Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam

    Загружено:

    Michael Keefer
    171 просмотров5 страниц
    First published three days after the election at the Centre for Research on Globalization (5 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html, and available also at www.globalresearch.ca/footprints-of-electoral-fraud-the-november-2-exit-poll-scam/115. This essay also appeared online at twenty other websites in 2004 and 2005; it was re-published by the Centre for Research on Globalization on 23 October 2012 under the title “Recalling the 2004 US Presidential Election: The Footprints of Electoral Fraud,” as being “of particular relevance in relation to the forthcoming November 2012 presidential election.” A correction has been made to one sentence of the original text, as indicated in note 3. Republican electoral fraud in the 2004 presidential election was widely anticipated by informed observers—whose warnings about the opportunities for fraud offered by “black box” voting machines supplied and serviced by corporations closely aligned with Republican interests (and used to tally nearly a third of the votes cast on November 2) have been amply borne out by the results.1 One of the clear indicators of massive electoral fraud was the wide divergence, both nationally and in swing states, between exit poll results and the reported vote tallies. The major villains, it would seem, were the suppliers of touch-screen voting machines. There appears to be evidence, however, that the corporations responsible for assembling vote-counting and exit poll information may also have been complicit in the fraud.

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    First published three days after the election at the Centre for Research on Globalization (5 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html, and available also at www.globalresearch.ca/footprints-of-electoral-fraud-the-november-2-exit-poll-scam/115. This essay also appeared online at twenty other websites in 2004 and 2005; it was re-published by the Centre for Research on Globalization on 23 October 2012 under the title “Recalling the 2004 US Presidential Election: The Footprints of Electoral Fraud,” as being “of particular relevance in relation to the forthcoming November 2012 presidential election.” A correction has been made to one sentence of the original text, as indicated in note 3. Republican electoral fraud in the 2004 presidential election was widely anticipated by informed observers—whose warnings about the opportunities for fraud offered by “black box” voting machines supplied and serviced by corporations closely aligned with Republican interests (and used to tally nearly a third of the votes cast on November 2) have been amply borne out by the results.1 One of the clear indicators of massive electoral fraud was the wide divergence, both nationally and in swing states, between exit poll results and the reported vote tallies. The major villains, it would seem, were the suppliers of touch-screen voting machines. There appears to be evidence, however, that the corporations responsible for assembling vote-counting and exit poll information may also have been complicit in the fraud.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    171 просмотров5 страниц

    Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam

    Загружено:

    Michael Keefer
    First published three days after the election at the Centre for Research on Globalization (5 November 2004), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html, and available also at www.globalresearch.ca/footprints-of-electoral-fraud-the-november-2-exit-poll-scam/115. This essay also appeared online at twenty other websites in 2004 and 2005; it was re-published by the Centre for Research on Globalization on 23 October 2012 under the title “Recalling the 2004 US Presidential Election: The Footprints of Electoral Fraud,” as being “of particular relevance in relation to the forthcoming November 2012 presidential election.” A correction has been made to one sentence of the original text, as indicated in note 3. Republican electoral fraud in the 2004 presidential election was widely anticipated by informed observers—whose warnings about the opportunities for fraud offered by “black box” voting machines supplied and serviced by corporations closely aligned with Republican interests (and used to tally nearly a third of the votes cast on November 2) have been amply borne out by the results.1 One of the clear indicators of massive electoral fraud was the wide divergence, both nationally and in swing states, between exit poll results and the reported vote tallies. The major villains, it would seem, were the suppliers of touch-screen voting machines. There appears to be evidence, however, that the corporations responsible for assembling vote-counting and exit poll information may also have been complicit in the fraud.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 5

    1

    [Firstpublishedthreedaysaftertheelectionatthe CentreforResearchonGlobalization (5November2004),


    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html, and available also at www.globalresearch.ca/footprints
    ofelectoralfraudthenovember2exitpollscam/115.Thisessayalsoappearedonlineattwentyotherwebsites
    in2004and2005;itwasrepublishedbytheCentreforResearchonGlobalizationon23October2012underthe
    titleRecallingthe2004USPresidentialElection:TheFootprintsofElectoralFraud,asbeingofparticular
    relevanceinrelationtotheforthcomingNovember2012presidentialelection.Acorrectionhasbeenmadeto
    onesentenceoftheoriginaltext,asindicatedinnote3.]

    [Index:USpolitics,electoralfraud]
    [Date:November2004]

    FootprintsofElectoralFraud:
    TheNovember2ExitPollScam

    MichaelKeefer

    Republican electoral fraud in the 2004 presidential election was widely


    anticipated byinformedobserverswhosewarningsabouttheopportunities forfraud
    offeredbyblackboxvotingmachinessuppliedandservicedbycorporationsclosely
    alignedwithRepublicaninterests(andusedtotallynearlyathirdofthevotescaston
    November2)havebeenamplyborneoutbytheresults.1
    1

    Amongthewarnings,seeBevHarris,BlackBoxVoting:BallotTamperinginthe21stCentury(Talion
    Publishing/BlackBoxVoting;freeinternetversionavailableatwww.BlackBoxVoting.org);InfernalPress,
    HowGeorgeW.BushWonthe2004PresidentialElection(InfernalPress,25June2003);SteveMoore,
    EDemocracy:StealingtheElectionin2004(GlobalOutlook,No.8,Summer2004);andGregPalast,
    AnElectionSpoiledRotten(www.TomPaine.com,1November2004).Earlyassessmentsoftheelection
    includeGregPalast,KerryWonHerearetheFacts(www.TomPaine.com,4November2004);and

    2
    Oneoftheclearindicatorsofmassiveelectoralfraudwasthewidedivergence,
    bothnationallyandinswingstates,betweenexitpollresultsandthereportedvotetallies.
    Themajorvillains,itwouldseem,werethesuppliersoftouchscreenvotingmachines.
    Thereappearstobeevidence,however,thatthecorporationsresponsibleforassembling
    votecountingandexitpollinformationmayalsohavebeencomplicitinthefraud.
    Untilrecently, themajorAmericancorporate infomedia networks (ABC, CBS,
    NBC,CNN,Fox,andAP)reliedonaconsortiumknownastheVoterNewsServicefor
    votecounting and exit poll information. But following the scandals and consequent
    embarrassmentsofthe2000and2002elections,thisconsortiumwasdisbanded.Itwas
    replacedin2004byapartnershipofEdisonMediaResearchandMitofskyInternational
    knownastheNationalElectionPool.
    TheNationalElectionPoolsowndataastransmittedbyCNNontheeveningof
    November2andtheearlymorningofNovember3suggestverystronglythattheresults
    oftheexitpollswerethemselvesfiddledlateonNovember2inordertomaketheir
    numbersconformwiththetabulatedvotetallies.
    Itisimportanttorememberhowlargethediscrepancywasbetweentheearlyvote
    talliesandtheearlyexitpollfigures.Bythetimepollswereclosingintheeasternstates,
    thevotecountfigurespublishedby CNN showedBushleadingKerrybyamassive11
    percentmargin.2At8:50p.m.EST,Bushwascreditedwith6,590,476votes,andKerry
    with 5,239,414. This margin gradually shrank. By 9:00 p.m., Bush purportedly had
    8,284,599votes,andKerry6,703,874;by9:06p.m.,Bushhad9,257,135,andKerryhad
    7,652,510,givingtheincumbenta9percentlead,with54percentofthevotetoKerrys
    45percent.
    Atthesametime,embarrassinglyenough,thenationalexitpollfiguresreported
    byCNNshowedKerryasholdinganarrowbutpotentiallydecisiveleadoverBush.At
    9:06p.m.EST,theexitpollsindicatedthatwomensvotes(54percentofthetotal)were
    going54percenttoKerry,45percenttoBush,and1percenttoNader;mensvotes(46
    percentofthetotal)werebreaking51percenttoBush,47percenttoKerry,and1percent
    WayneMadsen,GrandTheftElection(www.globalresearch.ca,5November2004).
    2
    Theinformationsuppliedhereisfromhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results.

    3
    toNader.Kerry,inotherwords,wasleadingBushbynearly3percent.
    Theearlyexitpollsappeartohavecausedsomeconcerntothegoodpeopleatthe
    NationalElectionPool:agapof12or14percentbetweentalliedresultsandexitpolls
    canhardlyinspireconfidenceinthelegitimacyofanelection.
    One can surmise that instructions of two sorts were issued. The election
    massagers workingforDiebold, ES&S (Election Systems &Software) andtheother
    suppliers of blackbox voting machines may have been told to go easy on their
    manipulationsofbackdoorDemocratDeletesoftware:merevictorywaswhattheBush
    campaign wanted, not an implausible landslide. And the number crunchers at the
    NationalElectionPoolmayhavebeenaskedtofixupthoseawkwardexitpolls.
    Fixthemtheydid.Whenthenationalexitpollswerelastupdated,at1:36a.m.
    ESTonNovember3,mensvotes(still46percentofthetotal)hadgone54percentto
    Bush,45percenttoKerry,and1percenttoNader;womensvotes(54percentofthe
    total)hadgone47percenttoBush,52percenttoKerry,and1percenttoNader.
    Buthowdoweknowthefixwasin?Becausetheexitpolldataalsoincludedthe
    totalnumberofrespondents.At9:00p.m.EST,thisnumberwas13,047;by1:36a.m.
    ESTonNovember3ithadrisenby3.6percent,toafinaltotalof13,531respondents
    butwithacorrespondingswingof4.5percentfromKerrytoBushinvotersreportsof
    theirchoices.3Giventheincreaseinrespondents,aswingofthissizeisamathematical
    impossibility.
    Thesamepatternisevidentintheexitpollsoftwokeyswingstates,Ohioand
    Florida.
    At 7:32 p.m.EST, CNN was reporting the following exit poll data forOhio.
    Womenvoters(53percentofthetotal)favouredKerryoverBushby53percentto47
    percent;malevoters(47percentofthetotal)preferredKerryoverBushby51percentto
    49percent.KerrywasthusleadingBushbyalittlemorethan4percent.Butby1:41a.m.
    ESTonNovember3,whentheexitpollwaslastupdated,adramaticshifthadoccurred:
    3

    Myoriginaltextdidnotprovidethefinalnumberofrespondentstothenationalexitpoll,andstated,
    mistakenly,thatthenumberofrespondentshadrisenbylessthan3percent,andwithacorresponding
    swingof5percentfromKerrytoBush....Theseerrors,correctedinthepresenttext,didnotaffectthe
    validityoftheargument.

    4
    womenvotershadsplit5050intheirpreferencesforKerryandBush,whilemenhad
    swungtosupportingBushoverKerryby52percentto47percent.Thefinalexitpolls
    showedBushleadinginOhioby2.5percent.
    At7:32p.m.,therewere1,963respondents;at1:41a.m.onNovember3,there
    wasafinaltotalof2,020respondents.Thesefiftysevenadditionalrespondentsmustall
    havevotedverypowerfullyforBushforwhilerepresentingonlya2.8percentincrease
    inthenumberofrespondents,theymanagedtoproduceaswingfromKerrytoBushof
    fully6.5percent.4
    InFlorida,theexitpollsappeartohavebeentamperedwithinasimilarmanner.
    At8:40p.m.EST,CNNwasreportingexitpollsthatshowedKerryandBushinanear
    dead heat. Womenvoters (54percent ofthetotal) preferredKerryover Bushby52
    percentto48percent,whilemen(46percentofthetotal)preferredBushoverKerryby
    52percentto47percent,with1percentoftheirvotesgoingtoNader.Butthefinal
    update of the exit poll, made at 1:01 a.m. EST on November 3, showed a different
    pattern:womenvotersnownarrowlypreferredBushoverKerry,by50percentto49
    percent,whilethemenpreferredBushby53percentto46percent,with1percentofthe
    votestillgoingtoNader.ThesefiguresgaveBusha4percentleadoverKerry.
    The number of exit poll respondents in Florida had risen only from2,846 to
    2,862. But once again, a powerful numerical magic was at work. A mere sixteen
    respondents0.55percentofthetotalnumberproducedafourpercentswingtoBush.
    Whatwearewitnessing,theevidencewouldsuggest,isalatenightcontribution
    bytheNationalElectionsPooltotherewritingofhistory.
    Itispossiblethatatsomefuturemomentquestionsaboutelectoralfraudinthe
    2004 presidential election might become insistent enough to be embarrassing. The
    pundits,atthatpoint,willbeabletopointtotheNEPsfinalexitpollfiguresinthe
    decisiveswingstatesofFloridaandOhioandtomarvelathowcloselytheyreflectthe
    NEPsvotetallies.
    4

    TheexitpolldataforOhioandFlorida,aswellasthenationalexitpolldata,brokedownresponsesby
    Gender,byRaceandGender(withfiguresforwhitemen,whitewomen,nonwhitemen,andnonwhite
    women),andbyRace(withfiguresforwhites,AfricanAmericans,Latinos,Asians,andOthers).These
    figuresshowcorrespondingshiftsfromKerrytoBush.

    5
    TheOhioFiftySeven(isthereaHeinzKerryjokeembeddedinthenumber?)and
    theFloridaSixteenwillhavedonetheirbitinensuringthedemocraticlegitimacyofthe
    onepartyimperialstate.

    Вам также может понравиться