Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Why election anomalies are now the standard to be ignored by Wayne Madsen

Why election anomalies are now the standard to be ignored
by Wayne Madsen
After the "grand theft elections" of 2000 and 2004, where Republican election manipulators and engineers led by Karl Rove stole the electoral votes of Florida and Ohio for George W. Bush, the media ignores small electoral anomalies, especially from a few precincts in New Hampshire. But WMR does not ignore these anomalies because small glitches are always indicative of major election counting malfeasance.

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin infamously said, "Those who cast the votesdecide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Our present-day versions of Stalin, namely, the elitist presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush/Ted Cruz, live by Stalin's maxim. While Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump easily won the New Hampshire primary against their establishment foes, WMR noticed oddities in the election returns that merited no mention from the Tourette's afflicted and spittle-spraying Chris Matthews, the astoundingly stupid Wolf Blitzer, the Hillary-loving Rachel Maddow, the noted fabulist Brian Williams, or the team of carnival barkers at Fox News.

When we cover the election returns, we don't watch the bloviators on television but carefully watch the live returns coming in to media websites via the election reporting systems of state capital-based Secretaries of State. We do not trust the pooled news media election reporting services that have been so wrong in the past, such as the defunct Voter News Service made infamous in the 2000 election with its wrong calls on Florida.

In an system that promises one person, one vote, certain results should never be seen in election results, including a precinct where the statewide winner of an election does not receive a single vote. When weighed together, these precinct-by-precinct totals do not pass statistical probability muster.

Although most New Hampshire voting precincts use the Diebold AccuVote tabulating machines that optically scan paper ballots, these machines are, by no means, foolproof.

While Sanders and Trump were the runaway victors in New Hampshire, the real contest for the GOP was for the second- and third-place finishers, because these will be the candidates around which the establishment will gravitate toward in the upcoming primaries and caucuses. Ohio Governor John Kasich finished second and the third-place contest was a neck-and-neck race all night long between Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, with the two tied for third place at several points during the night. Cruz ended up winning third place. For Clinton, the game was to try to keep Sanders's percentage below the mid-fifty percentage range. The gambit failed.

Now for the anomalies, captured from Decision Desk HQ (a conservative website) and the New York Times by WMR during the evening. None of these have any rational explanation other than the fact that vote manipulation as seen in previous elections was at play:

From Decision Desk: We're to believe that Bush received an initial 95 votes and all others, including Trump, received no votes from Concord Ward 1?

From Decision Desk: Concord War 10 reports 154 votes for Bush, 100 for Cruz, 97 for Christie, 54 for Fiorina, and 26 for Carson, while first place finisher Trump and second place finisher Kasich have goose eggs?

From Decision Desk: Just like Concord Ward 10, Laconia Ward 6 reports 99 votes for Bush and none for the other candidates, including statewide winner Trump.

From Decision Desk: Barrington reported 357 votes for Cruz, 278 for Kasich, 93 for Fiorina, 2 votes for Jim Gilmore who received only 129 votes statewide, 31 votes for others, but no votes for Trump, Bush, Carson, or Rubio.

From Decision Desk: With 100 percent reporting, "other" received 4 votes and none for all the other candidates, including Trump with 31.3% statewide.

From the New York Times: Warren precinct reported 31.1% for Bush, 26.7% for Kasich, 15.6% percent for Cruz, but no votes for Trump. What is odd is that all the surrounding precincts broke for Trump by fairly wide margins:

Not to be outdone in the chicanery department, Croydon precinct showed Clinton at 77.3% with no votes for Sanders with the entire precinct reporting in. Later, Sanders won the precinct handily:

Sanders saw a flip in the results in Croydon after the precinct reported 100 percent of all votes at 77.3 percent for Clinton: