SaveYourFreedoms.us
(while there is still time )
Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." 
- Joseph Stalin, dictator

November 8, 2016 Election

The Almost Complete Destruction of Democracy in America

1) There is a high probability (beyond statistical margin of error) there was vote count fraud in favor of Trump in three states: North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

2) There is a high probability (beyond statistical margin of error) there was vote count fraud in favor of Republicans in Senate races in three states: Missouri, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

If these vote count frauds did not take place, Trump would not be President of the U.S. and the Democrats would have the majority of Senate seats.

 

There is almost no major media coverage of the above, and many studies show major media drives the majority of American's awareness of issues. This is likely to happen again in a more extensive way, since the architects of this vote count fraud will be emboldened due to lack of daylight.

 

Major sections of this site.

I) Evidence of vote count fraud
(How vote count fraud is detected. Evidence of fraud in 2016 election)

II) Integrity of the USA election systems compared
(How the USA ranks compared to other countries. Differences between States in the US)

III) Evidence of pre-election voter roll targeted purging, voter suppression
("Cross Check" roll purging and results, voter suppression and results, 2013 Supreme Court decision gutting voting rights)

IV) What could have been done after the election and before the Electoral College count in the US Senate, and what did and did not take place

(Media coverage of problem. Electoral College influence. Recount. Senate and House Certification of vote)
V) What happened during the attempted Recount in certain states.
(First-hand reports from those who were there.)

VI) What is the prognosis for Democracy (Election Integrity) in America?

 

This site attempts to create a record of what took place from November 8, 2016 through January 6, 2017 related to the election’s integrity, and the prognosis for future elections.

 

Evidence of vote count fraud:

First, it should be understood that Exit Polls (not regular polls) are the main tool the United States uses to detect possible vote count fraud in other countries. “The United States has funded exit polls in Eastern Europe to detect fraud. Discrepancies between exit polls and the official vote count have been used to successfully overturn election results in Ukraine, Serbia, and Georgia.” see http://electiondefensealliance.org/frequently_asked_questions_about_exit_polls

U.S. State Department and U.S. Agency on International Development (USAID) are standards of election integrity that every democratic country on the planet is held to – except the United States.

“That standard is simple: If there is a significant mismatch between exit poll numbers and official vote totals, it is assumed something is amiss.”  – Attorney/Professor Bob Fitrakis.

 America ignores the standards that it holds for other countries, and makes the false assumption that all vote counts in the USA are without fraud. The major media and many groups follow suit and come up with theories when the vote count significantly differs from the exit poll, almost never allowing for the possibility of vote count fraud.

 Edison Research, (http://www.edisonresearch.com/election-polling/ ), which conducts the exit polling for the news organizations, is quick to avoid allowing for election fraud in the vote count, saying, in effect, they must have not done the sampling of voters correctly in the exit polls.
What happened to the Edison Media Research Lawsuit
http://files.constantcontact.com/e3be2ffa001/5963c680-fcce-41db-a265-c2b5af1b1fd8.pdf

Much contradicts this explanation:
Look at the full table at:http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/ or the below excerpt, the Exit Poll prediction vs Vote Count in California show 0% difference, and in Texas there is only a .3% difference, as of November 17, 2016. These are the largest most diverse states and yet the Exit Polls are perfect and near perfect predictors of the vote count, which is strong evidence that Edison Research has the sampling science down to a high degree of accuracy

Presidential Election Clinton vs Trump  --- State plus (sample size of Exit Poll) shown

CNN Published Exit Polls (EP)

Reported Vote Count (VC)

EP/VC Discrepancies

Clinton EP

Trump EP

Margin Trump- Clinton+

Margin of Error (MOE) on the Difference

Clinton VC

Trump VC

Margin   Trump+ Clinton-

Margin Discrepancy in Favor of Trump

Discrepancy Greater Than EP MOE

California (2282)*

60.0%

31.5%

28.5%

3.7%

61.5%

33.0%

28.5%

0.0%

0%

Texas (2610)*

42.3%

51.8%

9.5%

3.7%

43.4%

52.6%

9.2%

0.3%

0%

 

Below is the table showing to a 95% confidence level (CL) that in the vote count was manipulated in favor of Trump in 3 swing states.

Presidential Election Clinton vs Trump  --- State plus (sample size of Exit Poll) shown

CNN Published Exit Polls (EP)

Reported Vote Count (VC)

EP/VC Discrepancies

Clinton EP

Trump EP

Margin Trump- Clinton+

Margin of Error (MOE) on the Difference

Clinton VC

Trump VC

Margin   Trump+ Clinton-

Margin Discrepancy in Favor of Trump

Discrepancy Greater Than EP MOE

North Carolina (3967)*

48.6%

46.5%

-2.1%

3.0%

46.7%

50.5%

3.8%

5.9%

2.9%

Pennsylvania (2613)*

50.5%

46.1%

-4.4%

3.8%

47.7%

48.8%

1.1%

5.5%

1.7%

Wisconsin (2981)*

48.2%

44.3%

-3.9%

3.5%

46.9%

47.9%

1.0%

4.9%

1.4%

Three states (above) had differences beyond the statistical Margin of Error (MOE), if the results had conformed to the Exit Polls, it would have changed the election outcome to Clinton 277 to Trump 245 electoral votes.

The above table is data from a larger table showing all states with Exit Polls completed (see http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/ ). It is from Exit Poll data just after polls close and before CNN switched to states reported vote count on their site.
The vote count is the final count from November 17, 2016.

*Exit Poll sample size provided by http://codered2014.com/category/2016-election/

The above data may be different by one-tenth in a few cases from the larger table due to rounding in larger table at TDMSResearch, which does not affect the result.

After the initial posting, Exit Poll totals are adjusted to match the vote counts. If you visit the CNN website now, it is the adjusted Exit Poll numbers you will see displayed there.

 

The result of Senate race Exit Polls vs. Vote Count can be seen at: http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/15/2016-us-senate-elections/

It is unknown how many House of Representative races may have been impacted by vote count fraud since the same Exit Polling is not applied to House races.

Attorney, Peter Peckarsky has shown the above analysis of Presidential and Senate races in a different form, which shows the probability of this deviation from the exit polls. For instance, the North Carolina deviation from the exit polls is so great, it should occur only once, in every 18,000 elections.
Peter's research can be seen at https://www.peter4dnc.com/research/
and the graphic presentation is also included here at: 2016exitpollgraphsPeterPeckarsky

Integrity of the U.S. election systems compared:

In the 2015 Harvard Electoral Integrity Project ranking, the US came in 45th among fully-developed democracies in electoral integrity—immediately between Mexico and Colombia. Our last two elections (2012 and 2014) ranked dead last among the group of 54 long-established democracies. When electoral integrity scores were plotted against national wealth, the U.S. was a glaring outlier at the bottom of the global graph.
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/press-releases/electoral-integrity-pippa-norris (see related links)

In the United States, computerized election vote counts are essentially unverified. Audits of any election, if conducted at all, are hidden from view — only four states specify that observers can verify the markings on the ballots (only one state for primary elections - Minnesota). Primary election results are only audited in 13 states. Only six of these states require that the results of the audit and the data be made public. Only one state, for any election, is even experimenting with performing audits according to the best practices of a risk-limiting audit.
http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/07/26/exit-polls-and-computer-vote-counts/

Currently, 5 states have digital voting machines with no paper trail, so a real audit cannot take place, and an additional 10 states have a mix of no paper trail machines and ones with a paper back-up.

“..About a quarter of our voting machines in the United States, very stupidly, don’t have paper trails..." former CIA Director Woolsey – December 2016. 

It should be understood that not all U.S. States, have equal election integrity problems; for example, when Deborah Bowen was Secretary of State in California she undertook extensive efforts to insure that in General Elections cycles, there are considerable safe-guards.  Some of the voting machines she decertified are still being used in other states.

Barbara Simons Ph.D, of Verified Voting see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_SimonsDeveloped a report showing which states have practices and voting equipment that makes for questionable elections and lack of real auditability.
see barbarasimonstalk1017slides.pdf

A National Election Integrity Conference was held in Berkeley, CA on October 7th and 8th 2017, with some of the most informed on the issue, giving talks. The conference site: https://nvrtf.org/
Many of the speakers talks can be seen on youtube search on nvrtf 2017 current link at:
https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=QgIIAQ%253D%253D&search_query=nvrtf+2017

Another Form of Loss of Election Integrity (targeted suppression,and purging)

In addition to electronic vote flipping, there is a form of election integrity loss in the 2016 election unrelated to vote count integrity, that occurs pre-election: the purging of voter rolls of voters who tend to vote Democratic (Afro-Americans and Hispanics). One of the largest examples of this is a Republican program called Crosscheck, which falsely purges voter rolls. Crosscheck combined with severely limiting the number of polling places in heavily democratic areas has succeeded in reducing the number of Democratic voters in certain states. Much has been written about this program.
see http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890
plus a detailed documentary has been made about pre-election voter fraud, see http://thebestdemocracymoneycanbuy.com/

It was hard for this pre-election interference to occur until the Republicans filed a lawsuit that went to the Republican Majority Supreme Court in 2013 that gutted the Voting Rights Act. Obama, probably would have not won in some states in the November 2012 election if the Supreme Court had ruled on the Voting Rights Act case in 2011.
The 2016 election was the first Presidential Election in 50 years without the Voting Rights Act.

After the Supreme Court gutted basic protections to our innate right to vote, Republicans set to work guaranteeing that Democratic-leaning voters wouldn’t be able to cast their ballots.

And it worked.

A shocking new report analyzing this year’s election revealed widespread and significant voting problems across the country.

WISCONSIN: 300,000 registered voters lacked the photo ID necessary to cast their ballots.

Trump won Wisconsin by only 27,000 votes.

NORTH CAROLINA: 158 fewer polling locations in 40 predominantly African American districts.

African American turnout decreased by 16% in North Carolina.

These voting problems are the DIRECT result of the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act in 2013. Since then, the Court has allowed states to pass their own election rules without federal approval. And predictably, budgets were slashed and urban neighborhoods that consistently vote Democratic were hit significantly harder than rural, Republican-leaning areas….” excerpted from The Nation magazine email.

Trump's current nominee for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions: “…In 2014, Sessions said that Congress did not need to update the Voting Rights Act by restoring federal oversight of elections…”

What could have happened after the November 8, 2016 to possibly reverse the likely fraudulent outcome of the November 2016 election, and what did happen. 

1) By November 17, 2016, when election results were 99% final, a major effort by all groups concerned with Trump’s selection, should have lobbied the major media to get the media to report on the investigations of the few non-profits and credentialed individuals, who were knowledgeable about the fraud problems.
Also, to get high profile individuals, who had some cache with the voting public, like Bernie Sanders and President Obama to mention this problem, in public forums, in some detail.

What happened instead:

Only Democracy Now news hour, which has only a few good PBS time slots in some states, covered these problems in some detail.  Democracy Now does not have near as much penetration into American households as CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and PBS newshour, which had no coverage of this likely election vote count fraud.  Also, Bernie or President Obama or any other high profile person never spoke-up publicly about the likely vote count fraud problem.

2) Between December 13 and December 19th 2016, the electoral college finalizes, who they are going to vote for, so before then, having enough of the electoral college members become aware of the fraud problem could be helpful when they finally vote.

What happened instead:

There was a significant effort to contact electoral college members and get them not to vote for Trump.

For example there was a cyber petition with more than 4.5 million signatures asking electoral college members not to vote for Trump, but it never mentions the vote count fraud as one of the reasons.

The final results of the Electoral College Vote:

President-elect Donald Trump received 304 of the Electoral College votes compared to 227 for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

There were seven "faithless electors"  - the name given to electors who vote contrary to the candidate that won their state - five among Democrats and two for Republicans.

Colin Powell received three votes, and John Kasich, Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, and Faith Spotted Eagle each received one.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/electoral_college_live_results.html

3) Recount in states that showed significant likelihood of vote count fraud.

Jill Stein attempted to initiated a recount in all states that showed likelihood of voter fraud, in which she had “standing” as the Green Party Presidential Candidate. North Carolina (NC), makes it near impossible for 3rd party candidates to be on the ballot, so Stein did not have “standing” to request a recount.

North Carolina appears to be less a Democracy than authoritarian states and pseudo-democracies like, Indonesia and Sierra Leone according to recent articles measuring it against other states and countries: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html

In short, the two Trump Superpacs, with teams of lawyers and with help from Republican officials, blocked the recount efforts in all but Wisconsin (which had a restricted recount).  Much was learned about the problems with election integrity in these states so a separate set of web pages has been created detailing the recount efforts at: http://saveyourfreedoms.us/syf/2016election/recapofrecount.html (including 2 videos links at end of text)

Brief summary of the recount effort from Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
"...The recount processes were, to say the least, disappointing. In Pennsylvania, the campaign's request for a recount was rejected by a federal judge. In Michigan, the recount started, but was halted a few days later. Only Wisconsin completed its recount, confirming the original vote result. However, many Wisconsin counties opted to simply run the ballots through their tabulating machine again. The obvious flaw with this technique is that if the tabulating machines were broken or compromised, the same inaccuracies they registered the first time around would show up the second time around, accomplishing nothing..."
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/audit-better-faster-cheaper
 

4) On January 6th, 2017 the Senate and the House count the electoral college votes and certify each state’s results.

In January 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer, announced with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio that they would object to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes during a joint session of Congress 2005 (due to potential fraud in the vote count). It was only the second time since 1877 that the House and Senate were forced into separate meetings to consider electoral votes.

This needed to occur again in January 6, 2017 but with more Senate and House members refusing to certify the election results.

What happened instead:

On January 6, 2017. Seven brave members of the House of Representatives, rose to voice their objections to the vote certification.  The rules require that a Senator agree, which would have forced a debate and stopped the certification process.

The seven were: Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA); Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts; Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland; Rep. Barbara Lee of California; Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas; Arizona's Rep. Raul Grijalva; California Rep. Maxine Waters

No Senator would cooperate with the House members, not even Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, who have on some occasions in the past, braved potential adverse political ramifications from the President’s office.

What is the prognosis for Democracy (Election Integrity) in America?

This is the 3rd Republican soft coup in the last 16 years, on this one there is almost no large media mention of it. The 2000 Gore vs Bush coup in Florida, had a lot of press – the Republican dominated Supreme Court intervened to give it to Bush, the 2004 Kerry vs Bush steal that took place in Ohio at least got a little light of day and books written on it plus Senator Boxer and Rep. Tubbs refused to vote to certify the election (only Senator who refused).http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Boxer-delays-presidential-vote-count-with-protest-2740511.php

This election was the biggest steal, and it took place in at least several swing states, and there is almost no media about it. The set of Republicans responsible for this election fraud will be emboldened by this lack of response from the media.

As detailed in an above section of this page, seven brave Reps. from the House refused to certify the electoral college vote, but rules require at least one brave Senator to concur, and none came forth. Largely, the media ignored vote certification and potential vote count fraud that may have received some media notice if one Senator had done what Senator Boxer did in 2004.

This indicates to me that in relatively close elections the Republicans will continue to commit fraud in elections, and things with get worse even faster. We might be headed for some form of a corporate theocracy with a major police-state component, given that right-wing religious fundamentalist Mike Pence (Trumps VP) oversees the transition team (over 600 federal political appointments) and Trump knows he owes a lot to Pence and the religious right for his selection. It should be noted that Republicans now have all four major institutions of government, the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, and the Executive branch, which means no checks and balances on power, once Trump appoints a new Supreme Court Justice in 2017.


Some websites about this 2016 election vote count issue:

http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/

http://codered2014.com/blog/
http://saveyourfreedoms.us/syf/2016election/recapofrecount.html (text plus video links)

http://columbusfreepress.com/article/real-story-recount

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/audit-better-faster-cheaper

https://www.facebook.com/markcrispinmiller/ (NYU Professor Mark Crispin Miller)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PPuYul9Nao (Plus interview Miller recorded 11-9-16)
http://coalitionforvotingintegrity.com/id337.html

Articles on potential stolen 2016 election

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/40381-how-the-gop-flipped-and-stripped-yet-another-american-election

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/11/18/election-audit-paper-machines-column/93803752/

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-exit-polls-did-hillaty-clinton-win-presidential-election-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/  

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html
2017 Trump efforts to surpress more Democratic voters
Trump Appoints Voter Suppression Expert as "Voter Integrity" Director
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19101
Trump Picks King Of Voter Suppression To Lead ‘Election Integrity’ Commission
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-picks-king-of-voter-suppression-to-lead-election_us_5918cf0de4b02d6199b2f0db

Other groups working on Election Integrity:
https://nvrtf.org/
http://blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.wisconsinelectionintegrity.org/
http://www.michiganelectionreformalliance.org/
http://www.fairvoteca.org/san_francisco_open_source_voting_system_project
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Vote/auditTools.htm
http://www.citizensoversight.org/
https://www.verifiedvoting.org/
https://www.peter4dnc.com/research/
http://trustvote.org/

OldSite