Questioning Election Integrity

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
cmartenson's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 6026
Questioning Election Integrity

The Video Update for the week of 8-24-18 concerned election integrity, or the lack thereof in the US.

Here it is:

In it I present the following graphs:






Taken together these charts, to me, provide convincing evidence of systemic vote irregularities that cannot be explained as somehow normal statistical anomolies. 

They speak to a profound lack of election integrity.

I do believe that the US elections have been compromised. We all know this, and yet the internal response has been to project that failure onto a convenient external boogeyman: Russia.  

The only problem is, that's a nuclear-armed boogeyman who understands there's a lot of corruption in the US voting system all on its own -- as well as anybody with a high-school level appreciation of statistics.

That neither major party says boo about any of this, nor the MSM, tells us everything we need to know.  It's the agreed upon system of divvying up power in the US. 

Both parties are corrupt and complicit.  It helps to explain the 11% approval ratings of Congress and its 98% re-election rates.

This conclusion comports with exit polls suddenly having become unreliable over the past few years -- to the point that the MSM, rather than accepting the Occam's razor explanation, has gone the route of attempting to explain why exit polls are no longer reliable.  

That's the discussion we should be having, of course.  So let's have it.

aggrivated's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2010
Posts: 582
a book on the subject

I haven't read the book, but heard an interview with the author. He is definitely right of center politically, but the book also appears well researched.

LesPhelps's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 819
Wish I could hit the like-button on this podcast repeatedly

I know that would be like-button fraud, but heck...

I’ve run across this info before, but there is so much fraud going on these days, it’s hard to remember it all.

It almost look s like those who control the machines wanted HRC on the ballot, but not in the White House.

Not sure what to make of that?

Time2help's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2902
If the voting process for elections has been corrupted...

...what are the odds the elections can be uncorrupted by voting?


Time2help's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2902
acesovereggs's picture
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 22 2018
Posts: 15
"Appears well researched"

A well researched book about non-existent voter fraud huh?

For a truly well researched book about real election fraud I would highly recommend:

I find it interesting that most of the time the first comment on PP posts is one trying to 'debunk' the subject of the post.  Haven't figured out if that's because of cognitive dissonance, bots, or corporate shills. 



cmartenson's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 6026
Cross post - Election Fraud in 2012

I'm copying this over from the DD thread, where the conversation has inadvertently happened:

Stan Robertson wrote:

The first of Chris' examples is clear evidence of fraudulent manipulation of machine vote counts, but some of the cumulative vote total graphs may be less damning. I live in a county that has a central city surrounded by an approximately equal population of sprawliing suburbs. Breakdowns of the votes in many years shows distinctly different preferences for the voters in the urban and suburban groups. It  can be pretty extreme for some years and some issues. But it is also the case that the suburban vote is generally slower to be reported, so the cumulative vote total lines can be substantially sloped as the numbers of voters with a particular preference tend to pile up later.

When I was watching the California vote totals for the Clinton-Sanders race, it was reported that Sanders had a slight lead that would require Clinton to get about 90% of about 10,000 votes remaining to be counted. Amazingly, she made it. Guess what I might have concluded.

Interesting anecdotes, Stan, but I think there's data out there that could support or refute your hypotheses.  Yes, voting patterns are different in rural vs urban, and demographics need to be taken into account.  

No, the presence of massive vote drift alone does not prove anything but it does raise a big, stinky flag that *should* be investigated.  Neither party and the relevant judiciaries have shown any interest in that inquiry whatsoever and have repeatedly blocked recounts and other attempts at proving or refuting the matter.

But the presence of vote drift has been investigated repeatedly and the data continues ot back up the idea that we have to reject the null hypothesis ("there is no vote fraud happening") and seek another explanation.

Here's an article that did exactly that on the data surrounding the 2012 presidential election:

Let’s look at the results from the 2012 Presidential Election in Ohio, following the same methods used by the other analysts. The data is easily available and links are provided at the end of this post. The methodology is explained a little more in depth in the links in the first paragraph.

After ordering the precincts by size with the largest precincts first, the cumulative vote percentage for President Obama is analyzed.

First, consider the counties that use either the Hart eScan operating system or ES&S iVotronic. This data includes 10 counties and almost 1.5 million votes.

The graph below shows the President’s cumulative vote percentage when precincts are ordered as above, with the x-axis being the total number of votes cast. There are fluctuations initially until there is enough data to establish a trend so the first third of the votes are not included on the graph.

There appears to be no bias based on precinct size. President Obama received about 54% of the vote when only large precincts were counted, and still received about 54% of the vote once the small precincts were included.

Now consider the counties that use Premier Accuvote-TSX or ES&S DS200. This data includes 46 counties and over 3 million votes. The only significant difference between these counties and the earlier counties is the type of voting equipment.

There are demographic differences, but these differences would most likely shift all results one way or the other and shouldn’t affect perceived biases based on precinct size. If large and small precincts vote similarly in the other counties, then the expectation would be that they vote similarly in these counties.

The graph below is the same idea as the graph above, but with the data coming from only these new counties with potentially hackable systems.

Why are these counties different?

The shape of this graph is clearly different. President Obama wins about 48% of the vote when only the million votes from the largest precincts are counted. However, when results from the small precincts are added in his vote total steadily increases to almost 53%.

The undeniable conclusion is that small precincts in some counties are significantly biased towards Democrats while this bias is not present at all in other counties. And the determination of which counties are biased depends on the type of voting equipment used.

Do counties with this bias present choose to use a particular type of voting machine? Or is there some other variable that causes the bias and the voting machine choices? Or is it just a coincidence? Or do the voting machines create the bias? The data over millions of votes and thousands of precincts is more than enough to confidently say that the answer to one of these questions is yes.


There.  The potential biases of differing county/precinct sizes have been controlled for and the only places where the obvious and significant "drift" occurs are in the places with certain types of easily hackable voting machines. 

Otherwise, the data in the two graphs above comes from the same state, in the same race, with similar sample sizes with the only difference being the type of voting machines used. 

This is why I prefer data to anecdotes.  It provides a useful basis for discussion.

For myself I see enough to say that the null hypothesis needs to be rejected and we need (and deserve!) to have a thorough investigation.

Alternatively, I know that humans have been fudging elections since elections first started and that untraceable, easily hackable machines are just too tempting to resist and so my null hypothesis is that electrion fraud is happening and somebody is going to have to disprove that to me before I change my mind.

sand_puppy's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2066
Kind and Loving AI-Driven Search and Destroy Robots

posted on wrong thread

Stan Robertson's picture
Stan Robertson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 665
Better info


Thanks for retrieving my comments and adding new information to be considered. It makes your case much clearer and stronger.

I happen to live in a state that has used paper ballots and scanners for decades. There have been several narrow vote margins recounted over the years. Some of them have reproduced the initial counts to the last digit. For me, that has provided some confidence in the results. To the best of my knowledge none of the vote counting machines are connected to the internet. I strongly recommend the use of this sytem everywhere.

If hacking were to occur it would most likely take place when precinct totals were reported to the election headquarters. Only human integrity can protect against mischief in this part of the process.


chipshot's picture
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 15 2010
Posts: 65
Threats to Election Integrity and Democracy

The obscession w Russian meddling is maddening.  Bill Nelson has claimed Russians can hack Florida's election.  What would be the motive for doing so?  Why would Russia want to anger a country w a military budget 10x bigger,  a country already itching to go to war w them?  How could the rewards of meddling possibly outweight the risks?

Far greater threats to our elections and democracy--worthy of more concern than Russiagate-- are: 

1) Citizens United   2)  Billionaires contributing billions to political campaigns  3)  The influence of foreign owned Fox news   4)  Privately owned electronic voting machines that lack paper trails   5)  DNC bias towards Clinton over Sanders and establishment candidates over progressives   6)  Electoral college  

Our priorities are really screwed up, in no small part due to msm being co-opted by a few oligarchs and corporations.

Time2help's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2902

richcabot's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 5 2011
Posts: 228
Ohio was hacked by Bush in both 2000 and 2004

Hack may not be the right word as the vote tallys were changed by the election system adminstrator using a duplicate server in Tennessee.  2000 was the first time exit polls differed dramatically from the final results.  See for example>

acesovereggs's picture
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 22 2018
Posts: 15
Public hand counted ballots

Norway, Netherlands, Austria are countries that I know of that hand count ballots publicly.
It's the only rational solution.
Our demand for convenience and everything RIGHT NOW supersedes civil liberties and logic.

skipr's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 9 2016
Posts: 170
what else is new?

First of all, I think the electoral college is a form of gerrymandering. Was it created to control the election outcome for the elites? I’ll let a statistician/historian answer that one. There’s an interesting site called that gets into voter fraud quite extensively. Bev Harris, the site’s creator, has a video of her demonstrating to former presidential candidate Howard Dean how she was able to go right into Diebold’s unsecured FTP site and download their voting machine’s software. She sent this software to computer programming experts at various universities. They all found back doors through which to flip votes and who knows what else. She also found that each vote is recorded as a floating-point number instead of an integer. So, if the number of votes in a precinct is 100.1, it’s displayed as 100 while a 100.6 is displayed as 101. How this round off error is weighted probably depends upon how the elites want the vote to go. If they want democrats (Hillary?) to win, the registered dems will, on average, get a higher percentage of the 100.6 votes and vice versa. A side note: Diebold’s ATM software is open source while it’s vote counting (and flipping) software is not. Exit pole vote counting is statistically quite accurate in Germany but not in the US. They also have paper trails while we do not. Hmmm, is there a pattern here? Then there was Bush vs Gore fiasco in FL and the supreme court’s one-time-only decision to stop the vote count. Would 911 have happened if Gore managed to get in. I’m sure it would have even if Jesus/Buddha/Allah/Moses yada yada yada (choose your personal favorite) was voted in. Greg Palast gets into the nitty gritty of how legitimate voters are removed from the voting lists. One example: he found people who were eliminated because they had the same name as a registered felon in the neighborhood. And they “coincidently” resided in poorer neighborhoods. Those same neighborhoods also had waiting lines blocks long while the more affluent ones did not. I was once not allowed to vote locally unless I could produce two forms of ID. A driver’s license was not enough, though it is in highly secure airports. Luckily, I had a monthly water bill in my pocket and was allowed to vote. I read about a similar incident where a strong-willed woman was given the same treatment. She immediately called the sheriff’s office to report a felony. She was then allowed to vote before the sheriff got out of his chair. Whether it was actually counted is another matter. I could go on and on.

Mohammed Mast's picture
Mohammed Mast
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 17 2017
Posts: 198

Yes the voting system is corrupt. Probably has been since the beginning. If you have a political system populated mainly with corrupt individuals I think the results will be corrupt.

You say the conversation we should be having is why exit polls are unreliable, well I would like to propose another conversation.

If were one to read Howard Zinn's "People's History" and observe our current political situation why would any sentient being wish to participate in a political system that when you peer under the skirt is nothing more than a fascist empire.

This country has been at war for 94% of its existence, We will be at war for the very distant foreseeable future. it was founded on land stolen from the native people, it was built with slaves, (Wall Street in the early days was a slave market, my how some things never change). Corporations now control virtually every aspect of our lives from our monetary system down to the information we receive.

Yet here we are still active participants in a system designed to enslave us and transfer our wealth to the elites. Orwell did not go near far enough.


VeganDB12's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Posts: 759
the old fashioned way

True story told today:

Voter went to poll, voting machines which for decades had always  been on the ground floor of a very large building not where they were expected. One poll worker manning the door said they came in to find everything was in a basement area, with limited elevator access, three stories below ground level and a long walk from there.  Predominantly blue state and polls in a strongly blue neighborhood. 

Early voters walked out without voting because the staff wasn't prepared to post signs telling the voters where to go. Elderly and disabled discouraged as well.

Don't know why this happened and neither do the poll workers who normally prepare months in advance for the elections.  Maybe just a clerical oversight but odd.

newsbuoy's picture
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 336
Electronical Voting

Electronic voting is like cryptocurrency without the cryptography. That is to say equivilant to e-mail and as has been repeatedly demonstrated, many of our politician don't even understand how to secure their e-mail.

But I have FAITH [sic]

Kinda like a Christocurrency. (I claim TM and copyright on that and Jesuscoin)

newsbuoy's picture
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 336

866-OUR-VOTE: If you experience voter machine glitches, see voters being turned away from the poll, or run into other issues, report them to the nonpartisan Election Protection network. This is the only way that we can spot patterns, put pressure on election officials to respond and, in the long run, make the case for paper ballots and risk limiting audits.

thc0655's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1742
“We have met the enemy, and he is us”

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

H.L. Mencken, On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe

“We the people” are the main problem.

VeganDB12's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Posts: 759
thank you

There have been a variety of problems in the area with the delivery of the machines (wrong scanners at another location that cost 3 hours of voters their vote). Local residents did speak up. 

jernst's picture
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 1 2011
Posts: 8
Just what do those graphs show?

I'm late to this discussion, and I have seen these graphs before, but I'm still puzzled about what they show. Here is how I think they were supposed to have be assembled according to the legend:

Take an election in some county. Gather the results by precinct. Now order the results by the size of the precinct, with the smallest precinct (say 10 eligible voters) first, and the largest precing (say 1000 eligible voters) last. Now starting with the smallest precinct, draw the total share of the votes of all the precincts (from the smallest) to the current one. So the graph starts on the left showing only the votes in the smallest precinct, and it ends on the right showing the average over all precincts. Is that right?

If so, I would expect that the graphs aren't so smooth. If all the votes in a precinct are added at the same time, I would expect the graph to be a sequence of (jumping) horizontal lines, with the lines being short at the beginning (small precinct) and getting longer to the right (large precinct). If the votes are added one at a time, I would expect the graph to be a contiguous line with jumps in the first derivative where we go from one precinct to the next.

But these graphs look very smooth. Just how many precincts might there be, more than pixels on the x-axis?

What am I misunderstanding?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments