In the November 2008 election, the tabulation of votes for California’s Proposition 8 — the controversial ballot measure which resulted in the repeal of marriage equality by, for the first time, amending the state’s constitution to deny the rights of Californians — was “probably corrupted”.
That’s the finding of a newly released study issued by a coalition of election integrity organizations, as based on their analysis of an Election Verification Exit Poll conducted in Los Angeles on the day of the 2008 general election. “An investigation is warranted,” the study concludes, into the evidence which suggests a likelihood that either “fraud or gross errors” occurred in the tabulation of that specific ballot measure.
The complete 49-page study has now been released on a new website, WasProp8Straight.org.
The poll was conducted on Election Day by Election Defense Alliance, Protect California Ballots, and ElectionIntegrity.org and was designed and researched with the help of at least one well known exit pollster, Ken Warren of St. Louis University’s The Warren Poll, for the express purpose of measuring the accuracy of the reported vote count. It functioned beautifully in general, by confirming the results of most of the issues and races on the ballot. On Proposition 4, for example, which concerned a similar hot-button issue — parental notification for abortion — polling results and official election results matched within 2%, well within the expected margin of error.
However, for Proposition 8 only, the official results varied from the Election Verification Exit Poll by an average of 7.75% in the 19 precincts polled. In some cases, the discrepancy was as high as 17.7%. That is, of course, far outside of the margin of expected error and certainly worthy of further investigation by officials.
The creators of the poll, along with the analysts of the results and the authors of the study, seem to have gone out of their way to preempt the usual reasons for questioning and/or dismissing the methodology and findings of such polls. For example, as noted in the group’s press release [emphasis added]…
The Election Verification Exit Poll (EVEP) itself was designed to address the propensity of voters to lie to exit pollsters, as has been suggested of late when official exit polls failed to match up with official results in recent elections. The EVEP was conducted anonymously. As voters exited the polling place, they were asked to fill out a simplified ballot echoing the votes they had just cast, and to place it into a locked box. Therefore, the ballots did not include any identifying information, and thus, those overseeing the poll — at either the polling place, or later when the EVEP ballots were counted by hand — would have no way to tie votes to voters. That process is in contrast with official media exit polling where pollsters directly ask voters to reveal how they voted.
While the EVEP process can’t guarantee that voters still wouldn’t lie in their anonymous responses, or make errors on their exit poll ballot, the likelihood is believed to be greatly lowered. The discrepancies reported from those EVEP results give cause for serious concern — particularly as other initiatives on the ballot failed to show similar discrepancies. Only Prop 8 was off by this kind of margin.
The authors of the report which asks, “Was California’s Proposition 8 Election Rigged?” also conservatively, and appropriately, note at the opening of their introduction [emphasis in original]:
…
The bottom line is: with electronic equipment counting our votes, we cannot know whether the official results are accurate. Multiple analyses of vote tabulations from the past several elections caution us that they are not.
The main statistical analysis of the data was provided by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D., who, as author of Witness To A Crime: A Citizens’ Audit of An American Election , is no stranger to questionable elections. In Witness to a Crime, Phillips painstakingly examined and investigated the actual ballots from the 2004 Presidential Election in Ohio, finding more than enough anomalies and clear evidence of fraud to have flipped the entire election in Bush’s favor. (It should be noted again here, that had just six votes, in each Ohio precincts, been recorded for Kerry instead of Bush in 2004, we’d have had someone else in the White House for the ensuing four years.)
Hayes is also conservative in his analysis of the data, noting a number of possible reasons for the apparent disparities in the vote count in Los Angeles, far and away the largest voting jurisdiction in the state (as well as in the country). As summarized at WasProp8Straight.org:
- a basic flaw in the exit poll methodology;
- many voters lying on the questionnaire;
- a non-representative sample of voters responding; or
- the official results being erroneous or fraudulent
The study then painstakingly demonstrates why the first three possibilities are very unlikely to be the cause of the disparity, leaving only the final one.
A quick review of the “Overview” section of the study’s executive summary, offers an idea why the report’s findings certainly merit further investigation:
Edison-Mitofsky results for the state: 48% Yes – 52% No.
Election Day official results for the state announced the night of the election: 52.2% Yes – 47.8% No.
The final certified results for the state (29 days later): 52.3% Yes – 47.7% No.
Election Day official results for L.A. County: 50.4% Yes – 49.6% No
Random 1% tally results for L.A. county: 48% Yes – 52% No*
The final certified results for L.A. County: 50.04% Yes – 49.96% No.
Election Day official results for the 10 sites in L.A. County that were polled: 47.2% Yes – 52.79% No
The EVEP results in the 10 polled L.A. sites: 39.46% Yes – 60.54 No.
The final certified results for the 10 polled sites: 47% Yes – 53% No.
* California has a mandated random 1% hand tally, an “audit” of 1% of the precincts in each county. Fifty one precincts in L.A. County were included in the 1% manual tally; none were precincts included in the EVEP project.
On one hand this new information is disturbing if only as a significant indication that hundreds of thousands of Californians may have had their civil rights taken away as a result of a possibly fraudulent and/or erroneously tabulated election. On another level, the potentially even more disturbing issue is that nearly every election in every jurisdiction in this country now relies almost exclusively on non-transparent election technology that makes it virtually impossible for citizens to know with any certainty that their elections have been tabulated accurately.
One such election, next week’s Special Election for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, will similarly rely on easily-hacked, oft-failed and non-transparent optical-scan paper ballot systems and computerized tabulators, rather than human beings who can oversee results as they are tabulated by hand. But more on that election soon, no doubt. [Update 1/15/09: As promised, more on concerns about the voting systems to be used in that important, “toss-up” race now here…]
As The BRAD BLOG noted, as early as Election Night in 2008, there were enough prima facie anomalies in the Prop 8 election that close scrutiny of results was more than warranted (as should be the case in any election frankly, even though our current election system makes such oversight by citizens next to impossible.)
VelvetRevolution.us [of which The BRAD BLOG is a co-founder] did some investigation early on, and found that, at the very least, there were reasons to be concerned about the veracity of the results. VR found, and reported to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office, a variety of irregularities ranging from voter complaints to failure of elections officials to follow post-election procedures mandated by Bowen’s own Top-To-Bottom Review of the state’s electronic voting systems.
(Bowen’s office did not immediately reply to our request for comment on this study. They declined to investigate the matters the matters of concern on the Prop 8 initiative which VR brought to their attention following the election.)
WasProp8Straight.org is calling for, among other actions, an investigation, which they say “is warranted into how the fraud or gross errors happened.”
Since most of California’s counties now use paper ballots, such an investigation could actually be carried out (unlike in many other states where no such ballots actually exist), even though there is no way to verify the authenticity of ballots so long after election night, more than a year ago.
(That’s just one reason why VR, in their DieboldReturnOurMoney.com campaign, is also calling for accountability from Bowen, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and Diebold, Inc., who has admitted that their paper ballot optical-scan voting systems fail to meet federal voting system standards. Their systems, unfortunately, will be used across the state of Massachusetts in next Tuesday’s Special Election there.)
The authors of the new report sum up the general concern of using such systems smartly:
…
Electronic election equipment remains in use despite persistent evidence of computer failures, election rigging and hacking, despite the control of our elections by equipment vendors with established partisan proclivities…Because verification by observation has been precluded by computerization, only indirect or statistical methods of verification are available.
…
The evidence, in this paper and elsewhere, is strong that computerized vote-counting cannot be trusted to support our democracy. Not only is further investigation warranted but a return to a fully observable vote-counting process is imperative. Our democracy will not survive if we cannot know that our election results are accurate and honest.
Brad, I came over here from FireDogLake’s live blog of the Proposition 8 Trial in SF. SCOTUS has ruled, 5-4, against broadcasting the trial. Yes, it was the usual suspects. Unless one of them is replaced, I am afraid the judicial process will be rigged, as well with Prop. 8 left in place.
Now that it appears that the voting public’s answer to the ballot question was STOLEN, I feel really, really, sick. And yea, I am a gay man and despite not living in CA, it affects me, personally. Maybe it doesn’t affect you in the exact same way I do (i.e., you’re hetero? – my gaydar didn’t go up) but I could be wrong…
Whether I’m gay or not (which is easy enough to figure out), means nothing here. Robbing people of RIGHTS mean everything, and infuriates me no end.
That too, however, means little in regard to the above article. Either the intent of the voters was actually measured or it was not. If we can’t even rely on that much, we are even more screwed than we think.
Don’t be a stranger, Edward. Give my best to Marcy and the gang over at FDL!
Oh, and yes, PLEASE spread the word about this article and this study!!!
You mean elections are manipulated???
Federal Prosecutors: Kentucky Officials Manipulated Clay County Elections for Decades
https://bradblog.com/?p=7627
What business does the all important “we don’t interfere in States legal affairs” SCOTUS sticking its nose into making a decision to permanently ban televised coverage of the No on Prop 8 trial from the Calif State Courthouse in San Francisco?
When will the SCOTUS stop and draw the line? will they now invoke their right to forever ban basic civil rights as well? It seems that the conservative members have formed a good old boys clique and they’re getting ready to turn the clock back to the bad old days, from before the sixties and possibly even back to the days of slavery.
it is so beneath the dignity of the SCOTUS to have made such a ruling today. Shame on the 5 conservative members who ruled in favor.
by the way, great job on putting this article together and making it so very crystal clear that the prop 8 election results were “corrupted”. it’s simply outrageous that CA SOS Bowen ignores this. No one wants to get their hands dirty and wage a war examining voting results from the Prop 8 voting results, not with Diebold since we all know what Diebold did to former CA SOS kevin shelley.
Wow. I’ve always mused how a study like this could work – these folks really did their homework. I look forward to reading the whole thing. It’s like a citizen-sponsored audit, and I’d love to see them everywhere.
katie said…
Because they are terrified that their own perversions of justice will be televised next.
bmaz has covered this well over at Marcy’s place on FDL.
And while you’re there check out the clues that China cheerfully hijacked the Bush/Obama unlimited unwarranted surveillance taps to use in the attack on Google.
The timing of this piece is exceedingly ironic.
The U.S. Supreme Court just issued a 5-4 decision to bar cameras from a trial in U.S. District Court in which the constitutionality of Prop 8 is being challenged, prompting Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign to say:
Four of the five justices who voted to bar cameras from the trial, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito, have ties to the Robert Bork-founded, Richard Mellon Scaife-funded, radical right Federalist Society. The fifth was the conservative swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The legal team that is challenging the constitutionality of Prop 8 is headed by David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, the same two attorneys who had been on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore, the case that provided the onus for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which has greatly expanded the use of e-voting throughout the nation.
Olson and Boies are challenging the right of a majority of CA voters to deprive two individuals of the right to marry on the basis of gender.
Many legal experts believe they have a good chance of success at the trial level but that the case will probably, ultimately find its way back to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, as reflected by the decision just handed down, it faces an extremely unreceptive audience.
This piece reflects that the majority of CA voters may have actually voted to preserve the right of same-sex marriage.
“The blow against transparency and accountability,” that Rick Jacob complains about with respect to the cameras, actually may have come much earlier within the black hole confines of e-voting machines.
Unfortunately, since trial is underway, it is probably far too late for Olson and Boies to work this new discovery into their case.
I’ve been screaming about this PROP 8 stinkerofaneffin’ election now for well over a year, ever since Emily Levy w/ Velvet Revolution and Blackboxvoting.org discovered numerical anomalies in the official results – results which were delayed for…what, 5 days?
Am I remembering this right, Bradpeoples?(Karen from Illinois?) Late results, no precinct-by-precints released, ballots not counted for days, questionable chain of custody, with a premature declaration of victory by PROP 8’s backers sittin’ like a cherry on top. All the statistical footprints of election manipulation we have come to know so well here at BB – hell, even expect to see in the 50-50 swing districts (in this case, the whole STATE of “COTTIFAWNIA”) for those high money, big stake races.
You know, I am adored by the gays (collectively).
I’m like their Kathy Griffin, but with more substance and a natural looking profile. And yet I can’t get any of them to pick up this story. I posted it to Facebook TWICE, and only BIG DAN and Nanci Tobi responded. (Thanks, btw, BD!)
Friends, after 10 years of unabated, incapacitating shock and disgust from tracking IMPOSSIBLE U.S. election results that no one is willing to acknowledge – this one cuts me to the quick. So much so, I’m using phrases like ‘cuts me to the quick’.
I am most amazed that I can still be this amazed.
Surprised that after disavowing all the bitter surprises that come from feeling so helpless in the face of the astounding failures of our privatized election systems, I still reel. Even more affecting – the lack of interest from the very people most affected by these electoral shenanigans. That I am still profoundly boofed by these “E.I givens” is most frustrating. (Makes moot all those zen calm classes I took to cope, all those seminars on ‘how not to care about the things beyond our control blah blah’ – wasted dollars.)
So Crazy! Such Idoicy! When you consider the money spent to counter – the lawsuits, the organizing, the PR, the time / energy spent all to overturn an unconstitutional initiative won with ENTIRELY OBVIOUSLY BOGUS election results that show more votes than voters, or more voters than votes.
This particular brand of evil PROP 8 / MICHIGAN / lie about ourselves is even worse than the ones we’ve grown accustomed to. This particular lie about ourselves (that we’ve all collectively agreed to believe for some reason no matter what evidence there is to the contrary) would have us believe we are a majority of bigots and discriminatory jackasses. We are not. We are a MINORITY of bigots and discriminatory jackasses.
…and the sad, left behind minority shouldn’t get to decide *shit* for the rest of us.
I posted the article link and WasProp8Straight.org link over at the Jonathan Turley blog, he has a nice article about the SCOTUS decision up.
a quick look ovr of the report and taft caught my eye..perhaps i am missing something but the official results say 569 peops voted (including 29 abs) and the official results show 557 votes total on prop 8 so that leaves us with 12 undervotes but the exit poll results say 310 peops responded to them and they report a total of 294 votes on prop 8 which leaves us with 16 undervotes in the responant catagory alone…..think about this for minuete,either some respondants lied and did vote but wouldnt say and not even 1 ab ballot or non responder had an undervote for prop 8 or the counters inflated the votes(in which direction we cant know)
brad,
this is what i get when i use the official results link
We’re sorry…
——————————————————————————–
The page you are looking for cannot be found.
The page you requested is either temporarily unavailable, has been renamed, or has been permanently moved to another location. The links below may help you find the page you were looking for elsewhere on our site.
once i get started on this its like a math game and it is hard to stop even if i get very little response,but i apprciate brad letting me use his column to vent(altho i sometimes think no one reads it but my personal nsa watcher,hi btw whoever u might be lol )
on page 18 of the report i looked at santa monica,
official ballots cast are 762,total votes on prop 8 are 742 which gives us an undervote of 20 buttttttt in santa monica 534 peops responded telling us they had a combined vote on prop 8 of 510,,,thats 24 undervotes
i went on to look at prop 4 in santa monica,official report says they have 762 ballots cast and 710 total votes so that is 52 undervotes but of our 534 responants they told us they gave a total vote of 482 which is 52 undervotes(so if the responants told the truth not 1 non responant undervoted on prop 4)
Jeannie Dean:
The issue here is that having to consider the possibility that the electronic voting machines are being rigged by conservative Christianists who own the companies that sell and manage the electronic voting machines is not sexy.
Beyond being unattractive, your average “socially aware” GLBT Californian voter/activist just doesn’t want to have to consider the possibility that there is a HUGE problem with how the votes are not getting counted correctly, or how the votes aren’t getting counted at all or they are being switched for the other side.
This story requires that they do their own research, go to the internet, subscribe to Brad’s blog, read a few books about recently stolen elections, get angry about and do something about it. They don’t want to go there. Challenging the election results in this country is as unamerican as being a registered socialist.
Jeannie: I called Mayor Gavin Newsom’s GLBT liason and he has complete faith in California’s voting systems, even the LA County Prop 8 results. He also doesn’t think the Nov 2004 election was rigged in Bush’s favor but he WILL concede that there was a “little problem” with the Nov 2000 Gore v Bush election. So this is the status quo.
Saying that there are problems with electronic voting machines, tabulators that count the ballots, optical scanners is like saying you want to go back to the “dark ages” and do away with electronic computers with regards to voting.
So the Prop 8 folks find it much easier to look pretty for the cameras as they protest outside the steps of the courthouse in San Francisco than it is to do something and educate everyone that there is a problem with these electronic voting machines and it’s resulting in election results that cannot be verified, let alone trusted.
The City of SF should be FIRST to demand a full investigation into the Prop 8 LA County voting results but they, the mayor, the City Attorney and Board of Sups, won’t consider this issue. They will thank you for the information, and say “That’s interesting” and then delete your email and DO NOTHING!
It’s so incredibly frustrating when the real issue is being avoided: the unsexy problems of votes that aren’t being counted correctly, if at all, by electronic machines that are run by conservative rightwingers who can easily get away with selling key races for the right amount of money.
Katie said
I called Mayor Gavin Newsom’s GLBT liason and he has complete faith in California’s voting systems, even the LA County Prop 8 results
___________________
Perhaps the last person you want to contact regarding the status of e-voting is a public official. They’ve been in denial since HAVA passed.
I forwarded this article to 18 leaders at GLAAD and other organizations. But I too have been shouting about this for ages, and have not yet ever even received a reply from any of those groups. It’s like ANSWER–they’re so set on their own way of protesting that they cannot see that we need to attack the cancer, not the symptoms (some would say this is by design.)
With this report, how can anyone doubt the results are fraudulent? And yet the denialists will. Similarly, today someone posted audio of the doomed firefighters inside the WTC towers talking about the explosive charges going off. Seriously, the heroes of 9-11 talking quite clearly saying the buildings were rigged to blow. Yet will this convince anyone? What a sad, sad state America finds itself in.
Brad did you see the link I posted the other day about a voting machine lobbyist tampering with a primary?
http://www.greenpartywatch.org/...arty-election/
Ross – I did, thanks. It was one of a number of pieces (along with NYC’s choice of ES&S, even after that admission) that I had hoped to cover, but simply wasn’t able to. Ran out of time and fingers 🙁
May still get to it at some point, in some fashion. Appreciate the reminder!
Karen @ 12:
Let me look into it, and see if I can get a fixed link there! Sorry about that!
Meanwhile over at the Great Orange Ostrich Haven some brave soul wrote a diary on this… and is learning the hard way about people with their heads so deep in the sand that oil companies are purchasing leases on their necks.
Zapkitty, that was me. I’m getting slaughtered there for it. I guess 2000 wasn’t enough of a wake up call for them. I also posted it to docudharma.com, progressiveelectorate.com, progressive-independence.org, opednews.com, and greenchange.org.
… 2000… … 2004… … 2006… … 2008…
Every warning sign disregarded in order to conform to the “conventional wisdom” that Americam elections are never ever messed with… much less messed with by those entrusted with running the elections.
As for dkosians… many are actually sensible on the subject but right now your article is getting tag-teamed by a few who are trying to drive it down and enforce the “conventional wisdom.”
You will come to believe that certain humans can penetrate the MohoroviÄić Discontinuity with their eyebrows…
@ Karen from I~! I get it! After reading your posts several times and breaking out the calculator and squinting and struggling and taking a handful of ginkgo paloba and a muscle relaxer – YES! The official results (seem to) have jimmied undervotes. FASCINATING.
So, do you think they skimmed / inflated / padded where they needed it from a precint-by-precinct bound pool of (pre-determined) undervote totals? Are you seeing similar evidence of that intra-districting shell game we saw in New Hampshire where they rob from Paul’s (votes)in Ward 5 to pick a Peter in Ward 6?…
No wonder they’re making it damn near impossible for citizens to get precinct by precinct results. Could blow the whole game, especially with all these pesky, genius statisticians like Karen from Illinois and Richard Hayes Phillips lurking about.
Love your brain, K from I.
Katie @ 14 ~
Such a thoughtful response, felt like a warm milk blanket dose of empath. Thank you. It had a tangible effect on my mad sad.
You’re right, of course. I knew it as I was reading you. Later, as your post bounced around
my head while riding my bike home from work – your incredible Gavin Newsom’s GLBT liason story “having complete faith” story, most notably – drew me to thinking: ‘well, then, ignoring this (sic rigging) means the gay activist (or any of us who dismiss hard evidence of said election theft) would rather believe the worst in each other, than go out of their way to consider how the worst from our elected officials is far more likely, far more destructive, and pretty honkin’ self-evident.
You’d have to WANT to blame the pro-Obama “black voting block” (lie / wasn’t true at all) and the “Mormons” (not a lie, sort of true – but of more importance and never ever mentioned, discussed – only once reported on, to my knowledge:) the connection between the crazy anti-gay, Christian reconstructionalist Howard F. Ahmanson, who got PROP 8 on the ballot, and who has direct ties to the voting machine comapanies, go figure:
“The Man Behind Prop 8” (Alternet – 11/4/2008)
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/d...proposition_8/
Thanks again, Katie, Jim C., all – only thing to do is keep shouting it, digging it, tweeting it, rebleeping it, flirty-birdy it, buzzit and step-it-up. Full winded sail or no.
Fully deployed airbag, or no….
Someone at Dkos actually brought up an interesting point – this study doesn’t account for absentee ballots, which a lot of people use in California (supposedly) even if they don’t need to.
jeanie,
thank you for taking the time to read and do the math,to be fair i nevr can prove who benefits from the numbers moving,i only can document that they do indeed move butttttttttttt hypothetically if undervotes were added to vote totals for the yes crowd on prop 8 precinct by precint statewide,it could change the result on that question(who knows maybe they can take yes votes from prop 4 and add them to prop 8,since this report shows those numbers moved too)
the undervote totals on prop 8 are pretty low for a question so far down the ballot for example the presidential race had 181,277 undervotes,prop 8 had 340,611 undervotes,and prop 12,the vetrans bond question(which passed overwhelmingly)had 1,454,351 undervotes…so if the official numbers are true and correct the same peops that came out in droves in cali to support the first black man as president also decided to deny gay folks their constitutional rights to decide who their spouse is but didnt bother to vote on the vet issue(to put it in context most props have ovr a million undervotes)
one other thing stuck out to me after brad got that sos link working(ty brad btw)the summary of votes page has a dif order of reporting than the individual race pages does for president,on ind pres race reporting write ins harris and baldwin are last but on the summary page harris and paul are reported last,,,,my suspious mind wonders if some label switching accurred
Karen #12, the link to the CA SoS website in the has now been updated in the BRAD BLOG piece. It’ll be updated in the report itself on at WasProp8Straight.org as soon as we can get to it.
ross @ 25,
i am not sure what u mean about abs not being included because they are in the ballot counts of the report,,,for instance on page 31 of the report it details the responders numbers,the refusals numbers take those 2 sums equaling 540 subtract it from ballots cast,u have 29 abs..it looks to me like the percentages come from the total ballot cast results reported by the state but maybe emily can confirm that
Karen @ 26 writes:
Thank you for that succinct explanation. Righto. That’s just plain off. Great eye.
And am I getting you right that a MILLION undervotes from just one district (L.A.) is the standard for ALL Prop election results in ’08?
Holy Bones. I know we’re the largest district in the country n’all, but doesn’t that number seem a little high?
oops. I botched my italicization. Sorry, 99!
[ed note: Calamity averted with one hand behind my back…. Not to worry. Not to worry. —99]
jeanie,the undervotes are statewide as were the presidential undervotes i mentioned…i take the sos ballots cast,the sum of yes and no votes,subtract that from total voters and get undervotes/////////
1a had 1,046,748 undervotes
2 had 807,670 uv
3 had 1,104,272 uv
4 had 794,226 uv
5 had 1,021,188 uv
6 had 1,359,158 uv
7 had 1,085,761 uv
8 had 340,611 uv
9 had 1,331,744 uv
10 had 1,180,357 uv
11 had 1,750,489 uv
12 had 1,454,351 uv
as my kindergarten teacher said,which one of these does not belong ..lol
I imagine you were all suspicious of that result the minute it was announced. I certainly didn’t buy it. But you have to be able to back up claims even if they can’t and as usual thats what you are doing. Im getting really confused about the new world order. I keep hearing they are socialist but they seem to be facist warmongers. Is there more than one faction here?
I need some help with this conspiracy. Anyone have a link.
Hi, Sally. Yes, we were. Most of us have been intimately, fiercely involved in trying to point out and prevent U.S. election fraud now for years. In this case, PROP 8 showed all of the statistical anomalies we have grown accustomed to in what we now recognize as verified, manipulated results.
For more info on the PROP 8 study:
http://www.wasprop8straight.org/
Like Karen points out above, in so many of these close, big money races, the official numbers simply don’t add up – and incredibly no one ever seems to notice. Here’s a great link to a video of Prof. Steven Freeman from 2006 explaining the forensic, scientific evidence behind the OHIO 2004 election fraud that gave Bush his second term in office:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbysi62oFCc
Finally, I’m not sure who you’re listening to re: “the New World Order” being socialist. There are so many websites and experts, some legit, some not – NWO is such a broad, sweeping term and it often conflated with rumor and speculation.
I think you would find that most of us here link these stolen elections to private interests / criminal orgs and corporations who buy politicians / elections to serve whatever ends meet their limitless needs. As to who they are, we don’t really know.
But they are NOT socialists, Sally. In fact, they are the OPPOSITE of socialists. Yes, they are much closer to Fascists (fascism = corporate rule of government) but I personally, think what we have here is an oligarchy (the top 1% of wealth controls the bottom 99%). As a result, Democrats and Republicans are (almost) entirely bought and paid for – and we believe they aren’t thanks to these voting systems / faulty, hack-able pieces of junk we vote on.
http://www.youtube.com/user/jea...53/od28M5RnOMI
(Video log of 2006 election problems / collected and produced by Video the Vote)
Thank you so much for asking, Sally.
Stick around BradBlog, if you really want to learn more. Brad runs a very tight ship, over here – a stickler for facts that will allow you to not only back up your (fine) instincts when you think an election might be a stinker, but to also be able to PROVE it.
The problem we face is in getting people to acknowledge that proof…
Oh! And how could I forget!
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
That’s Bev Harris’ website (from the Emmy nominated “HACKING DEMOCRACY). She’s like the Nancy Drew of stolen elections. A GREAT source. (Karen from Illinois works very closely with them…)
If you haven’t seen HBO’s riveting documentay HACKING DEMOCRACY, you can find it here on Google:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlZTWH7u8w
…chilling.
JD said:
🙂
Hello Jeanie
Thanks so much for the links. Ive been lurking here since 2005. The elite certainly seem to be hate socialism but I’ve seen quite a few sites claiming the new world order are CFR who apparantly want a communist socialist world government. Of course the differnce between communism and socialsim are major but it seems the right use communism in an attempt to smear socialists and the left at every opportunity.
Theres no long term problem with any system as long as you can get rid of it at the next eletion if you don’t like it. The problem is western democracy is under threat.
I definitely think there is a takeover going on which has been planned for a long time and that CFR and the trilaterals are a part of that but their actions are not that of socialists.
You have an oligarchy like you say.
More people than we think might know whats going on but just turn their heads the other way.
There are those who will just follow any system that has control and go along with anything to remain a part of what they think is mmainstream society no matter how sick that society is.
Jeannie Dean @24,
It looks like it matters not if the voters DO vote for gay marriage inupcoming plebiscites, the Christianists at these voting machine companies will just rig the votes! 🙁
If it get to the point where they have total control of this country and they come after us gay men, will enough people speak out so that, in the end, y’all won’t end up like Pastor Niemoller?