Tin foil hat prediction for tonight......

[scheming daemons]

If Mississippi has predominantly black-box voting machines with no paper trail:

Obama 53
Clinton 46

Spun as a "win" for Hillary.



If Mississippi has predominantly paper voting or machine voting with paper trails:

Obama 61
Clinton 37



Conspiracy theory? Yup. But every state so far that has had a large amount of BBV machinery in place, Hillary has far exceeded the exit-polling. In every state so far that is mostly paper balloting, the vote has been "surprisingly" VERY close to the exit-polling.


Blast away at me.... but we all know that BBV machines are "unreliable", to say the least. We also know that the companies responsible for them are run by hard right GOP types. And now we also know there is a connection between Mark Penn and companies that make BBV machines.

And we know that the GOP wants to prolong this race.


I'll get recommends from people who know that BBV hacking exists.... and I'll get put on ignore lists (if I'm not already) by people who refuse to believe that their democracy has been hijacked.


.....

[0007]

1. bttft and recommend with many kudos for a great post.

[golddigger]

2. Hmm...

:popcorn:

[helderheid]

3. watch the raw exit poll data

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Someone mentioned that the SoS expects "light turnout."

[helderheid]

5. and to the greatest

[KaryninMiami]

6. I'm with you on this one- I started suspecting something was up with NH - K&R

I know someone had posted some numbers previously on this- comparing the hand counted votes to machine counted and nothing would surprise me any more regarding those machines which we all know, can be hacked in 5 minutes without detection.

As for our democracy being hijacked, it has been for years- along with our Constitution. It all just keeps getting worse and worse, by the minute.

[Medusa]

21. Me too.

Exit polls have never been THAT wrong on a race. Something is UP.

[KaryninMiami]

27. So how come no one is questioning these results from - say-

the Obama campaign? It's always us tin-foil hat folks who bring these things up but I really do think there needs to be a more intense investigation in to why these are consistently showing the same types of results between the paper ballots and machine counted ballots.

[Not the Only One]

34. NH was mostly about MA teachers and others coming up

They drove into NH and same day registered (there's basically no verification involved in registration on day of voting) and then voted for Hillary. You could see the MA license plates on cars in parking lots outside polling places all around Southern NH.

[DemVet]

7. Tin foil hat indeed. n/t

[scheming daemons]

8. I concede that point.

But just because it is a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean it isn't true.

[BigDDem]

10. An instant classic:

"just because it is a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean it isn't true"

:rofl:

Oh, by the way, I think Obama started the Muslim emails and sent the
photos of himself in Muslim dress to Drudge.

I cant' prove it but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

12. I expected this response.... and part of me agrees with you.... but then....

...there's a little too much "coincidental" evidence.


Why did Hillary win by 5% in NH precincts that used BBV, but Obama won by 3% in NH precincts that didn't?


Coincidence? Maybe.

But then.... why did exit polls, which prior to 2000 were seldom more than 1-2% off from the actual voting, show Hillary winning in Ohio by 3%..... and then she ended up winning by 10%?

More than 2/3 of Ohio precincts use BBV machines.

Coincidence? Maybe.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

17. MEDIA HATED EXIT POLLS BECAUSE THEY TOLD THE TRUTH

EXIT POLLS ARE ALWAYS CORRECT IF DONE CAREFULLY

[foo_bar]

28. whaddaya make of the NH recount?

(http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm)

Why did Hillary win by 5% in NH precincts that used BBV

NH doesn't use BBV, so that's the first problem. The more populated areas used optical scan to tabulate the ballots, but there were still ballots to count and recount.

But then.... why did exit polls, which prior to 2000 were seldom more than 1-2% off from the actual voting

Myth #2,

Shy Tory Factor is a name given by British Opinion polling companies to a phenomenon observed in the 1990s whereby the share of the vote won by the Conservative Party in elections was substantially higher than the proportion of people in opinion polls who said they would vote for the party. The Conservative Party is often referred to by its previous name 'Tory'.

In the 1992 general election, the final opinion polls gave the Conservatives between 38% and 39% of the vote, about 1% behind Labour. In the final results, the Conservatives had a lead of 7.6% over Labour. As a result of this failure to 'predict' the result, the Market Research Society held an inquiry into the reasons why the polls had been so much at variance with actual public opinion. The report found that 2% of the 8.5% error in the party lead could be explained by differential refusals to be interviewed by Conservative voters; it cited as evidence for this factor the fact that exit polls on election day also underestimated the Conservative lead, when they could not be affected by sampling error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor

I learned early in my Washington Post career that exit polls were useful but imperfect mirrors of the electorate. On election night in 1988, we relied on the ABC News exit poll to characterize how demographic subgroups and political constituencies had voted. One problem: The exit poll found the race to be a dead heat, even though Democrat Michael Dukakis lost the popular vote by seven percentage points to Dubya's father. (The dirty little secret, known to pollsters, is that discrepancies in the overall horse race don't affect the subgroup analyses. Whether Dukakis got 46 percent or 50 percent didn't change the fact that nine of 10 blacks voted for him, while a majority of all men didn't. The exit poll may have under- or over-sampled either group, producing an incorrect national total, but the within-group voting patterns remain accurate.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64906-2004Nov20.html

I'm an Obama person so let's try to keep this real.

[scheming daemons]

29. Ok.... then answer me this:

Why are the exit polls always seeming to be more wrong with BBV voting machines than with hand-counted or paper trail machines?


I could agree on the unreliability of exit polling if the unreliability was evident regardless of the type of machinery used.

It hasn't been. The exit polling has been more incorrect in states that used a lot of BBV machines versus states that didn't.

That's the suspicious part.

[foo_bar]

31. voting machine tech is always confounded with demographics

Sparsely populated areas rarely use DREs or scanning equipment, since the cost per voter outweighs any benefits (such as avoiding Florida 2000), and rural areas are also Obama country. That doesn't mean paper ballots are the reason rural districts are pro-Obama unless you discard the more likely explanations; otherwise one has to argue that leaked NH exit polls were somehow more accurate than the actual paper ballots hand-counted by the Kucinich campaign. The same thing happened in 2004: the (midday, leaked) exit polls were 'wrong' in the NH general election (although Kerry still won), Nader demanded a recount, and no less than a DUer conducted it:

A manual recount of eleven precincts was completed on Tuesday, November 30, 2004. The differences between the original machine counts and the hand counts were minimal and statistically insignificant. Sometimes "odd numbers" reflect reality, and in New Hampshire, apparently that's just the way things are: larger population centers appear to be trending conservative (Republican), while the rest of the state appears to be trending liberal (Democrat). There are a few more things that should be double checked (just as a matter of eliminating the obvious), but it appears the will of the majority of people was appropriately represented in New Hampshire.

This double check would not have been possible if it weren't for the systems New Hampshire has in place, with the most important thing being A PAPER TRAIL, followed closely by a clear system that involved double and triple checking each step of the recount. Every official I spoke with made it perfectly clear the goal of a recount was to make sure every candidate was comfortable with the results, no matter what the results ended up being. As both an observer and a participant, I was impressed with the dedication and deliberate transparency built into the recount process by the New Hampshire Secretary of State and his team. It was frankly extremely tedious work, but every person worked to insure the voter's intent was honored. It was one of the most inspiring displays of patriotism I have ever seen in my life; I watched democracy in action, and it was ... beautiful. Tedious, but beautiful. <smile>

http://web.archive.org/web/20060715151843/http://www.invisibleida.com/index.html

[mojowork_n]

38. Whoah, Touchscreens (BBV) vs. Optical Scanners

Sorry, big red flag there. While Touchscreen voting machines have gained a deservedly wretched reputation for accuracy, and easy hackability, optical scanner machines may be even worse.

The interface really isn't that big a deal, it's all about tabulation (how each voting machine's totals are counted), as noted by Comrade Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин:

Check out these great vote totals (for the Busheviks), from the 2004 election:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=203&topic_id=21315&mesg_id=21424

"...on the average, the 15 counties that use Electronic-touchscreen machines showed an increased voter turnout for Republicans of 27.9%, and a 23.8% increase in expected turnout for voters who voted Democratic. These 15 counties are typically the larger counties, and together represent 3,863,840 votes, or about half of Florida's total vote. Average turnout was 69.3%, which is quite high. All of this data looks valid for the Electronic Touchscreens used in Florida this past Tuesday.

Question: What Happened with those voters using Optical-Scanners?

However, when one looks at the same results for the 52 counties with Optical Scanners, something very strange is immediately apparent. The increased voting numbers for Republicans averaged a whopping 135.9%, whereas the votes for those registered as Democrats was a negative (-77.3%) when compared to the voter registration data. I am not kidding. That is how skewed the data is for this group. The total number of votes on the optical-scanners was 3,419,852 (slightly less than half of Florida's total vote)

Moreover, this pattern of decreased Democratic voters was found in 30 of the 37 counties whose voter registration roles listed as 50% of more Democratic. In other words, counties that had a majority of voters registered as Demcocratic voters showed a significant pattern of "disinterest" in voting in this past election (range of 37.6% to negative -64.5%), while these same counties had a huge turnout for Republican votes in predominantly Democratic-leaning counties. The range of the increase over projected/expected GOP turnout was 27.3 to 712.3%(!). Again, I kid you not. It is as if a very large population of the registered Democratic voters in the Optical scanning counties only - just decided to stay home on Election Day - while the registered Democratic voters in the 15 Electronic-touchscreen countries flocked to the polls in droves. Hmmm....

That's one sampling, from the 2004 election. I had to google it up (thank you, to the D.U.'er -- Petrodollar Warfare -- who made the post), but I've seen more on optical scanners at Bradblog, or maybe it was freepress.org. or in something by Greg Palast.

Also, thanks for the link to the New Hampshire recount. You failed to mention that they seem to have run out of money pretty quickly. The recount didn't even include adjusted totals, and seems to have included maybe half the votes, from only one county.

The big red letters (all caps) at the top of the report say:

THE KUCINICH RECOUNT STOPPED THIS MORNING (JAN. 23, 2008) BECAUSE FUNDS RAN OUT.

A total of 850,836 registered voters were reported as having voted in the election -- 26% Democratic, 30% Republican, and 44% Independent. The posted discrepancies, in the recounted wards, were negligible, but it was a fairly small sampling.

[mojowork_n]

39. Whoah, Touchscreens (BBV) vs. Optical Scanners

Big red flag there. While Touchscreen voting machines have gained a deservedly wretched reputation for accuracy, and easy hackability, optical scanner machines may be even worse.

The interface really isn't that big a deal, it's all about tabulation (how each voting machine's totals are counted), as noted by Comrade Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин:

Check out these great vote totals (for the Busheviks), from the 2004 election:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=203&topic_id=21315&mesg_id=21424

"...on the average, the 15 counties that use Electronic-touchscreen machines showed an increased voter turnout for Republicans of 27.9%, and a 23.8% increase in expected turnout for voters who voted Democratic. These 15 counties are typically the larger counties, and together represent 3,863,840 votes, or about half of Florida's total vote. Average turnout was 69.3%, which is quite high. All of this data looks valid for the Electronic Touchscreens used in Florida this past Tuesday.

Question: What Happened with those voters using Optical-Scanners?

However, when one looks at the same results for the 52 counties with Optical Scanners, something very strange is immediately apparent. The increased voting numbers for Republicans averaged a whopping 135.9%, whereas the votes for those registered as Democrats was a negative (-77.3%) when compared to the voter registration data. I am not kidding. That is how skewed the data is for this group. The total number of votes on the optical-scanners was 3,419,852 (slightly less than half of Florida's total vote)

Moreover, this pattern of decreased Democratic voters was found in 30 of the 37 counties whose voter registration roles listed as 50% of more Democratic. In other words, counties that had a majority of voters registered as Demcocratic voters showed a significant pattern of "disinterest" in voting in this past election (range of 37.6% to negative -64.5%), while these same counties had a huge turnout for Republican votes in predominantly Democratic-leaning counties. The range of the increase over projected/expected GOP turnout was 27.3 to 712.3%(!). Again, I kid you not. It is as if a very large population of the registered Democratic voters in the Optical scanning counties only - just decided to stay home on Election Day - while the registered Democratic voters in the 15 Electronic-touchscreen countries flocked to the polls in droves. Hmmm....

That's one sampling, from the 2004 election. I had to google it up (thank you, to the D.U.'er -- Petrodollar Warfare -- who made the post), but I've seen more on optical scanners at Bradblog, or maybe it was freepress.org. or in something by Greg Palast.

Also, thanks for the link to the New Hampshire recount. You failed to mention that they seem to have run out of money pretty quickly. The recount didn't even include adjusted totals, and seems to have included maybe half the votes, from only one county.

The big red letters (all caps) at the top of the report say:

THE KUCINICH RECOUNT STOPPED THIS MORNING (JAN. 23, 2008) BECAUSE FUNDS RAN OUT.

A total of 850,836 registered voters were reported as having voted in the election -- 26% Democratic, 30% Republican, and 44% Independent. The posted discrepancies, in the recounted wards, were negligible, but it was a fairly small sampling.

[sofa king]

37. What's so classic about that?

It's a logically correct statement. Modern culture has been polluted with the idea that a "theory" is somehow removed from the truth. But that has much more to do with people who wouldn't know the truth if it bit 'em on the ass than it does with the people who create the theories.

Theories now regarded as true which were once considered crackpot or heresy: gravity, blood circulation, continental drift, bacterial ulcers, global warming, evolution.

"Conspiracy theories" derided by the public and press which are now considered true: Operations/Projects Mockingbird, MK-Ultra, Phoenix, Shamrock, Ajax.

"Conspiracy theories" which will be proven true within thirty years: White House foreknowledge of 9/11, election thefts of 2000 and 2004, manipulative oil pricing from 2000 to present, embezzlement of over a trillion dollars from the Department of Defense. Laugh at these while you can, and remember the laugh when you feel like a fool about it later.

[not_too_L8]

9. makes me wonder???....n/t

[BigDDem]

11. about what?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scheming daemons]

14. No.... I am saying that powerful LIARS AND CHEATERS have an interest in her doing well...

This could...and WOULD be done without her explicit knowledge.


The GOP wants to prolong this race. The GOP controls these voting machines.


In addition to that... Mark Penn (who IS a liar and cheat)... has a connection to these companies. It is in HIS best interest that Hillary do well.


I'm not accusing Hillary of ANYTHING. I'm accusing OTHERS, who have an expressed interest in Hillary doing well, of lots of things.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[golddigger]

19. Yep, I see more and more of this happening Auntie Bush. Shameless

and despicable.:popcorn:

[BigDDem]

22. "The GOP wants to prolong this race"

So do Democrats, by 2 to 1.
But hey, that poll was probably rigged, right?

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

25. That may be true.... but it doesn't change the fact that....

...those that "own" the means of counting the vote have an EXPRESSED interest in the Democratic nomination process dragging out as long as possible.


Stalin was right about one thing..... it doesn't matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes.

[scheming daemons]

15. PS... my name is "scheming daemons" from a lyric in the Rush song "Farewell to Kings"

A Farewell to Kings - Rush, 1977

When they turn the pages of history
When these days have passed long ago
Will they read of us with sadness
For the seeds that we let grow?
We turned our gaze
From the castles in the distance
Eyes cast down
On the path of least resistance

Cities full of hatred, fear and lies
Withered hearts and cruel, tormented eyes
Scheming daemons dressed in kingly guise
Beating down the multitude and
Scoffing at the wise

The hypocrites are slandering
The sacred Halls of Truth
Ancient nobles showering
Their bitterness on youth
Can't we find the minds that made us strong?
Can't we learn to feel what's right
And what's wrong?
What's wrong?

Cities full of hatred, fear and lies
Withered hearts and cruel, tormented eyes
Scheming daemons dressed in kingly guise
Beating down the multitude and
Scoffing at the wise
Can't we raise our eyes and make a start?
Can't we find the minds to lead us
Closer to the heart?


A surprisingly apt song for this political season.

[XemaSab]

16. People basically have accused him of cheating in the caucuses

They've said his supporters have bullied Hillary's into caucusing for Obama.

Also, there have been many allegations thrown at Obama of getting republicans to vote for him in a disingenuous manner.

:shrug:

[Auntie Bush]

20. How do you cheat in an open caucus where everyone see the count.

Keep dreaming! Obama seems to attract the worst of the worst in the way of supporters.

[XemaSab]

24. Blacks, college kids, and latte liberals (not to mention many others) are the worst of the worst?

Interesting...

[Beacool]

23. It's not enough that Obama will win MS today,

but some of you still insist in trashing Hillary no matter what.....

This board no longer deserves to have the word "Democratic" attached to it. It's become more disgusting than the RW boards!!!!!!


:thumbsdown:

[scheming daemons]

26. Whoever alerted Auntie Bush and had her posts deleted, should NOT HAVE done so...

I'm a big boy, and I can take criticisms and insults.

She has her beliefs and I have mine.


I don't like her posts being deleted just because she called me some names. If I were a Hillary supporter, I would've called me names too.... frankly.


I believe what I posted is the truth. I understand why that would upset Clinton supporters. If exit polls showed Obama winning by a small percentage, and then the actual vote count showed he won by a much larger percentage.... I'd be just as suspicious.


But the exit polls have been severely undercounting Hillary's vote totals in states that have a lot of BBV machines.

That raises suspicion.

[ms liberty]

30. K&R - I'd begun to notice this myself...marking this thread for later, gotta go to work! n/t

[tiptoe]

32. Here are some telling stats on Clinton vs Obama in Primary and Caucus States:

Obama leads Clinton in the Recorded Vote in Primary and Caucus states

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5002450&mesg_id=5002450

From (updated) original source: http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008PrimaryAndCaucusPopularVote.htm

This analysis will show that Obama is winning the primaries by more than the recorded margin. This is not unexpected: the progressive candidate always does better in the polls than in the vote count. Here is a major red flag: he does better in caucuses where votes are counted in full view than in the primaries where they are mostly counted in secret. A good example is Texas, where Barack had 49% in the primary and 56% in the caucus. ...

<state and territories Primary and Caucus Results>

[Laelth]

33. You got a rec. from me.

I don't trust those machines as far as I can throw them. I'm ready to chuck them all in the Ocmulgee River (as I tell poll workers down in these parts).

;)

-Laelth

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. Regardless of the outcome, Hillary will declare victory. Guaran-damn-tee you.

[FlyingSquirrel]

36. Well ya got a rec from me.

Guess now you know where I stand.

[havocmom]

40. K&R

Good to notice these patterns.

[scheming daemons]

41. UPDATE! I called the percentage EXACTLY....... must not have BBV machines

I said Obama would win 61-37..... and with 99% of the precincts in..... it's 61-37.



There must not be BBV machines in Mississippi.


Who woulda thunk... in the heart of red state country, a fair election that went as expected.

[anonymous171]

42. Nice job.

:thumbsup:

[foo_bar]

44. regarding the second half of the prediction, "There must not be BBV machines in Mississippi"

From John Gideon's Daily News Mar 10, 2008

Tomorrow is Mississippi voters opportunity to cast a primary vote.
Most of the counties use Diebold/Premier TSx machines with a vvpat.

One county recently decided to remove the vvpat printers because they were
too much problem on election day. Another good reason to scrap DREs;
even when they have a vvpat printer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=103609&mesg_id=103664

[dascientist]

43. pretty damn close

pretty damn close