You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #16: Mathematical proof that TV network polling results are FRADULENT [View All]

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 » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Petrodollar Warfare Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-04 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
16. Mathematical proof that TV network polling results are FRADULENT
Edited on Wed Nov-10-04 12:40 PM by Petrodollar Warfare
I'm going to point out two critical issues listed in the above data. (If anyone has similar exit polling data for other states and preserved it on screen shots about 1am on election night that would be great).

OK, for anyone who finished High School, this math is pretty simple stuff, and it shows that we are being lied to on a profound scale in at least two of the critical states in last week's election. First, please disregard any "spin" you might have heard from GOP operatives and media pundits about how they had to "reweight" some of exit polls because they polled "too many African-Americans," or too "many women" in the early exit polls, etc. That is all irrelevant as far as the following analysis is concerned. Let's stick to basics.

Below is the exit polling data for Ohio which includes the final 6pm data based on a sample of 1963 voters with Kerry in a comfortable lead (at 7:32pm), along with the mysterious 1:41am update of the data that suddenly showed Bush with a comfortable lead. Please note the sample size of voters increased from 1963 to 2020, a total of 57 exit voters.

Ohio 47.9 52.1 1963 7:32 PM 3.1
(Ohio 50.9 48.6 2020 1:41 AM 0.3)

Let's do the math. From the final exit polls till after midnight it showed Kerry in the lead:

Bush (.479 x 1963 voters) = 940 voters
Kerry (.521 x 1963 voters) = 1022 voters

...but at 1:41am exit poll update/"sweep?" occured via AP and suddenly Bush gains a huge post-midnight advantge....but is this possible if the sample size only increased from 1963 to 2020, a total of 57?

Let's do the math:
Bush now (.509 x 2020) = 1028 voters
Kerry now (.486 x 2020) = 981 voters

Well, how is it possible that Bush gained 88 voters (!) given the sample size increased by only 57, while Kerry lost 41 voters?(!) Let me repeat something for the faith-based community and or treasonous media pundits who ignore what we in the reality-based community see as obviously fradulent data. Why? Simple...


Do you want confirmation of the data? No problem, the below thread actually has screen shots of CNN as they mysteriously changed the data at 1:41am...and it even includes the gender break-downs. ...

Well, maybe the exit polls in Ohio were wrong? No sir, the same post-midnight update/sweep that shows manipulation of the exit polling data also occured in Florida at 1:01 am...and the similarity is striking. Here's the 12:21am data that reflects the final real exit poll data, along with the post 1am exit poll "sweep" of the data...

Florida 49.8 49.7 2846 12:21am 2.5
(Florida 51.4 47.6 2862 1:01am 0.6 )

So, at 12:21 am...
Bush had (.498 x 2846 voters) = 1417 voters
Kerry had (.497 x 2846 voters) = 1414 voters

...but at 1:01am the final exit poll sweep occured via AP and suddenly Bush gains a huge post-midnight advantge....but how? The sample size only increased from 2846 to 2862, a total of 16 voters(!)

Again, let's do some High School math:
Bush now has (.514 x 2862) = 1471 voters
Kerry now has (.476 x 2862) = 1362 voters

Hmmm, if we are to believe this, at 1:01am Bush gained 54 voters (nevermind the sample size only increasd by 16), while poor John Kerry lost 52 voters (again, nevermind that the sample size increased by only 16). Regardless of whatever the latest spin is about "crashed servers" giving late exit poll updates the fact is these "updates" are not mathematically possible within the known Universe. Does our subservient media think their tresonous acts against The American People will go unnoticed? Not for this Patriot.


So folks, either we have entered the Orwellian Universe where the laws of mathematics simply do not apply, or the 1am "exit poll sweep" attempted to match the unauditable machine counts with the real exit polls, but in order to do so it had to violate the laws of mathematics, and reverse the data from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and final exit polls that showed a Kerry victory.

In the reality-based community that is called FRAUD, but in the faith-based community this is called "conspiracy theory."

Based on my background in Information Security (INFOSEC), I would suggest we may be looking at someone who performed at 1am manipulation of the AP "exit poll" data with an incremental increase in sample size that was done sloppily and in violation of mathematical laws, and a remote hack of the Windows-based machines that tabulated the states total votes (Both Ohio and Florida could be hacked from anywhere if the modem access numbers were compromised), or we could be looking at perhaps a "man-in-the-middle" attack to change county/state totals in which the county or counties dialed up a 'rogue labtop,' who then forwarded the "massaged" data on to the central GEMs computer/server for the state's tabulated results.

This is not improbable given that INFOSEC/Computer Scientists have documented and tested how simple it is to manipulate the data in the GEMS server. This is simple to accomplish given the known security flaws in the Diebold system (and possibly the ES&S sytem), and it is not difficult to change what is in essence a Microsoft Access Database.

All you really need are the modem access number(s), and maybe a simple password cracking program, assuming you were an "outsider" hacker without any help from the "inside" (ie. Diebold/ES&E or a county/state elections employee).

Would you like verification of that statement? No problem, and I should note the following are only two of seven findings from an independent review of the Diebold touchscreen system which they set up in a "real-world" enviroment to test its security from hacking - the results were shocking. (Many of these issues likely applies to ES&S as well). Note, this study was done in jan. 2004

"1. The GEMS server lacks several critical security updates from Microsoft. As a result, the team sucessfully exploited a well-known vulnerability using a software product known as Canvas"..."By sucessfully directing Canvas at the GEMS modem interface, the team was able to remotely upload, download and execute files with full system administrator privledges. All that was required was a valid phone number for the GEMS server." (page 20 of 25)

"6. Social Engineering/Phone line hijacking: The procedure by which precincts upload votes to their LBE (Local Board of Elections) is vulnerable to a "man-in-the-middle" attack. This is the result of an incompolete implemetation of the SSL protocol."..."Specifically, the team demonstrated how a labtop could act as a GEMS server. If one could convince the precinct judge to dial into an attacker's labtop then that laptop would not only receive the election results, it would be able to acquire the name and password to access the GEMS sever. With this name and password in hand, the attacker could upload modified results to the GEMS server - all in real time." (page 21 of 25)

Trusted Agent Report Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting System (January 20, 2004)

Bottom Line: We are being lied to about the actual exit polling data, and the networks are not addressing the divergence that seems to plague only certain states, which either in part or in whole use e-Voting machines. Moreoever, the final exit poll variances in some of the "swing states" is both divergent from the (pre-sweep) exit polling data, and based on the above data it was not a random event as would be expected if the exit polling methodology was somehow flawed. Everything reported past 1am was skewed towards Bush, regardless of previous multiple polling data/trends.

We also know these e-voting systems do not provide a paper audit trail, and have been proven by numnerous computer scientists (Johns Hopkins, Rice University) and INFOSEC experts (RABA Technologies) to be easily hackable. In fact, the Johns Hopkins and Rice University researchers candidly stated in their 2003 technical analysis that the serious security flaws in the Diebold source code rendered it "unsuitable for use in a general election." RABA's 2004 "test enviroment" simulated the Diebold voting system as it was deployed last week all across America and their findings of security flaws are even more disconcerting given their team's ability to easily and transparently hack the system and change the results.

The only way to verify if these well-documented and easily exploited vulnerabilities actually occured would require an INFOSEC forensic investigation of the source code in the computers which did the actual county and/or state tabulations, and an analysis of all modem/network activity from the county to the central tabulators in the weeks before and during the election. This could be accomplished by a team of expert network analysts and INFOSEC experts - and for less money than that "army of lawyers" that we heard so much about.

However, I do not expect this type of investigation - which is imperative based on the publically known data - to occur in a willing manner within our current political structure.

Thus, it is with great sadness and anger I must profess my analysis of extreme variances in the the data strongly supports the our Election was indeed hacked in atleast two states, possibly more, and that We The People no longer live under a funcational Democratic Repuiblic. Thomas Paine stated at the founding of our nation:

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away thus right is to reduce man to slavery."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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