Did Scott Brown really win in Massachusetts? (MUST-READ)

Here’s a study that should blow the minds of every sane and patriotic citizen, especially
as we approach this fall’s elections (or, to be more accurate, “elections”). It’s not for
partisans of either stripe, since neither party wants the rest of us, or anyone, to talk
about election fraud (although it’s the Democrats, primarily, who keep on getting screwed).
The study comes from the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), whose experts scrupulously
studied the results of the Scott Brown/Martha Coakley contest for the Senate seat of
Teddy Kennedy back in January. What they’ve found is doubly staggering:

First, the EDA discovered that there were no checks whatever on the voting process in that
race–a voting process largely electronic: no exit polls, no systematic audit, no spot-checks
of the count, no examination of a single ballot stored in the opscan equipment, and, as usual,
no examination of a single memory card, or of the computer code used to direct the counting.
And so the vote was totally controlled by Diebold/Premier and ES&S, the companies that made
all the machines in Massachusetters, and LHS, the “highly secretive” outfit that programmed
and serviced most of the opscans. All three are private companies, whose records clearly indicate
a heavy bias toward the GOP.

Second, EDA also discovered–on the basis of their careful scrutiny of the 65,000 ballots that
had been hand-counted–strong evidence that Coakley may have been the actual winner
in that race; or let’s just say that Brown apparently could not have won if all the ballots had
been counted in the open:
“Where votes were observably counted by hand, the Democrat Martha Coakley defeated the
Republican Scott Brown by a margin of 2.8%; where votes were counted unobservably and
secretly by machine, Brown defeated Coakley by a margin of 5.2%.”

The study goes on to refute the various rationalizations that are always used to explain
such bald anomalies away. And it also notes, correctly, that the media all but universally
proclaimed Brown’s “upset victory” a “sign” of the Tea-Baggers’ electoral prowess–
even though there was no evidence that Brown had won, beyond the say-so of those
private companies.

So what we have here–and not just in Massachusetts–is a wholly faith-based voting
system, and a political establishment (both parties and the media) inclined to swallow anything,
as long as it advantages the right.

If you do care about this issue, and the integrity of our elections this November, please
send this report to everyone you know, and agitate for its discussion by the press. And
if you have a couple bucks to spare, or know someone who does, please do what you
can do to help fund EDA, without whose work there is no hope of salvaging, or realizing,
our democracy.


3 thoughts on “Did Scott Brown really win in Massachusetts? (MUST-READ)”

  1. No one wants to deal with the idea that our elections are bought by the highest, most corrupt bidder.

    the Scott Brown “win” set a precedent in which reich wing extremists can win otherwise “solid blue” districts.

    watch for a carly fiorina win over barbara boxer and crazy Gov Jan Brewer’s win in AZ and most likely a sharon Angle GOP senate win over Dem Majority leader Harry Reid.

    Watch for the loss of the senate to the GOP teaparty candidates at a minimum and watch how they will shutdown the senate. wonder if we’ll experience the loss of the Congress as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *