put out fake or false claims that will cause voters to stay hope. Your fake claims are really helping the GOP by suppressing Democratic votes

[RandomAccess]

64. You have provided absolutely NO support for your claim

that our discussions of the vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines suppress the vote.

Until you do, you would be seen as more credible if you either provided such support -- see, I'm not even asking for "proof," just something other than your claim that basically every Democrat you've ever seen or talked to has said that it suppresses our vote -- or stopped making the claim.

[Gothmog]

66. And you have provided no support for your conspiracy theories

There are protections used in the real world to protect these machines. If you have better ideas, go out into the real world and volunteer your services to a state or county party. See if anyone will listen to your amusing but wrong claims in the real world.

In the meantime, I will continue to volunteer time in the real world. We are planning for the 2016 general election now and will start training poll watchers later next month

The real world is a nice place. It takes hard work to make a difference.

[RandomAccess]

67. A) It's not a conspiracy the way you mean it, and B)

You haven't read what's been provided, have you?

START FUCKING THERE.

I can load you up with stuff to read -- evidence. But start with what's been linked to in this OP, then get back to me.

[Gothmog]

69. You have presented no proof at all other than your lay/non-expert opinion

If you really believe you silly conspiracy theories, go out into the real world and talk to state or local party and see if they take you seriously. You have not provided any proof for your claims that would stand up in the real world

I work on voter protection efforts in the real world. I was one of 3000 attorneys who went to Florida during the 2004 race for the Kerry Edwards voter protection efforts. I have worked on statewide voter protection efforts and trained poll watchers for a number of years. I have actually served as an election judge and have used the equipment you know nothing about. I have been present at the testing of these machines.

Most counties have teams of persons who watch the testing of these machines. Go volunteer to be a part of one of these teams. Get out into the real world and see if anyone in the real world pays attention to your claims.

The real world is a nice place. Come and work in it if you really believe your silly conspiracy theories.

[RandomAccess]

71. And you don't know shit about

computer programming, do you?

Your "testing" is bogus -- or can be. You don't even understand that much.

Fine, Mr. Attorney. Just remember that you didn't BOTHER to look at the evidence.

[Gothmog]

72. If you really believe this silliness,then go volunteer in the real world

The fact that no one in the real world is paying attention to your claims should tell you something. Conspiracy theories can hurt voter turnout. I am concerned that unfounded conspiracy theories can depress Democratic voter turnout. The DNC and the other voter protection professionals who I have worked with share this concern

If you are so knowledgeable, then go volunteer in the real world. The local party has a number of computer types who watch the testing of the machines. Go prove that you know more than they do. It will be amusing to see if you can find real experts who agree with your conspiracy theories

[mythology]

11. Thank you

I can’t believe how many people seem to want to believe any idiot's theory no matter how unsupported.

[Gothmog]

16. I live in the real world and volunteer a great deal of time on voter protection efforts

False claims like the OP only help the GOP by depressing Democratic turnout.

[JustAnotherGen]

25. Ditto me!

I think there is a huge disconnect between those govt,, recruiting poll watchers, ensuring folks can get to the polls or early voting.

[Girard442]

4. Since any suspicion of ballot tampering casts doubt on the legitimacy of our government...

...you would think that any conscientious politician would be fully onboard with fraud-prevention efforts, even if actual fraud hasn't been proven.

You would think.

[Gothmog]

6. There are procedures for testing machines

Each voting machine is tested in Texas prior to each election. Harris County has teams of people who observe the testing of machines each cycle.

[Gothmog]

5. Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls by Nate Silver

Exit polls are not reliable in the real world. Here are some facts from Nate Silver https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/

Oh, let me count the ways. Almost all of this, by the way, is lifted from Mark Bluemthnal’s outstanding Exit Poll FAQ. For the long version, see over there.

1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys......

5. Democrats may be more likely to participate in exit polls. Related to items #1 and #4 above, Scott Rasmussen has found that Democrats supporters are more likely to agree to participate in exit polls, probably because they are more enthusiastic about this election.

6. Exit polls may have problems calibrating results from early voting. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, exit polls will attempt account for people who voted before election day in most (although not all) states by means of a random telephone sample of such voters. However, this requires the polling firms to guess at the ratio of early voters to regular ones, and sometimes they do not guess correctly. In Florida in 2000, for instance, there was a significant underestimation of the absentee vote, which that year was a substantially Republican vote, leading to an overestimation of Al Gore’s share of the vote, and contributing to the infamous miscall of the state.

7. Exit polls may also miss late voters. By “late” voters I mean persons who come to their polling place in the last couple of hours of the day, after the exit polls are out of the field. Although there is no clear consensus about which types of voters tend to vote later rather than earlier, this adds another way in which the sample may be nonrandom, particularly in precincts with long lines or extended voting hours.

The concept voter fraud is proven by exit polls is simply wrong

Seriously, I volunteer a great deal time on voter protection efforts. One thing that all election experts agree is that false stories about unreliable voting machines and false claims of voter fraud depress turnout. GOP types will vote no matter what but it is easy to depress voter turnout.

There are real examples of GOP voter suppression and the DNC and Democratic attorneys are fighting these voter suppression efforts. If you want to help, go volunteer to be an election worker. I serve as an election judge once a cycle to make sure that I am current. It is a very long day and can be boring. However, this is the best way to protect the vote in the real worldl

[Time for change]

12. Yes, I've seen many people refer to that stupid article

I worked with statistics on a daily basis for 40 years as a public health physician/epidemiologist, and I can tell you that that article is pure nonsense. I explain my reasons in detail here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12511992709

Our corporate news media has done everything in their power to discredit exit polls since the massive red shifts of the 2004 Presidential election. Nate Silver's article is just one more example of that.

Why take the word of our corporate news media? Why not instead do whatever we can to ensure that we have verifiable elections. Why don't we have laws against having our votes counted by machines owned and operated by private corporations, with no means of verifying the official count?

[Gothmog]

14. I am sorry but your claims do not stand up in the real world

I live in the real world and I volunteer a great deal of time. Bogus lies and claims about election fraud are pushed by GOP types to depress voter turnout. GOP voters tend to show up no matter what or vote by mail. It is easy to depress voter turnout by Democratic leaning voters.

I have to deal with this in the real world. Bogus lies about election fraud only help republicans.


If you want to help, go volunteer to work as an election worker in the real world. It is a long day but is the best way to protect the vote. We are planning on doing additional training this cycle for Democratic election workers to make sure that we protect the vote.

I was in the county war room on both primary day and the primary run off. We will have thirty or more lawyers working shifts for the mid terms. I trained over 200 poll watchers last cycle and helped run a state wide voter protection hotline. We will dong the same. However, these efforts are not going to help if voters believe these fake stories about voter fraud and exit polls. These stories only help depress Democratic vote and help the GOP.

Why are you trying to help the GOP? Why do you want to depress or keep Democratic voters from going to the polls?

[Time for change]

18. My purpose is to advocate for verifiable elections rather than take the word of the corporations

who make and operate our vote counting machines.

I do not at all advocate that this means that people should not vote. Of course, we should all vote. The capacity for election fraud is not infinite. In 2008 and 2012 enough people voted for Barack Obama to overcome whatever fraud there was.

In 2004 and 2016 we didn't have enough voters to do that. The result was another four years of George W. Bush and now we have Trump.

We need to address voter suppression and electronic manipulation of the vote simultaneously. Either alone is not good enough.

[Gothmog]

20. Your posts are helping the GOP depress voter turnout in the real world

Your claims are all false, The machines are owned by the counties where the elections are held and are maintained and tested in that county.

We have teams of people who watch the testing in key counties.

Again, the real world is a nice place. I like living and working in it.

Posts about fake claims of election fraud only help the GOP depress voter turnout.,

[RandomAccess]

30. That's not true

If anything, it generates MORE determination to get out the vote.

Further, I haven't heard any GOP operative use this as a vote suppression technique. So perhaps you can provide examples and links?

[Gothmog]

40. Go to talk to your county party or GOTV types

The DNC made a big deal about this when I was in Florida in 2004 for Kerry Edwards. Later I heard the same thing from the DNC and Obama Voter Protection team. The then head of the Harris County Democratic Party and an official with the state Democratic party both told me that stories about faulty machines hurt turnout. I trust the DNC, the State Party and the Obama campaign on this.

Juanita Jean's husband has a story that I have heard a large number of times. GOP voters drive around looking for elections or votig signs and so it is easy to turn out their vote. You have to work hard to turn out Democratic voters.

Stories about malfunctioning machines hurt turnout in the real world The GOP put a great deal of effort in to regular methods of voter suppression. We had GOP poll greeters lie about the Texas voter id law at polling places and tell voters that they had to have one of the approved ids to vote. The court had implemented a procedure so that voters could vote without an approved ID if they signed a reasonable impediment declaration. We had 200+ poll watchers documenting this and got the county attorney to stop this practice very early on. The GOP would not go to these efforts if the election machines were actually fixed

[RandomAccess]

42. I am very familiar with GOP vote suppression tactics which are rampant,

muscular and very effective. They cover EVERYTHING.

Except faulty election turnout.

I've not heard a single effort on the part of ANY GOP operative of any kind that uses that argument. Zero. I just hear it from misguided Democrats who buy that simpleminded argument without any evidence. I've not seen it. And, as I said, the knowledge makes me want to redouble my efforts to GOTV. Without seeing evidence of it, there's no reason to believe it. They all probably still buy -- and promote - the lie that exit polls are faulty. It's just not true.

[Gothmog]

57. Have you ever worked in a war room?

I have participated in voter protection efforts since 2004. I have heard this in numerous training sessions. The former head of the local county democratic party teaches this in his voter protection courses.

[RandomAccess]

62. Other DEMS saying it doesn't do it for me

Where is your proof that REPUBLICANS use it as a vote suppression technique? They don't.

Dems have had their heads where they shouldn't be on elections, what voters want, who's best, yada yada for decades now.

I don't trust them to KNOW -- but I do trust them to repeat someone else's mixed up idea about what's going on. Such as, oh, exit polls can't be trusted. Such as, oh, we have to treat our new fascist overlords with civility and respect.

[Gothmog]

65. Do you tire of being wrong?

I actually work in the area of voter protection with other members of the Democratic Party who are trying to protect the vote. We had 30+ attorneys in the war room during the 2016 election. Heck we had shifts of attorneys in the war room during the primary and primary run off.

Pushing silly and unfounded conspiracy theories that will depress the vote of good Democratic voters is only helping the GOP. You may be comfortable with your efforts of helping the GOP to suppress the vote but actual members of the Democratic Party who work on voter protection efforts disagree.

If you know so much, go volunteer your efforts and see if anyone in a county party will listen to you. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I will continue to work in the real world and try to protect the vote. You can continue helping the GOP by pushing unfounded and silly conspiracy theories that will depress the vote. Please get out into the real world if you really believe these silly conspiracy theories.

[RandomAccess]

68. Again, zero support

[Gothmog]

70. Again, the real world is a nice place

If your silly conspiracy theories have any merit, go volunteer to work with your local county or state party. See if you can convince someone in the real world who is working on protecting the vote of your claims. So far you have not come close.

Why are you trying to help the GOP depress the vote. Everyone professional who works in the area of voter protection caution against making bogus claims about fixed machines. Such claims depress the vote of Democratic voters and help the GOP. I first heard this concern in 2004 and I have heard this advise from the DNC and other voter protection experts. Maybe these experts know something about the effect of bogus conspiracy theories on depressing the vote of Democratic voters.

Instead of trying to help the GOP, I intend to be busy fighting real GOP voter suppression. The real world is a nice place full of people who care about voting rights. Come volunteer if you really believe your claims.

[RandomAccess]

73. Yeah? Well, whadya think about this --

Virginia bars voting machines considered top hacking target
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/08/virginia-election-machines-hacking-target-242492

“The Department of Elections believes that the risks presented by using this equipment in the November general election are sufficiently significant to warrant immediate decertification to ensure the continued integrity of Virginia elections,” wrote Edgardo Cortés, the head of the Elections Department, in a memo to board members.

The decision to swap out touchscreen machines is “an extraordinary step forward for the integrity and security of Virginia's elections, allowing them to be audited and recounted in a meaningful way,” said David Jefferson, an election security expert who chairs the board of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan group that tracks election equipment nationwide.

. . . Cybersecurity experts consider these touchscreen devices — known as direct-recording electronic, or DRE, voting machines — to be dangerous because they do not produce paper records of votes that can be compared with their electronic tallies, thus making it impossible to detect tampering. External attachments can create paper backups, but Virginia’s machines lack them.

------------------------------------------

The thing about the folks at the county and state levels --

If the bigwigs in the party are convinced there's nothing to talk about AND that talking about the possibilities is harmful -- as you seem to be for no reason other than "they" say so -- then by golly, that's the way it'll be. Secretaries of State will NOT want to be shown to be wrong, and usually don't understand things well enough to "get it" -- just as you don't. They don't want their precious "certification" to be shown wrong either. They'll also not be real eager, even if they do think something's worth looking at, to suggest spending more money. It takes real COURAGE and GUTS for any of them to get involved.

As for your suggestions about how I should spend my time and efforts, I do as much as I can being disabled, thank you very little.

[Gothmog]

74. LOL-thank you for the laughs-this does not help you argument/silly conspiracy theory at all

Every jurisdiction in the nation is seeking to replace their machines. Most of the current voting machines have been in service since the early 1980s and need to be replaced. Virginia may be able to get by with OCR machines in that Virginia holds state election is oll numbered years and federal elections in even number. OCR machines may work with a limited number of ballot styles.

In my county, OCR can not be used in that each voting center would need almost 200 different style of ballots for the November election. Since you lack any knowledge of this area, the term "ballot style" means

"Ballot style" means a unique aggregation of contests that make up the ballot for a particular group of voters identified by common characteristics of residence location, party affiliation, or both.

We have local races, school board races, Municipal Utility District races, commissioner court races and state house races in addition to the normal federal races. In 2016, the machines were programmed with nearly 200 ballot styles in my county. There were more styles in other counties.

Every jurisdiction is looking to replace their machines. Travis County has been working on this since 2009 and recently had to abandoned their plans for a new system https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2017-10-13/county-ditches-star-votes-innovative-voting-system/

Unfortunately, when DeBeauvoir looked through all the bids, key components were always missing. Without those sections, STAR-Vote could not happen in Travis County, and her office was going to have to look to the existing and established market for a replacement system. The plan right now is for a new system to be purchased, put in place, and tested before the 2020 presidential elections. However, DeBeauvoir said, "The main things that we were going to get from STAR-Vote, a paper trail and better security, are non-negotiable."

Wallach doesn't blame DeBeauvoir for ending the initiative – instead, he says she should be lauded for not only seeing the need for secure elections, but also working so hard to implement change. "It's not her job to build the dream election system," he said. "It's her job to keep the trains on time, and make sure that elections happen." If he's frustrated with anyone, it's the handful of major players in the electronic voting machine market for not implementing these changes themselves. Those companies, Wallach said, are too wedded to their current business model of selling expensive equipment – Travis County calculated that STAR-Vote would cost $10-12 million to implement, compared to $14-16 million for a standard product – and long-running support contracts. "They could have read our paper in 2013," he said. "There's no patent. There's no intellectual property protection. They could have been working on it for years, but they didn't."

However, STAR-Vote is already having an impact on the national discourse. In Sep­tem­ber, the U.S. Election Assistance Com­mis­sion issued a new set of voluntary voting system guidelines that included many of the precepts upon which the Travis County system was to be built – particularly, the requirements for a verifiable, independently auditable paper trail. DeBeauvoir said, "I'm not sure that being ahead of our time has been helpful, but it has allowed other elections officials to articulate that this is what they want, and this is what the voters want."

The next generation of machines should have a paper trail and be able to audit. Right now, the only technology that is currently available are OCR systems which will not work for many jurisdictions. I

BTW, the Travis County election people are interesting. My county and Travis each use county wide voting centers. To provide some audit trail, in my county, the election office prints what is called a zero tape for each machine and we have representatives of each party watch the printing of these zero tapes. For counties with county wide voting, that means that the JBC has to print a summary of all races or ballot styles in the entire countuy. The process can tape a couple of hours per JBC. The head of elections at Travis County told me that they do not print zero tapes because that uses too much paper.

There will be a new generation of machines because the current machines are wearing out. I was an election judge when the JBC went down 7 times. Luckily, I had a nice young college student as a clerk and we were able to reboot the machines each time (you have to unplug and replug the cable between each machine and the JPR). My tape on the JPR matched the number of ballots cast and so I was happy. The county now has back up JBC for each voting center.

Again, there is no merit to your conspiracy theory and the article cited does not help your silly conspiracy theory. I am looking forward to the next generation of machines and I hope that they have some sort of paper trail built in.

Please get out into the real world. Go volunteer at your county or state party office. See how the systems work in the real world. There are a large number of good Democrats who devote a great deal of time in the real world to protect the vote.

In the mean time, your silly conspiracy theories can depress Democratic voter turnout and that only helps the GOP.

[triron]

47. What have you got to support this claim?

[Gothmog]

56. I have been volunteering in this area for a while

I first heard this from the head of the Florida Kerry Edwards voter protection team in 2004 when I was part of the 3000 out of state attorneys who went to Florida to protect the vote. I have also heard this from the DNC and the Obama voter protection teams duribg their training sessions. Even the Clinton Victory Counsel program taught this concept. This is what is taught to attorneys working in the war rooms who work on voter protection.

The former head of the Harris County Democratic Party teaches the voter protection class each cycle. If you are an attorney, go volunteer to protect the vote. You can get CLE hours if your county is organized.

[byronius]

21. +1. Thanks.

Odd how people shy away from this gaping wound in the national machine. Democracy works when it's allowed to work; otherwise, it's just old-timey Strong Man with flashy lights and bells.

Private electronic voting schemes are an astoundingly ignorant and possibly genocidal act of a lost nation. Should obviously be illegal forever. ES&S, Diebold and Sequoia need to be a dark historical footnote and nothing else.

This is all so goddamned ridiculous. Perhaps we should all just get back to basics and choose our leaders by gangfight.

At least we'd be free of Murder Klown.

[RandomAccess]

36. I have a question for you -- and a comment

I believe in my heart that the stunning Dem victories in Virginia (last year?) were due in part to wonderful turnout, but ALSO because they shifted to paper ballots. Do you have any thoughts, or better yet, data on this??

Or actually a comment and a 2nd question:
According to Greg Palast, the 2000 election was stolen too -- not because of hanging chads, but the scanners used to tabulate hand-marked ballots. Do you not agree? IIRC he had quite a bit of info on it.

REALLY glad to see your information posted here and can't wait to read the other links. Thanks for your work.

[Gothmog]

22. In Texas, 50% to 70% of the vote is by early vote or vote by mail

Exit polls do not work in states with significant early vote or voter by mail. From Nate's article

6. Exit polls may have problems calibrating results from early voting. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, exit polls will attempt account for people who voted before election day in most (although not all) states by means of a random telephone sample of such voters. However, this requires the polling firms to guess at the ratio of early voters to regular ones, and sometimes they do not guess correctly. In Florida in 2000, for instance, there was a significant underestimation of the absentee vote, which that year was a substantially Republican vote, leading to an overestimation of Al Gore’s share of the vote, and contributing to the infamous miscall of the state.

7. Exit polls may also miss late voters. By “late” voters I mean persons who come to their polling place in the last couple of hours of the day, after the exit polls are out of the field. Although there is no clear consensus about which types of voters tend to vote later rather than earlier, this adds another way in which the sample may be nonrandom, particularly in precincts with long lines or extended voting hours.

The Texas Democratic Party has been pushing vote by mail for a while. Originally, this was done do combat voter id laws but now it is being done to lock in a reliable segment of the vote. I helped fund a program to send vote by mail applications to persons in small counties and I contributed to the vote by mail program in my county.

[still_one]

33. Thank you Gothmog. Your assessment is right on. More and more people are voting by mail in

California also. I remember how Greg Palast was claiming that Caliifornia did not count provisional ballots. That was a LIE. California counts ALL their ballots, including provisional ones, votes by mail, and absentee ballots, as long as the person is legally registered to vote.

And California makes it extremely easy to registered to vote. Through DMV renewal, online, etc.

[triron]

46. Except that the early vote in 2016 was even more blue shifted.

So working in the reverse direction.

[Gothmog]

58. It depends on the county

In 2010, my county had something like 200 Democratic voters voting by mail. IN 2016, it was closed to 8,000. The state party started this program initially to combat voter id (you do not need an id to vote by mail). Now, it is simply party of the GOTV efforts.

Democrats like early voting but so do republicans. We have yet to get an effective souls to the polls operation going in Texas though we have tried.

[mopinko]

23. we have the power to audit this ourselves. if everyone checked their

own precinct, we could catch them.
i dont know if this is common law across the states, but in illinois, where i have been a judge, every polling place has to post the results tape at the end of the night. poll watchers can get a copy of the tape.
in many cases, it is when these results are aggregated that numbers can be changed.
here, the newspapers publish precinct results. w the interwebs, there numbers are pretty widely available. if everyone checked their own precinct results against the tabulated results at least this one avenue could be closed.

i dont know how many times i have posted this, but it is a lot. i have never seen any interest in it.
prolly wont this time, either.
but there is a reason this rules were made, and it is a tool that is right out there in plain sight to be used.

[RandomAccess]

31. That's good --

but the one problem (maybe just a question) I have about it is --

in many cases, it is when these results are aggregated that numbers can be changed.

I don't see how this prevents the numbers being changed before they're aggregated.

IOW, you have several machines humming along, pre-programmed to make sure the R vote is 50% + 1 (or something a little less obvious, probably individual for each machine, and not ALL of them totally for Rs) more than the D votes -- and that's how the tape comes out of the machine, and that's what the aggregated votes show.

So -- your method wouldn't prevent that, would it?

[RandomAccess]

32. I'm so glad you posted this

It looks great and I can't wait to read more of it.

ETA: asked a question of the wrong person. So deleted it.

[Tace]

37. Sorry, Folks. Time for change Is Locked From This Thread...

...due to an inappropriate reply.

Thanks for your interest and comments.

--Tace

[triron]

45. Thanks a million times over for this!

I know damn well the GE was corrupted and a farce.
The red shift there was so improbable as to strain incredulity.

[triron]

52. Here is an excellent analysis of red shift in the 2016 election that adds validation to your OP.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319205877_Updated_Expanded_and_Corrected_Affidavit_Version_US_2016_Unadjusted_Exit_Poll_Discrepancies_Fit_Chronic_Republican_Vote_-_Count_Rigging_not_Random_Statistical_Patterns

[pansypoo53219]

55. so....end exit polls. ow convenient.

[McCamy Taylor]

75. I knew the fix was in on election day 2004 when the Ohio SOS tried to make exit pollsters

stay far away from the polling places. That is because the reliability of exit polls is inversely proportional to the distance to the polling place. He would only do that if he knew that the exit polls were not going to match the vote tallies and he needed to be able to say later "Well, those exit polls are not reliable. The pollsters were too far away."

Sadly, most of America is math impaired and does not understand these things.

The courts issued an injunction and so Bush and Rove had to bribe the MSM to bury the exit poll results with the promise of FCC media favors--promises which they took back after the inauguration (see Michael Powell).