Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Once again, the [election] Portrait appears to be a fake."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
HomerRamone Donating Member (460 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:01 PM
Original message
"Once again, the [election] Portrait appears to be a fake."
Election Defense Alliance Preliminary Election Assessment
November 11, 2010

by Jonathan Simon

<...>

At EDA we are still crunching numbers, reviewing disparities and anomalies, and will have much more detailed findings and analyses to report in the coming weeks. But the preliminary indications are clear: a dramatic nationwide pattern of “red shifts” (votecounts more Republican than exit polls) in the Senate and Governors’ races; an aggregate red shift in the contests for the House; a huge catalogue of “glitches” and anomalies, and quite a few “impossible” results across the nation, beginning with the barely scrutinized primaries.

The truth is that America, while increasingly polarized, remains very closely divided. It doesn’t take many added, deleted, or shifted votes to reverse outcomes across the land and to dramatically alter the Self-Portrait that emerges. Examining, for example, the Battle for the House, a total of fewer than 50,000 Democratic votes instead of Republican in the closest contests would have left the House under Democratic control. The red shift we uncovered for the House races nationwide was 1.7% or 1.25 million votes, twenty-five times those 50,000 votes that constituted the national Republican “victory” margin.

<...>

EDA is also probing the polling methodologies that have yielded red-shifted polls to match red-shifted elections, making everything seem right enough. We know, for instance, that the now universally adopted sampling protocol known as the Likely Voter Cutoff Model is a red-shifting, methodologically unjustifiable ploy that nonetheless accurately predicted last Tuesday’s results. EDA is asking “Why?” We expect to issue a detailed study of polling distortions and fudge factors in the coming weeks.

We at EDA are accustomed and fairly hardened to nights like last Tuesday by now. The most maddening part for us may well be listening to the Wednesday post-mortem analyses in which very astute pundits on, say, CNN or NPR read the tea leaves with straight faces and 100% faith in the gospel of the official results as their unquestioned premise. Official results that we, sleepless and still crunching numbers in an attempt to keep honest score at home, had already recognized as likely lies.

<...>

How many more elections can our democracy survive with the use of concealed vote-counting, where there is no meaningful oversight by citizens, election officials, or the media? How many more elections where the will of the public is ignored? Time is running out on our democracy.


MORE: http://electiondefensealliance.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. "... 50,000 Democratic votes ... would have left the House under Democratic control ..."
This was a failure of our turnout effort, as I have said before
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Seemed too dramatic a change to me in parts of MN anyways.
This election smelled funny. I was particularly struck by the Republican running for Governor's remark of astonishment "I can't believe we didn't win" said with that tone of voice like "we were supposed to win ad I don't get it" tone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. The wild swing in the state legislature seems odd
but the Chamber and other right wing groups poured a money into a lot of nasty literature against various DFL legislatures - and do you remember a year when there were so many TV ads for the state legislature? I don't remember a year when there were any. The problem is, most people don't pay a whole lot of attention to the state races so the slanted information they got this year may very well have made the difference.

At least we have a paper trail & a good Secretary of State and so far nothing has turned up in the hand recounts that get done in a percentage of precincts (these are the ones done after every election, nothing to do with the governor's race) so it may just be the low information voters did do us in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. May be right. Definitely ads everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. …and the beat goes on.
We've been telling the Democratic politicians about this for years now. I personally brought it up with Feingold in 2004. He said something about Rush Holt looking into it. Nobody would take it seriously. They still don't. Jesus, Democrats may have actually won every election since 2000 (inclusive) and maybe even before. Think what the world might be like now if the true results had prevailed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey which is when these comuters ....
first began to come in --

LARGE computers used by MSm came in first -- mid-1960's --

smaller votin computers in late 1960's --

Before the large computers, MSM could only report actual vote tallies!

LARGE computers gave them new powers .... to PREDICT and CALL elections --

to PREDICT and CALl Electoral College Votes -- and to call elections by

winners and losers -- even to CALL an election for the winning presidential candidate!

What we saw in 2000 was simply a REVERSAL of those new powers.


There were journalists who began to investigate computer voter in the late 1960's --

because of very questionable results in Florida at the time!




The book they wrote can be read here ...


http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. Yep. And this time they had a once a decade motive to take state legislatures...
2010 census redistricting.

Until the count is transparent I assume its rigged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yep
In 2008 we turned out and overwhelmed the voting machines and won.
This time we didn't.

And there is no way to check the results, except as EDA is doing.
Otherwise, we got nothing. Massive turnout is our only recourse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
live love laugh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 03:39 AM
Response to Original message
9. I knew it was stolen--again--and ppl even here blame and buy in to the lies.
Until election fraud is fixed we are fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
10. Why haven't Democrats legislated changes to the voting act of 2002?
I don't understand why the Democratic Congress over the last 3 years did not address the weaknesses in the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Most all Americans (aside from political operatives and voting machine manufacturers) want honest elections. We pissed away a lot of money on hackable voting machines that use proprietary code and do not provide verifiable paper voting receipts. At the very least that needed corrected.

In actuality we would have been better off (meaning more accurate results) with a system that uses indelible purple ink on the thumb and paper ballots that need counted. Having votes counted in the presence of both Parties is required too. It is far more important to have accurate results than a speedy outcome.

There was a H.R.1719 - Voter Registration Modernization Act of 2009 that never went anywhere, but it failed to touch the voting machine fraud issue and instead may have made it worse by allowing the internet to be used for registration. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1719/show
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
11. K&R ! //nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
13. we should move this thread to the "truth is all" tuity fruity forum
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sylvi Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Verifiable paper ballots only
We'll never know for sure until we have these nationwide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC