Skip to main content

Results Skewed Nationwide In Favor of Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes


Originally Published as an exclusive, at OpEdNews.com

A major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in U.S. House and Senate races across the country is indicated by an analysis of national exit polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national election integrity organization.

        These findings have led EDA to  issue an urgent call for further investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment.

        "We see evidence of pervasive fraud, but apparently calibrated to political conditions existing before recent developments shifted the political landscape," said attorney Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, "so 'the fix' turned out not to be sufficient for the actual circumstances." Explained Simon, "When you set out to rig an election, you want to do just enough to win. The greater the shift from expectations, (from exit polling, pre-election polling, demographics) the greater the risk of exposure--of provoking investigation. What was plenty to win on October 1 fell short on November 7.

        "The findings raise urgent questions about the electoral machinery and vote counting systems used in the United States," according to Sally Castleman, National Chair of EDA.  "This is a nothing less than a national indictment of the vote counting process in the United States!"    

        "The numbers tell us there absolutely was hacking going on, just not enough to overcome the size of the actual turnout. The tide turned so much in the last few weeks before the eleciton. It looks for all the world that they'd already figured out the percentage they needed to rig, when the programming of the vote rigging software was distributed weeks before the election, and it wasn't enough," Castleman commented.

        Election Defense Alliance data analysis team leader Bruce O'Dell, whose expertise is in the design of large-scale secure computer and auditing systems for major financial institutions, stated,  "The logistics of mass software distribution to tens or even hundreds of thousands of voting machines in the field would demand advance planning�"at least several weeks--for anyone attempting very large-scale, systematic e-voting fraud, particularly in those counties that allow election equipment to be taken home by poll workers prior to the election.

        "The voting equpment seems to be designed to support two types of vote count manipulation--techniques accessible to those with hands-on access to the machines in a county or jurisdiction, and wholesale vulnerabilities in the underlying behavior of the systems which are most readily available to the vendors themseleves. Malicious insiders at any of the vendors would be in a position to alter the behavior of literally thousands of machines by infecting or corrupting the master copy of the software that's cloned out to the machines in the field. And the groundwork could be laid well in advance.  For this election, it appears that such changes would have to have been done by early October at the latest," O'Dell explained.

        In a reprise of his efforts on Election Night 2004, Jonathan Simon captured the unadjusted National Election pool (NEP) data as posted on CNN.com, before it was later "adjusted" to match the actual vote counts.  The exit poll data that is seen now on the CNN site has been adjusted already. But Simon points out that both adjusted and unadjusted data were instrumental to exposing the gross miscount.

        Simon, surprised that unadjusted polling data was publicly revealed, given the concerns after the 2004 election about the use of exit polls, downloaded as much of the data as he could in real time. Scheduled and planned revisions on the CNN site took place throughout the evening and by the following morning, the unadjusted exit poll data had been replaced with data that conformed with the reported, official vote totals. This was the planned procedure as indicated by the NEP's methodology.

        Adjusting the exit poll data is, by itself, not a troublesome act.  Simon explained, "Their advertised reason to do the exit polls is to enable analysis of the results by academic researchers--they study the election dynamics and demographics so they can understand which demographic groups voted what ways. As an analytic tool, the exit poll is considered more serviceable if it matches the vote count. Since the vote count is assumed to be gospel, congruence with that count is therefore assumed to give the most accurate picture of the behavior of the electorate and its subgroups.

    "In 2004 they had to weight it very heavily, to the point that the party turnout was 37% Democrat and 37% Republican, which has never been the case--leading to the claim that Rove turned out the Republican vote. This was nowhere witnessed, no lines in Republican voting places were reported. As ridiculous as that was, the distortion of actual turnout was even greater in 2006. The adjusted poll's sample, to match the vote count, had to consist of 49% 2004 Bush voters and only 43% 2004 Kerry voters, more than twice the actual margin of 2.8%. This may not seem like that much, but it translates into more than a 3,000,000 vote shift nationwide, which, depending on targeting, was enough to have altered the outcome of dozens of federal races.

    "It should be very clear that weighting by a variety of carefully selected demographic categories, which yields the pre-adjustment exit polls, presents a truly representative electorate by every available standard except the vote count in the present election. So you have a choice: you can believe in an electorate composed of the correct proportions of men and women, young and old, rural and urban, ethnic and income groups, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--or you can believe the machines. Anyone who has ever wondered what is really in a hot dog should be aware that the machines are designed, programmed, deployed, and serviced by avowedly partisan vendors, and can easily be set up to generate entirely false counts with no one the wiser, least of all the voters."

        Simon concluded, "These machines are completely and utterly black box. The idea that we have this enormous burden of proof that they are miscounting, and there's no burden of proof that they are counting accurately--that, first and foremost, has to change."

        Election Defense Alliance issued a statement here

Originally posted to http://www.opednews.com on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:03 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good point about the non-existant... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lcrp, greenearth

    ..."turn out the vote" Rovian lines of late voters in 2004. Where were they?

  •  Good diary, thanks for this! This explains (5+ / 0-)

    why Republicans only made a feeble attempt for and did not clamor for recounts. Most of us expected this kind of underhanded activity amongst many others but now the question is what to do about it?

    Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

    by jmsjoin on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:08:59 AM PST

  •  Where do I donate? (6+ / 0-)

    How much money is needed?

    How the fuck do Democrats ever expect to take back the congress when these fascists control the voting machines? I mean really, wake the fuck up people.

    •  Dems DID Take Back the congress (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lcrp, HudsonValleyMark

      I'm not sure what point you're making.  Democrats did indeed take back the Congress!

      I'm curious about the EDA data.  While their points on a macro level seem valid, has there been any attempt to analyze the 2006 voting data vs. exit polling by types of voting equipment or methodology used?

      That would be most useful in this debate.  I see people complaining about the Optical Scan systems, but I think those are virtually foolproof since everyone must fill out a paper ballot to feed into the machine and those ballots are kept.  Audits should be routinely and easily accomplished simply by sample counting the paper ballots and matching those counts against the results recorded on the machines and modemed into a central counting station.

      The FL-13 voting dispute is one major standout of the 2006 election and that appears to be total incompetance rather than designed hacking.  

      Also, the numbers that EDA seems to have on total Dem/Rep voting percentages don't seem to jibe with numbers that I've seen.  I know the Senate numbers are about 55-42 and I've seen published reports that the House totals were similar, which would confirm the unadjusted exit poll data and most of the pre-election generic voting polls.

      •  I tend to think it's more a case of (4+ / 0-)

        vote suppression by dozens of methods, including pre-election purges, robocalls, fake letters threatening arrest, relocating the polling place without notice, malfunctioning machines (on purpose in Democratic precincts?), late opening the polling place, poll books breaking down as well as the voting machines, ballot design. It doesn't have to be hacked software.

        •  Fully Agree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lcrp, Halcyon, greenearth

          I fully agree with the horrible vote-suppression tactics taken by GOP operatives.  But that's not the thrust of these diaries.

          If we're going to clean up the voting irregularity mess, we need to have some really strong scientific data, not just paranoia data.

          For example, precinct by precinct comparisons of exit polling vs. real results based on different types of voting equipment or methodologies used; paper trail sample audits vs. machine counts vs. exit polling; comparative precinct results within the same Congressional districts and within the same states to see if a very localized problem is an anomoly; and, finally, comparisons between state results where there are suspect GOP Secretaries of State running elections vs. results where we believe honest and ethical Dem. or GOP Secretaries of State were in charge.

          The example of Fl-13 gives us all of that.  Some of the counties there and some of the voting systems in Sarasota county showed integrity.  But the polling place machine counts were a total anomaly.  We need more of this kind of control/checking to shed light on possible abuses and/or errors so we can indeed make the system as ethical and as honest and as credible as possible.

          •  a few more points (0+ / 0-)

            Most of the vote suppression wouldn't show up in exit polls (uncounted provisional ballots could). So to the extent that people cite supposed exit poll evidence to draw attention to vote suppression tactics, it's just sort of weird to me.

            EDA's exit poll argument is very weak. A few of us have been going through the args on another diary. Basically, EDA assumes that people accurately report their past votes, but we know this isn't true. It was easy to spot this problem because the same mistake has been made in interpreting the 2004 exit polls.

            Unfortunately, FL-13 doesn't give us "all of that" (all the things you mentioned), but it does give us pretty clear quant evidence of excess undervotes -- which can't plausibly be attributed to protest abstention. There are several FL counties with similarly anomalous undervote rates for attorney general; I don't know much about the specifics. FL-13 does stand out in that the undervotes seem to have determined the outcome, and I don't know of any other such case at this time.

            We need auditable elections. If polls are our best evidence, we are in deep trouble.

    •  ah, gentle irony n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AnonymousArmy
  •  No wonder Rove was so confident (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth, DarkestHour

    He thought the fix was in!

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

    by Grant Caesar Peters on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:29:36 AM PST

    •  He was over-confident (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth, madgranny

       I was surprised at the democratic win -- I figured Rove had a plan to turn this election just as he has done before. In fact he did have a plan but even he couldn't compensate for all the crap hitting the fan at the same time.

       As noted by others the democratic leadership just refuses to acknowledge the stolen elections -- ALL of them. 2000, 2002, 2004 and even the most recent.

       With all the disgust with bush -- and Republicans vowing to vote democratic the numbers voting democratic should have been much higher.

       

       

  •  Mark Krispin Miller Had this comment on article (7+ / 0-)

    This new report is crucial reading for all those concerned about election fraud--which, last Tuesday, was, again, a massive problem, notwithstanding all the blithe post-mortems issued by the US press from Tuesday night on through the week.

    (Nor surprisingly, Diebold joined that chirpy chorus with a long mendacious press release promoting Diebold's wares.)

    Now here's some startling evidence of widespread fraud, assembled by my good friends at the Election Defense Alliance. It's likely that the Dems actually did win, or should have won, some 50 House seats--and that Bush/Cheney's GOP was not just "thumped" but devastated.

    Please spread this piece far and wide.

    Mark is author of Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)  

    •  Thanks Rob... (3+ / 0-)

      It's necessary to keep illuminating the truth about voting... the Constitutionally prescribed verifiable VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

      My fear is that progressives.. all Americans for that matter, will rest on their laurels re: voter fraud since the Dems have taken back both houses, believing the voting irregularities have somehow miraculously gone away.  

      THEY HAVEN'T!!

      This is not a time to relax the demand for fair and honest elections.  This is the time to continue to battle for verifiable, honestly tabulated elections.. and to keep making sure the truth is known!

      Keep shining the light!!

  •  Paper BALLOTS (3+ / 0-)

    GET THEM NOW DEMS!!!!!! This isn't paranoia.

  •  Election Integrity (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    Thanks for posting this diary.

    Added the "Election Integrity" tag.

    Folks interested in this topic are pooling information at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/...
    and check dkosopedia on Voting_Rights for further resources.

    Please think about volunteering to be a poll worker in your local precinct
    Serving_as_an_election_official

    Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at http://solarray.blogspot.com/2006/03/solar-video.html

    by gmoke on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:49:30 AM PST

  •  What I don't understand (5+ / 0-)

    is why the Democrats don't understand that if we don't go to hand-counted paper ballots in 2008, as in House Resolution 6200, we'll have another unelected President.

    Everyone who has done the research knows that Gore won Florida in 2000 and Kerry won Ohio in 2004. But the Democrats either won't do the research, or refuse to believe the facts.

    Personally, I don't believe that Reagan was elected either. While everyone else was talking about the "Reagan Democrats" who voted a straight Democratic ticket except for voting for a Republican at the top, I was reading an article in the New Yorker magazine about how the election was rigged in Mexico, and my thought was, "If they're doing it there, they're doing it here too."

    Most of my friends disagreed, arguing that our government would never do a thing like that. Sure it wouldn't. It would never eliminate checks and balances, make torture an official policy, invade a country that was no danger to us, perform illegal wiretapping on U.S. citizens, do away with habeus corpus, wipe out almost all environmental protections, or give no-bid defense contracts to cronies. You can trust them. NOT!

    When there's a Democratic landslide, the Republicans win, or the Democrats concede anyway. When there's a Democratic super-landslide, the Democrats win some of the seats they've actually won, but not all. And now that they Republicans know how much of a margin they need, even a Democratic super-mega-landslide in 2008 won't give us a Democratic victory unless we get rid of the damned machines.

    The worst enemies of democracy I see at present are the people promoting paper trails or open source software, neither one of which can prevent an unelected President from being installed before it can be proven that they weren't elected, or prevent an elected candidate from conceding before it can be proven that they actually were elected. We need HR6200 and a return to hand-counted paper ballots at the precincts if we don't want another stolen presidential election in 2008.

  •  Doesn't this assume... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    That all exit polling is very accurate?  To compare exit polling to the actual results is a little misleading, isn't it?  Polling of any kind is just an estimate anyway because there is no way to totally gauge the public sentiment until every voter who wants to votes goes to the poll.  Unless the exit poll counted every individual at every precinct in every district, isn't just another version of telephone or internet polling?

    And I agree with the comments above, that what we need to focus on for the next election is voter suppression (basically anyone who doesn't vote Decepticon will have their vote potentially suppressed), GOTV, updating our voter rolls in each and every state, making paper printouts mandatory, and streamlining the recount and absentee/provisional ballot counting procedures and implementing those new procedures across the country.  Every election, no matter in which state, from now until 2008 should be testing these new strategies; by this I mean special elections, or those unique election in 2007, or run-offs, etc.

    I am convinced that the voting machines have many problems, although my voting experience in CA-14 was just fine (this seat was by no means in play so it probably wasn't worth the GOP's time to mess around here, and it would have probably been too obvious if they did).

    But I support the continued vigilance for voting fraud and voter suppression that is underlying your diary post, and continued action to confirm that everyone who voted will have their vote counted.

    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind -- Albert Einstein

    by BasharH on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:33:24 PM PST

  •  New Yorkers can do somthing about it tonight! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    see my diary from this morning:

    NY ACTION ALERT-TODAY Fri Nov 17-Vote Machine certification demo

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  what's the nugget of the argument? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 01:20:04 PM PST

  •  At least now the Democrats can investigate voter (0+ / 0-)

    fraud without being called sore losers. Let the chips fall where they may.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site