- This fraud is seeing the light of day and there will be hell to pay. There is no intention of letting this slide. Clinton would have been eliminated long ago were it not for election fraud. Yet she boldly stands up and claims her lead. She is the most dishonest politician imaginable. So you Hillary supporters had better wake up, we sure the hell don't need this lying corporatist as our President.
Hillary Clinton and Electoral Fraud
Why we need an investigation into electoral fraud favoring Hillary Clinton
I would have voted for Hillary Clinton three months ago. I believed that our elections are just, verifiable, and democratic—but then discovered how easy it is to hack a voting machine without a trace. I told myself that previous elections hadn’t necessarily been rigged—but then found evidence proving me wrong. I convinced myself that it didn’t mean this Democratic nomination was rigged — until I uncovered the truth.
I am an ardent skeptic turned fervent believer.
Over the course of this article, I will demonstrate that electoral fraud was committed favoring Hillary Clinton with a plethora of sources: exit poll data, statistics, mainstream and independent media articles, expert quotes and analysis, videos, anecdotes, and so forth. All of these sources can be accessed through clickable hyperlinks (the underlined text).
How to Rig an Election
First, our elections are remarkably easy to rig. The simplest and increasingly widespread way to do so is through our electronic voting machines.
For example, a study from the Brennan Center for Justice found that 43 out of 50 states use machines at least 10 years old for 2016 elections, making their security systems outdated and extremely easy to hack. In addition, according to nonpartisan and non-profit organization, Verified Voting, some of the machines do not even print a paper receipt of the votes, so their results are unverifiable:
“Far too many states use unreliable and insecure electronic voting machines, and many states have made their situation worse by adding some forms of Internet voting for some voters, which cannot be checked for accuracy at all. Even in states where verifiable systems are used, too often the check on the voting system’s function and accuracy is not done.”
The leader of this voting machine movement is Election Systems and Software, which incorporates a company formerly known as Diebold Election Systems, whose machines have repeatedly been proven easy to hack. For example, on a Fox News segment in 2006, Princeton University Professor Ed Felten stated, “It only takes a few seconds to insert a virus into [Diebold’s] voting machine…and the computer virus [switches] the votes.” He demonstrated it by hacking a Diebold Accuvote-TS (touchscreen) machine on air, contending that others could do it “at any time before election date” and the votes would be flipped permanently.
This isn’t restricted to just Diebold. In elections between 2002 and 2014, Virginia used touchscreen voting machines with the password protections “abcde” and “admin.” They could be hacked from each polling place’s parking lot. Meanwhile, in 2012, the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory discovered that some of our voting machines “can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education…while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind.”
This contrasts elections all over the world, where the majority of countries strictly use hand-counted paper ballots, leaving citizens far more confident in the results. Yet, the United States spends substantially more time, money, and energy telling people to vote rather than ensuring the process in which they do so is just.
As proof, in 2004, computer programmer Clint Curtis testified under oaththat he helped hack voting machines in an election. He wrote computer software for Tom Feeney in 2000 to flip the vote to “whoever you wanted it to go to, and whichever race you wanted it to win,” not realizing it would be used for fraud. The election officials could “never see” the software and that, to detect it, “you would have to view it either in the source code, or you’d have to have a receipt, and then count the hard paper against the actual vote total. Other than that, you won’t see it…It’s a simple program…a hundred lines of code, tops.”
Clint Curtis further testified:
“If you have exit polling data that is significantly off from the vote, then [the election’s] probably hacked.”
Which brings me to my next point…
Exit Polls: Why They Have Been Significantly Off
“Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable…Exit polls in Germany, for example, have never missed the mark by more than three-tenths of one percent. ‘Exit polls are almost never wrong,’ Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, noted after the 2004 vote. Such surveys are ‘so reliable,’ he added, ‘that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries.’ In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down. And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine — paid for by the Bush administration — exposed election fraud that denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
There are two main types of election polls: pre-election and exit.
Pre-election polls predict how people will vote; exit polls tell how people voted.
As Edison Research’s executive vice president Joe Lenski states, all exit polls are conducted by Edison Research and distributed to six media organizations: Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Associated Press. Exit polls are private, anonymous, and adjusted before release to account for every group or demographic that chooses not to respond for any reason.
When the polls close in each primary, media organizations release the full exit polling data. Afterwards, Edison Research compares them to actual voting results and makes adjustments. For instance, the exit polls initially showed a 4 point win by Hillary Clinton in New York at 9 PM, but were changed to 12 points at 9:45 once Edison obtained voting results.
Therefore, the best time to determine the actual exit poll results is right after voting closes. However, this year in the Democratic primaries, the exit polls have been consistently, significantly, and systemically off:
I verified the table with tweets from fivethirtyeight.com and PDFs of the first reported exit polling data, also accessible as images. This table was attained through Election Integrity, a Facebook and Google group of over 1,000 people dedicated to uncovering and preventing election fraud. While some confessed that election research and data can be a minefield, they unanimously agreed upon this:
When the exit polls are way off, either the polls are wrong, electoral fraud was committed, or both.
As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. mentioned, research shows that exit polls are almost always spot on. When one or two are incorrect, they could be statistical anomalies, but the more incorrect they are, the more it substantiates electoral fraud.
This is shown by the data, which is extremely suspicious: discrepancies ineight of the sixteen primaries favoring Clinton in voting results over exit polling data are outside of the margin of error. That’s half of them outside the margin of error: 2.3% greater in Tennessee, 2.6% in Massachusetts, 4% in Texas, 4.7% in Mississippi, 5.2% in Ohio, 6.2% in New York, 7% in Georgia, and 7.9% in Alabama.
This is extremely, extremely abnormal.
The margin of error is designed to prevent this. When an exit poll or two is outside the margin of error, it denotes failure in the polling; when eight defy it — egregiously so — that indicates systemic electoral fraud.
Keep in mind, these are the discrepancies in favor of Clinton between exit polls and voting results, from lowest to highest: -6.1%, -1.9%, 1.1%, 1.7%, 3.4%, 3.9%, 4.1%, 4.3%, 4.6%, 5.2%, 8%, 8.3%, 9.3%, 9.9%, 10%, 11.6%, 12.2%, and a whopping 14%.
The discrepancies alone demand an investigation of electoral fraud. These are not just small, isolated errors, but systemic and alarming differences that point towards Hillary Clinton beating exit polls in an impossible way.
Nevertheless, one may still contend that 1) exit polls are “unreliable” and 2) Bernie supporters are more “enthusiastic” to take exit polls than Clinton supporters.
However, if exit polls were done that poorly, we wouldn’t bother using them in the first place. In addition, they would be all over the place numerically, instead of consistently and considerably skewed towards Hillary Clinton. Besides, exit pollsters are, frankly, not idiots; they’ve had decades to hone, adjust, and perfect their methods, and have many elections to compare results to.
Therefore, they account for any and all unlikely changes, including response bias — the possibility that Bernie supporters are more enthusiastic. Moreover, Donald Trump supporters are arguably more enthusiastic while deriving from a similar anti-establishment base. Since Edison Research compiles the exit polls singlehandedly and the Republican race has easily been more polarizing, divisive, and contentious, one would expect that Republican exit polls would be even more skewed.
Except they haven’t been. They’ve been spot on almost every time.
I was able to find tweets of almost all of the first Republican exit polls from fivethirtyeight.com, PhD student and election tracker Taniel, and CBS live blogs. Here is a table comparing their data and the actual voting results:
In every primary I could find data for, the Republican primaries have been almost exactly right, with every data point in the margin of error, during amore polarizing, contentious, and hard-to-predict race. Hence, this should be enough to prove my point: if exit polls were unreliable, then the Republican primaries would have equally bad exit polling data, but they don’t, not even by a long shot.
It demands an independent investigation, with the nomination results and voting ballots thoroughly, fairly, and properly audited.
But this isn’t the only evidence of electoral fraud…
How Voter Suppression Proves Electoral Fraud
“We really are the only advanced democracy on Earth that systematically and purposely makes it really hard for people to vote…We sort of just assume, yeah, that’s I guess how it is. There’s no other country on Earth that does that.” — President Barack Obama, April 2016
According to the Electoral Integrity Project, America’s elections rank dead last out of every “long-established democracy.” Problems include “the quality of the electoral laws, voter registration, the process of drawing district boundaries, as well as the regulation of campaign finance.”
This all links directly to rampant voter suppression in this year’s Democratic primaries. I researched countless anecdotes of it for nearly three months, and after every primary, this was what I found:
I could not find any instances of voter suppression disadvantaging Hillary Clinton. Yet, it unquestionably affected Bernie Sanders.
For better understanding, here’s a look at the facts behind voter suppression:
Fact 1: Polling places were closed in Arizona, New York, Rhode Island, and other voting locations. Fewer polling places leads to longer lines, and thus, voters get discouraged from voting when they otherwise would. This consistent, unusual closure hints at electoral fraud, since Bernie Sanders’s base (younger voters) votes later in the day because they have school, jobs, and generally more responsibilities. Clinton’s base consists of elderly voters, who are often retired, vote in by mail significantly more, and have more time throughout the day to vote; therefore, they don’t have to endure long lines as frequently.
One example is in Arizona, where some Bernie Sanders voters waited up to five and a half hours to vote. One voter professed that after waiting all that time, he couldn’t vote because his Democratic registration was changed. Furthermore, the media called the primary for Hillary Clinton with less than 1% of the votes reported, disregarding the extremely long lines of people still trying to vote.
Fact 2: At least three states are under lawsuit and audits for voter suppression—Arizona, New York, and Illinois. Lawyers and election officials of these states have tried to impede or block all of them. If electoral fraud didn’t actually take place, then why block the audits and lawsuits?
Because it did. In Chicago, an auditing group testified that the results of hand-counted votes from voting machines were changed to match the machines’ false electronic counts. In one instance, 21 Sanders votes were erased and 49 Clinton votes were added, which is indisputably election fraud. As for Arizona, hacker group Anonymous demonstrated how easy it is to hack and manipulate the voter database, as verified by a Reddit commenter, who said:
“Speaking as a database guy, one could hypothetically pull a list of names from the voter file that had indicated they were ‘strongly in support’ of Bernie Sanders, and write a script to update only their party affiliation. This might be the work of about an hour.”
Fact 3: Dishonesty from election officials has only affected Bernie Sanders. For instance, voter signatures were forged to change Democratic registrations to Republican. Moreover, 126,000 voters were purged from Democratic registration lists in Brooklyn, with one commenter noting, “Is it just a coincidence that the area with the highest numbers of purged voters happens to be an area with high numbers of young, white, educated, liberals [Bernie’s base of supporters]?”
“I’ve had reports from at least a dozen friends, family members, and friends of friends in other areas who have been switched. All Bernie supporters: I have yet to hear of this happening to a Clinton supporter.”
This is undeniably voter suppression.
In summary, just like the mentioned discrepancies between voting results and exit polls, voter suppression has overwhelmingly damaged Bernie Sanders, leaving Clinton unharmed. Again, one or two could be anomalies, but systemic voter suppression is a distinct indicator of electoral fraud.
Summing Up
The perpetrators behind this electoral fraud are unknown. Until the voting ballots and results are fully investigated, the truth will remain clouded and our election results will never be verified.
Our democracy lives on transparency, fairness, and justice, and when our elections are blatantly corrupted and fraudulent, that democracy dies. We can either stay silent and watch our country disintegrate or stand up and fight for our rights. So, if you are disturbed by my findings, please share this as widely as you can and demand independent investigations into our elections.
Our democracy depends on it.
What else is new eh? #LetMePutMySunglassesOn I CALL BULLSHIT!!
photo: Nik Hampsire/Corbis
Philly’s Democratic Party Breaks Law for Hillary
The state's election law didn't stop them from trying to sway Democratic voters to Hillary Clinton.
At 7:30 a.m., Matthew Leister, a 26-year-old photographer and Democrat, was complying with his civic duty by voting at Benjamin Franklin High School, just north of Philly’s center. A man at the door to the polling place handed Leister his “sample ballot.” The “Official Democratic Ballot” — in red, white, and blue — had only one candidate for president: Hillary Clinton.
The problem? The “Official Democratic Ballot” is a pro-Clinton campaign tool, and as such, the city’s Democratic Party wasn’t supposed to be handing it out within 10 feet of the polling place. Pennsylvania’s election law didn’t stop Philly’s Democratic Party from attempting to sway voters at Franklin High School or at other sites in the city.
At Fire Engine Company Number 13, just blocks away from Franklin High School, Democratic voter Nik Harris, 29, faced some confusion when he received his “Official Democratic Ballot” at just after 3 p.m.
“I didn’t know what I was looking at,” the model and musician originally from New Hampshire recalls. He wondered if he needed to hold onto the paper to vote, or if the paper was a guide on how Democrats should vote.
“I saw Hillary at the top,” he says. “I flipped it over a few times. Bernie’s name couldn’t be found.” He asked the man at the check-in table about the “ballot,” and received no clear answers.
The two people who were handing out the pro-Clinton flyer were inside the firehouse, sitting in the doorway. From their position — not ten feet from the polling place — they handed out their flyer to all voters who walked by, Harris says. “Very shady. Very ambiguous.”
An official at the County Board of Elections says that the agency received numerous complaints of irregularities. The man, who asked to not be identified, says that when a complaint is received, the agency sends someone to the site or calls the judge for elections. He says at least some of the complaints were substantiated, but retracts to “I know we sent people out all the time. I don’t know what they did or saw.”
A lawyer for Philadelphia’s Democratic Committee, who also asked to remain nameless, says that the city’s Democratic leaders chose to endorse Hillary Clinton this year. The Committee, chaired by Democratic U.S. Congressman Robert Brady, did not endorse a candidate in 2008 so as not to “set people against each other.”
This year, it seems, Philadelphia’s Democratic leaders, in their organization that functions as a political action committee, found it fit to set “people against each other” and violate their state’s voting law that only allows campaigning “at least ten feet distant from the polling place during the progress of the voting.”
It is no secret that the U.S.’s Democratic Party has a favorite in this primary season. What is becoming clear is the extent to which that party will act to ensure that favorite ends up on the ballot in November.
“Had I been someone who is not so inquisitive,” Harris says, “I would have seen that ['ballot'] and assumed Hillary is the only candidate.”
No comments:
Post a Comment