Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
Bev Harris unearthed yet again more widespread fraud in these elections. Paul’s numbers were far better in the precincts that were paper ballots (20%) as opposed to Diebold.
Entrance polls showed him closer to 16% than the given eight...
One guy is in charge of all that black-box data.
|
This is a case where I strongly concur with you, Taliesin.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bev Harris
LHS is not subject to public records requirements, as the government is, at least, not in New Hampshire. The control over memory card contents is absolute; when cards malfunction or get lost, LHS brings the replacements.
Since LHS maintains the machines, repairs the machines, and replaces the machines -- often on Election Day -- when they malfunction, they have intimate access to the chips, sockets, ports, communications devices and other electronic components.
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...vote_fraud.htm
If there weren't a statistically significant difference from the polls, I'd be concerned but not suspicious--but Obama was leading Clinton in the last Zogby poll by 13% and he allegedly lost the election to her two days later by 3%. Tearing up at a question (and saying "I," not "we," FWIW) doesn't account for that big a shift. Even exit polling was statistically different from the election results, with Obama leading.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535
Yes, exit polls aren't perfect--but they're very rarely outside their margin of error, and as Chris Mathews mentioned in passing on "Hardball," the exit polls (which we don't get to see in raw form) confirmed an Obama victory--not a statistical tie with the lead within the margin of error, an outright Obama victory.
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
On the Republican side, Romney went up 7% at the expense of McCain, Huckabee and Paul in roughly equal proportion. A small drop for Paul could be overlooked--but the huge gain for Romney stinks, calling into question the losses by Paul.
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php
***
Notably, despite the excellent statistical case that can be made, no major news network, newspaper, wire service or Internet site is daring to say anything--the strong case is restricted to the blogosphere. One could blame the threat of litigation--one could blame the concern that any candidate fingered but not convicted of fraud might win--one could blame conspiracy theories, given the "head-in-the-sand" approach.
***
Taliesin, my support for Paul is less strong than yours, but I agree that he's a good candidate and, as best I can tell, an honest straight-shooter. I understand your being so frustrated.