This is Google's cache of http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Oct 26, 2012 06:57:05 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.

Full version

UK Progressive

    Politics
    Business & Economy
    Sustainability
    Media/Tech
    Reflections On
    Authors

    RSS

UPDATED: Retired NSA Analyst Proves GOP Is Stealing Elections
Politics | Denis G Campbell | October 25, 2012 6:00 pm

By Denis G. Campbell and
Charley James
(c) 25 October 2012

UPDATED: Why is Mitt Romney so confident?

In states where the winner will be decided by less than 10%, of the vote he already knows he will win. This is no tinfoil hat conspiracy. It’s a maths problem. And mathematics showed changes in actual raw voting data that had no statistical correlation other than programmable computer fraud. This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008 (thus far) and in the 2012 primary contests from other Republicans to Mitt Romney.

This goes well beyond Romney’s investment control in voting machine maker Hart Intercivic and Diebold’s close ties to George W. Bush. Indeed all five voting machine companies have very strong GOP fundraising ties, yet executives (including the candidate’s son Tagg Romney) insist there is no conflict between massively supporting one party financially whilst controlling the machines that record and count the votes.

A retired NSA analyst has spent several sleepless nights applying a simple formula to past election results across Arizona. His results showed across-the-board systemic election fraud on a coordinated and massive scale. But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.

The bigger the precinct (x axis) the higher the number of votes for Romney and corresponding decrease for Santorum and Paul when all lines should look like the Gingrich line. (Source: MA Duniho)

“Easy to Cheat”
Retired NSA analyst Michael Duniho has worked for nearly seven years trying to understand voting anomalies in his home state of Arizona and Pima County. This publication has written extensively about apparent vote machine manipulation in a 2006 RTA Bond issue election that is still being fought in the courts. Said Duniho, “It is really easy to cheat using computers to count votes, because you can’t see what is going on in the machine.”

When Duniho applied a mathematical model to actual voting results in the largest voting precincts, he saw that only the large precincts suddenly trended towards Mitt Romney in the Arizona primary – and indeed all Republicans in every election since 2008 – by a factor of 8%-10%. The Republican candidate in every race saw an 8-10%. gain in his totals whilst the Democrat lost 8-10%. This is a swing of up to  20 point, enough to win an election unless a candidate was losing very badly.

Since sifting through and decoding massive amounts of data was his work for decades on behalf of the National Security Agency, he wanted to understand why this was ONLY happening in large precincts.

Nose Counting
The idea of examining large precinct results came via a link to a report written by Francois Choquette and James Johnson. Choquette became curious about South Carolina primary results in the February Republican contest. There a poll observer noted an unusually big gain of votes for Mitt Romney in larger precincts than in smaller ones. Choquette wanted to know why?

He examined and applied all of the normal statistical markers to see where a variance might occur: income level, population density, race, urban vs. rural, even party registration numbers. He found no correlation to explain why Romney votes trended upward while Paul and Santorum votes trended downward -yet only in large precincts.

Choquette then looked at all 50 states and found roughly a 10% switch in votes from Democrat to GOP. This was noted in every state except Utah, where the presumption was, as it was Mitt’s religious home state and very conservative, there was no chance of Romney losing and no variance was found.

Choquette even saw in Maricopa County, which is Phoenix and its suburbs, that in 2008 Romney used this technique against John McCain. But McCain beat him by too much for a 10% fraud gain to matter. McCain tried to do the same thing in the general election to President Obama but 9 million votes nationally were too many to make up.

Examining every county across America was too massive an undertaking for any one person so he included a simple set of instructions and encouraged others to do the same with raw vote totals in their county/state.

1. Download the text files of all raw actual vote results by precinct from the Secretary of State’s Office.

2. Arrange them in precinct order.

3. Put in all of the candidate totals for each precinct.

4. Sort the data by total vote smallest on the top.

Now here it gets a bit dense: He needed to add columns that show cumulative totals by candidate then compare them by candidate to establish trend lines.

That reveals trends should remain statistically constant throughout an election.

Stealing Votes
But as the spreadsheet shows, the larger the precinct, the numbers start to change dramatically.

“If percentages did not change from one precinct to the next, we would see a flat line, but what we are seeing is sloped lines downward for Democrats and upward for Republicans (or, in the case of the Presidential primary, upward for Romney and downward for his opponents), said Duniho.”

In every election contest, the trend lines dramatically crossed for no apparent reason. It was revealed that votes were being systemically bled off for Rick Santorum and Ron Paul and then being credited to Mitt Romney.

Once Duniho completed the spreadsheet, he pumped in actual vote totals from other Arizona election contests.

Chart showing Barber v Kelly special election to replace Gabby Giffords result in Pima County where the margin of victory was too large even with the supposed 'fix' in to overcome.

He looked at every 2010 race in Arizona from Governor Brewer to Senator McCain and Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. The trends lines all did the exact same thing. Someone had manipulated the election outcome, most likely one person inserting a programme inside the system’s central computer… that flipped votes.

The results were astounding.

They showed that Governor Brewer actually lost her election and Gabby Gifford’s razor thin less than 1% point re-election victory over Tea Party Conservative Jesse Kelly was closer to a 20 point victory for her.

Duniho added, “We need to have strong hand count audits to confirm the integrity of these elections. This means comparing hand counts with official reports of the election.”

Ohio Precedent
This isn’t the first time Republicans have been charged with vote theft. It happened in the 2004 presidential election, in Ohio and Florida.

In Ohio, GOP consultant Michael Connell claimed that the vote count computer program he had created for the state had a trap door that shifted Democratic votes to the GOP.

He was subpoenaed as a witness in a lawsuit against then-Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and lawyers for the plaintiff asked the Dept. of Justice to provide him with security because there were two threats made against Connell’s life by people associated with Karl Rove. But in Dec. 2008, before the trial began, Connell was killed in a plane crash outside Akron Ohio.

There were problems in Florida, as well.

A study by the Quantitative Methods Research Team at the University of California at Berkeley found that anomalies between Florida counties using touch-screen voting and those using other methods could not be explained statistically. Noting the higher-than-expected votes for Bush in three large Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, Michael Hout, a Berkeley professor who did the study said there were strong suspicions of vote-rigging.

“No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained,” Hout said. “The study shows that a county’s use of electronic voting resulted in a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. There is just a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population where the true difference is zero—less than once in a thousand chances.”

Don’t Trust, Verify
Indeed the only way to 100% verify this election fraud would be through handcounts of ballots by precinct, matching those results to the reported totals. But as was mentioned earlier, a group in Pima County has been trying unsuccessfully to get access to ballots to conduct such a count for almost five years since anomalies first surfaced in voting machines in 2006.

Is there a judge in Arizona likely to suddenly reverse past trends and allow access to conduct such a handcount of ballots 12 days before a national election? And if not, why not? Maybe someone needs to commission the Anonymous hacker group to re-level the playing field because the courts are not going to do it.

The results of Duniho’s analysis can only happen if votes are being stolen, and the only way that’s possible is if the computerised machines are programmed to steal them. Welcome to Zimbabwe.

More than 100 million Americans will cast their ballots thinking their vote will be fairly counted. It should be. Yet the crooks know they can safely flip up to 10% of votes without consequence. Anything more than that is statistically suspect.

President Obama won by such a huge margin in 2008 that even with this anomaly built into the system, he cruised to victory. This year the election is much closer. Can American democracy afford yet another election crisis placing three of the four last national Presidential election results in question or worse: The outcome was stolen, the outcome a victim of election theft?

Don’t Take Our Word
Use the spreadsheet above to do the maths in your own state, county or precinct. The results are compelling. Then demand that the Justice Department stop this insane view that results need to be reported by 11 pm for the television networks. Demand hand ballot counts!

We use paper ballots in the UK and results do not even begin to trickle in until 3 am. The final outcome can take up to three days to finalise. But voters in Britain know the count is accurate because every ballot is transparently hand-counted. When I read this article that Serbia, Belarus and Kazakhstan were sending election monitors to watch the US Election?, I knew we’d jumped the shark.

We are already being victimized by vote fraud on a scale that, in another country, would lead to calls for international election monitors. It is time for Americans to stop being victims of ghosts in the machine.

UPDATE: There was an error in the italicised paragraph in the section titled ‘Nose Counting.’ It originally read ‘from GOP to Democrat’ and the sentence was awkwardly constructed. The correct wording is now there. We thank our readers and regret the original error. -Ed

(This story was simultaneously released on the magazine and The David Pakman Show of 25 October.)

Denis G. Campbell is the author of 6 books including ‘Billionaire Boys Election Freak Show,’ ‘The Vagina Wars’ & ‘Egypt Unsh@ckled.’ He is the editor of UK Progressive Magazine and provides commentary to the BBC, itv Al Jazeera English, CNN, MSNBC and others. His weekly ‘World View with Denis Campbell’ segment can be heard every Thursday on the globally syndicated The David Pakman Show. You can follow him on Twitter via @UKProgressive and on Facebook.

Charley James is a long-time independent journalist who covers social justice, politics and economic issues. He’s worked in print and broadcast media for national magazines, large newspapers and major market radio and television outlets. Follow Charley on Twitter @SuddenlyHomeles.


Be Sociable, Share!

    Tweet



Denis G Campbell is the author of 6 books including 'Billionaire Boys Election Freak Show,' 'The Vagina Wars' & 'Egypt Unsh@ckled.' He is the editor of UK Progressive Magazine and provides commentary to the BBC, itv Al Jazeera English, CNN, MSNBC and others. His weekly 'World View with Denis Campbell' segment can be heard every Thursday on the globally syndicated The David Pakman Show. You can follow him on Twitter via @UKProgressive and on Facebook.
Email this author | All posts by Denis G Campbell

Facebook Comments
9 Comments

    Nan Shaw says:
    October 25, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    Could this be why the GOP has started to dispute polls showing Obama ahead. In creating doubt with polling data – they will be able to say see…” we told you your polls were wrong – Romney was ahead”. Add in all the smoke and mirrors about Romney’s momentum, the “malarkey” about the first debate still hurting Obama (but of course the 2nd and 3rd didn’t diminish Romney) and you can see the groundwork being laid for voting machine manipulation.

    The article didn’t mention it, but I wonder about the Scott Walker recall race + the election of Prosser, the SC judge in Wisconsin.

    Every vote counts! If you are still on the fence, the Supreme Court is one of the least discussed, most important issues of this election. Please don’t let Romney/republicans be the one(s) to make the decision about who fills the next opening on the Supreme Court – PLEASE!!!
    Data Loving Independent says:
    October 25, 2012 at 11:59 pm

    No, no, no. I am an Independent data analyst. I applied this technique for the Florida presidential race for 2000, 2004, and 2008, out of curiosity, and the trend is as one should expect – The Republican candidate leads the vote percentage (cumulative or not) in the smaller precincts by a huge margin (65% – 35%), and the gap closes once the more populated precincts are included in the tally since they are more Democratic. There is no evidence in the Florida General Election of this type of trend that shows a higher cumulative percent for the democrat in smaller precincts vs. the larger ones… This information is BOGUS, unfortunately. And, in general, if a trend is different in rural vs. urban areas, it should not be surprising, it is how it goes every time… Republican in rural, Democrat in urban. Plain and simple.
    Janet says:
    October 26, 2012 at 1:06 am

    Data Loving Independent, who’s to say your analysis method is not wrong. You know the first rule of statistics: numbers can be manipulated to reflect whatever you want. I’m more inclined to believe the article, and I’m a reformed Republican. I voted for Bush and after I saw how he stole the election I was done with the Republican Party.
    Jack H says:
    October 26, 2012 at 1:51 am

    That’s a novel use of the word “proves”. I have to say that every mathematics professor I’ve ever known would chuckle at saying anything has been proved here.
    The article even admits that there is no proof.
    _Indeed the only way to 100% verify this election fraud would be through handcounts of ballots by precinct, matching those results to the reported totals. But as was mentioned earlier, a group in Pima County has been trying unsuccessfully to get access to ballots to conduct such a count for almost five years…_
    They can’t even verify the validity of this guy’s model in one county, but in the opening paragraphs make this statement, “This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008…”
    Ridiculous.
    Len S says:
    October 26, 2012 at 3:58 am

    I have been a programmer for 30 years and don’t trust a computerized voting machine any farther than I could throw it. Ballots should be hand counted and the damned TV stations can just wait for an honest and accurate count.
    PT says:
    October 26, 2012 at 4:34 am

    @Data Loving Independent

    You argue against these results based on differences of party affiliation yet clearly did not read this article nor the study it cites, which analyzed the results of only Republican primaries and their candidates. The result was that in every state but Utah, Mitt Romney won with vote shifts away from other candidates like Rick Sanitorum and Ron Paul that clearly followed linear trends upward as the precinct population sizes increased.

    Democrats, during their primaries in these same states, did not see this shift. Why is that? Do you have a demographic answer that is somehow strictly limited to Republicans who live in the exact same precincts?
    Nate says:
    October 26, 2012 at 5:07 am

    I don’t think so. Remember the extreme accuracy of Nate Silver’s predictions, especially taking into account that he was given their internal polling results. His numbers would’ve been very far off if there was a simple vote flip in 49/50 states.

    I don’t buy it. I don’t see any solid support for this.
    David says:
    October 26, 2012 at 6:01 am

    Nate: the fact that pollsters can extremely accurately predict the outcome of American elections is due to the fact that they based their predictions on “likely voter” models.

    So they find in one election that polls predicted 55% Democrat, 45% Republican, but due to vote flipping, the official result ends up being 45% Democrat, 55% Republican.

    The official explanation for that is then that Republicans are more likely to vote! So the fraud factor is then built into the likely voter model, which adjusts Democratic numbers downward and Republicans upward, and voila, the next time an election is stolen by the same margin, the polls predict the official outcome perfectly.
    John Sawyer says:
    October 26, 2012 at 6:10 am

    While it’s possible that something like this is happening (though I’d want to see more evidence before believing Duniho’s claim that this “This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008″), there are a few things in the article that I’d want more information about:

    (and to get this out of the way first, for those who will try to claim “Democrats do it just as much or more!”: I do know there are a few races occasionally where Democrats commit voter and election fraud, but the quantity appears to be vastly less than that committed by Republicans)

    • Which computers does Duniho claim are the ones that are being tampered with? The voting machines, or the machines that tabulate county-, state-, and nation-wide totals, or both? In what ratio? In other words, is the fraud perpetrated mostly through one or the other of these classes of machines? This might be important information if it indicates that one method is harder to tamper with than the other–if hacked voting machines are responsible for 80% of the vote flipping, and only 20% is due to the tabulating machines that count the larger vote, does this mean that doing away with voting machines might (at least for a couple elections) make it much harder for the Republicans to steal elections, if their most effective method for stealing votes is taken away from them? We know that there have long been methods for stealing elections that rely less on voting or counting machines (the Supreme Court, Republican operatives like Katherine Harris in government offices in various state, etc.), but would it throw a useful wrench into their works to do away with the use of voting and tabulating machines altogether, and instead to do all counts by hand (even though that too is subject to various methods of fraud, it might be significantly more secure)?

    • Are there already any large precincts where the votes are counted by hand (as part of the normal election process rather than during a court case after the election), either as the only method of adding up the votes, or as a doublecheck on voting machines in those precincts? If so, what do the results of those hand-counting precincts show?

    • Oregon uses voter-marked paper ballots nearly exclusively (correct me on the details)–no touchscreen voter machines (though they’re experimenting with using iPads–as if tablet computers are immune to hacking!)–and these paper ballots are tabulated using electronic scanners. But the article says the fraud, which it ties to electronic voting machines and electronic vote tabulators, was found to be occurring in all 50 states. Is the percentage of skew to Republicans in the final vote count, the same in Oregon as Duniho says happens in other states, even without Oregon using electronic voting machines? If so, this would implicate the scanners as being as hackable as the electronic voting machines the voters actually use to record each of their votes.

    • The article states: “Choquette even saw in Maricopa County, which is Phoenix and its suburbs, that in 2008 Romney used this technique against John McCain. But McCain beat him by too much for a 10% fraud gain to matter. McCain tried to do the same thing in the general election to President Obama but 9 million votes nationally were too many to make up.” Does this mean there’s a Republican vote-stealing system in place whose control is given to whichever Republican is the current front-runner, or the desired front-runner? And that its reins were given wholly to Romney during the primaries, but then to McCain when Romney lost the candidacy because his lead wasn’t big enough for the fraud to make up the difference?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website



Follow & Bookmark



UK Progressive Political Twitter Feed
Twitter Logo
Refresh
brucepknightbrucepknight: #FF @Our4thEstate @SherreaHZ @Hvacrpro @zbleumoon @lavenderblue27 @DaleF3 @dodadopp @NLuvWitUOnly @NoHookerNoPeace @UKProgressive @nevineb
6 minutes ago
HalibutronHalibutron: #Republican -financed #voting machines have repeatedly failed basic security tests ~@ukprogressive: http://t.co/yQtH6f3B
7 minutes ago
UKProgressiveUKProgressive: 6,500+ Tweets collected over 18-Days, woven together into "gripping page turner" Give @Egyptunshackled as a gift here http://t.co/MB6F8nTU
11 minutes ago
KarunaprofKarunaprof: @UKProgressive My mistake. So let the Boy Scouts do it on a Jamboree weekend then. Give 'em a patch.
14 minutes ago
Idocki1Idocki1: RT @mzprissy1947: @UKProgressive And this is a swing state-People need to vote these people out if they want to get their country back! Vote Democratic!!
23 minutes ago
themusicplace61themusicplace61: @UKProgressive WELL I AM SORRY BUT IF THEY USE THEM,WE WILL BLOW THEM OUT OF THE WATER
24 minutes ago
UKProgressiveUKProgressive: GOP Rep Says Strike On Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Would Not Be An Act Of War http://t.co/LkXS5Djm
26 minutes ago
Progressive Political Links

    AlterNet
    Cambria Politico
    Captivating News
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Beast
    Daily Show with Jon Stewart
    Glyn Strong
    Human Rights TV
    LA Progressive
    Mad Kane
    Mad Kane Political Blog
    Media Matters for America
    Mediaite
    Mother Jones
    Politico
    Rachel Maddow
    Slate Magazine
    Talking Point Memo
    The Gaia Reports
    The Last Word
    The Nation
    The New Republic
    The Political Carnival
    Think Progress

Tags
Bill Clinton Brent Budowsky Carl Matthes Charley James clinton CNN Congress Cora Currier David Cameron democrats Denis G. Campbell Dick Cheney FOX FOX News George W. Bush GOP Gordon Brown Iraq Joe Biden Karl Rove Keith Olbermann Labour LGBTQ Marian Wang Mitt Romney MSNBC Newt Gingrich New York Times President Obama ProPublica ProPublica.org Republicans Rev Irene Monroe Robert Hunziker Robert Reich Sarah Palin Sharon Kyle Sherwood Ross Tahrir Square The Monday Line Tina Dupuy Twitter Wales Wall Street White House
Recent Comments

    John Sawyer: While it's possible that something like this is happening (though I'd want to see more evi...
    David: Nate: the fact that pollsters can extremely accurately predict the outcome of American ele...
    Nate: I don't think so. Remember the extreme accuracy of Nate Silver's predictions, especially ...
    PT: @Data Loving Independent You argue against these results based on differences of party ...
    Len S: I have been a programmer for 30 years and don't trust a computerized voting machine any fa...

Welcome to UK Progressive Magazine

UK Progressive logoThe home of independent, critical insight. Welcome to our new magazine designed to keep you up-to-date no matter where you are!
Amazon Affiliation
UKProgressive is a participant in the Amazon EU Associates Programme, an affiliate advertising programme designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.co.uk
Keep up with our weekly updates
Add your email address.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Please Donate

UK Progressive is a free service.

A free and independent press is always under attack by corporate interests and SPIN doctors. We are committed to maintaining free, independent and critical voices.

If you like what you see here and would like to make a donation to support future developments, we'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

Main Topics

    Politics
    Business & Economy
    Sustainability
    Media/Tech
    Reflections On
    Authors

    About
    Contact
    Terms and Conditions

Archives
Select Month October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008
Subscribe to posts

Your email:


Copyright © 2012 — UK Progressive. All Rights Reserved.
Zenko Magazine Theme designed by WPZOOM.
Site developed by: SCL | Tusler-Design | Clickbridge