Reply #44: You don't get it

[Nederland]

No EVIDENCE, however, has been advanced to support the reluctant Bush responder hypothesis other than the tautology that the vote count had to be right and therefore the exit polls must have been wrong and this is the only way to explain it.

You've got this completely backward--the burden of proof is on us, not them. From a legal standpoint, if you want to prove fraud you cannot simply assume that the exit polls were right, you have got to prove it. The reason this is true is because in court you will be asked to explain why you believe that a sub-sample of actual voters should be considered more accurate than the full sample (actual results).

Just look at what happened in Ukraine. Yes, exit polls told us right off that there was something fishy going on, and that lead to investigations. Within days, those investigations showed numerous examples of voter suppression and intimidation, in some cases with video evidence. In this case, Conyers has been investigating for weeks now and he has no hard physical evidence to demonstrate fraud. None. The closest we've ever gotten is an account of a Triad employee doing maintenance on a tabulator, but an investigation of that went nowhere.

We need proof, not more mathematical analysis that merely assumes that the exit polls were right and the vote wrong.