I've uncovered a potential methodology that may have been used to electronically steal thousands of votes in the Ohio Presidential election. This intriguing discovery was arrived at through an intense, logic-tested consultation process with my North Carolina colleagues Dr. Harvard Ayers and Tom Morris as we poured over statistical data from the three counties in which we served as observers, Coshocton, Highland and Clermont.
We need the help of volunteer observers throughout the state to crunch a few numbers from their counties to substantiate this theory.
The basic premise is that there was a two pronged attack to hijack the election in Ohio (and maybe in other states):
1) Pad the Bush vote by rigging the vote tabulating machines in primarily Republican counties.
2) Suppress the vote in heavily Democratic counties.
This appeal for help addresses the first prong exclusively.
Suppose the Bush campaign anticipated that there would be a recount in a close election in Ohio. The Bush operatives, Triad and ES&S knew the 3% rule would come into effect. So, they programmed a rigged machine count, but only in the larger precincts in Republican controlled counties. They realized that these precincts would not be chosen for the test because they were considerably larger than three percent. The smaller precincts would count accurately, and pass the test of reconciling with the handcount no matter what combination of them were chosen "randomly". Local BOE officials would be none the wiser. It would require no ballot tampering. To all observers, given the process, it would appear completely clean and legit. But, the bulk of the ballots would result in a bulge for Bush. The only incriminating evidence would lie in the software that we haven't been permitted to examine. The only way to catch the switch would be through a complete handcount that wouldn't happen because the 3% count would come out right.
It wouldn't necessarily have been done in all counties. But, if I'm right, a pattern will emerge in which Bush does 3-5% better, on average, in the largest precincts than he does in the smallest precincts, which is counter-intuitive. The larger precincts represent areas of more dense population, or urban areas, in which the Democrat historically does better. So, in general, Kerry should have shown at least a slight improvement, percentage-wise, in the large precincts over the small precincts, even if he lost in both within a strongly Republican county. So far, in the counties we've examined, the reverse has been true in terms of official vote counts.
So, please crunch these numbers and let me know what your results show:
-Take the ten precincts in your county with the most registered voters and add-up all the actual votes in the Presidential election from those precincts.
-Add-up all the Bush votes in these precincts.
-Find the Bush percentage by dividing his total votes in the 10 precincts by the total votes cast in the 10 precincts.
-Add-up all the Kerry votes in these precincts.
-Find the Kerry percentage by dividing his total votes in the 10 precincts by the total votes cast in the 10 precincts.
-Repeat the above process using the 10 smallest precincts in your county.
Please inform me of the type of vote tabulating system that was used in your county and send me the results at email@example.com
Post a Comment