BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS: MITOFSKY'S "RELUCTANT BUSH RESPONDER" THEORY

[TruthIsAll]

According to Mitofsky's now famous fact-free hypothesis,
Democrats were more inclined to speak to exit pollsters than
Republicans, who for some unexplained reason were reluctant to
do so. 

USCountVote.com has already debunked the theory, using data
from Mitofsky's 77-page report. The following analysis is
additional confirmation that the theory is bogus. 

I analyzed voter demographics from the Mitofsky/Edison
National Exit poll as posted on the now famous NEP/Washington
Post site. There were 13,047 individuals polled and the margin
of error was 1.0%, according to Edison/Mitofsky's notes at the
bottom of the screen.

Now for the vital statistics:
1) The 38/35/27 party ID split is the same as in prior
elections.

2) 41% of voters said they voted for Bush in 2000.
Only 38% of voters said they voted for Gore.
But Gore won the popular vote by over 1/2 million votes.

THE 38% WHO VOTED FOR GORE EXACTLY EQUALED THE 38% IDENTIFIED
AS DEMOCRATS IN PARTY-ID! IS THIS A COINCIDENCE, CONSPIRACY,
OR JUST PLAIN OLD CONFIRMATION?

How can Mitofsky push a "Reluctant Bush Responder"
theory, especially when analysis of the data in his own report
AND THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL reveals just the opposite? 

According the USCountVote.com, Bush responders in Republican
precincts were MORE inclined to speak to the exit pollsters.
This is confirmed by analyzing the following characteristics
from the National Exit Poll:

		      HORIZONTAL			WEIGHTED		
PARTY ID	Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	Bush	Kerry	Nader
Democrat 	38%	9%	90%	1%	3.4%	34.2%	0.4%
Republican 	35%	92%	7%	0%	32.2%	2.5%	0.0%
Independent	27%	45%	52%	2%	12.2%	14.0%	0.5%
	        100%				47.77%	50.69%	0.92%
				Probability: 1 in	303,538,508

2000
VOTE           Mix	Bush	Kerry	Nader	Bush	Kerry	Nader
No	         17%	39%	59%	1%	6.6%	10.0%	0.2%
Gore	         38%	8%	91%	1%	3.0%	34.6%	0.4%
Bush	         41%	90%	9%	0%	36.9%	3.7%	0.0%
Other	          4%	13%	65%	16%	0.5%	2.6%	0.6%
	        100%				47.09%	50.90%	1.19%
				Probability: 1 in	2,043,375,511,511


The two probabilities are the chances of Bush gaining from his
exit poll percentage to the final vote (50.73%). 

It is a simple spreadsheet calculation using the binomial
distribution, with Standard Deviation = .01/1.96 (MOE/1.96).

1) Probability = 1 -BINOMDIST(.5073, .4777, .01/1.96, TRUE)
2) Probability = 1 -BINOMDIST(.5073, .4709, .01/1.96, TRUE)



 
 

[fooj]

1. TIA- you are a true patriot! Thank you for all of your diligence

and hard work! You never give up! You are one of my heroes at DU! Thanks for your inspiration!

[FogerRox]

3. Gee whiz-- I thought it was the rain --LOL-

[TruthIsAll]

8. TYPO: I meant NORMDIST, not BINOMDIST (probabilities are correct)

Everything else is the same.

[kamqute]

14. phew..I thought you were doing some arcane weirdness!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Excellent Catch !!

[skids]

4. Now you've got it.

I think you might have nailed it. A bit of a different tact than I was thinking, but well played, and thanks for listening.

The great thing is that the freepers can't even get out of this by claiming that conservatives lied to exit pollers.

The only way to fix the numbers would be to lower Bush 2000 voters/add Gore voters and change the Bush/Kerry split in each group, there are only three kinds of liars that could change the results to conform with Mitofski's explanation.

1) Bush 2000 voters that voted for Bush in 2004, told the exit pollers that they voted for Bush in 2000, but told them that they voted for Kerry in 2004. That would be kind of half-ass, now, wouldn't it?

2) 2000 Nader (or other third party) voters who voted for Bush and lied about it. But there aren't very many of those to go around, for sure.

3) New voters that voted for Bush and lied about it, but didn't lie about not voting in 2000.

The only one that could make any sense whatsoever is #3, and even that is a pretty doubtful scenario.

The second great thing is that it works for the "final weighted" numbers, too. In fact, there the inconsistancy is even worse.

There were people lying to exit pollers, mind you, but it wasn't because they wanted to. It was because they just didn't know that the vote they tried to cast for Kerry was actually counted for Bush.

[TruthIsAll]

5. Thanks for an excellent logical summary.

But thoughtful logic is a foreign language to Freepers and Neocons.

They will say that it was the rain that kept Repubs away.
Or that it was the biased Democratic pollsters.
Or that the exit poll was not designed to predict.
Or that early voters were women.
Or that Mitofsky did not poll in the right places.
Or that Bush won by over 3 million votes.
Or that Kerry would not have conceded if he thought he won.
Or that we are all DUmmies.

[TruthIsAll]

6. My Bad: It's USCOUNTVOTES.ORG n/t

http://www.uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

Go there.

[skids]

7. Already there.

Am honored to say my name is already buried in the USCV website.

As to freepers -- they aren't the ones to convince. It's the inquiring minds that we have to fight the freepers for that need convincing.

And we'll win them, one by one.

[Peace Patriot]

9. The UScountvotes.org group--which includes NINE PH.D.'S from leading...

...universities--also found a large, unexplained skew toward Bush at the precinct level in electronic voting vs. paper ballot--a skew that has been confirmed by other reports--the U.C. Berkeley report on Florida, and the democraticunderground.com/North Carolina report.

The U.C. Berkeley report found 130,000 to 260,000 phantom votes for Bush in Florida's three largest Democratic counties (Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach), paper vs. electronic: Dr. Michael Haut & UC Berkeley stats team: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu

The DU report on No. Carolina found a 9% skew to Bush in electronic voting (vs. absentee/early voting--Bush had a 15% margin in electronic vs. a 6% margin in the other third of the vote, with a 12% margin overall), a skew that also affected the Bowles/Burr Senate race (Democrat Bowles lost, inexplicably). Although Kerry probably lost NC, he didn't lose it by 12%! And therein lies the tale of this election: Manufacturing and padding of Bush's popular vote all over the country, even in places where it wasn't necessary to win the state (to get the Electoral vote), as in NC, and probably even in places where Kerry had a big lead.

Democratic Underground (ignatzmouse): North Carolina
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x45003
(also at:) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/12/233831/06

The list grows long, of Ph.D.'s putting their reputations on the line over this matter:

UScountvotes.org:

Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. - Temple University Statistics Department
Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics - USCountVotes, President
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD in mathematics - School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD - Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Elizabeth Liddle, MA - (UK) PhD candidate at the University of Nottingham Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. - Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Also Peer Reviewed by USCountVotes’ core group of statisticians and independent reviewers.

Also:

Dr. Steven Freeman ( 2 reports): http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
Dr. Ron Baiman: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997
Dr. Webb Mealy: http://www.selftest.net/redshift.htm
Dr. Michael Haut & UC Berkeley stats team: http://ucdata.berkeley.edu
Johns Hopkins report on insecurity of electronic voting:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00196.htm#5

And I'm sure this ain't the half of it--just the ones I know about and have read.

[buddysmellgood]

20. kick

[McCamy Taylor]

10. Here is Prof. M's Theory Presented in Comic Strip Style so that all

can enjoy its cicrcular elegance, even those who have not studied statistics.

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/ExitPollsExplained.htm


:evilgrin:

[Wilms]

12. I knew there was an explanation! n/t

[super simian]

11. kick n/t

[intensitymedia]

13. keep going and never give up the struggle TIA - n/t

[Melissa G]

15. It's FraWd. Plain and Simple. NGU! n/t

[rdmccur]

16. Clever.

Don't have to convince me though.
Send this to Freeman? Conyers?
I don't have their addresses, but someone here does.
Been busy working so not much time on the site lately--miss it.

[Wilms]

17. kick n/t

[super simian]

18. Kick!

Anyway, I always knew it was horshit. Shy Buhs Responder my Fanny! How many shy Buhs fans do you know? All the ones I know are shouting it from the rooftops.

:kick:

[dogindia]

19. Just met a high ranking AP technical guy last night

who was in charge of assembling vote counts.

He maintains that Bush won and that exit polls were wrong mentioning computer failures etc. I was taken by how certain he was and how he debunked all my evidence. He did admit there where many dirty tricks but would not admit to believing in computer tally fraud.

First I think that AP as he reminded me is generally free of corp. control but it occurred to me that they were aftraid of losing their prominent position. They are in bed with all corporate owned MSM. It also reminded me of the number of Dem lawyers I spoke with after the election in total denial of fraud. Like many dem commentators. Something about being against the grain and countering their peers....perhaps looking foolish to their social group. Many not willing to even look at the possibility. Saw it in other professionals as well.

Second it occurred to me that the exit polls need to be accurate for Rove for a while so he could see how all his other multiple scams were working.

[TruthIsAll]

21. He is in total denial because of his job. Take him to uscountvotes.org

Tell him about the PhD's and how they claim it is a statistical impossibility.

It is a great sickness we are witnessing.

Al Franken is the worst.

[Peace Patriot]

27. "Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence...

...aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

"1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

"2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

"Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome."

June 22, 1633

----

Internet Modern History Source Book: © Paul Halsall, July 1998, rev. January 1999

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

[Peace Patriot]

28. Sentence of the Tribunal of the Supreme Inquisition Against Galileo...

Galilei, given the 22nd day of June, of the year 1633:

"....Invoking then the Most Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His most glorious Mother Mary, ever Virgin, for this Our definite sentence, the which sitting pro tribunali, by the counsel and opinion of the Reverent Masters of theology and doctors of both laws, Our Counsellors, we present in these writings, in the cause and causes currently before Us, between the magnificent Carlo Sinceri, doctor of both laws, procurator fiscal of this Holy Office on the one part, and thou Galileo Galilei, guilty, here present, confessed and judged, on the other part:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, hast rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe: and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture; and in consequence thou hast incurred all the censures and penalties of the Sacred Canons, and other Decrees both general and particular, against such offenders imposed and promulgated. From the which We are content that thou shouldst be absolved, if, first of all, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, thou dost before Us abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies and any other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, after the manner that We shall require of thee.

"And to the end that this thy grave error and transgression remain not entirely unpunished, and that thou mayst be more cautious in the future, and an example to others to abstain from and avoid similar offences,

"We order that by a public edict the book of DIALOGUES OF GALILEO GALILEI be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms, reserving to Ourselves the faculty of moderating, changing, or taking from, all other or part of the above-mentioned pains and penalties.

"And thus We say, pronounce, declare, order, condemn, and reserve in this and in any other better way and form which by right We can and ought.

Ita pronunciamus nos Cardinalis infrascripti.

F. Cardinalis de Asculo.
G. Cardinalis Bentivolius
D. Cardinalis de Cremona.
A. Cardinalis S. Honuphri.
B. Cardinalis Gypsius.
F. Cardinalis Verospius.
M. Cardinalis Ginettus.

----

Internet Modern History Source Book: © Paul Halsall, July 1998, rev. January 1999

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

[Peace Patriot]

29. "I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence...

"...aged 70 years, tried personally by this court, and kneeling before You, the most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General throughout the Christian Republic against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Most Holy Gospels, and laying on them my own hands; I swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God's help I will in future believe all which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach, and teach.

"But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the centre of the same and that it moved, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I did write and cause to be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned doctrine, and bring forward arguments of much efficacy in its favour, without arriving at any solution: I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the same, and that it does move.

"Nevertheless, wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. And I swear that for the future I will neither say nor assert in speaking or writing such things as may bring upon me similar suspicion; and if I know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor and Ordinary of the place in which I may be.

"I also swear and promise to adopt and observe entirely all the penances which have been or may be by this Holy Office imposed on me. And if I contravene any of these said promises, protests, or oaths, (which God forbid!) I submit myself to all the pains and penalties which by the Sacred Canons and other Decrees general and particular are against such offenders imposed and promulgated. So help me God and the Holy Gospels, which I touch with my own hands.

"I Galileo Galilei aforesaid have abjured, sworn, and promised, and hold
myself bound as above; and in token of the truth, with my own hand have
subscribed the present schedule of my abjuration, and have recited it word
by word. In Rome, at the Convent della Minerva, this 22nd day of June,
1633.

I, GALILEO GALILEI, have abjured as above, with my own hand."

----

Internet Modern History Source Book: © Paul Halsall, July 1998, rev. January 1999

("....Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source....")

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

[Peace Patriot]

30. The purpose of my posting this extensive text, if it is not obvious, is...

...to help us understand how censorship operates in a society. While the methods of censorship may be a bit subtler today, they are no less effective in oppressing the individual and suppressing whatever truth those with all the money and all the power and all the hegemony over the minds of ordinary people want suppressed, for the purpose of maintaining all the money and all the power and all the hegemony.

Now think of Al Franken as, say, a scribe and observer of this trial, reporting to the educated elite and the worldly businessmen of Florence. "What I witnessed today was the Divine Compassion of Holy Mother Church," he might report. "The Tribunal of the Supreme Inquisition did not drown him in water, did not burn him for a witch, did not place him upon the rack and pull his bones apart. They did not kill him. They merely required a retraction of his heretical teachings. Now that is an Enlightened Inquisition! We should support these Enlightened Inquisitional practices, praise the Divine Compassion of Holy Mother Church, cede over that farmland that the monks want, and burn or hide our copies of his book."

[Amaryllis]

35. Have you read Votescam yet? AP is complicit in fraud. See this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss//duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=326096

[NationalEnquirer]

22. Great work! n/t

[libertypirate]

23. Funny thing...

Fact free hypothisis = PROPAGANDA anyone?

How do you go to war with no facts?

How do you lie about the cost of everything?

How do you believe you are going to get away with it?

How do these people justify their existence?

All the same answer... PROPAGANDA

Ask yourself always what is the purpose of a report, and why did they build a view before they proved it?

[TruthIsAll]

24. How do they do it? It's the MSM - our great defender of...fascism.

.

[dzika]

32. How sad and how true it is.

[TruthIsAll]

25. Taking out the gun that is still smoking...n/t

.

[mod mom]

26. A patriot and a hero! Thanks TIA nt

[Trish1168]

31. Can we enlist Move-on

To put pressure on the news consortium. We should demand the following.

1. Release raw exit poll data early and often (starting at noon).
2. Do not adulterate exit poll data with numbers that average the data to the returns
3. Allow supervision (by lawyers/activists) of how and where the exit poll data are obtained and tabulated.

Move-on is the only organization big enough to put this kind of pressure on.

I believe 2006 will be a landslide for the dems in the exit polls (if we're allowed to see that data). I don't believe meaningful election reform will happen before 2006, which means there will be a huge disparity between returns and exit polls. We have to prove to the public that the elections are rigged (and the public has to be riproaring mad over it). We can do it if we can hold the media accountable for this valuable check on the integrity of the system.

What do you guys think????????????

[Carolab]

36. Good luck holding the media accountable. They're in on it.

Read Votescam. If you want to know who's cooking our elections.

[pauldp]

33. A kick for the smoking gun. n/t

[Bill Bored]

34. I still have a little problem with the fact that

most of those who answered both the Party ID and the "Whom did you vote for today?" questions did NOT answer the Y2K voting questions. While the Y2K respondents were a subset of the other 2 groups, which are almost identical, they are a much smaller number -- only 1/4 as large in fact.

I'm not saying TIA is wrong, but here's how a reluctant Bush responder hypothesis might work:

I can see how someone might vote for Bush, out of fear let's say, and then be reluctant to admit it. Bush comes off like such a jerk -- unable to speak coherently, think on his feet, articulate, etc. But a lot of folks were spooked by 9/11 and didn't realize Bush pretty much let this happen. The MSM, the Democrats and even John Kerry gave him a pass. So some voters gave him a pass too. They voted for him because they thought he'd keep them safe, but deep down inside they know he's a moron and are therefore embarrassed to admit it. They held their noses, voted, and went home.

For those who may not know, Ed Kotch, former Mayor of NYC and former Democratic congressman voted for Shrub. Why? He recently said he didn't think the Dems had the stomach to wage the war on terrorism. Now if this guy can say this publicly, after living through 9/11, and presumably being smart enough to know better, and without supporting Bush's domestic agenda, imagine what your typical swing-state/red-state Fox viewer might think.

I'm not saying TIA is wrong. I just think it's hard to imagine what someone else might think about Shrub and how they might hold their nose, vote for him, and then be too embarrassed to say so, even anonymously.

[TruthIsAll]

38. uscountvotes.org took care of the Bush Reluctant responder theory.

I'm surprised that you would propose this as a possibility after uscountvotes.org rebuttal of Mitofsky's theory based on data in his 77 page report which shows just the opposite - Bush voters were more inclined (by 3%) to speak to exit pollsters.

The Reluctant Bush Responder argument has been put to rest as it is pure conjecture, and is at variance with the data provided by Mitofsky in his paper as well as in the mix of respondents who voted in 2000 - in the PRELIMINARY (Bush 41%/ Gore 38%) and FINAL NEP (Bush 43%, Gore 37%).

How does THAT fit into your hypothesis?

[Bill Bored]

39. Well, USCountVotes said there was a higher response rate in Repub

precincts, but this doesn't take into account Shrub voters in Dem precincts who might have been especially embarrassed to admit what they did.

But there's something else:

1. There was no machine-specific correlation of the discrepancies.

2. Therefore we assume that the hack had to be done on the central tabulators. Not hard to imagine.

3. But the discrepancies, according to Mitofsky, were due to Within-Precinct Error (WPE).

Now, how do we explain discrepancies that do not correlate with machine type, that occurred due to errors on central tabulators, and yet have been shown to be within-precinct?

How would the within-precinct totals be affected by the tabulators? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If Mitofsky saw discrepancies in actual precinct totals vs. exit polls, this is before the tabulation process and should correlate with machine type. But they don't.

So were all machine types more or less equally hacked, or could the exit polls be wrong?

[TruthIsAll]

40. So were all machine types more or less equally hacked? Yes.

Through a combination of natural spoilage (punched cards, levers, in heavily democratic precincts) and outright tampering (punch cards, levers, touch screens, optiscans) at the voting machines and central tabulators.

And this is only part of the story. Voter suppression (registration fraud, long lines, etc.) is a major factor not counted in the totals.

So we have a three-step process:
1) Vote suppression. Democrats don't get to vote at all.
2) Natural ballot spoilage. Punch card under-votes are spoiled and discarded.
3) Vote tampering> Double-punched card over-votes, programmed touch screens and optiscans - at the voting machine and the central tabulation.

Corresponding to the above, approximate total net percentage deviations may be:
1) 2% vote suppression
2) 2% ballot spoilage
3) X% vote tampering (whatever is necessary beyond steps 1 and 2 in order to win OH and FL electoral votes AND a 3% popular vote "mandate" margin.

Here's a graph of state voting methods and proportional vote deviations based on exit poll deviations:

[berniew1]

37. Touchscreen fraud & other manipulation explain the Exit Poll difference

15 states with documented touchscreen fraud(switching and improper defaults) and 25 states with widespread systematic dirty tricks and malfeasance to reduce minority vote; and manipulation of registrations, absentees, provisionals, and (regular ballots in some counties).
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html

[TruthIsAll]

41. Right, Bernie...keep documenting the fraud.

.

[berniew1]

42. Are you going to be at Nashville conference on April 8?

[TruthIsAll]

43. No

.