Analysis: A Formula for Catching Election Fraud
Tuesday, 7 November 2006, 5:17 pm
Article: Michael Collins

PROTECTING THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE: Part 3
A Formula for Catching Election Fraud
Democrats Should Take Up To 40 House Seats And 6 In The Senate
Michael Collins and TruthIsAll
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, DC

Part 1 (10/26) – Part 2 (10/31)

INTRODUCTION
November 7, 2006 promises to be a watershed event in the political history of the United States of America. After six long years of the Bush Administration the public is poised to clean house and throw the bums out. These colloquial phrases represent the fervently held hopes of the 55% to 60% of the people who consistently disapprove of the Bush presidency. However, a darker horizon beckons due to the inevitable temptations to deliver the vote in ways that deny the public will.

Two major reasons for concern about a free and fair election are found in these simple title changes that will occur in a Democratic House of Representatives: Chairman Conyers and Chairman Waxman. The thought of these two experienced, intelligent, and wily legislators in charge of the key House investigative committees must strike terror in the hearts of those who may be subject to investigations. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that what can be done will be done to avoid this horror. It makes perfect sense.

We know that there have been frequent instances of elections gone wrong since 2000. The curious events preceding the surprise losses of Senator Cleland and Governor Barnes in Georgia 2002 were an immediate cause of concern for careful observers. The intense concern just might have had something to do with the software patch applied to one third of that state’s electronic voting machines just before the election. That software patch that was never investigated or even explained even though it occurred right before an election that saw a highly improbable last minute reversal of substantial leads by those two Democrats.

Read more.



No Comments to “A formula for catching E-Day fraud”

  • Mark, thanks for the link.
    Finally, the pervasive BushCo fraud has hit the mainstream.

    Let this be a lesson to the DLC tutu Democrats and those pathetic consultants Shrum and Brazille.

    We have won EVERY election since 2000, but our so called democratic “leaders” did not allow anyone to even discuss the fraudulent thefts in the media.

    BushCo is at fault, but why would anyone expect them to cease and desist since the tutu Dems refused to fight back all these years?

    Of course, the media is also to blame for not going after the story. But they would have had the Dems fought as a group to expose the fraud.

    If we don’t win the House this time, the fraud will be obvious to anyone who breathes.
    The question is: when the hell are the Dems going to do something about it?

    You may already know that I have proven mathematically that Kerry won the election by over 7 million votes.
    Steve Freeman and others have produced their own analyses which confirm mine.

    View the mathematical proof:

    http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=2130

  • Mark,

    The 2006 National Exit Poll provides further irrefutable proof that the exit pollsters are still perpetuating the myth that Bush won in 2004 – and are in a vicious cycle of CYA.

    In a nutshell, analysis of the following demographics: How voted in 2004, PartyId and Gender proves that the Final National Poll is a farce. The crosstab national vote share results are impossible.

    The details are given in the second part of this piece. But I’ll present a most dramatic, yet simple proof right here.

    According to the 2006 NEP PartyID demographic vote shares and weights, the GOP won the Generic Vote by 50-49%! Really!

    We know that 116 pre-election Generic Polls were ALL won by the Democrats. Their Generic margin on Nov.7 was over 14% with a postively sloped linear trend line from Sept. 2005 – while the GOP trend has been a flat 38%.

    Which senate races deviated the most from the pre-election and 7pm exit poll to the recorded vote? Virginia and Montana, the elections which were “too close to call” for hours after the polls closed.

    Here are the probabilities:
    Dev: Discrepancy between Democratic 7pm Exit poll
    vote share and the recorded vote share.
    Prob: Probability of discrepancy

    Discrepancy; Probability
    MT 4%; 1.61e-04 or 1 in 6,196
    VA 3%; 3.37e-03 or 1 in 297

    As usual, the Final Exit Poll was MATCHED to the RECORDED vote.
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

    Here we go again. Edison-Mitofsky contaminated a scientific sample with a corrupted vote count. You see, E-M always assume ZERO fraud. They did it did in 2004. They did it in 2000. It’s deja vu all over again.

    Now which do you believe, the 7pm exit poll or the Final?

    ……Pre-elect 2-ptyProj 7pmExit FinalExit FinalVote
    Avg 46.4 45.6 52.5 47.5 53.0 45.9 52.5 46.4 52.3 46.5
    Dem GOP Dem GOP Dem GOP Dem GOP Dem GOP
    MT* 48.0 47.0 51.0 49.0 53 46 50.0 47.5 49 48
    MO 47.8 46.2 51.4 48.6 50 48 48.8 47.7 50 47
    OH 51.0 43.3 54.4 45.6 57 43 56.0 44.0 56 44
    PA 52.3 40.8 56.4 43.6 57 42 59.0 41.0 59 41

    RI 48.3 40.5 55.0 45.0 53 46 53.8 46.2 53 47
    TN 43.0 51.5 46.3 53.7 48 51 48.1 50.9 48 51
    VA* 46.4 45.8 51.1 48.9 53 46 50.1 49.9 50 49
    NJ 48.0 42.0 54.0 46.0 53 45 54.2 43.9 53 45

    Dev1: Discrepancy between the 7pm Exit Poll and the vote.
    Dev2: Discrepancy between the Final Exit Poll and the vote.
    Dev3: Dev2 – Dev1

    Prob: Probability of discrepancy between Democratic 7pm Exit poll
    vote share and the recorded vote.

    ……Dev1 Dev2 Dev3 MoE Prob 1 in
    MT* 6.0 1.5 -4.5 2.18% 1.61E-04 6,196
    MO -1.0 -1.9 -0.9 1.92% 5.00E-01 2
    OH 2.0 0.0 -2.0 2.04% 1.68E-01 6
    PA -3.0 0.0 3.0 1.97% 9.77E-01 1

    RI 1.0 1.6 0.6 2.86% 5.00E-01 2
    TN 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.95% 5.00E-01 2
    VA* 6.0 -0.8 -6.8 2.17% 3.37E-03 297
    NJ 0.0 2.3 2.3 2.18% 5.00E-01 2
    ____________________________________________________

    Once again.
    The FINAL National Exit Poll does NOT compute.
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

    THE DEMOCRATS DID MUCH BETTER THAN THE FINAL EXIT POLL INDICATES!
    They always do.
    But this time, it’s ridiculous.

    I will now prove it.

    Let’s start at the 116 GENERIC PRE-ELECTION POLL TREND LINE.
    The Democratic vote share was a steadily increasing trend line.
    On Nov. 7, the Dems had a 14.6% lead over the GOP.

    Here’s graphic proof:
    http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/Election2006_16921_image001.png

    The Generic trend line on Nov.7:
    Dem 51.8% – GOP 38.6%
    Convert to 2-party shares:
    Dem 57.3% – GOP 42.7%
    That’s a 14.6% spread.
    We will refer to the 14% spread in the following analysis.
    _________________________________________

    According to the 2006 NATIONAL EXIT POLL PARTY-ID DEMOGRAPHIC:
    1) Voters were 38% Democratic, 38% Republican, 25% Independent
    THIS IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE !
    Why so?

    a) The weights don’t sum to 100.
    OK, no big deal here.

    b) Dems outnumbered Repubs.
    Who was more motivated to vote this time?

    c) The weights were 38D-35R-27I at the 12:22am 2004 NEP timeline.
    Look it up.

    d) THE CLINCHER:
    The 2006 vote based on PARTY-ID weights/vote shares are IMPOSSIBLE!
    If the weights/shares are to be believed, then the GOP won the Generic vote! Why, then, would you believe them?

    HERE’S PROOF THAT THE 2006 FINAL EXIT POLL IS BOGUS:
    Check the PARTY-ID math.
    According to the Final NEP, the GOP won by 50.3-49.1%
    Really?

    The Final NEP has become laughable, a sick joke.
    Who do they think they’re fooling?
    THEY ARE INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE.

    Don’t they realize they can’t fool us anymore?
    Don’t they realize that we can crunch the numbers?
    Would someone please get this to Olbermann.

    THE 2006 NEP UNDERSTATES DEMOCRATIC GENERIC NATIONAL VOTE SHARE BY 7%!
    AND IT OVERSTATES THE GOP GENERIC VOTE SHARE BY 7%!
    HOW DO WE KNOW?
    BECAUSE THE DEMS WON THE PRE-ELECTION GENERIC POLLS BY OVER 14%!

    Here’s THE REAL MATH:

    2006 NATIONAL EXIT POLL
    Sample 13208 MOE 0.87%

    PARTY-ID
    ….. Mix Dem Rep
    Dem 38% 90% 9% C 38% too low, 90% too low, 9% too high
    Rep 38% 7% 93% C 38% too high, 93% too high, 7% too low
    Ind 25% 49% 46% C 49% WTF! Independents voted 60/40 for Dems

    Total 101% 49.1% 50.3% C WTF! Are they serious?

    LET’S REVISE THE WEIGHTS/SHARES TO DERIVE A 12% GENERIC DEMOCRATIC SPREAD:
    PARTY-ID (adjusted)
    Dem 40% 93% 7%
    Rep 35% 11% 89%
    Ind 25% 60% 40%

    Total 100% 56.1% 44.0%

    That’s more like it!
    ________________________________________________

    HOW VOTED IN 2004
    Using this demographic, the national result was 55.8 Dem-44.2 GOP.
    That’s an 11.6% spread. It’s too low. Why?
    Because the Bush/Kerry/Other weights are bogus.
    Kerry won 2004 by 52-47%. And the third party vote was about 1%.

    This is an analysis of how bogus 2004 exit poll weights were used to match a corrupt vote count:
    http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/BogusWeights.htm

    2006 NATIONAL EXIT POLL
    Sample 13208 MOE 0.87%

    HOW VOTED in 2004
    ……..Mix Dem GOP
    Kerry 45% 94% 5% C Kerry’s true vote was 52% in 2004.
    Bush 46% 13% 85% C Bush’s true vote was 47% in 2004.
    Other 5% 62% 21% C 3rd party vote was 1% in 2004.
    DNV 4% 79% 18%

    Total 97.6% 54.5% 43.1%
    2-pty 100% 55.8% 44.2%

    Now let’s adjust weights and vote shares to derive a 14% spread.
    We use 51 Kerry/46 Bush/1 Other/2 DNV weights.
    The adjusted weights are based on the TRUE Kerry/Bush vote BEFORE it was stolen due to uncounted, spoiled ballots and vote switching.

    2006 NATIONAL EXIT POLL

    VOTED IN 2004(adjusted weights and vote shares)
    ……..Mix Dem GOP
    Kerry 51% 94% 5% C Kerry’s true 2004 vote
    Bush 46% 13% 85% C Bush’s true vote
    Other 1% 62% 21% C Third parties had 1% of the vote
    DNV 2% 79% 18% C did not vote in 2004

    Total 98.3% 56.1% 42.2%
    2-pty 100% 57.1% 42.9%

    The adjusted Democratic 2-party national vote share is now 57.1%.
    That’s within 0.2% of the Nov.7 trend line (see above).

    _______________________________________________________________

    GENDER
    Based on the 2006 National Exit Poll 2-party vote shares,
    the national split was 54.4% Dem-45.6% GOP.
    That’s an 8.8% spread. Much too low.

    2006 NATIONAL EXIT POLL
    Sample 13208 MOE 0.87%

    …….Mix Dem GOP
    Male 48% 51% 47%
    Female 52% 56% 43%

    Total 98.5% 53.6% 44.9%
    2-pty 100% 54.4% 45.6%

    ASK THE QUESTION:
    WHY IS THERE A 2.8% DISCREPANCY BETWEEN “GENDER” AND “HOW VOTED” NATIONAL
    VOTE SHARES AND A 5% DISCREPANCY BETWEEN GENDER AND PARTY-ID?

    Once again, let’s adjust the weights and vote shares to get a result which approximates the Generic vote.

    Gender (Adjusted)
    …….Mix Dem GOP
    Male 46% 53% 47%
    Female 54% 57% 43%
    Total 100% 55.2% 44.8%

    This is just further confirmation that the Final 2006 NEP was matched
    to a corrupt vote count, just as it was in in 2004 and 2000.

    Edison-Mitofsky never considers the possibility of corrupt vote counts in applying their exit poll methodology.

    WHY DO THEY DO THIS?
    WHY DO THEY ALWAYS ASSUME ZERO FRAUD?
    WHY DO THEY ALWAYS ASSUME A PRISTINE VOTE COUNT?

    THAT’S WHY THE FINAL NATIONAL EXIT POLLS ARE ALWAYS WRONG.
    THAT’S WHY THE FINAL EXIT POLLS ALWAYS LOW-BALL THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE.
    THAT’S WHY THE FINAL EXIT POLLS NEVER MATCH FINAL PRE-ELECTION POLLS.
    THAT’S WHY THE EARLY, UNCONTAMINATED EXIT POLLS ARE CLOSE TO THE TRUTH.

    AND THAT’S WHY THEY’LL NEVER SHOW US RAW EXIT POLL DATA.
    ________________________________________________

Post comment

Forbidden Bookshelf

Forbidden Bookshelf




“While We Were Sleeping”

While We Were Sleeping is an urgent call to save Greenwich Village from New York University's uncontrolled expansion.

Click here to donate to NYUFASP and receive a copy of "While We Were Sleeping: NYU and the Destruction of New York" (minimum donation to receive a book is $10 plus $8 shipping).

Orwell Rolls In His Grave, featuring MCM – Buy the DVD



About News From Underground

News From Underground is a daily e-news service run by Mark Crispin Miller, a Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU. It is based on his belief that academics, like reporters, have a civic obligation to help keep the people well-informed, so that American democracy might finally work.

If you'd like to receive updates delivered to your inbox daily, sign up for News From Underground Alerts:

Help News From Underground!





Message from Mark: "I am a one-man operation, although assisted greatly by some volunteers, and, now and then, by people paid by others for one-time projects. There is no shortage of skilled, dedicated folks out there who want to help me. There is, however, nothing I can pay them with, unless you decide you can contribute something."

Please donate via the PayPal button above or via PayPal by email to: markcrispinmiller@gmail.com

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Popular Posts

Blogroll

Need a bigger font size?




Sponsored Links



  • Your link could be here too, contact us for pricing details.