A mathematician may have uncovered widespread election fraud, and Kansas is trying to silence her [View all]

[Ichingcarpenter]

Last edited Fri Aug 7, 2015, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Kansas loves them some voter fraud hysteria. From going to the Supreme Court to try and make doubly-sure that non-citizens can’t vote in their elections to setting up a voter fraud website where citizens can report every kind of voter fraud except the kinds that have actually happened in the state, Kansas is on the forefront of voter fraud readiness and protection.

Except, perhaps, when it comes to the machines they use to record their votes.

According to the Wichita Eagle, Wichita State mathematician Beth Clarkson has found irregularities in election returns from Sedgwick County, along with other counties throughout the United States, but has faced stiff opposition from the state in trying to confirm whether the irregularities are fraud or other, less-nefarious anomalies.

Analyzing election returns at a precinct level, Clarkson found that candidate support was correlated, to a statistically significant degree, with the size of the precinct. In Republican primaries, the bias has been toward the establishment candidates over tea partiers. In general elections, it has favored Republican candidates over Democrats, even when the demographics of the precincts in question suggested that the opposite should have been true.

Clarkson’s interest in election returns was piqued by a 2012 paper released by analysts Francois Choquette and James Johnson showing the same pattern of election returns, which favor establishment Republican candidates in primaries and general elections. The irregularities are isolated to precincts that use “Central Tabulator” voting machines — machines that have previously been shown to be vulnerable to hacking. The effects are significant and widespread: According to their analysis, Mitt Romney could have received over a million extra votes in the 2012 Republican primary, mostly coming at the expense of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. President Obama also ceded significant votes to John McCain due to this irregularity, as well.

You can read the paper in full here.

http://americablog.com/2015/08/mathematician-actual-voter-fraud-kansas-republicans.html



In 2002 in Comal County in Central Texas 3 Republican candidates each won with exactly 18,181 votes. What do you think the odds are for that? Would you trust a lottery that hit the same numbers 3 weeks in a row? It gets worse. Two more Republicans in nearby states also won with exactly 18,181 votes. All five on the same type of ES&S voting machines.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID12/114.html Convert the numbers to the alphabet: 18181 18181 18181 ahaha ahaha ahaha - were they laughing at us? The voting machine company Diebold also uses a voting software called GEMS version 1.81.81. More laughter? Since brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich, founded ES&S and then Bob then went to run Diebold, perhaps both companies share a sense of humor. Diebold and ES&S, together, count about 80 percent of the votes in the United States.


You remember Florida in 2000? Remember how Gore conceded for a minute? Did you know that the computerized voting machines in just one Florida county gave Gore a NEGATIVE 16,000 votes and mistakenly added 4,000 votes to Bush's totals thus giving Bush an extra 20,000 fake votes. That was why CBS called the election for Bush and was one of the reasons Gore thought he'd lost. http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/834

In Abilene, Texas the poll workers became suspicious of a lopsided vote that gave a landslide victory to a Republican, When it was checked they found the Democrat actually won by a large margin. (How many places is it never checked?) The voting machine company blamed a supposedly defective chip. When I have a defective chip my computer just stops working instead of giving me fake results.

http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/alllietrust.shtml


from the book The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan


"In time of rapid social change there are bound to be conspiracies, both by those in favor of change and by those defending the status quo. The latter more than the former in recent American political history. Detecting conspiracies when there are no conspiracies is a symptom of paranoia; detecting them when they exist is a sign of menial health. An acquaintance of mine says, "in America today, if you're not a little paranoid you're out of your mind."

page 190