At
the 1997 Clinton inauguration, a poet lamented the "disenfrachised
dead." As I noted in a LTE published in the Times, I was puzzled at
first. Didn't people automatically lose their voting rights when they
died? Then it struck me - these were DEMOCRATS; dead voters were one of
their most crucial constituencies (I cited Mary Landrieu, Loretta
Sanchez...).
Now
it's 2008 and it's still all about Democrats and dead voters. The
Democrat in question is John McCain and the dead voters a more
assertive breed, the BOLD dead, or in geek speak, those who "Diebold."
The
Save America Summit ran a bell curve and discovered that the
RINO-in-chief has defied 39 to 1 odds in achieving his 45.3% average in
the unverifiable machine-counted primaries, contrasted with his 15.73%
in the transparent caucuses. And, if you count him as the Democrat he
is, the Dems have ostensibly out-tallied their GOP rivals 29,206,211 to
8,951,689 (even counting Rudy as a Rep), or way better than 3 to 1.
Curious
Charles Lewis
Moderator
SaveAmericaSummit.com
The statistical basis:
Save America Summit's urgent call for a return to observed, hand-counted paper ballots by the November, '08 elections
Informal statistical analysis:
John McCain's percentages in the 11 (transparent, stand up and be counted) caucus "states" as of 3/27/08:
Alaska:
15 Colorado: 19 Iowa: 13
Kansas: 24 Maine: 21 Minnesota: 22
Montana:
22 Nevada: 13 North Dakota: 23
West Virginia: 1 Wyoming: 0
Average: approximately 15.74
McCain's percentages in the 30 (unverifiable, machine-counted) primary states as of 3/27/08:
Alabama:
37 Arizona: 47 Arkansas: 20
California: 42 Connecticut: 52 DC: 68
Delaware:
45 Florida; 36 Georgia: 32
Illinois: 47 Louisiana: 42 Maryland: 55
Massachusetts: 41 Michigan: 30 Mississippi: 79
Missouri: 33 New Hampshire: 37 New Jersey: 55
New
York: 51 Ohio: 60 Oklahoma: 37
Rhode Island: 65 South Carolina: 33 Tennessee: 32
Texas:
51 Utah: 5 Vermont: 72
Virginia: 50 Washington: 50 Wisconsin: 55
Average: 45.3 Standard Deviation: 15.42
Caucus
average is approximately 29.88/15.42 standard deviations away from
primary average = approximately 1.94 standard deviations away from
primary average, meaning the probability that this dichotomy of high
(unverifiable) primary results and low (verifiable) caucus results is
about .0256, or about one chance in forty.
Repeat
- there's only one chance in forty that, all else being equal, McCain
could somehow do so scintillatingly well in one class of delegate
selection (the totally unverifiable machine-counted primaries) and so
poorly in the (transparent) caucus process. Statisically speaking,
that's next to impossible without some kind of "push."
Additionally:
knowing the bias and unreliability of the "mainstream" American media,
it is not incongruous that the "mainstream" American pollsters
essentially predicted the primary (if not the caucus) results pretty
accurately. If "mainstream" newcasts can be rigged (as they clearly
are), so can "mainstream" polls, and they can be rigged to coincide
with rigged voting machines.
We are not claiming that this is
absolutely the case, only raising the issue of appearance of possible
fraud; an election as urgent as this upcoming one must not be run under
even such an appearance.
Of course, there are lots of other
factors at play, including how many candidates were in the race on
whatever given date, relative size of states, voter turnout, relative
conservatism/liberalism of the given state, and, in the case of West
Virginia, some wheeling and dealing.
This is not a totally
scientific assessment. but the stirking consistency of the dichotomy
does raise serious issues. The importance of this election, combined
with these questions and others, cries out for a return to
bi-partisanly observed, hand-counted paper ballots.
Anecdotally (but so far off the norm as to be somewhat compellingly), in South Carolina alone:
Radio
station WORD's talk host Bob McLain focused on the SC primaries for the
2 weeks (30 broadcast hours) prior to the vote. He has testified on air
that not one single caller during that time stated he would vote for
McCain, and only two were considering doing so. (WORD is the GOP
station of record in South Carolina's most heavily populated region -
it "upstate.") On the very day of the primary, McCain logged only 1% in
a WORD on-line poll.
In
Charlotte, NC (on the South Carolina border) a similar online poll at
mega-station WBT predicted only 7% for McCain (in spite of - suspect,
in our view - "mainstream" polls that predicted a McCain win). Mind
you, this was not even people saying they would vote for him, just
people - aware of the media's "polls" that said he was doing way better
than other indicators - who thought he would win.
Yet
John McCain supposedly won 33% of the statewide vote - including almost
that much in the upstate region - in the Diebold machine counted tally.
(It has been noted that in every experiment Diebolds have been easily
hacked, with their supposed vote counts altered at will.)
Additional questions
Do Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by more than 3 to 1?
(Or has the Save America Summit uncovered yet another seemingly inexplicable anomaly in the primaries?)
The
Save America Summit's press release dated yesterday showed that the
supposed performance of John McCain in this year's (unverifiable)
primaries (average 45.3%), compared to his pitiful production in the
(transparent) caucuses (15.73%) represented an anomaly with probability
of a microscopic one in forty, barring some type of extraneous variable
(such as fraud?).
Today we wish to add the following, based on a
thorough computation of the raw tallies in the states where there have
been both Republican and Democratic primaries, as of 3/29/08:
A total of 22,355,965 Democratic votes have been tallied.
Additionally, John McCain has tallied (ostensively) 6,850,246 votes.
Other Republicans have been given credit for a total of 8,951,689 votes.
Considering
the fact that McCain is universally regarded as the Senate's foremost
"Republican in Name Only," or "Democrat in Republican Clothing,"
agreeing with the Democrats on 1st and 2nd Amendment issues, court
nominees (remember the "Gang of 14"), immigration, amnesty, paths to
citizenship, and border agent incarcerations, the marriage amendment,
the personhood for the unborn amendment, global warming, ANWR, and do
much more (and given his periodic flirtations with defection), let us
for a moment consider a McCain vote just one more vote for a Democrat.
We
have been told that the number of Democrats roughly equals that of
Republicans in America. However, the above tabulation (counting McCain
as the Democrat that he essentially is) results in the following
overall count:
Democrats: 29,206,211
Republicans: 8,951,689
... a ratio of well over 3 to 1.
This
is even with counting the votes for Rudy Giuliani (considered by many
to be as close or closer to the Democrats policy-wise than McCain) as a
Republican. Ditto for Mitt Romney, who had a lower gun rating than his
leftwing Democratic opponent the last time he ran for governor of
Massachusetts, who rammed gay marriage down his state's throat pursuant
to the enforcement of a highly unconstitutional State Supreme Court
decision directed not at him, but at the legislature, and who
instituted essentially socialized medicine (complete with mandatory
abortion coverage) in his state. And the same for several other
Republican candidates with records and//or positions on various matters
that dovetail with those of the Democrats...
Plus there's the
"crossover" effect, where we're told many Democrats voted in Republican
primaries to influence the outcomes. All of this only increases the
supposed Democrat majority among primary voters.
Are we to
believe that - even with the Democrat vote totals almost 2 to 1 those
of Republicans (even counting McCain with the latter), that the
comparatively few Republicans that did vote legitimately nominated a
virtual Democrat to represent their side of the aisle?
Virtuals included, do Democrats really outnumber Republicans by well over 3 to 1 in America?
Or do we need a return to observed, hand counted paper ballots?
We
are not alone in calling for this. We understand the non-partisan
League of Women Voters is calling for it. And a similar phenomenon
seems to have occurred on the Democratic side, where Obama has
dominated the caucuses and Mrs. Clinton's tallies have mysteriously
shot up astronomically in the primaries.
Just wanting to put it all on the table where the light of reality can shine on it...