86 votes

UPDATED: LibertyUSA PAC finds Hard Evidence of Election Rigging in Lake County, IL: the Cheating IS Inside the Voting Machines

We did far better in the election than is recognized. So did, apparently, Gingrich and Santorum. Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Paul votes, as well as votes for these other two candidates, were purged through vote rigging in the the Romney-favoring machines. This occurred largely at the precinct level. In other words, the machines were maliciously programmed to cheat all candidates in favor of Romney.

Paul was merely one of the victims.

There is great proof of this in Illinois in a wide range of counties, including Kane, Cook, DuPage, and Lake.

The anomaly is found in the delegate counts, which reflects in this instance the potential theft of votes from Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich but none from Romney. In an analysis of 158 precincts there was only ONE delegate vote count where there were a greater amount of delegate than candidate votes for Mitt Romney, while for Ron Paul there were 91 incidents. For Gingrich there were a whopping 105 incidents and for Santorum 34. This totals 230 incidents for Romney's opposition candidates, while his are "1." That is impossible.

The vote anomalies are 166, 210, and 68 respectively, because, again, always, the amount of total delegate votes compared to candidate votes is lower.

UPDATE: This means that at a minimum in these precincts there were the same number of votes stolen for each of the respective candidates. Moreover, the fact that this never occurred with Romney in this sample further proves the rigging.

It is greater than this, though. This is because as a rule there are nearly always more candidate votes than delegate votes, as shown by the unrigged Romney sample.

There may also be some anomalies in the Romney counts, but they are insignificant compared to those for the other candidates. Furthermore, the ballot is simple; there could be little or no accounting for this based on voter confusion. In one case no votes were shown in a precinct for Paul yet one of his delegates got, incredibly, two votes.

The data is simple. It is a spreadsheet of the number of votes for each candidate compared to the votes listed for delegates. It will be seen that the delegate votes are often greater for a given candidate, EXCEPT for Romney. For a thorough analysis of Lake County, Illinois, see:

http://www.libertyusapac.org/wordpresspac/2012/08/23/updated...

Please donate generously to the PAC. It is going for a good cause and funds are greatly needed. All funds available thus far have been dispersed to the delegates. Election fraud costs have been subsidized privately by the PAC owner and one other donor. For now, donate to the delegate button, which funds both the delegate needs and the fight against election rigging.

This is an exceedingly crucial finding. More hands are needed on deck to document the corruption. All counties in Illinois must be analyzed. The same spreadsheet can be used for all. Furthermore, there is a need to do the same in all states, where delegates were voted in the primary such as Rhode Island, Alabama, and PA. Please volunteer on the volunteer button, www.libertyusapac.org

UPDATE #2: A RP mathematician has now studied all the data from Lake County, analyzing all 415 precincts. Here are his findings:

Of the 33,445 votes for Romney there were 4 delegate discrepancies (and 5 for alternates, incidentally)
Of the 4,942 votes for Paul there were 260 discrepancies for Paul delegates
Of the 4,102 votes for Gingrich there were 355 discrepancies for Gingrich delegates
Of the 16,667 votes for Santorum there were 59 discrepancies for Santorum delegates

Again, in simple form:
Romney: 4
Paul: 260
Gingrich: 355
Santorum: 59

Delegates versus alternates:

For delegates, there are a total of 641 discrepancies (delegates greater than presidential votes)
For alternates, there are a total of 632 discrepancies (delegates greater than presidential votes)

Of note, with the candidates of a lower vote count there is a higher incidence of the anomalies.

This is a major anomaly. Others will be found. This is not to say that every Illinois county has such irregularities. Yet, it is sufficient reason to call for a thorough investigation, including an audit.

Let us also ask the statisticians: what is the likelihood that such an anomaly could occur by chance? If it is less than 5%, then, an audit of the ballots is manditory.




Like this article? Get DP delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here:

E-mail address:  

Comment viewing options

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

Way to go, Dr. K!

Congrats.

How do we turn this proof into arrests and convictions now?

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

Don't know. The effort, now, is to confirm this anomaly by

reviewing a great deal of data: to see if this can be triple-confirmed. In Illinois only Lake County thus far has demonstrated this degree of the irregularity.

There is DEFINITE proof of cheating in the caucuses, not the least of which was perpetrated by fraudster extraordinaire Charlie Webster.

We must confirm definitively THIS YEAR cheating within the federally regulated primary races.

Right now, 2008 and 2004 are being reviewed to see if this truly is malicious. Any help by RP activists is appreciated.

To quote Dick Cheney,

"So?"

I need some more information about this...

In MN, potential delegates are not required to disclose for whom they are pledging support. I don't know how it works in IL, but we vote for up to X delegates in our precinct. If you're a Paul supporter, you can usually pick out the other Paul supporters, but since we don't know for sure, we could have ended up voting outside our presidential preference. Would this have counted as a "defect?"

Info from an IL resident

Our primary delegates are vetted by the candidates themselves - they are bound to the candidates. We have to get signatures for both the candidate and their delegates to get them on the ballot. Each Congressional district got 3 delegates and 3 alternates per Candidate, and the public chose 3 delegates, 3 alternates and 1 candidate. On the ballot each delegate has their candidates last name in parenthesis next to the Delegates name.

Those of us that were out canvassing for Dr. Paul were clearly informing the voters that they needed to choose the delegate with their candidate's name in parenthesis. There really is no excuse for anybody to not know which delegate on the primary ballot is bound to which candidate unless they can't read.

even if they know which delegate is with which candidate

it doesn't mean they want to vote for all of their candidate's delegates. Some people could use the delegate voting as a way to effectively "split" their vote between candidates toward whom they were indifferent.

Also, one thing that no one has mentioned is that there weren't just 4 candidates on the ballot. There were 2 others who had already dropped out but whose names were there. Combined, they received about 1% of the primary vote, though obviously got 0% of the delegate vote because they had no delegates running. If they voted for delegates, then they were giving some other candidates extra delegates. It's just a false assumption made in general that no candidate could possibly get more delegate votes than candidate votes.

So are you saying then that

So are you saying then that the vote distribution for presidential preference *SHOULD* be similar to the vote distribution for delegates.

...because I did run the numbers on that, and the likelihood of such a Romney landslide is in the neighborhood of one ten-thousanth of one percent. Actually, my data came back as "0.0%" but I'm only accurate to 7 decimal places.

Still, there's the problem of explaining away the vote for Romney as pres.pref. whilst voting for non-Romney delegates (someone who thinks Romney will win, but doesn't like his delegates / likes other delegates). Even if you want to give Romney a "reverse-handicap" like this, you'd have to come up with a number and defend it. That's the hard part.

Everyone, the Excell Spread Sheet is updated and all the data

fixed. Feel free to review for absolute accuracy. The link is provided to the Clarity Elections original results.

Scytl-SOE, Clarity, and ES&S, plus the County Boards, have some explaining to do.

The defect, here, is the posting of delegate counts GREATER than presidential. It means that there is a rigging inside the given machine. It proves that in the suspect precicts votes from the specific candidates where this occurred were purged, with very few exceptions, if any.

Just FYI

“Clarity Elections” is just a product/service of SOE Software, (which of course you know, was acquired by Scytl, via Balderton, over a half year ago). SOE Software, was (and is) partnered with ES&S (formerly Diebold) so as to allow for seamless integration between ES&S’s DRE voting machines and Microsoft Access-based Central Tabulator databases and the Clarity Election Night Results Reporting (and general election management) software, running on remote servers which are humming away down in an office-park near Tampa.
Since Election Staff can log onto Clarity and change the uploaded results (they seriously can), you can't rule out fraud occurring there, rather than inside of the DRE's. In fact, I would see that as being far more likely...

Actually, they could type in whatever numbers they want, and then the AP/Google/MSM simply broadcast those results, and they call it a night (ever wander how Google gets those minute-by-minute results?)
; )
In other words, your wasting your time attempting to uncover fraud in a spreadsheet of numbers which have zero verification of origin other than simply being the ones which currently exist in the ClarityENR database proclaiming to be “the results”.

☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧

While there is evidence of the GOP fudging results in the caucus

states there is no evidence as of yet of the County Boards of Elections altering the actual spreadsheets.

There is evidence, including that given under oath, of malicious rigging within the machines.

While your point is novel do you have any documentary evidence for your claims?

Clarify your question.

Tell which of the demonstrable facts stated above, that you would like evidence for, specifically, and I will provide it.

Also, there would be no possible evidence of the CBE rigging anything. The only numbers you get are the numbers from Clarity Elections’ back-end database. There are no other numbers, unless you are the Secretary of State, and even then, if the perpetrator wisely changed the Central Tabulator's numbers in Microsoft Access before uploading to Clarity, then you really couldn't ever find proof of fraud.

☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧

Simply that anyone from a County Board of Elections has been

caught fudging the Spreadsheet results from Clarity or other players. Would love to see it.

Pay attention to the words used, man

“Since Election Staff can log onto Clarity…”
—> which they can, it's a “feature” (in case “corrections” need to be made), and is in the CEB documentation for Clarity.

How do you look at that sentence and see “they were caught”?
That's the whole point, K – that if they log onto ClarityENR, and change numbers (which comprise the results that your spreadsheets are derived from), nobody but them, will be the wiser...

☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧

Still, have you found any substantiation, such as in

recounts or audits, that the ballots differ from the spreadsheets? The point is an audit of the actual ballots would demonstrate this.

Such an audit did occur in Florida earlier this year, the winner then deemed the loser, the loser the winner. However, this was in the Dominion Voting, and company executives "apologized," claiming a defect in the precinct machines. That is a major issue that, were it not for the audit, the real winner would never have been known.

Not that the functionality of the machines can be routinely trusted in the first place. Here is the link on the Palm, Beach, FL, snafu, where the winner was turned into the loser:

http://thevotingnews.com/state/florida/dominion-voting-syste...

I had heard of that, in FL.

As far as discrepancies being discovered during a recount, there are (at least) two things working against that.

  1. SOE’s ClarityENR is very new
  2. That type of discrepancy (hand recount of ballots vs. spreadsheet) would be self-limited because I believe, (though I do not have the statistics) that Optically Scanned Ballots are not as prevalent as DRE’s, which do not produce a ballot, and therefore no possible audit-trail exists.

IMHO, every last one of those crooked-ass machines needs to be destroyed. The elections in this country can be nothing but a complete and utter sham, until that has been accomplished.

☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧

Are we assuming...

I need a run down of the rules.

For how many delegates can one vote?

Are we assuming it's impossible for someone who votes for Romney as presidential pref to then vote for a Paul delegate?

Are we certain the lack of "defects" in the Romney column isn't from people who were under the impression that "Paul can't win" but voted for a Paul delegate anyway?

I want to do a little analysis on this, but I need to know what the rules are, and how data is populated in this sheet.

Thanks,

-Jix

The sheet is merely a re-sorting of the data provided by the

Lake County Board of Elections. This is regarding election-day voting only, at least on this analysis. The total presidential vote is compared to the total votes for delegates. Further counties in Illinois are being analyzed for this anomaly.

Note that there are hundreds of incidents for the three candidates but only one for Romney and that, largely, Romney's delegate counts are considerably lower than the candidate counts.

in this county...

In this county, people got up to 1 vote for Presidential nominee and up to 3 votes for delegates. The ballots DID say next to each delegate which candidate they had committed to. But voters were not required to vote for delegates matching their candidate. They didn't have to vote for delegates at all, and 15% or so didn't.

Voting for a candidate definitely didn't automatically mean voting for their delegates. A voter who was somewhat torn on which candidate to vote for could have thought the following: "Gingrich is a jerk, but I don't mind the other 3. I'll just vote Santorum for President and pick one Romney, one Paul, and one Santorum delegate." OR the following: "Romney is my pick for President but I really like a lot of what Ron Paul says. I'll vote for one of his delegates but two of Romney's".

This being the case...

This being the case, we can't call instances where the number of delegate votes exceed the number of pres. preference votes a "defect" because it's not statistically impossible.

What we can say is that, "Assuming votes for delegates will be distributed roughly the same as votes for presidential preference, Lake County's results have a X% chance of occuring." And then for flavor, you could say, "so either a miracle occured, or there was tampering with the votes."

I'm working on solving for X right now (I can tell just by looking at the data it's very very small). I'll get back to you on that. Could you PM me your email address?

The other thing that would help make this analysis more accurate is if the individual votes were available... not sure if it is or not... (maybe that's a matter of privacy, I don't know) But if I had "Ballot 1: presidential pref: Gingrich, Delegates: Paul #2, Santorum #2, Romney #1" That would help me pare down the error bars quite a bit.

You can email me through the "contact" link

If you want I can send you a spreadsheet showing how natural a result this is and why even assuming delegate votes will be distributed the same as the primary vote is not accurate.

Okay, if you acknowledge that

Okay, if you acknowledge that the distributions are expected to be different (I agree), then I don't see the "hard evidence". The fact that people are allowed to vote for delegates outside their presidential pref. makes this scenario possible.

You need to somehow prove that one's propensity to vote for Romney as pres pref whilst voting for non-Romney delegates is actually lower than is shown by this data... which is impossible, because it's a subjective claim.

yep

One way to easily disprove Dr. K's claim about the vote flipping to Romney is to look at counties that Santorum won big. In those counties, the EXACT same effect is seen, with Santorum's delegate percentages dropping by a couple relative to the presidential vote, and Gingrich's and Paul's percentages each increasing by a small amount. I dare him to show the results for the entire state, especially all the counties that Santorum won big. As of right now, he has listed 3 other counties where this effect is seen in Romney's favor, but hasn't shown the data. He's probably planning to release those to make it seem like he's picking random counties and seeing the same pro-Romney effect. He's not. He has chosen 4 counties right by Chicago that Romney dominated. If he shows some counties where Santorum had the largest victory margins, it will prove my point. I hope he doesn't try to cherry pick, because I have several that I can bring up to make my case if he wants to continue arguing that this is evidence of Romney cheating.

sorry, everybody, when uploading the newest version of

the spreadsheet, now, the link didn't work. It does work, now.

Its an important issue

We need to get rid of the machines. I haven't been shy about admitting that I think that it happens. So far, this truly does prove nothing. There is better stuff out there for introducing people to this issue. Therefore, unless this develops into actual proof, its important not to let this happen:

Press Release - A Ron Paul PAC issues proof that cheating is inside the machines. There was no "anomaly" for Romney in one county in Illinois.

If the media were going to do something like that

They could pick and choose from a whackier selection of Dr K-isms, including but not limited to his proclamation that 9/11 was perpetrated with the use of directed-energy beam weapons (slaps forehead)...

☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧

The voting machines are not supposed to count votes for

delegates where the Presidential candidate vote differs. If, the voting machines were not programmed properly to factor in that possibility, then The Shazad's explanation is exactly right on. You would have to first speak with whomever programmed the ballot script, before you could rule this out. This is exactly the discrepancy that happened with the Optical Scanners in AL, if you'll recall.

☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧

I did some checking on the

I did some checking on the spreadsheet, What is an incident, because just adding up cases where they differ (Paul received less votes), for Paul I get 86 cases. If you count the vote differential (say Paul had 5 votes and one of his delegates had 7, one had 0 and one had 4, this answer for this case is 2 because one delegate received 7 which is obviously 2 greater then his total of 5) I summed them to get 154. Am I taking crazy pills? Anyone?

Also for Romney, it did happen, but ONLY ONCE!!! Shields 235, row 72 on your spreadsheet...

Thank you for the correction. Will update the spreadsheet

tomorrow. It is tedious and mind-bending work. I came up with 80 incidents for Dr. Paul. The clerk added in the red bars in the presidential vote, thus the higher number. It is being corrected. Thanks again.

It's now corrected to eliminate the red bars on the far left

in the count. So, the real count is based on the red bars in the center over the delegate numbers: This is just the beginning. There are dozens more Lake County precincts to add to the spread sheet, tomorrow. Will post advanced spreadsheet, God willing, tomorrow.

If you ever need help with these

please send them over, I would love to spot anomalies in voting cases, because vote rigging exists, and it would be wonderful to discover some...