One of my favorite mathematicians is Richard Charnin, who on his website using readily available public information, calculates the odds of the so-called ‘red shift" occurring from the 1988 to 2008 presidential elections. The red shift refers to the overwhelming pick up of votes by the Republican Party in recorded votes over what actual voters report to exit pollsters. See Richard Charnin's article[.]In other words, there's no way in heaven, hell or earth that it happened as a result of ordinary voting patterns and ordinary exit polling in elections in the real world. Maybe a dozen of the "red-shift" elections could be explained that way... but 137 out of 300 [ADDED], 134 Republican and only 3 Democratic? Don't make me laugh.
In Charnin's analysis of exit poll data, we can say with a 95% confidence level – that means in 95 out of 100 elections – that the exit polls will fall within a statistically predictable margin of error. Charnin looked at 300 presidential state exit polls from 1988 to 2008, 15 state elections would be expected to fall outside the margin of error. Shockingly, 137 of the 300 state presidential exit polls fell outside the margin of error.
What is the probability of this happening?
"One in one million trillion trillion trlllion trillion trillion trillion," said Charnin.
(The rest of this post is taken largely from a comment I left on ellroon's site.)
Speaking as a computer professional, not as a partisan, I've read the relevant papers about voting software used in the past several elections on major vendors' machines, and it has so many holes in it that I could hack it (having no prior experience in hacking), and in some areas, even someone who is not a computer professional could hack it, by tweaking certain aspects of the setup for a particular election.
I have no doubt in my mind that two of the last three presidential elections have been stolen outright... and that the last one was not stolen only because the Democratic Party ran a Republican for president. (I know some heads will explode when I say that, but tell me it isn't true... Obama is an Eisenhower Republican, despite being the least flawed candidate offered by either major party this year.)
Some years back, John Dean wrote a book titled Conservatives Without Conscience. I read the book; it was long, repetitive, tedious... and exactly on point. What are we to do when confronted with a party full of people who have no problem facing themselves in the bathroom mirror after they steal an election the night before?
If America cares... and I'm not sure whether they do... they should hold not "tea parties" but "voting machine parties" ... send 'em all to the bottom of the bay, and force a return to some sort of indestructible paper or cardstock ballots, with a strict chain of custody from purchase to polls to counting centers. Otherwise, we're just play-acting at being a democracy... and we will have Republican rule, chosen by a minority of the vote, to the last days of our nation.
And there's not a peep out of the DOJ, no investigations, nada. I hope to goddess that Holder is forced out. He's worse than Gonzales.
ReplyDeletekarmanot, there's no one on the goddess's green earth worse than Alberto Gonzales; he's a morally reprehensible person to the core. By comparison, Holder seems almost benign... reluctant to do the job, if that can be called "benign." But there will never be an AG worse than Alberto.
ReplyDeleteCW is that anyone who believes the vote is hacked even once, let alone routinely, is a "conspiracy theorist." OK, fine... call me a "conspiracy theorist."
ReplyDelete