The Case For Fraud
I am not a huge conspiracy theorist but I am not above adding to the noise. So here is a brief article on exit polls v. electronic voting (without paper trails). It is no secret that the CEO of Diebold promised Ohio’s electoral votes to Bush. Conflict of interest? Perhaps. Opportunity for shenanigans? You bet! Read on:
Counterbias: November 5, 2004
By Joseph Cannon:
Ignore the rightist snickers. Ignore those who would straightjacketpermissible thought. We have a right to ask difficult questions. And thequestion of the moment concerns exit polls and electronic voting. A trulylopsided vote would have been impossible to hide, because oversized gapsbetween polls and election night counts would prove too suspicious. Remember when networks used to trumpet the accuracy of exit polling? On Tuesday night, I saw on-air talking heads (especially on CNN) loudly deride these same exit polls as untrustworthy. Exit polls published on Tuesday afternoon (by Slate and a number of blogs) gave this portrait of certain key results: OHIO: Kerry 50, Bush 49. FLORIDA: Kerry 50, Bush 49.NEW MEXICO: Kerry 51, Bush 48. At times, the poll data was even more favorable to Kerry in these three key states. No exit poll showed a Bush lead in any of these states. Here are grounds for suspicion. Electronic voting machines figured heavily in the final tabulation of the results in Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico. Moreover, in all three, paper audit trails do not exist. Why did problems afflict exit polling in three swing states that have widespread computerized voting with no paper trails? In other states, the exit polling matched the final results ratherwell. In Nevada, Illinois, and New Hampshire, computer votes do have papertrails-and in those instances, the exit polls tracked the final totals. Intriguingly, CNN's exit poll results underwent a mysterious revision not explained by an increased number of respondents. Black Box Voting plans to file the world's largest FOIA requestto uncover the internals of the compu-vote. Wednesday's Boston Globe expands on some of the points I've made here: "Although some of John F. Kerry's leads in the state exit polls narrowed during the course of the day yesterday, there was a significant discrepancy between the actual vote total and the polling numbers, particularly in two states believed to be keys to the outcome. "While the exit data had Kerry winning Florida and Ohio by a narrow margin, the actual tabulated vote late last night had Bush carrying Florida by about five points and winning Ohio by two. In addition, a projected Kerry win of about five points in Wisconsin turned into a very tight contest, and what was projected as a close race in North Carolina turned into a double-digit win for Bush." Logic tells us that about half the exit polls would show "false positives" for the Republican side. But in the past two presidential elections, they have almost always (should I strike out the word "almost"?) delivered "false positives" for Democrats only. The simplest explanation: The Democratic "false positives" are not, in fact, false. The computerized tally is false.
Counterbias: November 5, 2004
By Joseph Cannon:
Ignore the rightist snickers. Ignore those who would straightjacketpermissible thought. We have a right to ask difficult questions. And thequestion of the moment concerns exit polls and electronic voting. A trulylopsided vote would have been impossible to hide, because oversized gapsbetween polls and election night counts would prove too suspicious. Remember when networks used to trumpet the accuracy of exit polling? On Tuesday night, I saw on-air talking heads (especially on CNN) loudly deride these same exit polls as untrustworthy. Exit polls published on Tuesday afternoon (by Slate and a number of blogs) gave this portrait of certain key results: OHIO: Kerry 50, Bush 49. FLORIDA: Kerry 50, Bush 49.NEW MEXICO: Kerry 51, Bush 48. At times, the poll data was even more favorable to Kerry in these three key states. No exit poll showed a Bush lead in any of these states. Here are grounds for suspicion. Electronic voting machines figured heavily in the final tabulation of the results in Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico. Moreover, in all three, paper audit trails do not exist. Why did problems afflict exit polling in three swing states that have widespread computerized voting with no paper trails? In other states, the exit polling matched the final results ratherwell. In Nevada, Illinois, and New Hampshire, computer votes do have papertrails-and in those instances, the exit polls tracked the final totals. Intriguingly, CNN's exit poll results underwent a mysterious revision not explained by an increased number of respondents. Black Box Voting plans to file the world's largest FOIA requestto uncover the internals of the compu-vote. Wednesday's Boston Globe expands on some of the points I've made here: "Although some of John F. Kerry's leads in the state exit polls narrowed during the course of the day yesterday, there was a significant discrepancy between the actual vote total and the polling numbers, particularly in two states believed to be keys to the outcome. "While the exit data had Kerry winning Florida and Ohio by a narrow margin, the actual tabulated vote late last night had Bush carrying Florida by about five points and winning Ohio by two. In addition, a projected Kerry win of about five points in Wisconsin turned into a very tight contest, and what was projected as a close race in North Carolina turned into a double-digit win for Bush." Logic tells us that about half the exit polls would show "false positives" for the Republican side. But in the past two presidential elections, they have almost always (should I strike out the word "almost"?) delivered "false positives" for Democrats only. The simplest explanation: The Democratic "false positives" are not, in fact, false. The computerized tally is false.
Comments