2466
2467

People are not happy about Bill Clinton’s appearance at Mass. polls (bostonglobe.com)

flfxt が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]ElectionFraud2016 [スコア非表示]  (68子コメント)

Ooo, a Massachusetts post. I'd like everyone to put on their tin-foil hats and read this post. Then let me know if the hats are still on by the end of the post.

Arizona isn't the only state to have suffered election fraud. Based on the evidence I've come across it happened in Massachusetts and caused Bernie to lose the state.

Although Clinton won MA by a small margin, Sanders won the 68 hand counted precincts by a ~17% margin. Also the unadjusted exit polls had sanders winning by just over 6%.

The numbers just simply don't add up but I'll let you all decide for yourselves.

While I'm personally not from MA I wanted to make sure everyone was aware that 68 out of the state’s 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %.

The company Premier Election Solutions sounds like the shadiest company possible to handle election machines. Not to mention that they refuse audit requests and will not prove the machines are fair. I'll quote the Wikipedia article here and let you decide if it sounds like a company that should be allowed to have non transparent elections for President.

Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (DESI), was a subsidiary of Diebold that makes and sells voting machines.

In 2009, it was sold to competitor ES&S. Another subsidiary selling electronic voting systems in Brazil is Diebold-Procomp, with minor market share in that nation. In 2010, Dominion Voting Systems purchased the primary assets of Premier, including all intellectual property, software, firmware and hardware for Premier’s current and legacy optical scan, central scan, and touch screen voting systems, and all versions of the GEMS election management system from ES&S.

At the time ES&S spun off the company due to monopoly charges its systems were in use in 1,400 jurisdictions in 33 states and serving nearly 28 million people.

Sounds pretty shady right? How can you explain the 17% discrepancy across the state from hand counted ballots? Something isn't right.

From the chart below, you can see how each type of voting machine / hand counted returned the results.

Image 1

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#year/2016/state/25

Image 2

Image 3

This has happened in Massachusetts before in 2010:

Election integrity activists John Brakey and Jim March investigated Scott Brown’s upset victory over Martha Coakley to replace Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in 2010. They found a similar difference between hand counted paper ballots and those jurisdictions using machine tabulators. At that time, 71 out of 351 voting districts were using hand counted ballots and they favored Coakley over Brown by 4.44% despite Brown’s declared victory throughout the state by 5%.

Also I highly suggest reading this article. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/ma-primary-unadjusted-exit-poll-indicates-bernie-won/

Here is a bit from it:

Late changes to the MA Democratic Primary exit poll indicate that the election was likely stolen. As always, the exit poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote.

Sanders led the Unadjusted MA Exit Poll Gender crosstab (1297 respondents) by 52.3-45.7%. The poll was captured from CNN at 8:01pm .

Clinton led the adjusted exit poll (1406 respondents) by 50.3-48.7%, a near-exact match to the 1.4% RECORDED vote margin. But her 50.3% share was IMPOSSIBLE. The proof is self-explanatory: How could Clinton gain 114 respondents and Sanders just 7 among the final 109 exit poll respondents?

Clinton won by 51-49% on electronic voting machines from ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Sanders won 68 hand-counted precincts by 58-41%. He won 250 of 351 jurisdictions and had at least 58% in 110.

The probability is 97% that Sanders won the election given the 3.55% Margin of Error. The MoE includes the exit poll cluster effect (30% of the 2.72% calculated MoE). Sanders 53.4% two-party share and the MoE are input to the Normal distribution function to calculate his win probability.

At 8:01pm the CNN exit poll reported 1297 results.

678 were Sanders, 593 were Clinton, and 26 were other.

Which would have Sanders at 53.4% to Clinton at 46.6% with a Margin of Error of 3.53% giving Sanders a 97% probability of winning.

As of 9:30am the next morning the "adjusted" CNN poll (the same one from before) reported 1406 results meaning 109 results had been added on to the exit poll data in the previous ~12 hours.

The final results were as follows:

685 (+7) for Sanders, 707 (+114) for Clinton, and 14 (-12) for other.

This means that out of the last 109 results added, Sanders gained only 7, Clinton gained 114 and other lost 12.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=0

The adjusted exit poll was altered to match the displayed results of the Primary. Main stream media was reporting Bernie as the winner of exit polls around 8pm as well.

When is appropriate to start calling a spade a spade?

[–]Tilligan [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

The fact that actual government officials try to stay out of the primaries because they are independent events only worsens the whole thing.

The American election process fails on so many levels to provide basic transparency to its citizens and voters. It blows my mind that collectively we just shrug our shoulders and watch tv.

[–]bmanCO [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

I really hate the "DNC can do whatever it wants because they're a private organization" argument. It's a private organization that's instrumental in electing the leader of our country, they should be subject to strict federal rules that don't allow them to do whatever the fuck they want and rig elections as they see fit. There needs to be accountability in primaries, because there sure isn't any now.

[–]Tilligan [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

It's all grey, the DNC doesn't need to offer the public the right to choose anything, if they break their own rules about an optional procedure they choose to involve the public in who do you complain to, them?

Unpledged delegates are a an obvious manifestation of this.

[–]flfxt[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

They can set their own procedures for choosing a nominee, but they're still bound by contracts, promissory estoppel, and non-discrimination laws the same as any other private entity. And to the extent they do chose to hold primary elections, those are indeed subject to many election laws.

[–]Z0underkite [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They're bound by the will of the people. Screw them if they think they have no obligation to free elections. Be sure to use that term, "free elections," or the sophists will start picking apart the semantics of "democratic."

[–]Tilligan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I agree it just isn't the reality currently which is why I said it is depressing that our officials sit out of the primaries as much as possible.

[–]saddlebrown [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Also the leader of the DNC is, ya know, a Congresswoman. Government official. I don't give a rat's ass if the DNC is a "private organization." It's being run by the government.

[–]fluffyxsama [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I absolutely could not agree more and say this at every possible opportunity. "Private organization" should not just be magic words that translate to "can do whatever the fuck they want", as if the voters will have some other options to vote for on election day other than the people the parties nominate.

[–]Ace2010 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Hey you know Game of Thrones comes back next month

[–]futurespacecadet [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I love how TV is the go-to for being passive and doing nothing. I think people would gladly do more if politics were an easier beast to tame. People are so used to the system being incomprehensible and unapproachable, that all they can do is sit down.

[–]Sanderswersky [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

People always talk about how many people vote for American Idol.

Well, make voting in a presidential primary and election easier than voting for American Idol, and we'd see record turnout.

But there seems to be no interest in making voting user-friendly.

[–]weeba [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

My tin hat is off and in the corner.

Bernie won the small towns in MA, and Hillary won the cities. MA has a total population of ~6.5m and the Boston metro area (to include Boston and surrounding communities, including Cambridge (so, everything in blue here) is about 4.1m people. She also won Worcester (180k) and Springfield (150k) and Lowell (100k).

If you look at the total votes per city (here), you'll see that Boston was 71k to 51k Hillary, while most cities out in the Berkshires had less than 2000 votes in total. One city (Mount Washington for instance) had Bernie winning 67%-33%, but 35-17 in votes.

I can't find a breakdown of which town handcounted their ballots at the link you provided, but I suspect it's probably the less populated towns, where it doesn't make sense to invest in an automated system.

Hillary carried the major cities in MA, which gave her the win.

[–]Unconfidence [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Just putting this out there. I help run an Amazon store, where I have to keep track of hundreds of thousands of individual inventory items, books, CDs, DVDs, statues, posters, anything that can sell. There's little rhyme or reason to it, and sometimes I'll be given 50k or so items and told to make an inventory. It'll take me a week or two, but I do it.

So me, alone, doing way more than just counting, and I can manage to knock out around 50k items in a week or two. And that's recording specific details about each one, sometimes even scanning in UPC's and such.

So to me, there is absolutely no excuse for Boston to rely on machine tallies. Examining and tallying 71k, or even 710k votes is not that arduous of a task that it requires mechanizing, especially when one of the biggest failsafes is supposed to be the amount of human eyes on the various tallies.

[–]jeffwulf [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Sounds pretty shady right? How can you explain the 17% discrepancy across the state from hand counted ballots? Something isn't right.

Easily. Size and Demographic differences between counties that hand count vs machine count.

[–]Unconfidence [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's a nice hypothesis.

We should test it by hand counting the votes.

[–]Fapzz [スコア非表示]  (25子コメント)

this happened in 2008 and will happen again this year in NY

NYTimes: Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote

Keep in mind the NY Times is in the bag for team Hillary but the information is still there

Calling it now, part 2 of AZ will happen in NY - we use the same type of voting machines

[–]ccruner13 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Is it bad if mine has fused to my skull?

[–]DominarRygelThe16th [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Is it bad if mine has fused to my skull?

Depends on how many layers of foil you used. Triple wrap? Quad wrap? 40ft roll? Can't give you a prognosis unless I know the wrap strength.

[–]ccruner13 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It was actually only just enough to properly overlap the seam (waste not, want not and all that). It was Heavy Duty, though.

[–]Z0underkite [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I would consider implanting some before They implant some chips of their own.

[–]strikingstone [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

This is outrageous and clearly evidence of fraud! What other explanation is there? I'm sure the difference couldn't have to do with the fact that precincts that count ballots by hand tend to be in smaller towns with a demographic naturally more favorable to Bernie, while larger, more diverse areas with higher numbers of voters don't count manually. That explanation would suggest that there isn't massive fraud, but as proved above, there is.

[–]2IRRC [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

When voting results deviate from exit polls by more than the margin of error fraud is a likely cause. Period.

[–]03992 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not two weeks before the primary, I was fired from Secretary Galvin's office for a social media post encouraging voter registration on the Bernie Sanders subreddit (in response to an article where the office encouraged the same thing).

I was told that they were certain the username in question was me, and that this was tantamount to using insider information to influence an election (which is ridiculous, but nonetheless). I was told they have zero tolerance for that and that I had to go, so I understood (which is more or less the only reason I didn't bother to make a fuss -- fair's fair).

Now, there's a lot more wrinkles to this story, of course. But that is the gist -- that I was discharged from my job because I was suspected of encouraging people to register to vote.

So, you know, the fact that two weeks later Bill Clinton showed up with a bullhorn and got nothing but a mild sassing from the very same people who had zero tolerance for me two weeks earlier...you do with that what you will.

[–]Samamander [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Are there factors that cause a jurisdiction to choose a certain ballot counting method that would also have an impact on how those residents ultimately choose to vote? I think this is an important factor that hasn't been considered in the above description.

What are the reasons for the different ballot counting methods?

For the record, I am a Massachusetts resident/voter, and I voted for Bernie. My jurisdiction was won by Bernie and uses electronic voting machines.

[–]peterkeats [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You know, it's tin foil for a reason. You won't get an explanation. Tin foil has enough to make you think, but rarely stands to scrutiny.

Tin foil hat on, though, would tell me Sanders should have won your jurisdiction by an even larger amount if it was using the biased voting machines.

[–]otaking [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Stop propagating the hand-counted ballot argument. You lose credibility. The demographics are not representative of the state as a whole. The sample size is tiny. It is not significant. The 68/351 districts may sound like a large, significant chunk, but it is not. The actual votes were 13171/603784 = 2.18%. Yes, 2% of the voting population, living in small towns, far different than city demographics.

STOP IT. Jesus. You're hurting the campaign by propigating baseless shit. Let's focus on an actual issue like Arizona's altered voter registration database.