HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Time for change » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

Time for change

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: United States
Current location: Winter Garden, Florida
Member since: Fri Dec 3, 2004, 12:01 AM
Number of posts: 13,394

Journal Archives

Electoral Map Sanders vs. Trump – Looks Like a Landslide

There are two different maps that look at a general election between Sanders and Trump. One includes only states that have been polled, and considers solid leads (10 points or more) and leaning leads (5-10 points). The other map extrapolates from that to allocate un-polled states based on how the state voted in 2012.

The map that considers only polled states looks like a landslide for Sanders:
http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/sanders-trump-electoral-map

Sanders leads in those states by an electoral count of 237 to 13. Only 13 EC votes in the Sanders column are “leaning” leads (5-10 points), the other 224 being solid (10 or greater). On that map, Sanders has solid leads in NH, NY, MA, NJ, PA, MD, VA, NC, MI, WI, MN, CA, AZ, UT (total of 224 EC votes) and “leaning” leads in IA and CT (13 EC votes). Trump has leads only in LA and WV (both solid Republican bastions in the past 4 presidential election, with a total of 13 EC votes). Sanders’ lead in Utah is especially striking because Utah hasn’t voted Republican in a Presidential election since 1968 – but Trump is very unpopular in the West. Keep in mind that these numbers of 237 (total) or 224 (solid) EC votes for Sanders do NOT include several states which he couldn’t possibly lose to Trump, including VT, HI, WA, OR, IL, RI, DC, NV, CO, and NM. I’m including NV, CO, and NM here because they are Western states with large Hispanic populations, which can’t stand Trump for obvious reasons. These states that Sanders couldn’t possibly lose to Trump add up to 73 more EC votes, to give him a total of 297 solid EC votes, which is plenty enough to win. Too close to call states (<5 point leads) include MO, GA, SC, FL, IN, OH (total 93 EC votes).

The other map, which extrapolates by adding un-polled states based on 2012 results is somewhat more favorable to Trump, as it adds only 7 EC votes for Sanders from what I discussed above (DE and ME) and 128 for Trump. But many of those states are quite questionable for Trump, based on his very poor showing against Sanders in the polled states. It includes many Western states, where Trump is quite unpopular. Given that Sanders has a solid lead in Utah, it seems likely that he could pick off quite a few other traditionally Republican states in the West as well against Trump.


What about Clinton?

Clinton’s electoral map against Trump shows a likely win, but it is substantially weaker than the Sanders electoral map. Worse yet, her popularity has been decreasing lately, so that her net favorability ratings are now at negative 19% - almost 30 points lower than Sanders at +9.7%.

Maybe one reason for that is the recent strong-armed despicable abuse of power demonstrated by Clinton surrogates at the NV State Convention. Videos of the events there are circulating widely, apparently effectively combatting the biased “news” media reports that omit the many abuses of power by Clinton surrogates and talk only about false reports of “violence” by Sanders delegates. I guess our “news” media, as well as the Democratic Party, considers loud and angry protests against the theft of our democracy to be the equivalent of violence.

And now polls for head to head competition against Trump show Trump with an actual lead (though a statistical dead heat) against Clinton. That is not a single poll, but an average of several recent polls (He leads in three recent polls and trails in two). What a terrible risk we’ll be taking if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
Posted by Time for change | Sun May 22, 2016, 03:07 PM (40 replies)

Clinton Delegate Whistleblower at NV State Convention: We Were Told



The Clinton delegate whistleblower says that they were told that party leaders could "scrub anyone they wanted to". She says that they were also told that the statement came from above -- i.e. Roberta Lange.

I just have this to say about anyone who tried to tell us that the 58 Sanders delegates at the NV State Convention who were decertified were done so for any legitimate reason: they were either very ignorant of the facts, very naive or very dishonest.

Well, maybe now our national "news" media will have to retract some of the ugly spin against Bernie and his delegates that they've been reporting about what happened at the NV State Convention. But I doubt that they will.

Posted by Time for change | Sun May 22, 2016, 07:40 AM (35 replies)

Strange Electronic “Glitches” in Jefferson and Pike Counties in KY Democratic Primary

On Tuesday evening I was following comments on the reddit live blog while also following the KY election returns.

Early in the evening, with about 20% of precincts reporting, with Bernie ahead in the state count by about 4%, several redditors noticed something very strange, which I was unable to personally observe because the site on which I was following the returns did not report results by county. What they noticed was a sudden decrease in the percent reporting from Jefferson County, simultaneously with a big increase in the vote count for Clinton. This concerned me, so I looked back at the election results, which literally seconds ago had shown Bernie with a 4 point lead, and it was completely gone – Clinton had taken the lead. Throughout the rest of the evening I saw somewhat similar comments from the redditors, causing me to believe that there were several similar occurrences, but I was more focused on the election results than their comments (which I now regret), so I am unable to discuss them in the detail that I discussed the first one.

Also of note is that very late in the election, with the vote count extremely close, suddenly all of the votes from Pike County, one of only 4 counties in KY where Sanders won by more than a 2:1 margin, disappeared, giving Clinton a substantial lead. Votes from Pike County returned several minutes later, and when they did Clinton still had a small lead, which she maintained until the end. The Inquisitor reports that when the Pike County returns came back, 20% of the votes were gone, but others maintain that all the votes came back. I cannot resolve that issue, but many are calling for a hand recount of Pike County, and in the interest of ensuring a fair election, I believe that should be done, as well as a hand recount of Jefferson County.

Call me paranoid, but these findings sound very suspicious to me. I was dying to get hold of exit poll results to see if the strange electronic “glitches” from Jefferson County would show up as substantial exit poll discrepancies from the official vote count, but guess what happened? Exit polls have been cancelled for the rest of the Democratic primary season. Perhaps some people in a position of power became very nervous over the fact that the large exit poll discrepancies (scroll down to see exit polls) seen in so many Democratic primaries this year (but not in the Republican primaries), 23 of 26 favoring Clinton in the official count compared to the exit polls (including 10 above the margin of error, ALL of which favored Clinton in the official count), have aroused a good deal of suspicion and calls for hand counted audits, which would settle the question of whether the exit polls were wrong or the electronic machines were wrong. Well, no need to worry about that any more. We’ll just have to trust the electronic voting machines that are owned and programmed by right wing corporations with little or no government oversight, or with oversight by highly partisan and corrupt election officials (for example, Katherine Harris (FL 2000), Kenneth Blackwell (OH 2004), and Roberta Lange (NV 2016)).




Posted by Time for change | Fri May 20, 2016, 03:29 PM (40 replies)

Bernie’s Statement about the Nevada State Convention

I posted about the happenings at this convention a few days ago. Here is the statement that Bernie made about it, in part in response to inaccurate reports of violence at the convention. I have bolded the parts that I think are especially important to emphasize:

It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics. The people of this country want a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent, super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors.

The Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change – people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy.

Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.

If the Democratic Party is to be successful in November, it is imperative that all state parties treat our campaign supporters with fairness and the respect that they have earned. I am happy to say that has been the case at state conventions in Maine, Alaska, Colorado and Hawaii where good discussions were held and democratic decisions were reached. Unfortunately, that was not the case at the Nevada convention. At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Among other things:

* The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.
* The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
* The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them.
* The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.


These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.

Posted by Time for change | Wed May 18, 2016, 07:30 PM (1 replies)

My Critique of Nate Silver’s Critique of Exit Polls

I very well recall the stolen Presidential election of 2004 because that is the event that incited me to join DU, just as the stolen Presidential election of 2000 was, I believe, the event that incited the birth of DU (which I believe was born on inauguration day of January, 2001, but I might be off by a little bit on that). I joined DU shortly after the stolen 2004 election, primarily to participate with DUers in the investigation of the election. Some of my DU posts caught the attention of a small group that was organized to lobby the U.S. Senate to officially object to the election results, and I was invited to join the group, which I did, my role being to present my statistical findings, primarily those regarding the exit polls.

It should be noted that discussion of the 2004 stolen election was rampant on DU after the election and for many months and even years afterwards. Concurrently, election integrity organizations sprung up all over the country. The large discrepancy between the exit polls and the official vote counts, nationally and in most states, was a central part of the discussion on DU and focus of the election integrity organizations. According to the exit polls, John Kerry won both the national popular vote and the Electoral College (the deciding state being Ohio), though George W. Bush won the official vote counts of both. The discrepancies, taken as a whole, were way outside the margin of error. The vast majority of DUers who participated in the discussions about this (as well as many outside of DU) agreed that the exit poll discrepancies were a very strong indication of election fraud. There were some dissenting voices on DU, which many or most DUers involved in the discussions considered to be trolls. I did not and do not agree with that characterization. I’m pretty sure that at least a handful of the dissenters were knowledgeable and honest in their dismissal of the exit polls, though wrong. I find it very interesting that today, where we see even greater exit poll discrepancies than we saw in 2004, opinion of the value of exit polls on DU is much more evenly divided. Clearly the fact that a Democratic candidate, rather than George W. Bush, is the one whose official vote count consistently outperforms the exit poll predictions is the reason for the difference on DU regarding the value of exit polls, from what it was following the 2004 Presidential election.

Since the Clinton supporters on DU, who universally (as far as I can tell) dismiss the value of exit polls, point to various statements on exit polls made by our corporate news media, and especially those of Nate Silver, as proof that they are useless, I think that it is important to look in detail at Silver’s critique of exit polls and see how much sense they make.

I am a recently retired public health epidemiologist who worked for more than 40 years as such. My work primarily involved scientific studies of public health issues, all which involved detailed statistical analysis. 39 of those studies were published in peer reviewed medical or public health journals, most for which I was the first author. I also worked for one of the newly formed election integrity organizations, the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), as their data coordinator. The EDA conducts its own exit polls and has published several articles on the subject, a couple which I co-authored. I mention all this to make the point that I am qualified to critique Silver’s statements on exit polls. I certainly am not saying that I have as much knowledge or experience in polling as he does. But statistics is statistics, no matter what field it is applied to.

And I do have one very important qualification that Silver doesn’t have: the willingness to consider the possibility that exit poll discrepancies from official vote counts might indicate something different and much more serious than a problem with the exit polls, especially when they consistently favor one candidate. Scientific studies in public health all have various problems with them. But we don’t just say that because the study is imperfect in various ways that its findings are useless. Instead, we consider all the various alternative explanations for our findings, analyze them, decide what the most likely explanations are and why, discuss them in our manuscript, and submit it for publication.

So let’s take a close look at Silver’s "Ten Reasons Why you Should Ignore Exit Polls”.


Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why you Should Ignore Exit Polls”

Silver ends his discussion on exit polls by saying that an independent panel created by CNN following the disastrous Florida election of 2000 recommended that they ignore exit polls for assisting them in calling elections, and he recommends that we do the same. What he is referring to when he calls the Florida election a “disaster” is not the fact that it was stolen but the fact that the TV networks called Florida first for Gore, then for Bush, then too close to call, quite an embarrassment for the networks. What he doesn’t tell us is that the first wrong call for Gore was the result of exit polls that were off because of the “butterfly ballot” in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County, which was very confusing and caused many thousands of voters to think that they were voting for Al Gore when they actually didn’t (many of those even wrote Gore’s name in, but their vote still was never counted). He also doesn’t tell us that the second bad call, for Bush, was the result of an electronic machine “malfunction” in Volusia County that suddenly subtracted about 15,000 votes from Gore’s total in a single precinct with less than a thousand voters. And he also doesn’t tell us that exit polls are still used to call elections, despite what one panel recommended 15 years ago. You may recall that Maryland was called for Hillary Clinton in this year’s primary with 0.0% of the vote in. What do you think they used to call that election?

So let’s take a look at Silver’s reasons why we should ignore exit polls:

1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin of error than pre-election polls
Silver correctly notes that the margin of error in exit polls is generally larger than in pre-election polls because of the cluster sampling that is used related to the precincts that are sampled in exit polls.

So what’s the big deal? Richard Charnin’s publication of exit poll discrepancies made appropriate adjustment of the margins of error based on cluster sampling, and still there have been 10 states (I don’t know about Oregon or Kentucky yet) with exit poll discrepancies from the official vote count outside the margin of error, and they all favor Hillary Clinton in the official vote count compared to the exit polls. Adjustment made, problem solved. Anyhow, margin of error is a statistical concept that depends totally on random error. Clinton outperformed Sanders relative to exit poll predictions in the good majority of states that weren’t quite outside of the margin of error too. A large margin of error does not cause findings to consistently point in the same direction. That’s why it’s called random error.

2. Exit polls have consistently favored the Democratic share of the vote
Yeah, since the stolen election of 2004 and the widespread use of easily manipulated electronic voting machines, indeed they have. It’s interesting that Silver uses the 2004 Presidential election as his one and only example. He doesn’t even consider the possibility that electronic vote manipulation was the cause of the exit poll discrepancies in that election – he just merely assumes that it was due to exit poll problems rather than electronic voting problems. That is circular reasoning.

3. Exit poll discrepancies were particularly bad in this year’s primaries
He was referring there to the primaries of 2008 and the fact that Barack Obama consistently under-performed related to the exit poll predictions. Again, he doesn’t even consider the possibility that the exit poll discrepancies may have been related to electronic machine manipulation rather than exit poll problems. And guess who Obama was running against in those primaries?

4. Exit polls challenge the definition of random sample
He says that it is hard to get an accurate random sample because some polling places are very busy and the pollster may be standing “yards away” from the voters. Yeah, ok, fine. The sample may not be perfectly random. Compare that to pre-exit polls, where some demographics of voters can’t even be reached by telephone or in any manner. How many “yards away” are these potential voters (not actual voters, as in exit polls) from the pollster?

5. Democrats may be more likely to participate in exit polls
This is almost a total reiteration of number 2. But I guess he needed it to reach 10. He also provides a study to support the point. And guess who conducted that study that Silver referred to. Scott Rasmussen, the right wing pollster who consistently over-estimates the Republican share of the vote even after whatever election fraud there is helps them out.

6. Exit polls may have trouble calibrating results from early voting
Silver acknowledges that most, but not all exit polls attempt to include early voting in there analysis. And he points out that doing so can be problematic because it requires an estimation of the number of early voters relative to Election Day voters, which may be wrong. But there are two things be leaves out of this explanation: One, that the states that don’t include early voting are the ones where the amount of early voting is considered too small to make a difference, and; two, that any trouble with exit polls that apply to difficulties in estimating the relative number of early voters applies in exactly the same manner to pre-election polls.

7. Exit polls may also miss late voters
That’s kind of a weak statement. He qualifies his statement with “may”, meaning if the exit pollsters go home early, before the polls close. To the extent that that happens it may or may not bias the sample, depending upon the demographics or candidate preference makeup of the late voters. But Silver says nothing about how common it would be for the pollsters to leave significantly prior to poll closing. Exit polling is a science, based on the necessity of polling a random sample. Anyhow, I have not seen radical swings in exit polls towards the end of the day, and if there were any, they should reflect similar radical swings in the official vote count, which could be assessed.

8. Leaked exit polls may not be the genuine article
What Silver means by this is that sometimes some people will leak interim results of exit polls, rather than the final exit polls (just prior to “adjustment” to fit the official vote count). But the exit polls that Richard Charnin and others have published this year, which I and others have cited frequently, are final exit polls. They are the “genuine article”, as Silver puts it. So for the purposes of our discussions of the huge exit poll discrepancies that favor Clinton in the official vote count, this is a non-problem.

9. A high turnout election may make demographic waiting difficult
In his discussion of this problem Silver for the first time in his article acknowledges that pre-election polls may have the same problem. But what he doesn’t say is that the problem of demographic weighting should be much greater in pre-election polls compared to exit polls. The reason for that should be obvious. In pre-election polls, models are needed to predict which demographic groups are more likely to vote. In exit polls such models are hardly needed at all to predict the final vote count because the polling is done on voters who actually showed up to vote.

Perhaps he brings this issue up because (though he doesn’t say so) some say that younger voters, for example, may be more likely to respond to an exit poll, and if so, that would skew (bias) the exit poll (in this case towards Bernie Sanders). But if that is the case, then why did Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, all with a relatively very old population of voters, exhibit some of the greatest exit poll discrepancies in the Democratic primaries this year? The theory just doesn’t hold up to the data, at least not in this year’s Democratic primaries.

10. You’ll know the actual results soon enough anyhow
What kind of reason is that for ignoring exit polls? By saying this, Silver willfully ignores the main reason why almost all, if not all election integrity activists, and many other Americans believe that exit polls need to be done: to monitor our elections for signs of fraud, as is done in many other countries; to look for warning flags and follow them up with investigations, primarily with extensive hand counted audits to see whether the vote counts from our woefully insecure and easily manipulated electronic machines match the hand counts, and; where they don’t, to use hand counts of the whole state (publicly monitored) to identify the actual results of the election. Does Silver really believe that people interested in improving our democracy see the main value of exit polls as learning the “actual” results of the election a little bit earlier?


What Silver doesn’t tell us in his criticism of exit polls

There are four very important issues that Silver omits from his discussion of exit polls, some which I’ve already alluded to:

One is the circular nature of his reasoning, which shows itself in his 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 10th reasons for ignoring exit polls. Essentially, what he is saying is that we should ignore exit polls because they have been “wrong” before. What he means by “wrong” is that they differ from the official vote count. But for the purpose of a discussion which considers whether exit polls are of value in monitoring the accuracy of the official vote count, differing from the official vote count in no way proves that the exit polls are wrong. They only prove that either the exit polls are wrong or the official vote count is wrong. Only extensive audits by hand counting paper ballots will tell you which is the case, and that is never done in this country, except when the official count is extremely close.

Two, in recent history, at least since 2004, whenever there are very large exit poll discrepancies, it is always the more conservative candidate who comes out ahead in the official count compared to the exit polls. That happened in the 2004 Presidential election (as well as 2008 and 2012, but in those years not enough to make a difference in the final count), in numerous Congressional elections between 2004 and 2014, and it happening again now, in the Democratic primaries. Isn’t there a pattern here that is worth commenting on? Related to that is the fact that the election machines used to count our votes are owned, programmed and run by right wing corporations.

Three, he doesn’t acknowledge that some of his criticisms of exit polls apply equally to pre-election polls (items 4 and 6) or worse (item 9)

Fourth, he doesn’t balance his discussion by noting some very substantial advantages that exit polls have over pre-election polls – far more substantial than the reasons he gives for ignoring them, which I hope I’ve made clear. I find that very ironic because he makes his living (I assume) from doing and analyzing pre-election polls, which he must believe have some value, otherwise why would he spend so much time doing them. The very substantial advantages that exit polls have over pre-election polls are: 1) They assess how the voter actually voted rather than how s/he intends to vote at a later time; 2) Pre-election polls rely on models to estimate who likely voters will be. Different pollsters use different models to estimate that, and obviously some of them are wrong. Sometimes most of them are wrong. Exit polls have no need for such models. Each respondent to an exit poll has approximately a 100% chance of voting because s/he has already voted, and; 3) despite the problems that exit polls have in obtaining a true random sample of voters, the problems with obtaining a true random sample with pre-election polls are far worse for the very simple reason that many voters cannot be sampled at all because they are unobtainable by phone.

Why doesn’t Silver even mention these substantial advantages of exit polls over pre-election polls? Could it be that it’s because he makes his living by doing pre-election polls?
Posted by Time for change | Wed May 18, 2016, 11:18 AM (19 replies)

How Clinton Won the Nevada State Convention

We have heard s reports from Clinton supporters that Sanders delegates to the Nevada State Convention last night were poor losers and acted outrageously, etc. etc. etc. Well, from everything I have read and heard about how the convention was run, there were very good reasons for their “rude” behavior.


The state convention

I’ve heard bits and pieces from various sources and cannot find a single coherent source that explains everything. Here is a video that gives you some idea of the chaos involved, but surely doesn’t put it together into a coherent story. These are what I consider to be the essential issues:

There were clearly more Sanders delegates at the convention than Clinton delegates. The Clinton delegates proposed a set of rule changes for the convention that, according to the Sanders delegates would make it easy for them (the Clinton campaign) to pick up some extra delegates for the national convention. A “voice vote” was taken, and it was ruled that the rule changes would go into effect. The Sanders delegates vociferously objected to the ruling, clearly unconvinced that the “voice vote” was legitimate. But to no avail. The rule changes went into effect.

There were 64 Sanders delegates who were decertified from the convention. The news article I read on the subject said simply that the decertified Sanders delegates felt that they were wrongly decertified. The main reason for the decertification was that they were said not to be registered as Democrats. That came as a complete surprise to the decertified delegates. Related to that, I read a DU post last night from an Iowa Democratic delegate (and I hope he or she responds to this OP) saying that he also was decertified from the Iowa caucuses, along with several other Sanders delegates, because, he was told, he (and many of the other decertified delegates) were registered as Republicans or otherwise not registered as Democrats.

I have also seen reports of Sanders delegates being locked out of rooms when crucial votes came up at the Nevada State Convention.

So it appears to me, on the basis of the strong armed tactics used by the Clinton campaign to win the Nevada caucuses, that some “rude” behavior by the Sanders delegates was not only warranted but was obligatory on their part as a protest in an attempt to represent the interests of those who elected them.


A word about the County Conventions where Sanders took a temporary lead in delegates

A discussion of this issue would not be complete without including the county conventions where Sanders took a temporary lead in delegates. There are Clinton supporters who have called this unethical, and I’ll bet that they will also say that because of that, whatever methods they used at the state convention to win would be justified in order to rectify the situation. So let’s take a closer look at this:

The reason given for Sanders taking a lead at the county conventions, in particular Clark County, was that hundreds of Clinton delegates either didn’t show up or flipped their vote to Sanders. If that was the end of the explanation, perhaps it would still be a good enough explanation, because if Clinton delegates didn’t want to take the time to attend the convention or changed their mind about who to vote for, then what does the Clinton campaign have to complain about?

But I doubt very much that that is all there is to the story, though I have seen no deeper explanation in writing. It strikes me as somewhat odd that hundreds of Clinton delegates would not show up at the county conventions, and unbelievably odd that so many would switch their votes to Sanders. After all, they were elected to represent Clinton. How could they possibly excuse such behavior?

The only plausible explanation that I can think of is that either prior to the convention or at the convention revelations were made about how Clinton “won” the original voting in the Nevada caucus, and that those revelations were so striking that many Clinton delegates were sickened by them to the point where their consciences would not allow them to vote for Clinton at the county conventions. What other reasonable explanation is there?

What revelations could there have been? Here’s one:

She needed pure corruption, intimidation and manipulation to squeak out an unimpressive win in Nevada…. That got Hillary a few hundred extra votes and put her over the top in Nevada…. she needed union and casino bosses {who supported one candidate} to basically order their union employees to take half their day off, and pay them to vote.



What this all means

The purging of Sanders delegates at the Nevada state convention is reminiscent of similar and massive purging of would-be voters in Arizona, New York, and many other states in the Democratic primaries this year. The main difference, I think, is that when you mess around with this kind of thing at a caucus you’re dealing with people who are very highly motivated to see democracy run properly and who are likely to be determined to spread the word around of the methods used to subvert democracy.

There is a revolution brewing in this country, even prior to Bernie Sanders’ announcement of his intention to run for President. That revolution is reflected by favorability ratings for the U.S. Congress running at record low levels, usually between 10 and 20% and sometimes dipping into single digits, and 45% of voters who do not consider themselves to be either Democrats or Republicans (42% independents and 3% other).

The many and massive “irregularities” occurring in the Democratic primaries this year are not reflecting favorably on the Democratic Party, and there has been a lot of talk going on about a mass exodus from the Democratic Party following the Democratic convention. The happenings at the Nevada State Convention have just added a good deal of fuel to the fire.
Posted by Time for change | Sun May 15, 2016, 05:14 PM (90 replies)

Sanders Regains Stolen Colorado Delegate

Bernie Sanders won one more delegate in Colorado than first projected after the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week that it misreported the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations. The party discovered the discrepancy a week after the caucus but did not correct the public record. Hillary Clinton's campaign discussed the error with state party officials last week, but the Sanders campaign apparently didn't realize the issue until being informed Monday evening by The Denver Post.


http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29755029/colorado-democrats-admit-mistake-that-cost-bernie-sanders

The event discussed in this Denver Post article only results in a net gain for Sanders of two delegates. As such, it may not seem to be a big issue. But I think it is because it clearly shows what the Clinton campaign and her supporters in the Democratic Party think of election integrity.

This was not just a “mistake”, as the article tactfully puts it. It may or may not have originally been just a mistake. But the Democratic Party knew about it for several weeks and did nothing to correct it. The Clinton campaign also knew about it but said nothing about it. Nothing was done to correct the “mistake” until an independent party, the Denver Post, informed the Sanders campaign about it. That makes it a stolen delegate rather than merely a mistake, regardless of whether or not it was initially just a mistake.

As such, it should provide even further urgent reason for a thorough investigation, including extensive hand counted audits to compare with machine counts, in all states where evidence of election fraud exists, whether that evidence consists of exit poll discrepancies with the official vote count, inadequately explained voter purging, disappearing Sanders votes associated with electronic machines, fake audits that add votes to Clinton and subtract them from Sanders to make the hand counts match the machine counts, or whatever.
Posted by Time for change | Sat May 14, 2016, 03:45 PM (22 replies)

How Strongly Do we Believe in Fair Elections?

In the past several weeks I have posted many posts on DU which have included evidence which I consider to be highly suggestive of election fraud against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. This evidence includes: massive voter suppression/purging in Arizona (and evidence that the purging was targeted at Sanders) and New York and other states; a fake audit of voting machines in Illinois, in which public citizens observed the auditors changing their hand count of the vote to match the machine count by subtracting Sanders votes and adding Clinton votes to their initial hand count (and they provided sworn testimony to that effect); huge discrepancies between exit polls and the official vote counts, in which Sanders almost always does considerably worse in the official count than predicted by the exit polls; screen shots from the Delaware primary that showed Sanders’ vote DECREASING as the number of reporting precincts increased, and; the fact that Sanders does so much better in precincts that are hand counted and in caucuses, where election fraud is so much more difficult.

For all this, I am repeated accused by Clinton supporters of being a “conspiracy theorist” (as if conspiracies to steal election in our country could not possibly occur) and worse.

But I believe that those accusations are all unfair, because I have never advocated that any vote counts or delegates be revised on the evidence that I present or any other evidence alone. All I am advocating is extensive hand counted and publicly observed audits (as was done in the Florida 2000 Presidential election, and nobody on DU that I am aware of had any problem with that) of all states that exhibited substantial exit poll discrepancies from the official vote count or exhibited other evidence of election fraud. Such audits should reveal whether or not there are extensive discrepancies between the hand counted audits and the machine counts.

Anyone who knows anything about our election system knows that our electronic voting machines can be easily manipulated for election fraud. Why shouldn’t we at least have a system for auditing them with hand counts at the slightest evidence of fraud?

What is so terrible about that? The results of such audits should do away with the need to theorize about whether the Democratic primaries have been rife with election fraud. They should put an end to all “conspiracies theories” on the subject. I don’t see any valid reason why either Sanders supporters or Clinton supporters should be against that, except that maybe it might make their candidate look bad. At worst, it will cost some money and effort. At best it could help save our democracy.

I am conducting a poll on this because I would very much like to know where DUers stand on this issue, which I consider to be of the utmost importance to our democracy:


Posted by Time for change | Sat May 14, 2016, 11:46 AM (34 replies)

Disappearing Sanders Votes in the Delaware Primary

I had some communication with an IT computer person who detected some vote “glitches” in the running of the Delaware Democratic primary in Sussex County, and has screen shots to document it. So I looked it up and found identical findings plus more – disappearing Sanders votes.

In Sussex County Delaware the “glitch” was quite remarkable. With 16% reporting from Sussex County, Sanders was ahead of Clinton by 6,247 to 1,250. But later that evening, with almost 40% of the vote reported, Sanders’ count went DOWN to 2,383, a drop of 3,864 votes, while Clinton surged ahead of him. Even near the end of the evening, with 96% of the vote reported in Sussex County, Sanders’ vote total didn’t get back to what it was before his votes disappeared.

Sanders also experienced a decrease in Delaware votes statewide during the course of the evening. And similar findings were reported from Broome County, New York.

Of course, if these were the only such instances of vote flipping, it wouldn’t amount to much in the total picture. But everyone who knows anything about our election system knows that the electronic machines that count our votes are not monitored adequately for accuracy, and unless they are accompanied by a paper trail they cannot be verified. But even when paper trails are available, they are seldom used (as in hand counted audits) as a double check on the election results. And even when they are used and discrepancies are found between the hand counts and the machine counts, no remedial action is generally taken, as in a hand counted audit in Chicago, where public observers gave sworn testimony that the auditors found substantial discrepancies between the hand and machine counts, and then changed their own hand count to match the machine count, by subtracting Sanders votes and adding Clinton votes.

It is also worth noting that the disappearing Sanders votes in Delaware is reminiscent of the 2004 stolen Presidential election, which went to George W. Bush, though there were no screen shots available to prove what happened. I recall a group of TV news commentators discussing the Ohio vote situation near the end of the vote counting process. There was a big map of Ohio on the screen, and the commentators were giving a detailed analysis of how bleak the situation looked for Bush. The Republican commentator, whose name I can’t remember, seemed very depressed. Then suddenly the whole situation switched around and Ohio was called for Bush. Final exit polls predicted a Kerry win in Ohio, and many other states also showed huge exit poll discrepancies, all favoring Bush in the official count compared to the exit polls. But TV commentators either ignored that issue or when forced to discuss it assured us all that the exit polls couldn’t be trusted (implying that the official vote count could be trusted). Investigations in Ohio proceeded slowly, and several years later, Karl Rove’s IT guru, Michael Connor was subpoenaed to appear in court to be questioned about how he manipulated the Ohio vote electronically late on Election Night 2004 to give the election to Bush. An affidavit was signed to that effect. But shortly before Connor’s pending court appearance he died in a plane accident.

Nobody knows how extensive this kind of thing has been in the Democratic primaries this year because no systematic assessment of it has been done. But judging by the massive discrepancies we’re finding between exit polls and official vote counts, generally favoring Clinton by huge amounts in the official count, the problem is quite extensive indeed – so much so that Sanders could very well be ahead now in pledged delegates in the absence of vote flipping (not to mention voter purging, which was found to be extensive in Arizona and New York especially, but also in other states).
Posted by Time for change | Fri May 13, 2016, 11:40 AM (97 replies)

Please Let’s Give Democracy a Chance

Our country is locked in a vicious cycle characterized by almost unlimited money in politics, exacerbated by a psychopathic right wing Republican majority on our Supreme Court. The result is a government that has turned so far to the right that our country is hardly recognizable as a democracy any more. It is better characterized as an oligarchy, meaning that it is ruled by a small elite of wealthy and powerful individuals, where the vast majority of Americans have very little say in how their country is run. Both major parties are at fault, and yet they are currently the only viable parties in our country.

Some of the most powerful institutions in our country today are a military industrial complex that profits from war so is always eager to start another one; a fossil fuel industry that denies the reality of a climate change that threatens to make life uninhabitable for most humans and is gradually becoming irreversible; a financial industry that has cheated the American people out of trillions of dollars in the past few years, causing levels of income inequality not seen since the 1920s, but is considered “too big” to be prosecuted and instead is bailed out of its crises by the American taxpayer; a health care industry that works more to make profits than to help the sick; a prison industry that lobbies Congress to produce more prisoners and has resulted in by far the highest imprisonment rate in the world; a right wing corporate national “news” media that contributes to all these problems by not reporting them in an honest way; the privatization of education to the point where ordinary Americans can no longer afford a decent education, and; perhaps worst of all, a rabidly corrupt election system, which prevents us from electing a government that will serve us rather than those who fund their campaigns and control our elections, which is the main subject of this post.

Despite our irresponsible national news media, this has not gone unnoticed by the American people – as reflected by favorability ratings for Congress in the last few years that rarely go above 20%, and sometimes dip into single digits. Yet because of our corrupt election system we can’t seem to get rid of them. The American people are far far to the left of their government.


Our corrupt rigged election system

Our country’s election system is ranked last among the 47 long established democracies, by the Election Integrity Project founded by the Kennedy School of Government. There are many reasons for this, and they are worth considering:

We have privatized our elections by allowing private corporations to count our votes with little oversight
Verified Voting, a non-partisan, non-profit organization has this to say about the electronic machines that are so commonly used in our country today to count our votes:

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.


To be more specific, 30 states in the United States use these machines today in some or all parts of the state. In 17 of those states there is at least some use of those machines which leave no voter-verified paper audit trail. In other words, votes from those machines cannot even be audited. The other 13 states that use these machines uniformly leave a paper trail by which the machines can be audited (by hand counting the paper trail). But that doesn’t mean very much because auditing of elections in this country is rarely done except in extremely close elections. Significant manipulation of the machines to produce a desired outcome too frequently produces election results that are not close enough to consider auditing them.

All election experts agree and frequently comment that these machines are very unreliable because they can be hacked and rigged to produce a desired outcome. That doesn’t concern me as much as the fact that the voting machine companies themselves can easily program their machines to produce their desired outcome. All of the electronic machines that count our votes are produced and run by corporations that are very right wing and have ties to the Republican Party. Worse yet, they do not allow government officials to even inspect their machines to identify fraud, on the excuse that their machines are private and “proprietary”. And our government lets them get away with that excuse and continues to hire them to run our elections! Such systems are often referred to as black box voting, because the American people have no way to ensure that the votes counted by such machines are done honestly. Michael Parenti writes:

Companies like Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S that market the touchscreen machines are owned by militant supporters of the Republican party. These companies have consistently refused to allow election officials to evaluate the secret voting machine software. Apparently corporate trade secrets are more important than voting rights. In effect, corporations have privatized the electoral system, leaving it susceptible to fixed outcomes.


How can we justify the use of such machines?

The result has been predictable. Since these machines came into existence, exit polls, long considered the gold standard for monitoring election results, now very frequently deviate from the official vote count – ALWAYS with the more right wing candidate favored in the official vote count compared to what is predicted by the exit polls.

In the Presidential election of 2004, George W. Bush won the official national vote count by 2.5%, while the exit polls indicated a lead by John Kerry of 3.0%, a vast exit poll discrepancy of 5.5%, higher than had ever been seen in a U.S. Presidential election before. The exit poll discrepancies were especially high in the swing states that were thought before the election to be the states most likely to determine the winner. In Ohio, which actually was the deciding state, Bush won the official count by 2.5%, while Kerry won the exit polls by 4.2%, a vast discrepancy of 6.7%, which led to many investigations by independent groups and persons. Following numerous investigations by untold numbers of individuals and groups, eventually a hearing was to be held at which Michael Connell, Karl Rove’s “IT guru”, was to testify as to how he helped to orchestrate a massive electronic switching of votes in Ohio from John Kerry to George W. Bush on Election Day 2004. He had already signed an affidavit to that effect. Unfortunately, he died in a plane crash shortly before he was due to testify.

The Election Defense Alliance (EDA), which I used to work for, is an organization came into existence largely as a result of the stolen election of 2004 and is very concerned about this issue. Because our own government appears to be so little concerned about the integrity of our elections, and because the TV networks that hire exit poll firms to help them call elections always “adjust” the results of the exit polls after the vote count is in to mimic the official vote count before showing them to the public, EDA conducts, studies, and analyzes its own exit polls. They refer to an exit poll discrepancy that favors the Republican candidate in the official count compared to what the exit poll predicts as a “red shift”. In 2014 they polled (See tables at link) 21 U.S. Senate races. 19 of the 21 were red shifted, most of them by more than 4%. Two of them, in Georgia and North Carolina, were red-shifted enough to change the winner of the election if we assume the exit poll to be correct. They polled 21 gubernatorial races and found 20 of them to be red shifted, with an average red shift of 5.0%. Red shifting in the House averaged 3.7%.


Partisan control of elections
The stolen election of 2000 in Florida, which made George W. Bush President, was greatly aided by the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, who made numerous decisions that affected the election results and also played a prominent role in the Bush campaign. The stolen Presidential election of 2004, which maintained Bush as President, was in large part orchestrated by the Ohio Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, who oversaw the massive voter purges in Ohio and also played a prominent role in the Bush campaign. Pollsters such as Nate Silver accordingly adjust their pre-election predictions in part based on who has control of the state voting system, without acknowledging that such control often involves unethical and/or illegal manipulation of election results.


Money in politics
Campaigns are expensive. Money has always been involved in politics and has always affected elections for the worse, favoring those who have the money to buy politicians. But in the past, at least we had campaign finance laws that ameliorated the effect of money to some extent. But recent decisions by our far right wing Supreme Court have severely weakened our ability to ameliorate the effect of money on our elections. Consequently, both major parties have moved farther and farther to the right, in order to attract more and more money from wealthy and powerful corporations and individuals who fund their campaigns. Once in office, they make decisions that further increase the wealth and power of those corporations, at the expense of everyone else, creating a vicious cycle of bad government.

Gerrymandering of our Congressional Districts
In the past several years, our Congressional Districts have been so badly gerrymandered to help Republicans that today the Democratic Party has to attain 6% more of the national vote than the Republican Party in order to win a majority in the House of Representatives. That is a major reason for Republican control of the House and why it will be terribly difficult to reverse that majority. That is not democracy. The gerrymandering has been engineered by the Republican Party, but much of the Democratic Party has been complicit in that gerrymandering, refusing to fight it, because it helps them as individuals retain their office much more easily, though it prevents their Party from gaining control of Congress.

Voter suppression
There has been a flurry of voter ID laws passed in many states in recent years, with the sole purpose of suppressing the vote of the poor and minorities, to the great advantage of the Republican Party. These laws are similar to the old Jim Crow literacy tests and poll taxes, which were made illegal in this country a long time ago, but are now on the rise again, disguised as voter ID laws.

In addition, massive purging of voter registration has been orchestrated in recent years. Notable examples are the voter purging in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004, both which were instrumental in helping George W. Bush to win those states, both which were needed for him to win the Presidential elections of those years.

President Obama has said:

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.



Election fraud in the 2016 Democratic primaries

There is a great amount of evidence accumulating of election fraud in the Democratic primaries this year, all of which appears to hurt Bernie Sanders. I would like to emphasize that I am not saying that this is the work of Hillary or her campaign. I’m not saying it is, and I’m not saying it isn’t. I do not know who is responsible for this.

It very well could be the work of the Republican Party or of right wing individuals or organizations, especially the corporations that manufacture the machines that count our votes, program those machines, and oversee their performance in our elections. I say this because it would greatly benefit the Republican Party or any right wing organization to have Hillary rather than Bernie receive the Democratic nomination. Bernie nationally has about a 20% edge over Hillary in favorability ratings, and he polls far better than her in head to head competition against all the major Republican candidates. Not only that, but the more people get to know him the more they like him and approve of his policies, whereas Hillary’s popularity is on the decline and could get a lot worse if an indictment is recommended against her. It would take a lot more election fraud to beat Bernie in a general election than it would take to beat Hillary.

Consider the following evidence of election fraud in the 2016 primaries:

Arizona
In the Arizona 2016 Democratic primary, Maricopa County, the largest county in Arizona, reduced the number of polling places open on Election Day compared to 2012 from over 200 to 60, and consequently people spent entire work days waiting in line to vote, as voting lines stretched for over half a mile. Undoubtedly, many of them had to leave before voting, in order to avoid missing work.

According to The Maricopa County website statistics Clinton won the early voting part of the election in Maricopa County 118,832 to 71,019, over Sanders, a margin of 66.1% to 33.9%. The Election Day voting, which Bernie won by 19,883 to 12,802, shows us two very significant things. First, that Bernie won the voting on Election Day over Clinton by 60.8% to 39.2% in Maricopa County, quite a difference from the early voting margins. And second, it shows us that Election Day voting in Maricopa County accounted for only 14.7% of the total vote.

In addition, there were tons of Democratic voters who were not allowed to vote because election officials claimed that they were not registered as Democrats, even though the voters knew themselves to be registered as Democrats before coming to the polls. An investigation, reported in an article titled: “Anonymous Report: Was Arizona’s Voter Registration Hacked and Changed?”, searched the Internet to find all the claims that they could of voters who were disenfranchised in this way, and they attempted to ascertain their preferred candidate, by phone if they could, and otherwise from the Internet claim. The investigation identified 113 Sanders would-be voters who reported their registration being purged or changed, 2 Clinton would-be voters, and 12 Republican would be-voters.

Keep in mind that this is not the extent of those who were disenfranchised in this way. These are only the claims that Anonymous could find on the Internet. Anonymous gives an example of the extent of the disenfranchisement by pointing to Phoenix (a big part of Maricopa County), which has a Democratic mayor, where 80,000 Republicans voted on Election Day, compared to only 33,000 Democrats.

The purge was clearly targeted at Sanders.

New York
Election Justice USA filed an emergency lawsuit in New York the day before the primary, due to numerous reports by NY voters who had been registered to vote and were either purged completely or had their registration changed from Democrat to Republican or “unaffiliated” without their permission. The lawsuit requests the “immediate restoration” of voting rights for all of those New York voters. Shyla Nelson, spokeswoman for EJUSA, said:

We have heard hundreds of stories, with desperate pleas for help… For these voters to be systematically and erroneously removed from the rolls or prevented from voting in their party of choice is devastating to them personally and has sent a wave of doubt and worry through the voting public.


In New York, more than 120 thousand voters were purged from Brooklyn alone since last fall. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said that his office received more than a thousand complaints about the election.

Some have asked why the lawsuit focuses on Democrat voters only, not Republicans. The answer is that all of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Democrats.

Voter purging across the country
But this isn’t limited to New York. According to an article titled “Election Fraud: Why are Voter Registrations Changing?

Huge voter registration problems are plaguing states with closed primaries, leading to allegations of election fraud around the country. People who said they were previously registered Democrat or Republican suddenly found their registrations inactive or their party affiliations dropped, and now they can’t vote in their primary. These problems were a big issue in Arizona, and now they’re being seen in New York, California, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and more…These baffling voter registration problems seem to be widespread, occurring in states across the nation… The issues seem especially prevalent among Sanders supporters.


Exit poll discrepancies consistently favoring Clinton in the official count compared to exit poll predictions
In 17 of the 19 states where exit polls have been taken for the Democratic primaries this year and are known to the public, they favor Clinton in the official count, compared to what is predicted by the exit polls, usually by substantial amounts. The odds against that happening by chance are astronomical. In New York the discrepancy was 11.6%. For more details on this, see this post in the section “Exit poll discrepancies in the Democratic primaries”.

Sanders has won 12 of 13 caucuses but only 4 of 22 primaries. Clearly it is far more difficult to rig the vote in a caucus than in a primary, because there are so many people there watching the process at a caucus. In primaries, Sanders has done far worse in precincts that are counted electronically than in ones where the vote is hand counted. For example, in Massachusetts, Sanders led by 17% in hand counted precincts, though he lost the election in that state.

Michael Parenti writes:
Exit polls are an exceptionally accurate measure of elections. In the last three elections in Germany, for example, exit polls were never off by more than three-tenths of one percent. Unlike ordinary opinion polls, the exit sample is drawn from people who have actually just voted. It rules out those who say they will vote but never make it to the polls, those who cannot be sampled because they have no telephone or otherwise cannot be reached at home, those who are undecided or who change their minds about whom to support, and those who are turned away at the polls for one reason or another. Exit polls have come to be considered so reliable that international organizations use them to validate election results in countries around the world


Robert F. Kennedy Jr. writes:
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.


Dick Morris, who has worked as a political consultant for both major parties, wrote of the massive exit poll discrepancies in the 2004 Presidential election:
Exit polls are almost never wrong… Such surveys are so reliable that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries.


Vote tampering revealed by exit poll discrepancies in Georgia in 2003 forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down as President.

And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine — paid for by the Bush administration — exposed election fraud that initially denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency and required another round of voting, which he won. (It’s ironic that that was the same year and month that exit polls revealed Bush’s stealing of the 2004 election – talk about a double standard).

All of this contradicts proclamations by our national corporate news media, which consistently ignores or aggressively criticizes the reliability of exit polls. The reasons for their harsh criticisms are not hard to understand. Our corporate news media are very right wing compared to the American people. Exit poll discrepancies always favor the more conservative candidate in the official count relative to the exit poll predictions. So national TV networks routinely erase all traces of exit poll discrepancies and “adjust” them to fit the official vote count as soon as the votes are tallied. In 2004, nobody would have known of the vast exit poll discrepancies in the Presidential election if not for two vigilant citizens who took screen shots of them before they disappeared forever.

Some of their criticisms have to do with the assertion that exit polls are not performed properly in this country. Are we to believe that the wealthiest country in the world can’t afford to do properly designed exit polls? And if they don’t believe they are accurate, why do our TV networks routinely use them to assist in the calling of elections before the vote is in? For example, the Democratic primary in Maryland was called for Clinton with 0.0% of the vote counted. What do you think they used to call the election so early?

And if exit polls are so inaccurate, why is it that they have been spot on in every Republican primary this year? That begs the question, why aren’t the Republican primaries being rigged? I can only guess at that, but my guess is that whatever right wing group is responsible for this (I strongly suspect that the electronic voting machine companies are involved) doesn’t much care who wins the Republican nomination. Whoever wins the Republican nomination will be just fine with them. But if Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, the current established powers will be extremely unhappy about that because it may take more election fraud than they can manufacture to prevent a Sanders win this November.


My feelings about all this

As I think I have made obvious, I am terribly upset about the state of our government and the election system that put it in power. I am a liberal – meaning that I believe that everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful, deserve the opportunity for a good life. When election systems get corrupted, the chances of electing a government that works for ordinary citizens decline proportionately to the degree of corruption. One could say that for a democracy, its election system is more important than anything else.

I am not at all trying to imply that the massive exit poll discrepancies we’re seeing in the Democratic primaries this year should alone reverse the results of those primaries. I’m just saying that they should serve as screaming red flags which beg for hand counted audits to see how well the hand counts comply with the machine counts that we’re seeing. We’ve already seen substantial discrepancies between hand counts and machine counts in the Chicago audits, which would have been entirely missed if not for the fact that a citizens group observed the initial results of the audit and then observed the auditors change their own hand count to comply with the machine count. Do you think that the auditors did this on their own initiative, or that they did it because of pressure from above?

I am so glad to hear that Bernie will be contesting this election at the Democratic Convention. I believe that he is the only candidate in either party who will fight for the American people above the wealthy corporations that fund the campaigns of so many candidates. We could argue all day about how accurate exit polls are. But would any sane person believe that they are likely to be less accurate than elections results that rely on machines run by right wing private corporations with woefully insufficient government oversight to detect election fraud? I’m not asking anyone to believe without doubt anything I’ve said about the accuracy of exit polls. I’m just asking that we give democracy a chance by doing enough hand counted audits (with citizen oversight) to see how much our black box voting machine counts differ from the intentions of the voters, and that all would-be voters who were wrongfully purged or otherwise prevented from voting be given a chance to vote before the Democratic Party chooses its nominee.
Posted by Time for change | Tue May 3, 2016, 09:53 PM (17 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »