McCain fails new muster
Save America Summit’s urgent call for a return to observed, hand-counted paper ballots by the November, ’08 electionsSaveAmericaSummit (http://www.saveamericasummit.com/)
Charles Lewis, Moderator
864-517-8282
Informal statistical analysis:
John McCain’s percentages in the 11 (transparent, stand up and be counted) caucus “states” as of 3/27/08:
Alaska: 15 Colorado: 19 Iowa: 13
Kansas: 24 Maine: 21 Minnesota: 22
Montana: 22 Nevada: 13 North Dakota: 23
West Virginia: 1 Wyoming: 0
Average: approximately 15.74
McCain’s percentages in the 30 (unverifiable, machine-counted) primary states as of 3/27/08:
Alabama: 37 Arizona: 47 Arkansas: 20
California: 42 Connecticut: 52 DC: 68
Delaware: 45 Florida; 36 Georgia: 32
Illinois: 47 Louisiana: 42 Maryland: 55
Massachusetts: 41 Michigan: 30 Mississippi: 79
Missouri: 33 New Hampshire: 37 New Jersey: 55
New York: 51 Ohio: 60 Oklahoma: 37
Rhode Island: 65 South Carolina: 33 Tennessee: 32
Texas: 51 Utah: 5 Vermont: 72
Virginia: 50 Washington: 50 Wisconsin: 55
Average: 45.3
Standard Deviation: 15.42
Caucus average is approximately 29.88/15.42 standard deviations away from primary average = approximately 1.94 standard deviations away from primary average, meaning the probability that this dichotomy of high (unverifiable) primary results and low (verifiable) caucus results is about .0256, or about one chance in forty.
Repeat – there’s only one chance in forty that, all else being equal, McCain could somehow do so scintillatingly well in one class of delegate selection (the totally unverifiable machine-counted primaries) and so poorly in the (transparent) caucus process. Statisically speaking, that’s next to impossible without some kind of “push.“
Additionally: knowing the bias and unreliability of the “mainstream” American media, it is not incongruous that the “mainstream” American pollsters essentially predicted the primary (if not the caucus) results pretty accurately. If “mainstream” newcasts can be rigged (as they clearly are), so can “mainstream” polls, and they can be rigged to coincide with rigged voting machines.
We are not claiming that this is absolutely the case, only raising the issue of appearance of possible fraud; an election as urgent as this upcoming one must not be run under even such an appearance.
Of course, there are lots of other factors at play, including how many candidates were in the race on whatever given date, relative size of states, voter turnout, relative conservatism/liberalism of the given state, and, in the case of West Virginia, some wheeling and dealing. This is not a totally scientific assessment. but the stirking consistency of the dichotomy does raise serious issues.
The importance of this election, combined with these questions and others, cries out for a return to bi-partisanly observed, hand-counted paper ballots.
Anecdotally (but so far off the norm as to be somewhat compellingly), in South Carolina alone:
Radio station WORD’s talk host Bob McLain focused on the SC primaries for the 2 weeks (30 broadcast hours) prior to the vote. He has testified on air that not one single caller during that time stated he would vote for McCain, and only two were considering doing so. (WORD is the GOP station of record in South Carolina’s most heavily populated region – it “upstate.”) On the very day of the primary, McCain logged only 1% in a WORD on-line poll.
In Charlotte, NC (on the South Carolina border) a similar online poll at mega-station WBT predicted only 7% for McCain (in spite of - suspect, in our view – “mainstream” polls that predicted a McCain win). Mind you, this was not even people saying they would vote for him, just people – aware of the media’s “polls” that said he was doing way better than other indicators - who thought he would win.
Yet John McCain supposedly won 33% of the statewide vote – including almost that much in the upstate region – in the Diebold machine counted tally. (It has been noted that in every experiment Diebolds have been easily hacked, with their supposed vote counts altered at will.)
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply