It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mainstream media collude in upcoming election fraud?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:31 PM
I see no-one's come back to argue the poinys I raised...

thanks Golemina btw!

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:29 PM

Originally posted by rich23

But wait, aren't you also forgetting the possibility of fraud in the exit polls?

I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. All fraud in the exit polls will do is make the news companies and polling firms look stupid, which is not in their interest. It won't affect the actual results of the elections, will it? To suggest that news companies will deliberately falsify the exit poll results - when all that will happen is that they will look foolish as a result - is clutching at straws. Particularly when you realise that they're under-reporting the whole issue of vote fraud in the first place.

It would be way easier for the pollster to skew the results of their polls (because there are no controls over them at all) than it would to change actual votes.

Not only do they not have any interest, as explained above, in skewing their polling results, it wouldn't be much easier than arranging vote fraud on some of the voting and vote-tabulating machines in the chain, according to reports I've read. It's really easy to arrange, thanks to poor, proprietary software. Every so often, someone leaks the code for the software, and programmers pick through it. I remember reading one report that said at one point there's an instruction to divide one of the totals by 1. This makes no difference to the total. Why do that unless you're going to substitute another number for 1 at some point in the future?

I totally disagree with your assertions that pollsters would have no interest in falsifying results, and that it would be unlikely to happen.

First, taking polls is a business that attempts to make money from it's operations. Second, most pollsters are hired by news orginazations, news organizations that we have all seen make no attempt to hide their own political bias. News orgainzations that have been caught trying to influence elections before (I recall Connie Chung on the air trying to tell people that the Reagan-Dukakis election was not over and that people still needed to get out and vote. Since Reagan had already been declared the winner (by exit polls), Chung could only have been trying to rally democrat voters). How would the pollsters data affect the voters? In one of two ways. It could either energize to vote people perceived to be on the losing side, or convince people on the opposing side to think "why bother to vote if we're going to lose anyway." In the close races we've seen lately, it wouldn't take too many voters influenced in this way to swing an election.

So, for all you political CTers out there, we have motive - pollsters paid by news organizations to give them the data they want to see. And news organizations with a politcal agenda they want to see fulfilled. And we have method - use the polls to show that elections are tilting the way the news organizations with political agendas want them to look, thereby influencing the voters in close elections. And last we have opportunity - election coming up with many people fixated on the polls.

This method of influencing elections is brilliantly subtle. So much easier to do than all these other election fraud theories. For example, there is no software to write and distribute to thousands of voting machines. Instead, some money changes hands to change the printed poll results. Very few people would have to be involved. If it works, hey!, the polls were right. If it doesn't work, the pollsters can just pretend to scratch their heads and say, "Hmmm. must have been an aberration in the numbers." Who's going to investigate? Nobody.

That's my likely vision of crooked politics in America.

[edit on 11/6/2006 by centurion1211]

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:42 AM
Polls' reputations are made by their accuracy. And if what you say is true, why are they doing away with them? Why don't they use them to influence voting for Republicans?

I notice no-one has dealt with the fact that all the inaccuracies in the results favour Bush...

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:51 AM

Originally posted by rich23
Polls' reputations are made by their accuracy. And if what you say is true, why are they doing away with them? Why don't they use them to influence voting for Republicans?

I notice no-one has dealt with the fact that all the inaccuracies in the results favour Bush...

Did you vote?

All of your posts on this are basically your opinions stated as though they are facts. I have seen nothing to back up your assertions. What I posted was a 'what if' counterpoint to your argument that made just as much, if not more, sense than your election fraud theory.

As to the above, using my 'theory', I think you kind of answered your own question. I say that manipulating elections through skewing poll results was tried several times and found not to give a great return for the money 'invested'. It didn't work, so they aren't doing it as much anymore.

As for your last comment; if it was being done as I theorized, that's exactly how it would look. The democrats would have paid to skew the poll numbers in their candidates favor. But since that method didn't end up changing enough votes to change the election results, you would see exactly what you pointed out - an apparent 'discrepency" in the Republican's favor.

Of course this is all just a "thought" excercise. However, I "think" I'm making way more sense than what you posted.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:57 PM
Unfortunately, though attempting sincerity have ignored a whole lot of water that went over the dam there Centurion...

The process is ABSOLUTELY corrupt... It's ultimate shortcoming being that it depends on some sense of 'fair play' (and EVEN more hilarious... integrity and honesty!
) for it to even come close to working.

With the win at all costs MO that has been in play since the 'conservatives' made their move... We're a democracy (republic
) in name only.

Having friends that work in the vote tabulating business... it's simply child's play to make the results come out to whatever the folks with the physical control of the mechanism so desire...

I live in King County Washington... and can verify that the door swings both ways.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 09:28 PM

This election fraud by the Republicans accusation is so totally BS. Doesn't anyone think (no realize) that if the Republicans really controlled an election fraud machine that they would allow the democrats to take control of either the house or senate???

Look at the returns, ATS'ers. Either the people have spoken, or it's the democrats with the election fraud machine this time.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:06 PM

Polls' reputations are made by their accuracy. And if what you say is true, why are they doing away with them? Why don't they use them to influence voting for Republicans?

Interesting take on one poll.


AnkleBitingPundits did the heavy lifting to examine the inputs for this AP-Ipsos poll. Only 81% of respondents were eligible to vote, with no indication whether even those were registered and did vote in the last election. Respondents were 52-40 percent Democrats over Republicans, even though in the last election the split was 37 each (the rest being unaffiliated or third party).

Every single one of the following crosstabs from the poll are wrong, and in every instance the error favors the Democrat responses. Each is compared to actual voters in 2004. Religion: 19% said they had “none,” versus 10% in 2004. Age: 31% were 18-34, versus 17% for 18-29 (closest available data). Income: 15% under $15,000, versus 8%.

Marriage: 56% married, versus 63%. Geography: 17% rural, versus 25%. Race: 71% white and 12% Hispanic, versus 77% and 8%. (Remainder were black, and other.)


A first-year student in statistics would be flunked for turning in poll results as obviously bad as this AP-Ipsos poll. Yet thousands of articles will appear in all media, across the nation and the world in the next few days, based on this poll.

At the very least, the AP should withdraw the poll and apologize for it. At worst, those who purchase the “news” services of AP should demand their money back.



[edit on 11/7/2006 by semperfortis]

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:29 PM
Well Rich, I can't say I am surprized from those who seem to be against your theory of media bais. You are a bad man to put reality in their face like that..

I am a huge boxing fan. Fought for a couple of years too. Anyway, one of my more favourite anouncers is a man by the name of Jim Lamply. Having watched him for over 2 decades now, I have seen him stand up repeatedly for what was in the fighters best interest even when it went against those that paid his salery. That is just the type of integrity this man has. I say that becase a few years ago I noticed he had a blog on the hutchinson post. I had never heard about it before.

The Biggest story of our lives
People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.....

....We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, thaty's why there are identifiable margins for error. We know that margins for error are valid, and that results have fallen within the error range for every Presidential election for the past fifty years prior to last fall. NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began. In this past election it happened in ten states, all of them swing states, all of them in Bush's favor. Coincidence? Of course not.

This was for the 2004 election. It was the begining, it has continued. Hopefully tonight it will start to be put right.

Edited for wrong date.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Waiting2awake]

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:42 PM
If you think that's credible statistics, then you simply read your article uncritically and didn't think independently about it, which is what I'd expect, to be frank.

The link to "ankle biting pundits" didn't work, so I can't comment in detail on the methodology of their critique, but the substance of their complaint seems to be that the results don't tally with the results of an exit poll, and that the survey included some respondents who were not eligible to vote.

In many, many ways, and for many different and pertinent reasons, this is like complaining that apples are not spaghetti.

Firstly, the pollsters themselves must have indicated clearly that some of the respondents were not eligible to vote. This can only indicate misuse of the polling data by the news agancies, not by the pollsters themselves.

But the core complaint seems to be that the sample doesn't match the demographic and climate of opinion sampled in previous exit polls, and there's a good reason for that: according to the HBO documentary Hacking Democracy (you can easily find it on Google Video - I shan't link it because of restrictions on ATS) and according to this article by Greg Palast, there has been a consistent effort by Republicans to prevent large sections of the population from voting. I rather suspect you'd find smaller proportions of black, Hispanic and Jewish people in the exit poll statistics than in the poll that your link criticises, and that if it's a truly representative poll, it would reflect the ethnic composition of the country as a whole more accurately than exit poll data.

For six years now, our investigations team, at first on assignment for BBC TV and the Guardian, has been digging into the nitty-gritty of the gaming of US elections. We've found that November 7, 2006 is a day that will live in infamy. Four and a half million votes have been shoplifted. Here's how they'll do it, in three easy steps:

Theft #1: Registrations gone with the wind.

On January 1, 2006, while America slept off New Year's Eve hangovers, a new federal law crept out of the swamps that has devoured 1.9 million votes, overwhelmingly those of African-Americans and Hispanics....

The New York University Law School's Brennan Center told me that, under the new law, Republican Secretaries of State began the year by blocking about one in three new voters.


For example, California's Republican Secretary of State Bruce McPherson figured out how to block 40% of registrants, mostly Hispanics. In a rare counter-move, Los Angeles, with a Hispanic mayor, contacted these citizens, "verified" them and got almost every single one back on the rolls. But throughout the rest of the West, new Hispanics remain victims of the "José Crow" treatment.

Theft #2: Turned Away - the ID game

A legion of pimple-faced Republicans with Blackberries loaded with lists of new voters is assigned to challenge citizens in heavily Black and Hispanic(i.e. Democratic) precincts to demand photo ID that perfectly matches registration data.

...In 2004, we got our hands on fifty confidential internal memos from the files of the Republican National Committee. Attached to these were some pretty strange spreadsheets. They called them "caging lists" -- and it wasn't about zoo feeding times. They were lists (70,000 for Florida alone) of new Black and Jewish voters -- a very Democratic demographic -- to challenge on Election Day. The GOP did so with a vengeance: In 2004, for the first time in half a century, more than 3.5 million voters were challenged on Election Day. Worse, nearly half lost their vote: 300,000 were turned away for wrong ID; 1.1 million were allowed a "provisional" ballot -- which was then simply tossed out.

Tomorrow, new federal ID requirements and a dozen new state show-me-your-ID laws will permit the GOP challenge campaign to triple their 300,000 record to nearly one million voters blocked.

Theft #3: Votes Spoiled Rotten

The nasty little secret of US elections is that three million ballots are cast in national elections but not counted -- 3,600,380 not counted in 2004 according to US Election Commission stats. These are votes lost because a punch card didn't punch (its chad got "hung"), a stray mark voided a paper ballot and other machinery glitches.

Officials call it "spoilage." I call it, "inaugurating Republicans." Why? According to statisticians working with the US Civil Rights Commission, the chance your vote will "spoil" this way is 900% higher for Black folk and 500% higher for Hispanics than for white voters. When we do the arithmetic, we find that well over half of all votes spoiled or "blank" are cast by voters of color. On balance, this spoilage game produces a million-vote edge for the GOP.

That's where the Black Boxes come into play. Forget about Karl Rove messing with the software to change your vote. Rather, the big losses occur when computers crash, fail to start or simply don't respond to your touch. They are the new spoilage machines of choice with, statistically, the same racial bias as the old vote-snatching lever machines. (Funny, but paper ballots with in-precinct scanners don't go rotten on Black voters. Maybe that's why Republican Secretaries of State have installed so few of them.)

So Let's Add it Up

Two million legitimate voters will be turned away because of wrongly rejected or purged registrations.

Add another one million voters challenged and turned away for "improper ID."

Then add yet another million for Democratic votes "spoiled" by busted black boxes and by bad ballots.

And let's not forget to include the one million "provisional" ballots which will never get counted. Based on the experience of 2004, we know that, overwhelmingly, minority voters are the ones shunted to these baloney ballots.

And there's one more group of votes that won't be counted: absentee ballots challenged and discarded. Elections Assistance Agency data tell us a half million of these absentee votes will go down the drain.

Driving this massive suppression of the vote are sophisticated challenge operations. And here I must note that the Democrats have no national challenge campaign. That's morally laudable; electorally suicidal.

Add it all up -- all those Democratic-leaning votes rejected, barred and spoiled -- and the Republican Party begins Election Day with a 4.5 million-vote thumb on the vote-tally scale.

So it's really no surprise that a random sampling of the population would produce different results from an exit poll of people who were actually allowed to vote.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:46 PM
Funny but if the DEMS win then that means there is not cheating or game playing in this election? I always thought that both sides cheated and I wouldn't try to guess which side cheats more. Mind you the amount of cheating is not enough to guarantee a victory in itself by any means.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:51 PM

Originally posted by centurion1211
Did you vote?

I'm not American. And if I were, I wouldn't have anyone to vote for. Here in th UK I vote Green.

I suggest you look at the HBO documentary Hacking Democracy - it's on Google video, and at the many threads on ATS about Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S machines.

Ignore it all you want but your system is irretrievably corrupt.

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 12:06 AM
Rich23 I see exit poll inaccuracies as validation of the liberal bias of the media. The reason the inaccurate polls all favored Bush (as you claim) is because the media presented results favoring the democrats. The reason they did this is to try to influence would be Bush voters that their side was winning, hence there was no need to go vote since it wouldn't matter anyway.

True American is quite right about your bias showing in the lead off post. You have apparently made up your mind without regard for the real facts of the matter. The reason exit polls are being curtailed to the extent they are is because of the influence they have on people who have yet to vote. There is ample evidence of this effect and it goes in both directions.

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 04:40 AM
No, Astronomer, your logic is incorrect. The errors in the exit polls, the discrepancies between the polls and the final result, all favoured Bush. Therefore, if anything, it should have encouraged Bush supporters to come out and vote because their candidate was losing.

Anyway, it seems as if the Dems have won Congress, as far as we can tell right now, so either they've got better at cheating, or the backlash against Bush has overwhelmed even the Republicans' valiant efforts at distorting the election results.

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 08:46 AM
There ARE practical limits to the total vote count that can be fudged.

The statistical limits were TOTALLY pushed in the presidential in 2000...

That's why there was a significant addition of the more traditional methods of disenfranchisment in all of the nationals since that noticeable drama.

(Statistically, the 2004 presidential was quite humorous. The conservatives were so vehement in their support... a ghost army of the super religious showed up from what can only be presumed the grave...

THIS election is no different.

You have to have BASIS from which to launch these 'tweaks'... The numbers are simply not there...

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by centurion1211
Did you vote?

I'm not American.

Ah, there we have it. Another foreign "expert" on something uniquely American to tell us how they know what's wrong and what we should do to fix it. And your qualifications for weighing in on our election process are exactly what?

God, there must be something right there in your own backyard that needs your attention more than the voting processes in the U.S. For example, I was just looking at another ATS thread about U.K. doctors wanting the right to perform euthanasia on newborn children (for starters?). Now that shocking and "slippery slope" request must be in terrible need of someone local there to debate the pros and cons of. Funny, but I don't remember seeing you post on that (more relevant to you) thread.

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 04:40 PM

I always wondered what they sounded like...

We'll... I am an AMERICAN! (gotta swell your chest out when you say that..)

You can hang your hat and basically every word our guy Rich has had to share with us.

> And your qualifications for weighing in on our election process are exactly what?
If I was answering that question, it might go something like...

The answer to that would be something along the lines of a pursuit for the truth.

One can only speculate doesn't seem to be a high priority if one of the qualifications for speaking on this theme is some type of mandatory American citizenship.

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by golemina

I always wondered what they sounded like...

We'll... I am an AMERICAN! (gotta swell your chest out when you say that..) (sarcasm?)

Xenophobe? How quickly they turn to name calling ...

For further examples of golemina's rather elitist style of writing see this ATS thread:

CNN Thread

is for you "fellow citizen". Unfortunately, you sound like one of those types that thinks we should let the U.N. set policy and otherwise tell us how we should run the country. Of course, that's just speculation on my part.

And "pursuit of the truth"? Puh-lease. What a weak response. Rich wasn't pursuing anything except an agenda of criticizing something he must know little about.

Sorry that you seem unable to reason why it is irritating to have foreigners harranging us on our election issues - as if they have all the answers.

Also sorry that you seem to have no positive feelings for your own country.

Oh, and fellow American, did you vote?

[edit on 11/8/2006 by centurion1211]

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 08:07 PM

No really... Where DO you get this stuff from?

Let's at least try to pretend like you are trying to stay on topic...

>And "pursuit of the truth"? Puh-lease.

Oh, I see... The 'truth' is only relevant when it is somehow compatible with the view you support...

Hmm... I wonder what your party affiliation might be...

Guys that are interested in the 'pursuit of the truth' tend to sound like the Richster (or maybe like me

Guys that are interested in something else, use the type of rhetoric you seem so intent on demonstarting.

Don't take this too personally, but I can't help but notice you are seriously committed to accusing me of something...


I AM flattered!

Seeing that (AND the way you just seem to make stuff up
) reminds of a cartoon I saw last week. The cartoon character was debating the merits of joining in on some internet type discussions... But was basically afraid of somehow being outclassed.

Then he went and read some of the 'internet stuff'...

The punch line being, of course, 'I am SO in!'.

Speaking of being 'SO in!'... Can you please point out to me... WHAT relevance any of your accusatory implied viewpoints have to do with the salient point of this discussion?

Psst... the blatant statistical anamolies of the discrepancies between the 'exit polls' and the actual election results?

(I didn't speak too fast for you did I?
If so, just let me know... We'll switch from Elitist to a vernacular you're might be more comfortable with...

[edit on 8-11-2006 by golemina]

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in