Vote-PAD: The Simple Voting Device that May Save American Democracy!

Posted in General on February 13th, 2006
Yolo County, CA Spurns ES&S, Signs up to Use Vote-PAD for Voters with Disabilities, Other Jurisdictions may be Right Behind!
Made of paper, plastic and NO SOFTWARE AT ALL, the device works with a paper ballot and costs about one-tenth of flawed, hackable electronic voting machines…Could this be the HAVA voting solution America has been waiting for?

State and County Elections officials from coast to coast to coast are now in a mad, confused, frustrated scramble trying to figure out how the hell to comply with and make sense of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) legislation.

HAVA has proven to be an unmitigated disaster, gamed as it was from the start by Congressmen like Ohio’s Bob Ney working in cahoots with voting machine companies. The effort has shamefully employed disabilities groups like the National Federation for the Blind (NFB) and American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), who received more than a million dollars from companies such as Diebold, Inc., to help trump up the sympathy factor in order to force jurisdictions to purchase unreliable electronic voting machines (read: junk), said to be needed by disabled voters who would be unable to vote in secret without assistance from others.

As of the 1/1/06 HAVA deadline, Boards of Elections are now officially plunged into complete and utter disarray as they attempt to comply with the reckless and cynical legislation’s mandated requirement (dreamt up by the American Voting Machines Vendors who stand to make billions) for at least one disabled-accessible voting device in every precinct around the country — even in small precincts without a single disabled voter!

Touch-screen (DRE) voting machines created by mega-corporations like Diebold, Inc. and ES&S have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be unsecure, hackable, unreliable and finally, not fully accessible by many segments of the disabled community. Meanwhile, the one electronic-based device in which voters with disabilities have expressed the most interest, the AutoMARK system, has reportedly been kept largely out of the marketplace through a number of means. ES&S, the voting machine company who managed to secure exclusive rights to distribute the AutoMARK system, has reportedly been overpricing it in favor of their own DRE systems. As well, there have been a number of reports of ES&S sales reps being actively dissuaded from properly demonstrating that system in pitches to potential customers around the country.

As well, states such as Florida and many others have been incredibly slow at certifying the system — which prints a readable, verifiable, recountable paper ballot with every vote cast — even while they’ve already giving their blessings to DRE systems made by both Diebold and ES&S, despite the demonstrated inaccuracy, hackability and secret-software that employs "interpreted" source code, explicitly banned by HAVA guidelines.

With the rapid approach of the 2006 primary elections, the question is now: What the hell are these Boards of Election around the country going to do, to both meet HAVA requirements for voters with disabilities and provide all voters with some semblance of an accurate, reliable, recountable, democratic means of casting their vote in secret and with some certainty that it may be counted, and counted correctly?

Comes now, with not a moment to spare, an ingeniously simple, non-electronic device to allow voters with disabilities of all sorts to be able to cast their own vote, in secret, and with the knowledge that their paper ballot will accurately reflect their intent.

Say hello to the Vote-PAD, the little paper and plastic voting assistive device, that just may save American democracy…

At approximately one-tenth of the cost of competing (and crappy) electronic devices, the Vote-PAD (which stands for "Voting-on-Paper Assistive Device") was designed by Ellen Theisen, the former Executive Director of the non-partisan election watchdog group, VotersUnite.org. She created it along with the cooperation of people with dexterity and visual impairments.

It may well be the solution that exasperated Elections officials across the country have been praying for.

Vote-PAD is little more than a plastic sleeve which is fitted to an existing paper ballot, allowing voters with disabilities a number of ways to mark and verify their ballots without additional assistance. It is used along with an audio prompt and an electronic "verification wand" to further assist blind voters.

The paper ballots that the voter marks with the assistance of Vote-PAD can then be either optically-scanned or hand-counted. The device, Theisen says, requires no Federal HAVA certification since it doesn’t contain any software (secret or otherwise) or electronic parts that would require such approval from Federal authorities, according to HAVA guidelines.

And apparently both disabled voters and Election Officials from around the country who have been given demonstrations of the device seem to love it!

Last week it was announced that Yolo County, California has agreed to purchase Vote-PAD to assist persons with disabilities in marking a paper ballot. Yolo is the very first such jurisdication in the country to come aboard, but, in interviews with The BRAD BLOG, Theisen suggests that more counties and even whole states may be on the verge of signing on to Vote-PAD, as well.

Freddie Oakley, the Clerk-Recorder of Yolo County, is quoted in Vote-PAD’s press release about the first contract, as singing the praises of the new system:

"After an enormous amount of research, we in Yolo County feel lucky to have found this assistive device. My skepticism about computer-controlled voting is well-known, and so is my concern for poll workers. The Vote-PAD is so well thought out, it keeps control of the elections with the people’s servants rather than surrendering it to big corporations. And at the same time it provides the most useful features for persons with a wide variety of disabilities of any assistive device we’ve seen."

While the cost of the system varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction based on a number of elements, Theisen pointed out to us that Oakley had informed her that the cost for their county to use Vote-PAD for five years would roughly be "the same amount of money Yolo County had been planning to allocate for storage of electronic machines alone."

There are "no maintenance fees, no licensing fees," Theisen explained, "All you have to do after you buy the original package is replace the consumables," like the plastic sleeves when they eventually run out.

The Vote-PAD website quotes a number of citizens with disabilities who also sing the praises of the device. "The Vote-PAD keeps my marks inside the circle, and the pages are easier to flip," says one tester with quadriplegia.

"For me, this 2005 election on the difficult-to-use DRE machines was just another real reminder that we definitely need your Vote-PAD," said another voter who is blind.

While evidence continues to mount about the many failures of computerized voting systems, the exhorbitant costs associated with them, and the lack of accessibility that many disabled voters have complained about while using DRE machines, Vote-PAD just may save democracy after all.

Theisen is struggling to arrange for the manufacturing of the device quickly and in large enough numbers to meet the sudden demand for the product. But, as she told us recently, she’s determined to make it all happen since witnessing first hand, in her role with VotersUnite, just how needed and necessary a device such as Vote-PAD now is for this country.

The BRAD BLOG fervently endorses the much-needed device, and recommends strongly that readers who give a damn about democracy make sure their local and state election officials are aware of the Vote-PAD!

The mega-corporations such as ES&S and Diebold are spending millions to promote their flawed devices and to ensure potential customers won’t hear about Vote-PAD. So, once again, it will be a matter of the citizenry making sure that word about Vote-PAD gets to the folks that need to know about it!

The Vote-PAD was recently featured in an article by WIRED NEWS which includes a few instructive graphics showing how the device basically works.

Much more information, explanation, testimonials, graphic explanations and downloadable brochures are available via the Vote-PAD website at www.Vote-PAD.us.

Vote-PAD can be contacted via email by clicking here.

Let’s make some noise about it!

from The Brad Blog 

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

Mark Crispin Miller On The Reality of Election Fraud, How to Confront It and Save American Democracy

Posted in General on February 13th, 2006
Speech at the First Unitarian Church on Nov. 13, 2005 in Portland, Oregon
Many thanks to: Monica Taylor (Transcription) & Eric Griswold (Photograpy)
Listen to a short clip re 2004 election fraud.



Introduction: … Mark Crispin Miller is a professor of Media Studies at New York University. He has written articles for The Nation and the New Yorker and many books. He’s been on many different national radio and television shows, and we are extremely fortunate to have him with us here today. He is a real champion for election integrity and for getting the word out about what we need to do to save our Democracy.[Loud Applause]

Mark Crispin Miller: Well, thank you very much and thanks to both groups for doing all this great work and for making enough to bring me here for a book tour.

I want to start out by telling you a story, which some of you may have heard. And in fact much of what I have to say will probably not come as news to many of you, because I know you all are very well informed about these issues. Two years ago I got myself invited to a fund raiser for John Kerry, when he was just one of many aspirants to the Democratic party nomination for president. I got myself invited by the New York treasurer of his campaign, who shared my concern about the integrity of the electoral system, precisely, or I should say primarily, because of the use of electronic touch screen machines. This had been a profound concern of mine and of certain other people, since the passage of the HAVA Act. And this limited network of people were trying to do everything they could to get this on the national agenda, so I got a little face time with the senator.

It was at George Plimpton’s house. He came in. I was introduced to him. I looked up at him, he was very tall. And he looked down at me. I had about 5 minutes to try to convey the seriousness, the complexity of this problem to him, and with a sense of urgency. And so, you know, I think the cards were stacked against me because I’m sure I sounded psychotic, you know. (audience laughter) And as far as he was concerned, I probably looked psychotic,… short but psychotic…(audience chuckle) because he had never given this a thought. I think he didn’t know about it at all, but he did wear a look of grave concern, you know (smoothing his hair back in a John Kerry gesture, audience chuckle). He nodded thoughtfully for a moment. (Like Kerry, Miller crosses his arms and rests his left first finger on his chin with his face looking downward in a thoughtful pose.)

He thanked me for my effort to enlighten him. He was going to take this under advisement, you know. I could almost see my words go, you know, in one ear and out the other. I also met with Terissa Heinz Kerry and talked to her about it. And she at least seemed to get it. She was very exercised about it. But nothing came of this. And we all know what happened, well, I should say we all think we know what happened.

Concerning that, what we think happened, as you know I wrote a book about the Election 2004. And I wrote this book to give people a panoramic sense of what went down last year and to try to give people a view of the kind of mentality that drives the anti-democratic crusade. I wrote this book for one reason only, I’m not going to challenge the outcome of the last election, there is no constitutional way to do that. I wrote the book to jump start a national movement of radical electoral reform. And so, knowing as I did that the mainstream media is not going to take this seriously, I decided that I’ve got to get to as many prominent people as possible….So two weeks ago, I got myself invited to a fund raiser for John Kerry. (audience laughter.)

His political action committee was meeting in New York. They were going to have a dinner, and I was allowed to come in before the dinner. And in he came, tall as ever, and I had a very different perception of him this time. (audience chuckle.) Ok, I had the book held up, you know, for all to see, and he looked very interested. And I said, "You were robbed, senator!" And he said "I know" (and held his hands up to his head like he had a headache, as Kerry would do) just like that. "I know! (Miller makes the same hand gesture.) And he started to say, "I can’t find the evidence." I can’t persuade my colleagues to take this seriously. I certainly knew what he was talking about. But I had to say, it was more than refreshing to hear him say this. I was delighted. He said he just had a big argument the week before with [Senator] Christopher Dodd from Connecticut trying to tell Dodd that these voting machines are really not reliable. And Dodd just got mad. He didn’t want to hear about it. Dodd said: "We looked into this. There’s no story there!" He (Kerry) said, "Well is there evidence in your book?" I said, "Well, yeah, you know, there is really quite a lot of evidence." I told him what the Government Accountability Office Report said, the GAO Report. People in here have heard of it. Most people in this country have not, because this ground breaking report on the flaws and dangers of touch screen voting, by a very, very establishment government body, has gone almost completely unreported in this country. In fact, Kerry had not heard about it. [Kerry said]: "Oh really, the GAO report?"

So instead of saying, "What, is your staff in a coma?" (loud audience laughter and applause)….so because you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, I didn’t say that. (Audience laughter) I said, "Yeah, the GAO Report, you can just go on-line and get a copy." He was quite pleased. You could see…see that it was obvious that he was going to use this, these arguments. So I said, "Now senator, I believe that, in the spirit of these ground breaking investigations into Iran Contra and the BCCI in the Senate," which I happen to think is his best, his greatest work, "in the spirit of those investigations, you should really look into what happened last year. And you should make a larger inquiry into the state of American electoral apparatus. Because it’s in a shambles." And I cannot remember how I put this, I can only tell you what I was trying to say to him.

But I was being tactful, so I don’t know what I said. I was trying to say to him: "If you think you are going to get like 10 votes from the people you sold out last time, you know, if you don’t embrace this issue with both arms, you don’t have a prayer." So I didn’t say that either (audience laughter.) So I said, "There are a lot of people felt disappointed…" [Kerry] nodded. Now he wasn’t just wearing a mask of concern. He was really listening. He said, "Well I don’t know if I can be the one to do that because there is the sour grape factor," he said. OK. Well I understand that. I’m not a politician. It is very easy for me to say, "Do this, do that." But I said, you know, “Read the book. The book is very persuasive.” He said “I will. I’m really excited. I’ll read it this weekend. Thanks a lot.” He punched me on the arm. He gave me the thumbs up. (audience chuckle) Threw me a football, you know. (audience laughter) I caught the football. (laughter) We rough housed a little bit. (loud audience laughter.) The memory is very precious to me. (loud laughter)

So anyway, I was really happy. I thought this was a great thing. It didn’t occur to me that this was news exactly. But I did tell my friend, I emailed people that "Kerry thinks the election was stolen." And my book tour started Tuesday a couple weeks ago in New York. And I found that telling that story really went over. I mean, it really made people feel optimistic. Then I was on Democracy Now last Friday. Did any of you hear that? (audience applause) I was debating with Mark Hertzgaard who’s got a piece in the latest Mother Jones, seeking to throw cold water on the "wild theory" that the Republicans stole the election last year. And one of the things that struck me in his arguments …. he’s a friend of mine, OK, I have known him a long time. I don’t think this is his best work. (audience laughter). One of the things that struck me was that he was unduly swayed by the "say so" of Democrats.

So we’re talking about Warren County [Ohio]. You know how they declared a terrorist alert throughout the press before the vote count. His claim was, “Well I talked to a Democrat who was there, and he said: "Gee, I wish I could tell you that it was suspicious, but, you know, frankly there is nothing to it." It turned out the next day according to the FBI said that there was no terrorist alert, and then the Cincinnati Inquirer reported that this plan had been in the works for nine days. So I don’t care what a Democrat told him. Who is this democrat? Who cares? Why does that trump common sense? (Audience applause). I didn’t say any of this. But I says to myself, I says, ‘Well, if he wants to strut out Democratic authorities, I’ve got a great response.’ So I said, “Well as a matter of fact, Kerry thinks the race was stolen.” And I told the story. And Mark was very impressed. “Wow this is really big news. You really buried the lead. You should call a press conference. This is important.”

Well in fact that day, Democracy Now sent out a press release. "Breaking: Kerry Believes the Race was Stolen." So there was a lot of stuff on the internet. It was all over the place. And sites like Democratic Underground, long threads about it. Raw Story, in a website in D.C., called Kerry’s office to get a response. And a staffer of Kerry’s office made a statement that categorically denied that he had ever had this conversation with me. (Audience says "Whoa") "The only true thing in Mr. Miller’s account is that he gave the senator the book"…(audience gasps)..like a process server. He kind of pressed it on his arm and ran away…"You’re served!"

This was….the most galling thing to me personally was the fact that this implied that I had made this up to sell the book. "We know that Mr. Miller is trying to sell the book," they said. This really pissed me off. So I gave Raw Story my response. And the next day Robert Perry, a great reporter who has the website Consortium News, ran a piece based on what he was told by a guy named John Weiner, who was an old Kerry associate, who said to Perry: "John thinks the race was stolen, he said that to me too."

So, there is trouble in making things up. I don’t make things up. In this world, these days, you don’t have to make things up. (Audience laughter.) Do you know what I mean? You can’t. It is impossible to keep track of reality. So I tell this story to make a few larger points. It is not about Kerry per se. And it is not about my personal pique, about being treated so disrespectfully. This is not a personal issue. It is not even a partisan issue. It is a civic issue. It is a civic issue of profound importance. And I tell the story about Kerry partly to make clear that this is not a left versus right, or Democrat versus Republican issue. In fact, on this issue, it’s really the people at risk because of the collusion of the two parties. I think the collusion is passive. Some people have said that they know, they have made a deal, but I think that is unlikely.

If someone has the evidence, I’ll look at the evidence. But I don’t think that it is necessary for there to be a deal, because this has happened before. When you have a resolved, well organized, highly disciplined fascistic movement of some kind, (audience applause) right. (Audience applause) Let’s hear it for Fascism. (Sarcastically…Loud audience applause.) Calm yourselves. (Laughter) And they have a tremendous amount of social power and media influence, and they manage to get the press on their side for various reasons, those who would resist this, but who aren’t all that zealous about it, are simply going to deny that there’s a problem. Now why do the Democrats refuse to face this issue? Does it make any sense? Their existence as a party is threatened. They will cease to be, if this Republican party, the Bushevic party, (audience laughter) the theocratic Republican party, has it’s way, there will be no more Democrats. Now, one of the reasons that Democrats refuse to look at this, or read the evidence, or listen to it, is just corruption. Because a lot of democrats are in fact republicans. And in places like Ohio, rural Ohio….maybe you’ve had Bob Fitrakis come here and speak? …(audience confirms)…as he explains to me and he says in his writing, the democrats in rural Ohio are just as much a part of the status quo as the republicans. They are very close to the Republicans and they all serve at the pleasure of Ken Blackwell. So they all toe the line.

There was only one board of elections member, a democrat in the state, who blew the whistle. And that was Sheryl Eaton, who …(loud audience applause)… We love Sheryl, we know she exposed the deliberate subversion of the recount that was supposed to take place. And it has never taken place. And there are still 100,000 plus votes in that state that haven’t been counted to this day. She is the exception. Since a lot of Democrats just go along to get along and they figure, hey, you know, the two parties have divided the spoils. We can work it out. This is our turf. We’ve got the Sharks and the Jets, you know? We’ve got to divide it up. So why upset the apple cart? There is a lot of that.

But aside from that there is just plain old denial. Kerry was describing denial to me. Dodd wouldn’t have gotten angry if this thought did not frighten him. Because the implications of what happened last year are quite frightening….quite frightening. It doesn’t make any difference how brilliant a campaign you run. It doesn’t make any difference how smart your TV ads are. It doesn’t make any difference what a stellar profile your candidate has. You could run Jesus Christ for President, ok? You’re not going to win. You’re not going to win because this is not a functioning Democracy. America is no longer a Democracy. The last three elections have been stolen.

This refusal to confront the implications of what is going down has to do with deeply rooted ideological assumptions that we all have. Like "it can’t happen here." That’s the very important one. Like this is "The city on the hill." This nation was claimed by God. And what has happened to other countries can’t happen here, can’t happen here. So however copious and solid the evidence you have that it has happened here, you can’t get anywhere. It’s fascinating. You’ve got a moment in which pretty much everyone now finally agrees that the Bush regime lied, or deluded itself and the rest of us, to get us into a major war that we are losing. That’s really not a good thing. And people will face that. And the press will say yes that seems to be true. You’ve got a moment at which the people will say: yes, they did deliberately conspire to out a CIA agent who was responsible for keeping us safe from weapons of mass destruction, and they did it for petty political reasons. The people struggling to deny this are having an ever harder time. We accept this. We accept that they had to know that the attack was coming on 9/11 and they, at best, did nothing about it. (Audience applause.) We also accept that in the face of one of the worst natural disasters in our modern history, they did nothing and they continue to do nothing. All of this we accept. Right? All of this we accept. All this the press will admit "Yeah that’s true." OK. Progressives, everybody snarling foaming at the mouth…Bush is wicked, terrible. But somehow there is this magic circle drawn around "The Election." "Oh no, they wouldn’t do that! They wouldn’t to that!" Well, that’s what they would do first of all. In fact, that’s what they did do! That’s why they’re there. (Applause)

Understand this…I want to try to give you a sense of what we’re really up against, because I think it’s only if we face that, will we be able to deal with it. Ok, here it is folks. It’s about the elections. The electoral system is a mess. I think there are certain policies we should all pursue to improve the system. And we can talk about those policies. I want to give you a foretaste, because often people want to hear that. These are "take home points." We should go back to paper ballots. (Applause.) We should ban the participation of all private vendors in our electoral system. (Loud long applause.) So that means in Oregon, you know, you’ve got the paper ballots. You’ve got to get the software out of there, because as you know, using proprietary software to count the votes is like having a secret vote count. And so this is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. Anyone who defends this is a foe of American Democracy. It’s a simple as that. We also need a uniform federal standard for our election from coast to coast, from county to county, from precinct to precinct. We have to have….I’m going to say the dirty "B" word…we have to have an efficient, utterly non-partisan bureaucracy, on the order of the Post Office (it just delivers mail) to oversee our elections.

And I will add, that I would like to have as an ally in this fight any authentic conservative who believes in The Bill of Rights, way before I’ll accept the half hearted support of an Al Franken or somebody like that, or Mother Jones. The people, now this is us, not the Democratic Party, not the media, the people have got to fight back. We are at that point. And in order to do that we’ve got to make common cause with a lot of people we don’t ordinarily talk to. The Bush administration and the movement it represents is only one part of the Republican party. The Republican party is divided now. A lot of Republicans voted against Bush or just stayed home. In "Fooled Again" I gave a lot of examples. The very prominent Republicans of all kinds came out publically against Bush before the election and the press would never report on this trend, which was remarkable. But you had Bob Barr of Georgia, you can’t get much more right wing than that. You had John Eisenhower. You had General Tony McPeak of the Air Force, who was a pro-Bush military guy in 2000, now coming out for Kerry! You had Tom Clancy! You had Lee Ioacoca. You had an open letter signed by 169 tenured emeritus business professors deploring Bush’s economic policies. And the letter started at the Harvard Business School. You remember who went there? Bipartisan groups of diplomats, military men, moderate Republicans. A guy who ran a chapter of Republicans Abroad said he could not in good conscience support Bush. This guy [Bush] did not really win the election, because very few people really voted for him! (Audience applause.) Just read my book.

The thing is that it can happen here, and they knew it. And if we don’t reacquaint ourselves with their concerns, it will happen here, and have happened here for good. Because this is what we’re up against, ok? We are not up against conservatism. Bush is not a conservative president. Cheney is not a conservative vice president. The movement that we’re fighting is not a conservative movement. That is why it didn’t get all those Republican votes. I am not a conservative, but I respect conservatism. I see it as a coherent philosophy. I see it essentially as a philosophy that’s based on the improvement or at least the maintenance of THIS world. See. They believe in limited government, fiscal prudence, no foreign wars, all that kind of stuff. I can live with all of that. What does that have in common with this regime and its agenda? This is a guy who with all his tax cuts has spent more money than all of our other presidents combined. Did you know this? He has vastly expanded the police powers of this government, vastly expanded them. He has repealed Habeas Corpus. I mean, if on his say so, you’re a terrorist, they can come and drag you off to prison, and they don’t have to tell anybody that they did it. This is called disappearing people. This is unprecedented in our history. We don’t have freedom of assembly. We have First Amendment Zones. (Audience groan.) Freedom of Speech has been radically abridged. I mean, you know all that I am saying. Right? This is not conservatism. It is extremely radical. It’s much closer to Fascism. It has a great deal to do with the power of corporations. You can hiss all you want, and I am with you, but they are not going to listen. The fact that End Corporate Personhood is involved with this is really something that makes me very happy, because in a sense the idea that corporations should have the rights of persons, the status of persons, can be regarded, in a sense, as the worm in the apple here. I mean, things really started to go wrong in this country when corporations took on such power. Indeed as we have seen from the dangerous sway of the corporate manufacture of touch screen voting machines, corporations are reeking havoc on American Democracy, because corporations are driven by concern for only one thing, and that is their own profits. That’s money over the franchise, money over votes. This is something I think we can all agree on. We have to take a step further because there is something else at work here. It’s not just corporations. It’s not just the drive for profits. It’s not just corporate capitalism. As a matter of fact, certain large sectors of the corporate system are extremely unhappy with this president, like the insurance industry has done a big about face on global warming. Well for rational reasons. (Audience laughter.) Because they don’t want to go bankrupt!

So this is rational self interest at work. You read accounts of the financial get together in Datyl, Switzerland…it’s like a wake there now. They’re just miserable because this guy, this cabal, this movement is destroying the economy. They are on a suicide course. So even though they are infinitely pleasing to many corporate interests, you know, Haliburton and so on, especially their cronies, they are on a suicide course. They had an apocalyptic streak, that cannot be explained in economistic terms. Now people on the left tend to explain everything in economistic terms. It’s always about the money, follow the money. That’s true to a great degree. But it is not enough, because it does not account for the ferocious strain of anti-enlightenment activism that this regime represents. (Audience applause.)

Understand that this is a theocratic movement. It is not just a bunch of corporations, that know better, slyly manipulating the pieties of the masses. That is a leftist fallacy. Because we are talking about the energetic, political participation of a number of extremely right wing billionaires with enormous clout, people like Richard Mellon Scaif, and Howard Ahmanson. These are people who are extraordinarily active and productive on the political front and they make [George] Soros look like a piper. They spent far more money that he does. They spend it on propaganda; they spend it on political issues. Howard Ahmanson is the motive force behind the schism in the Episcopalian Church. He supports the Discovery Institute which is behind the spread of Intelligent Design. So to say there is religion over here and there are corporations over here is a mistake. It’s not that simple because there are points of convergence.

What we have here is a movement intent on turning the United States into a Christian republic. Now they often say that the United States is a Christian republic, then you say to them, "As a matter of fact, it isn’t." Look at say the First Amendment, look at Article 6 which forbids a religious test for office holders, look at everything the framers ever said on the subject. Well they don’t want to hear that so they say, "Well, it’s a Christian republic." Does this sound familiar? "Mr. President, there is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." "0h yeah? there is too." "Go back and find it." "Oh, wait. Here it is, here it is." See? We think they are lying through their teeth, but please believe me that Cheney still believes there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If it were only lying, or or if it was only machiavellian manipulation, I promise you we would be better off than we are right now. What we are dealing with is pathological. You tell them, "Hey, there is no evidence for intelligent design," and they say "oh yes there is." They proclaim that there is. There is no evidence that abstainance based sex education does anything except raise pregnancy rates and raise rates of sexually transmitted diseases. They say "Nope…no…" Because it’s faith based.

They live in a faith based universe. I want you to grasp the enormity of this problem. We have all grown up in the shadow of the cold war. All of our politics were forged in the context of a post enlightenment moment. I mean the enlightenment is settled, ok? And now we have the clash between two great enlightenment doctrines, capitalism and socialism. Do you want to know something? That turned out to be a blip on the radar screen. We are right back where we were when the framers wrote the Constitution. We are right back there. They did this incredibly brave and intelligent thing. They forged a national charter that was the first in human history not to invoke the deity. They separated church from state. And this was not a plot by a handful of professorial smarty pantses, who were a lot less religious than the average Joe. This was on the one hand an innovation by brilliant Deists who were indeed Rationalists. But it wasn’t just that. Separation of church and state grew out of American soil. Because this was a nation of religious immigrants, and most believing American were grateful for the separation of church and state. You know that the Baptists for over a hundred years were arch- Jeffersonians? Because they understood that if there is a state church in this country it would be Episcopalian and they would be persecuted again. So it was in everybody’s interest to separate church from state. There is no reason to apologize for it. There is no reason to dance away from it. There is no reason to meet with Hillary and decide, "How we can look more religious?" Screw that! (Loud audience applause.)

When de Tocqueville came here in the 1830’s, he remarked on the fact that this country was the most religious country on the earth and he understood that the reason is because they separated church and state. The reason is because there is no coersion here. So religion thrives. Why can’t Democrats just say that? What’s wrong with that? Is there any problem? Now the fact that they don’t seem to have any faith in our revolutionary division, they don’t seem to have any understanding of what the framers wrote, they don’t really believe in American democracy, leaves us just extremely vulnerable to a highly organized, extremist movement that is intent on undoing all that. We don’t hear about it. Right? Like this business about the Supreme Court, we hear about Alito’s style, you know his style, what kind of person he is, we parse his record. We talk about what kind of demeanor he has and what kind of suit he wears, his life experiences, and so on. Maybe if we get really bold and specific, we’ll say, "They are going to repeal Roe vs. Wade." What they don’t understand is that Roe vs. Wade is only "Step One" for these people, right? Step one!

Do you know what the Constitution Restoration Act is? A few of you do. Go home and do a little google search on it. The Constitution Restoration Act would declare that God is the sovereign basis of American Law. Do you know what that means? That means that a judge could make decisions on the basis of the Old Testament and it couldn’t be reversed. So if you want to see a vision of the possible future as these people imagine it, go home and read the book of Leviticus, and see how many things you can be executed for doing. Heresy, for example, Astrology, Pre-marital sex … well, only the woman gets killed for pre-marital sex. This is directly and ferociously opposed to the whole American tradition. So when I said this is not a partisan issue, I really meant it. The American people don’t go for this, I promise you. A lot of Americans may have been hood-winked by Bush and so on, but understand that his strong support is now at 22% with a margin of error of 4 points. So it could be 18%. I estimate that at least Kerry won by 51 to 48%. Kerry won! And probably by more or would have, because between the votes that were thrown away, and the votes that were pre-empted, and the votes abroad, it’s a significant number.

The American, you know, people for all their, or all our shortcomings, for all the decadence that has been sponded by a consumer culture, which has had a seriously destructive effect on our ability to function in a democracy, for all that, the American people are not extremists. The American people are not theocrats. The Wall Street Journal just a few days ago ran an piece about the new phenomena of the Evangelical Churches trying to do something about global warming through their churches. So it’s time for us all to join hands with each other, all rational Americans who love our traditions got to join hands and insist on electoral reform which both parties seem not to want. Right? It’s not up to the Democrats. It is certainly not up to the media. It’s up to us. Now this is the kind of thinking we’ve become estranged from, as I say, because we’re mostly parked in front of the set, you know, with a big gulp and a bag of Doritos. And we’re thinking, "Oh gee, am I getting fat," or "Don’t I look great?" "Oh let’s watch reality TV" …getting into so and so’s life for a minute, unreality TV, you know.

But we have to get back to that. Do you know why? Because we don’t have any choice. There’s no choice. If we don’t get electoral reform in place, if we don’t reclaim the system from the Right, this experiment is over. If this experiment is over, the world could well be over. I think we should return to the best that our framers had to offer. And consider ourselves as noble and dedicated representatives of that tradition. We have nothing to apologize for, and everything to gain. Thank you.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

Corporate News Lies.com: Documentary Films

Posted in CorporateNewsLies.com, General on January 28th, 2006

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

Corporate News Lies.com: A Few Selected Stories

Posted in CorporateNewsLies.com, General on January 28th, 2006

BUSH’S NATIONAL GUARD SERVICE:

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

2004 Election Theft.com: State by State

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, General on January 28th, 2006

(AK AZ CA CO FL GA IL IN IA MD MN MO NE NV NH NJ NM NC OH PA TX UT VA VT WA WI WY)

Alaska:

Arizona:

California:



Colorado:



Florida:


Georgia:

Illinois:

Indiana:



Iowa:

Maryland:



Minnesota:



Missouri:



Nebraska:



Nevada:



New Hampshire:

New Jersey:

New Mexico:

North Carolina:

Ohio:

Pennsylvania:



Texas:

Utah:



Vermont:

Virginia:



Washington:

Wisconsin

Wyoming:

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

2004 Election Theft.com: Exit Polls & Projections

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, Exit Polls, General on January 28th, 2006

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

2004 Election Theft.com: General

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, General on January 28th, 2006

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.

Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. ”

– Margaret Mead – US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 – 1978)

READ THIS FIRST


2004 ELECTION THEFT: GENERAL LINKS




1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

Evidence? We Don’t Want Your Stinkin’ Evidence!

Posted in General, Main Stream Media, TAKE ACTION! on January 24th, 2006

January 24, 2005
By Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers

Like biologists with evolution and atmospheric scientists with global climate change, those who warn us that our elections have been stolen and will be stolen again must now be wondering, "just how much evidence must it take to make our case and to convince enough of the public to force reform and secure our ballots?"

The answer, apparently, is no amount – no amount, that is, until more minds are opened. And that is more than a question of evidence, it is a question of collective sanity.

In his new book Fooled Again, Mark Crispin Miller not only presents abundant evidence that the 2004 election was stolen, but in addition he examines the political, social, and media environment which made this theft possible.

When I first read the book immediately after its publication, I confess that I was a bit disappointed. What I had hoped to find was a compendium of evidence, from front to back. To be sure, Miller gives us plenty of evidence, meticulously documented. But evidence tells us that the election was stolen. Miller goes beyond that to explain how and why it was stolen, and how the culprits have managed, so far, to get away with it.

So on second reading, I find that it was my expectation and not Miller’s book that was flawed. We have evidence aplenty, to be found in John Conyers’ report, and the new book by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, in addition to the Black Box Voting website among numerous others. Soon to be added is Prof. Steven Freeman’s book on the statistical evidence of election fraud. What we don’t gain from these sources is an understanding and appreciation of the context in which this crime was committed. This we learn from reading Miller’s book.

If, in fact, the last two presidential elections have been stolen, and if in addition there is a preponderance of evidence to support this claim, then this is the most significant political news in the 230 year history of our republic.

So what is the response of the allegedly "opposing" party to the issue of election fraud? Virtual silence. And of the news media? More silence. Case in point: the media response to Mark Crispin Miller’s Fooled Again. As he reports: "There have been no national reviews of Fooled Again. No network or cable TV show would have the author on to talk about the book. NPR has refused to have him on… Only one daily newspaper – the Florida Sun-Sentinel – has published a review."

Force the question of election fraud and demand an answer, and the most likely response will be a string of ad hominem insults – "sore losers," "paranoid," "conspiracy theorists" – attacks on the messenger and a dismissal of the message. We’ve heard them, many times over.

Persist, and you might get as a reply, not evidence that the elections were honest and valid (there is very little of that), but rather some rhetorical questions as to the attitudes and motives of the alleged perpetrators and to the practical difficulties of their successfully accomplishing a stolen national election. Questions such as these:

  • How could the GOP campaign managers believe that they could get away with a stolen election?
  • Why would they dare risk failure, and the subsequent criminal indictments and dissolution of their party?
  • What could possibly motivate them to subvert the foundations of our democracy?

The answer to the first two questions is essentially the same: they believed and they dared because they controlled the media and thus the message. Miller’s sub-text throughout his book is that the great electoral hijack has been accomplished with the cooperation, one might even say the connivance, of the mainstream media, without which the crime could never have succeeded.

Immediately following the election, the critics were shouted down with such headlines as these: "Election paranoia surfaces; Conspiracy theorists call results rigged" (Baltimore Sun), "Internet Buzz on Vote Fraud is dismissed" (Boston Globe), "Latest Conspiracy Theory – Kerry Won – Hits the Ether" (Washington Post), and in the "flagship" newspaper, the New York Times: "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried." (Miller, 38.)

Even more damaging than the slanted "reports" in the media, was the silence. The Conyers investigations? Ignored. The scholarly statistical analyses of exit poll discrepancies? Ignored. Evidence that Bush cheated in the debates with a listening device? Dismissed. The recent GAO report on e-voting vulnerabilities, and the Florida demonstration hacking of computer vote compilation? Ignored. And most appalling of all: the media blackout last week of Al Gore’s eloquent speech, warning of the threat to our Constitution and our liberties posed by the Bush regime.

And all this merely scratches the surface of media malpractice. For more, read the book.

The motivation to steal the election, says Miller, combined religious (or quasi-religious) dogma and self-righteousness and a perception of the opposing Democratic party, not as the loyal opposition, but as the enemy – deserving not defeat, but annihilation. ("You are either with us or against us," says Bush). Together, this adds up to what Miller calls "The Requisite Fanaticism." He writes:

It is not "conservatism" that impelled the theft of the election, nor was it merely greed or the desire for power per se… The movement now in power is not entirely explicable in such familiar terms… The project here is ultimately pathological and essentially anti-political, albeit Machiavellian on a scale, and to a degree, that would have staggered Machiavelli. The aim is not to master politics, but to annihilate it. Bush, Rove, DeLay, Ralph Reed, et al. believe in "politics" in the same way that they and their corporate beneficiaries believe in "competition." In both cases, the intention is not to play the game but to end it – because the game requires some tolerance of the Other, and tolerance is precisely what these bitter-enders most despise… (Miller 81-2.)

Reiterating a theme that is prominent in his writing, Miller points out that the psychological pathology most conspicuously at work in the right’s demolition of politics is projection: the attribution in "the enemy" of one’s own moral depravity:

The Bushevik, so full of hate, hates politics, and would get rid of it; and yet he is himself expert at dirty politics: an expertise that he regards as purely imitative and defensive. Because his enemies, he thinks, are all "political" – dishonest, ruthless, cynical, unprincipled – he is thereby "forced" to be "political" as well, in order to "fight fire with fire." As we have seen, this paranoid conviction of the Other’s perfidy suffuses and impels the propaganda campaigns of the right, and it was especially important in Bush/Cheney’s drive to steal the last election. Indeed it was their firm conviction that they had to steal the race, in order to frustrate the Democrats’ attempt to do it first. (Miller, 82.)

This is just a brief sampling of Miller’s astute political and psychological analysis of the "why" and the "how" of the stolen elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. That analysis, which takes up about a third of the book (Chapters 3 and 4), adds an invaluable dimension to our understanding of the political disaster that has befallen our Republic, and that analysis suggests guidelines in the struggle to avoid the theft of the upcoming elections of 2006 and 2008.

I have written at length about what might be done if we are to restore the ballot box to the voters. These crucial steps come immediately to mind, as I read Miller’s Fooled Again.

Briefly, we need a media, we need an opposition party, we need an aroused public, and we need a miracle. But take heart: history tells us that political crises have a way of producing miracles.

The mainstream media (MSM) must be discredited and an alternative media established in its place. The internet offers a voice to an opposition that is excluded from the mainstream, and a few independent publications and broadcasts remain, however feeble in comparison to the MSM. If a sizeable portion of the public deserts the mainstream, and directly informs the publishers and broadcasters why they are doing so, the media, and particularly their sponsors and advertisers, will take notice. Recently, some of the media have become more critical of the Bush regime and the GOP Congress, but it is, by and large, too little and too late.

So either the commercial media must resume the role of watchdog of government power, as intended by Jefferson and Madison, or it must be made irrelevant. The Russian dissidents late in the Soviet era have given us an example: if you have no media, create one, even if it is suppressed by the government. It was called "Samizdat" – a painstaking process of typing several carbon copies of forbidden manuscripts on condition that the recipients would do likewise. Similarly, the Iranian dissidents during the reign of the Shah copied and distributed audio tapes of revolutionary speeches. In the computer age, there are huge advantages: Internet publication and, f the Internet is taken from us, CDs and minidiscs. For now, the Internet is our Samizdat.

The Democratic party is the only potentially effective opposition party in sight. But at the moment, it is a toothless tiger. We must tell that party that it must either lead the struggle to restore electoral integrity or step aside. When the Clintons, Cantwells, Liebermans and Feinsteins run for re-election, they must be opposed in the primaries by authentic progressives. Even if those progressives lose, but with a creditable showing, the "establishment" Democrats will nonetheless get the message. Next time you get a solicitation notice from the DNC or the Senate or Congressional Campaign Committees, tell them "no dice" unless they deal with the election fraud issue. Then tell them that instead of a contribution, you are purchasing Miller’s book and donating it to the local library.

As for the public, remember that more than half the public is awake, aware, and opposed to the Bush regime. Of these, a small but significant minority is convinced that election fraud is a serious problem. But that dissenting public lacks a voice, cohesion and leadership. This is a recipe for potentially sudden change: like fuel and oxygen, lacking the third necessity – heat of ignition. A message, from a Tom Paine or a Jefferson, or leadership from a Washington, a Gandhi, a Mandela or a Sakharov, can ignite the fire that will consume this evil regime. Or not. That depends on whether concerned citizens sit by and wait for others to act, or instead take some initiative and join the struggle – writing to Congress, talking to any and all associates that will listen and perhaps a few that won’t, contributing to alternative media, copying and distributing dissenting essays, and generally raising hell.

And finally, miracles: they are, by nature, unpredictable. Some possibilities: A few corporate and financial elites will finally come to realize that where Bush is leading, they don’t want to follow, and they will join the opposition. (There are a few intimations of this already). Similarly, perhaps a few journalists, and even some Republicans, will finally if belatedly decide that they would prefer not to live in a dictatorship. Bushenomics is bound to lead to an economic collapse that is certain to wake up the public. And even now, some state Attorney General or some District Attorney may be preparing an indictment for election fraud against an e-vote company executive that could break this conspiracy wide open.

But don’t wait for miracles to happen – make them happen.

If we are to take back our country, we must first take back our vote. Mark Crispin Miller’s book will tell you what has happened, how and why it has happened, and what must be done about it.

Will we, the people, take up the challenge? On that question rests the fate of our republic, of our liberties, and of "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He publishes the website, The Online Gadfly and co-edits the progressive website, The Crisis Papers. He is at work on a book, Conscience of a Progressive, which can be seen in-progress here. Send comments to: crisispapers@hotmail.com.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

The Law of Large Numbers & Central Limit Theorem:

Posted in General on December 14th, 2005

TruthIsAll

WHO SHOULD READ THIS?

It’s for everyone who voted in 2004 or plans to vote in 2006.

It’s for those who say: "Math was my worst subject in high school".
If you’ve ever placed a bet at the casino or race track,
or played the lottery, you already know the basics.
It’s about probability.
It’s about common sense.
It’s not all that complicated.

It’s for individuals who have taken algebra, probability and
statistics and want to see how they apply to election polling.

It’s for graduates with degrees in mathematics, political science,
an MBA, etc. who may or may not be familiar with simulation concepts.

It’s for Excel spreadsheet users who enjoy creating math models.
Simulation is a powerful tool for analyzing uncertainty.
Like coin flipping and election polling.

It’s for writers, blogs and politicians who seek the truth:
Robert Koehler, Brad from BradBlog, John Conyers, Barbara Boxer,
Mark Miller, Fitrakis, Wasserman, USCV, Dopp, Freeman, Baiman, Simon,
Scoop’s althecat, Krugman, Keith Olberman, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes,
Stephanie Miller, etc.

It’s for Netizens who frequent Discussion Forums.

It’s for those in the Media who are still waiting for editor approval
to discuss documented incidents of vote spoilage, vote switching and
vote suppression in recent elections and which are confirmed by
impossible pre-election and exit poll deviations from the recorded vote.

It’s for naysayers who promote faith-based hypotheticals in their
unrelenting attempts to debunk the accuracy of the pre-election
and exit polls.

People forget Selection 2000. Gore won the popular vote by 540,000.
But Bush won the election by a single vote.
SCOTUS voted along party lines: Bush 5, Gore 4.
That stopped the Florida recount in its tracks.
Gore won Florida. Why did they do it?
And why did the "liberal" media say he lost?

But Gore voters did not forget 2000.
So in 2004, they came out to vote in droves.
Yet the naysayers claim Gore voters forgot that they voted for him
and told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000.
It’s the famous "false recall" hypothetical.
The naysayers were forced to use it when they could not come up
with a plausible explanation for the impossible weightings of
Bush and Gore voter turnout in the Final National Exit poll.

Put on the defoggers.
We had enough disinformation
We had enough obfuscation.
Now we will let the sunshine in.

This is a review of the basics.

________________________________________________________________________

A COIN-FLIP EXPERIMENT

Consider an experiment:
Flip a fair coin 10 times.
Calculate the percentage of heads.
Write it down.

Increase it to 30.
Calculate the new total percentage.
Write it down.

Keep increasing the number of flips…
Write down the percentage for 50.
Then do it for 80.
Stop at 100.
That’s our final coin flip sample-size.

When you’re all done, check the percentages.
Is the sequence converging to 50%?
That’s the true population mean (average).

That’s the Law of Large Numbers.

The coin-flip is easily simulated in Excel.
Likewise, in the polling simulations which follow,
we will analyze the result of polling experiments
over a range of trials (sample size).

_____________________________________________________

THE POLLING CONTROVERSY

Naysayers have a problem with polls.
Especially when a Bush is running.
Regardless of how many polls or how large the samples,
the results are never good enough for them.
They prefer to cite their two famous, unproven hypotheticals:
Bush non-responders (rBr) and Gore voter memory lapse ("false recall").

How do pollsters handle non-responders?
Simple.
They just… increase the sample-size!
Furthermore, statistical studies indicate that there is no
discernible correlation between non-response rates and survey results

How do pollster’s handle false recall?
Simple.
They know that in a large sample, forgetfullness on the part
of Gore and Bush voters… will cancel each other out!
There’s no evidence that Gore voters forget any more than Bush voters.
On the contrary.
If someone you knew robbed you in broad daylight,
would you forget who it was four years later?
Gore was robbed in 2000.

They claim that polling bias favored Kerry
in BOTH the pre-election AND exit polls.
They offer no evidence to back up these claims.
In fact, National Exit Poll data shows a pro-Bush bias.

They maintain that the polls are not random-samples.
Especially when Bush is involved.

_____________________________________________________

THE MARGIN OF ERROR (MOE)

Naysayers ignore the fact that each poll has a Margin of Error (MoE).
Are we to ignore the MoE provided by a professional pollster?

The MoE is the interval on either side of the Polling Sample mean
in which there is a 95% confidence level (probability) of containing
the TRUE Population Mean.

Here is an example:
Assume a poll with a 2% MoE and Kerry is leading Bush by 52-48%.
Then there is a 95% probability that Kerry’s TRUE vote is in the range
from 50% to 54% {52-MoE, 52+MoE}.

Futhermore, the probability is 97.5% that Kerry’s vote will exceed 50%.

Here is the standard formula that ALL pollsters use to calculate MoE:

MoE = 1.96 * sqrt(p*(1-p)/n) * (1+CF)
where
n is the sample size.
p and 1-p are the 2-party vote shares.
CF is an exit poll "cluster effect" factor (see the example below).

The MoE decreases as the sample-size (n) increases.
The poll becomes more accurate as we take more samples.
It’s the Law of Large Numbers again.
Makes sense, right?
Remember the coin flips?

This result is not so obvious.
For a given sample size (n), the MoE is at it’s maximum value
when p =.50 (the two candidates are tied).
To put it another way:
The more one-sided the poll, the smaller the MoE.
In the 50/50 case, the formula can be simplified:
MoE = 1.96 * .5/sqrt(n) =.98/sqrt(n)

Let’s calculate the MoE for the 12:22am National Exit poll.
n = 13047 sampled respondents
p = Kerry’s true 2-party vote share = .515
1-p = Bush’s vote share = .485

MoE = 1.96 * sqrt (.515*.485/13047)= .0086 = 0.86%
Adding a 30% exit poll cluster effect:
MoE = 1.30*0.86% = 1.12%

The cluster effect is highly controversial.
We can only make a rough estimate of its impact on MoE.
The higher the cluster effect, the larger the MoE.
But cluster is only a factor in exit polls.
There is no MoE adjustment in pre-election or approval polls.

Why would a polling firm include the MoE if the poll was
not designed to be an effective random sample?

Pollsters use proven methodologies, such as cluster sampling,
stratified sampling, etc. to attain a near-perfect random sample.
________________________________________________________________

THE MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATION

This model demonstrates the Law of Large Numbers (LLN).
LLN is the foundation and bedrock of statistical analysis.
The model illustrates LLN through a simulation of polling samples.

In a statistical context, LLN states that the mean (average)of a
random sample taken from from a large population is likely
to be very close to the (true) mean of the population.

Start of math jargon alert…
In probability theory, several laws of large numbers say that
the mean (average) of a sequence of random variables with
a common distribution converges to their common mean as
the size of the sequence approaches infinity.

The Central Limit Theorem (CLT) is another famous result:
The sample means (averages) of an independent series of
random samples (i.e. polls) taken from the same population
will tend to be normally distributed (form the bell curve)
as the number of samples increase.
This holds for ALL practical statistical distributions.
End of math jargon alert….

It’s really not all that complicated.
The naysayers never consider LLN or CLT.
They would have us believe that professional pollsters are
incapable of creating accurate surveys (i.e. effectively random
samples) through systematic, clustered or stratified sampling.
Especially when a Bush is running.

LLN and CLT say nothing about bias.

__________________________________________________________________

USING RANDOM NUMBERS TO SIMULATE A SEQUENCE OF POLLS

Random number simulation is the best way to illustrate LLN:
These are the steps:
1) Assume a true 2-party vote percentage for Kerry (i.e. 51.5%).
2) Simulate a series of 8 polls of varying sample size.
3) Calculate the sample mean vote share and win probability for each poll.
4) Confirm LLN by noting that as the poll sample size increases,
the sample mean (average) converges to the population mean ("true" vote).

It’s just like flipping a coin.
Let Kerry be HEADS, with a 51.5% chance of winning a random voter.
This is Kerry’s TRUE vote (the population mean)
Bush is TAILS with a 48.5% chance.

A random number (RN) between zero and one is generated for each respondent.
If RN is LESS than Kerry’s TRUE share, the vote goes to Kerry.
If RN is GREATER than Kerry’s TRUE share, the vote goes to Bush.

For example, assume Kerry’s TRUE 51.5% vote share (.515).
If RN = .51, Kerry’s poll count is increased by one.
If RN = .53, Bush’s poll count is increased by one.

The sum of Kerry’s votes is divided by the poll sample (i.e. 13047).
This is Kerry’s simulated 2-party vote share.
It approaches his TRUE 51.50% vote share as poll samples increase.
Once again, the LLN applies as it did in the coin flip experiment.

________________________________________________________________

SIMULATION GRAPHICS

These graphs are a visual summary of the simulation.

Image

Image

________________________________________________________________

RUNNING THE SIMULATION

Press F9 run the simulation
Watch the numbers and graphs change.
They should NOT change significantly.

The graphs illustrate polling simulation output for:
Kerry’s 2-party vote (true population mean): 51.50%

Exit Poll Cluster effect (zero for pre-election):30%
The exit poll "cluster effect" is the incremental adjustment
to the margin of error in order to account for the clustering
of individuals with similar demographics at the exit polling site.

Play what-if:
Lower Kerry’s 2-party vote share from 51.5% to 50.5%.
Press F9 to run the simulation.
Kerry’s poll shares, corresponding win probabilities and
minimal threshold vote (97.5% confidence level), all DECLINE,
reflecting the lowering of his "true vote".

________________________________________________________________

POLLING SAMPLE-SIZE

Just like in the above coin-flipping example, the
Law of Large Numbers takes effect as poll sample-size increases.

That’s why the National Exit Poll was designed to
survey at least 13000 respondents.

Note the increasing sequence of polling sample size as we go
from the pre-election state (600) and national (1000) polls
to the state and National exit polls:
Ohio (1963), Florida (2846) and the National (13047).

Here is the National Exit Poll Timeline:
Updated ; respondents ; vote share
3:59pm: 8349 ; Kerry led 51-48
7:33pm: 11027 ; Kerry led 51-48
12:22am:13047 ; Kerry led 51-48

1:25pm: 13660 ; Bush led 51-48
The final was matched to the vote.
So much for letting LLN and CLT do their magic.
Especially when a Bush is running.

________________________________________________________________

CALCULATING PROBABILITIES

The Kerry win probabilities are the main focus of the simulation.
They closely match theoretical probabilities obtained from
the Excel Normal Distribution function.

The probabilities are calculated using two methods:
1) running the simulation and counting Kerry’s total polling votes.
2) calculating the Excel Normal Distribution function:
Prob = NORMDIST(PollPct, 0.50, MoE/1.96, true)

The simulation shows that given Kerry’s 3% lead in the 2-party vote
(12:22am National Exit Poll), his popular vote win probability
was nearly 100%. And that assumes a 30% exit poll cluster effect!

For a 2% lead (51-49), the win probability is 97.5% (still very high).
For a 1% lead (50.5-49.5), it’s 81% (4 out of 5).
For a 50/50 tie, it’s 50%. Even money. Makes sense, right?

The following probabilities are also calculated for each poll:
1) The 97.5% confidence level for Kerry’s vote share.
There is a 97.5% probability that Kerry’s true vote will be greater.
The minimum vote share increases as the sample size grows.

2) The probability of Bush achieving his recorded two-party vote (51.24%).
The probability is extremely low that Bush’s actual vote would deviate
from his true 48.5% two-party share.
The probability declines as the sample size grows.

________________________________________________________________

DOWNLOADING THE EXCEL MODEL

Wait one minute for the Excel model download.
It’s easy.
Just two inputs –
Kerry’s 2-party true vote share (51.5%) and
exit poll cluster effect (set to 30%).

Press F9 to run the simulation.

http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/MonteCarloP…

Or go here for a complete listing of threads from
TruthIsAll: www.TruthIsAll.net

Posted by autorank on Democratic Underground

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

Final demonstration based on public data that Bush DID NOT WIN.

Posted in Exit Polls, General on November 25th, 2005

RESIGN NOW, NOT LATER. TAKE CHENEY WITH YOU (AND SCHMIDT FOR THAT MATTER)
(Reprinted with the permission of the author.)

PLEASE SHARE THIS POST WITH A FRIEND. Happy Thanks Giving!

All pre-election and election day polls showed Bush 47.8% to 48.7%
1) Bush’s 11-poll average election day job approval was 48.5% (1.0% MoE).
2) His pre-election national 18 poll weighted share was 48.7% (0.7% MoE).
3) His pre-election 50 state poll weighted share was 48.5% (0.6% MoE).
4) His National Exit Poll (12:22am timeline) vote share (gender demographic)
was 47.8% (1.2% MoE, assuming a 40% cluster effect).
5) His State Exit Poll weighted national vote share was 48.3% (0.50% MoE,
assuming a 40% cluster effect).

Here is the Pre-election 50 state poll share calculation:
Bush’s weighted poll share was 47.0%, as compared to Kerry’s 47.5%.
That accounts for 94.5% of the total.

Add 1.0% for third parties, for 95.5% of the total.
That leaves 4.5% undecided.
Of the 4.5%, add 1.50% (1/3) to the Bush share.
Therefore, Bush’s pre-election state poll share: 48.5%

And the Pre-election National 18 poll share calculation:
Bush’s weighted share was 47.30%, as compared to Kerry’s 47.55%.
That accounts for 94.85% of the total.
Add 1.0% for third parties, for 95.85% of the total.
That leaves 4.15% undecided.
Of the 4.15%, add 1.40% (1/3) to the Bush share.
Therefore, Bush’s pre-election National 18 poll share: 48.7%

Consider the Law of Large Numbers.
The mean of the the FOUR independent pre-and post election poll
group means {48.7, 48.5, 47.8, 48.3} is 48.33%.
That’s within 0.17% of Bush’s 48.5% PRE-ELECTION JOB APPROVAL!

The probability is 97.5% that Bush got LESS THAN 48.7% of the vote.
It’s virtually 100% that he got LESS THAN 49.0%.

Want more of this?
Bush’s current 37% job approval is confirmed by TWO INDEPENDENT poll sets:
1) the weighted average of 50 state polls (0.6% MoE).
2) the unweighted average of 12 national polls (1.0% MoE).

These results confirm prior election studies.
An incumbent’s TRUE vote is directly correlated to job approval.
They EXACTLY matched in 2004.
It’s also additional confirmation that the 12:22am exit polls were correct.

So naysayers, will you now claim that
1) 50 pre-election state polls were wrong?
2) 18 pre-election national polls were wrong?
3) 11 pre-election Bush approval polls were wrong?
4) 50 post-election state exit polls were wrong?
5) the National Exit poll (12:22am, 13047 respondents) was wrong?
6) 12 post-election national approval polls are wrong?

At the same time, will you claim that the Final National Exit Poll,
which was the ONLY poll matched to the recorded vote, was correct?
Even though it is a fact that impossible Voted 2000 demographic
weightings are necessary for Bush to have won it?

Naysayers,
You were wrong a year ago.
You were wrong 6 months ago.
And you are wrong now.

If the election were held today,
Bush would lose in a landslide of epic proportions.
Even Diebold couldn’t steal it for him.

Kerry won.
He really did.
He got 12 million more votes (63mm) than Al Gore (51mm).
Maybe this analysis will convince you.

But it’s a moot point.
Al Gore is still President.

Salon?
Mother Jones?
What ever happened to investigative journalism?
Time to get with the program.

Prove it to yourself.

Download the Excel Interactive Election Model.
Find the link at TruthIsAll.Net (link below)

TruthIsAll.Net–Comprehensive Democrratioins of Election Fraud Here including the Excel Interactive Election Model!

In this chart, note the PERFECT correlation.
BUSH APPROVAL RATING vs. EXIT POLL. Survey USA 11/13/05
Bush exit poll and CURRENT approval rating trend lines have identical slope.

Image

BUSH STATE APPROVAL DEVIATIONS FROM EXIT POLL.Survey USA 11/13/05
This related chart shows the deviations between the state exit polls and current approval ratings

Image

State and National Pre-Election/Exit Poll Simulations and National Exit Poll Timelines.
Image|

Posted on Democratic Underground by autorank. 

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page