Profiling Voter Fraud; a Virginia Model

(What follows is in three parts. Only a few of you will want to look at the attached spread sheet.)

–The solution to every problem begins with a unified theory.–GH

You already know my view about the rightful winner of the 2012 presidential election.

Either we were terribly wrong about the size of the pro-Obamacare, pro-debt, pro-abortion, anti-job, anti-private sector, anti-God, anti-Constitution vote…

…or we just witnessed the most sophisticated and massive voter fraud since Brezhnev won a second term in his landslide victory in 1975.

In hindsight, I was probably wrong, as the 2012 election seems merely to have been a continuation of a voting scheme established in 2008 or even earlier. Time will tell.

But as to 2012, a friend at North Carolina Voter Integrity Project (NCVIP) and much more skilled at modern quality assessment analytics than I provided this chart to illustrate the statistical absurdity of an Obama sweep of the swing states:

As you can see, in virtually every battleground state, Romney had a performance close to the Real Clear Politics (RCP) estimate.

As one would expect, in a fair contest, the estimates were both slightly above and slightly below the expected performance for Mr. Romney. Therefore, the  errors of estimation appear to be random, also as one would expect. To me, this is analogous to coin-flipping, and the results bear that out. Taken as a whole, Romney’s vote totals in the battleground states, when compared

to the pre-election forecast, came in at +0.1; not bad.

On the other hand, compared to the RCP polling, Obama consistently out-performed the RCP average, an average of 2.4% better.

Effectively, this would ask us to believe, using the coin-flip analogy, that Obama flipped 10 heads in a row.
The odds of that happening by ‘chance’ are 1 divided by 10 to the 10th power.

It suggests the work of an actor or action(s) that caused this to happen. (Italics mine: VB)  It suggests that 60-80% of the undecideds suddenly broke for Obama at the very last moment prior to the election. This is contrary to all the historical data that suggests that a large majority of undecided voters break for the challenger. One glance at Nevada and you can see what I mean.

A name you probably aren’t familiar with, Ed Pritchard, was a young genius lawyer in FDR’s brain trust during the New Deal. In 1948 he returned home to Kentucky looking forward to a high court nomination from President Truman, but was caught stuffing 254 votes in ballot boxes in a senatorial race. He was tried, convicted and sent to jail. I knew Mr Pritchard in 1970 when I clerked in a state environmental agency. He was a darling of the New Left by then, trying to swim as a big fish in a much smaller pond than he had ever dreamed. In a state where there were two competing Democrat parties, and no Republican party to speak of, his nature still overcame him.

Democrats have been flaunting their nature ever since.

In 1960, Mayor Richard Daley did the same thing Ed Pritchard did, only on a grander scale, thus handing Chicago, and with it, Illinois, and with Illinois, the presidency, to John F Kennedy.  It should be noted that almost everyone in the know knew about this heist at the time. Richard Nixon certainly did, but he did nothing on account he had no solid proof that would stand up in court. And he had no media to prosecute his case. To lose would just seem bad form. It would be several more years before Daley’s heist became accepted as fact among the public-at-large, at about the same time the true nature of JFK’s wandering libido also moved from myth to fact. But it was too late. For by that time, as if on cue, Nixon’s star crashed and burned for having been the getaway driver in a third rate burglary. JFK had long since been declared a public saint, and with Nixon a disgraced bogeyman, no amount of newly-revealed truths would ever convince the American people that the nation, and history, would have been better served had Richard Nixon won in 1960. (The Vietnam War comes to mind, for that was clearly a liberal Democrat war.)

Lessons learned: Well, cleaning up Chicago was never one of them, for the GOP knew from 1960 forward they had to win enough votes downstate to offset Chicago. To this day, that is still their only strategy for Illinois.

Second lesson learned: While Ed Pritchard carried an asterisk over his name for the rest of his life, there is no asterisk over JFK’s presidency. And never will be. So what we know or what we believe, or can even prove, about the great election heists of 2008 and 2012 matter naught. There are no smoking guns in elections. And that’s a law.

So the guiding lesson going forward is that stealing elections is in the Democrat’s blood, and if the opportunity is there, they will exploit it. The very nature of the Republican Party makes that an opportunity too seductive to resist. As the Russian mafia often says, “It is a sin not to take something from someone who leaves himself so unprotected.”

This is why we need to view every polling place in America, from Cuyahoga County in Ohio, to Stillwater, Oklahoma, to the Lynch Precinct in Harlan County, Kentucky as a crime scene, for if there is a vote that can be stolen, if there is a door left half-open or ballot box unprotected, there is a Democrat lurking nearby who will try to turn that to his party’s advantage.

So for us then, it’s not a matter of proving Democrats cheated in 2012, 2008 or 2006, but proving that they can. For in knowing how they steal, we can stop it.

The Virginia Model

I’ve attached a spread sheet comparing the 2008 and 20012 presidential election in Chesterfield County, VA.  Chester 08-12   It needs to expanded, as I will explain.

Chesterfield County is the fourth largest voting county in Virginia, which was one of several battleground swing states in both 2008 and 2012. The Chesterfield County Registrar’s web site provides the best layout of voter participation anywhere in Virginia, including voter and registration totals dating back since 1995. Other major cities and counties in Virginia do not do this as well. I consider this a model site, and have noticed, by comparison, several “Obama counties” have not posted any precinct voting data at all to date.

Chesterfield also provides a good baseline election survey site since the 2008 and 2012 elections were almost mirror images of one another, only 2 precincts of 73 flipping from one candidate to the other, (one for Romney, one for Obama, and both virtually a tie.), and the overall voter variance not great. It gives the appearance of regularity, thus making for a great comparison to other Virginia counties where the bulk of votes would more likely have been stolen.

Still, the opportunity to steal is great in Chesterfield County, for since I have voted there since 2004, much as changed on the quality control front, albeit subtly.

A political note: Virginia is a curiosity in that the Registrar in charge of elections for each county is presumed to belong to the party that sits in the governors office. Virginia has been Republican since 2010, so the 2010 and 2012 elections were run under (presumably) GOP county registrar auspices, while the  the Democrats held the reins from 2002-2009. This means that the 2006 mid-terms and 2008 general election in Virginia were carried out under the Democrats, most notably then-Governor Tim Kaine, who was also DNC Chairman during Obama’s 2008 campaign, and ran an almost identical ad campaign as Obama in Virginia this year to defeat George Allen in the senate race. Kaine’s campaign was almost as lackluster as it was factually dishonest, still he won by a larger margin than Obama. There is much noteworthy about his period in Richmond that may explain the current state of Democrat hegemony in national elections in Virginia.

If you accept my original observation about the Democrat’s predisposition to steal votes, and if by 2008 they had established a process by which they could do that undetected, then you can understand how those processes might be handed off to a successor generation of Republicans undetected. For upon taking charge, Republicans, unlike Democrats, look for normalcy and regularity in the process. They don’t look at their positions as a means of exploitation for voter theft. Nor do they look upon the voting place as a crime scene.

As I just mentioned, it’s a matter of competing world views, and universes.

The Democrat Party is a race of political liars and thieves, and have been since 1960 at least. Rest assured that if you laid a hundred dollar bill on the jewelry counter at Walmart there is a 100% chance that any Democrat would snatch it up, then walk away without even a backward glance…armed with an already pre-practiced answer as to his innocence if caught. They see stealing votes not only as a necessity in forwarding their agenda (in the American constitutional scheme they are a natural minority), but as a crime of opportunity, should it present itself, something no Republican would ever do instinctively. If a Republican were to find that $100 bill at Walmart, at least half would turn it in (90% of conservatives would) while the other half would pause long enough to get caught.

It is here, at the place of voting, that the world view of Democrats (thieves) and Republicans (a decent sort, by and large, albeit a little milquetoastish) are so starkly contrasted. A Democrat would lift a vote as nonchalantly as a Pickadilly pickpocket would a drunk’s wallet.

Virginia has over a 1000 precincts, (1000-1250 is my guess). And on the basis of Obama winning the state by approx 140,000 votes, that’s only 140 votes per precinct that need to be “re-arranged” to secure such a winning margin. In most swing states that is not a lot of votes, per precinct need to be swiped to carry the state.

Impossible? Hard? Doable? Easy? My general opinion is doable, hard being defined by the human equation necessary to pull off any heist. In Virginia, this would vary from county to county, precinct to precinct, but in even the bluest of counties, as we learned in VA-5 in 2008, (Periello-D v Goode-R) a few hundred votes can be “captured” which would, in the larger statewide recounting, go almost unnoticed. (I thought at the time, that heist took place for some purpose, wondering why Goode didn’t challenge.)

So, Chesterfield is not the same as some of the more vigorously sought-after counties, just as Virginia is not the same as Ohio. All the Swing states have different voting issues, from technologies to process.

My estimate of Chesterfield County is that there are several areas where what I call an un-secured and un-observed “pass-off” could have handed several thousand votes to one candidate or the other, beginning in 2008 at least.

I’ll leave it to you to make your own analysis of the spread sheet. It’s just a sketch, and needs to be expanded to include 2004, the midterms, the 2011 gubernatorial, just to get a fuller picture of where votes could be stolen.

Things of note about the Chesterfield vote found in the attached spread sheet:

*Romney received more votes than McCain (3500) but Obama also grew by about 3500 votes.

Just like the NCVIP graph (above), this virtual non-change is contrary to what pollsters believed just a week before the election, but which, within a day after the election, via exit polling, fit their new narrative exactly.

Chesterfield County voting in 2012 would also dispel any notion that Romney was more popular than McCain, and likewise that Obama had generally fallen in favor, even as 7 of the 10 precincts with the poorest turnout rates (61% or under) leaned Obama. Such contradictions need to be studied more closely. If Obama lost 6m-7m votes nationally, did his numbers, as in Chesterfield, actually improve in all the other key swing state counties and cities, notwithstanding?

You can see, the forensic poll watcher would examine and analyze these numbers entirely differently than the CYA pollster.

* The number of Inactive Voters skyrocketed from 1.7% in 2008 to 9.8% in 2012 (over 16,000 voters) but it appears most voted anyway. There are several legitimate reasons why this number might have risen then as suddenly disappeared, but deserves closer study, for it does send up antennae.

* In this vein, considering the steep downturn in the economy, especially in the housing market, and the numbers of houses which were foreclosed or abandoned, it’s interesting that I cannot easily gather new registration information for Chesterfield County, 2008-2012. This is one of the shortfalls in their reporting scheme. We could use some accounting of how many people moved into the county, how many left, and how many died. One Aug 12 2012  report showed only 10,000 dead voters had been purged from a huge backlog from Social Security notifications, only 25% accounted for. As many as 30,000 dead voters were still on state rolls on election day, a fact I’m sure hadn’t eluded Democrat trackers. In fact, they planned to sue to rehabilitate the dead voters. In a swing state such numbers still in limbo can be vital.

(On this point: It would seem the best return on an $9.50/hr investment in a college intern would be to daily scan county newspaper obituaries, confirm addresses, then certify to the Registrar of the deaths for removal from the rolls, all within a few days instead of years. Just a suggestion.)

In any case, we have no way to account for the 7% increase in voter registration from 2008 to 2012, whether by population growth, or stronger vote-registration campaigns.

A note about voting results by race, age, gender, marital status, etc:

Voting machines make no note of things like race, marital status, etc. These numbers are accumulated by exit-polls, which are another form of self-reporting, and famously prone to inaccuracy. States are won by total votes for one candidate or the other. The fact that 97% blacks, 70% Hispanics, 60% loose-and-easy working girls looking for a free shack-pack for the weekend, 60% college kids and recent grads all voted for Obama mean nothing if we don’t also know how many of each group actually showed up in this election, versus the last election. 97% of 3 million black votes is still much less than 97% of 5 million black votes.

It’s incongruous for any clear-headed person to believe that six months after the black preachers of North Carolina turned out Christians to defeat a gay marriage referendum, and those Christians were made fully aware from those same preachers that the Democrat Party had voted “No” to God, would suddenly turn and vote for the chief advocate of both those positions within the Democrat Party.

But the bottom line is that all post election analysis of racial, ethnic, marital, gender turnout is based entirely on the purity of the voting process, and in all likelihood, this has not been the case for many years. What this has to do with Voter Fraud is that without being able to come out of an election knowing for sure that at least 98.5% ( a typical quality standard) of the votes cast were a true reflection of the people’s will, the exit poll data which will drive politics for the next two years at least are not only meaningless. They are phony.

In the quality control/quality assurance sense, I doubt that 80% of American polling places could get ISO-9000 certification that a clean, valid vote had been cast.

And with the advent of Touch-Screen-type voting machines (which can be hacked, and were known to be amenable to be hacked) even that number will plummet. In Virginia they were used in some counties in 2008-2012 due to cost of replacing them after having been banned by the legislature in 2007. (An interesting history of how the Dems got these machines reinstated in 2008 is here.)

Now, as I stated at the beginning, I’m not here to prove a case of theft, since the actual thefts of votes entail human action and collusion. Whether at the polling place, early voting, or absentee ballots, whether by paper ballots, touch-screen, or Acu-Vote-like counters, each interaction with an election official and voter is a potential “hand-off.” Usually three.

A hand-off is where 1) a voter presents himself/herself for verification as a valid voter, then 2) takes a ballot, then 3) presents the ballot for tabulation. On-site voting hand-offs differ from absentee ballot hand-offs, so these chances are multiplied.

And then the vote itself traverses 2 to 3 more hand-offs before it is officially reported, where there is the collection and counting of votes, which also involve more than one hand-off. Opening, verifying, clearing, closing, sealing even moving the ballot boxes also involve hand-offs, for it’s amazing the number of elections the past 8 years that have been decided by boxes mistakenly sitting in the trunk of some clerk’s car.

Simply stated, each place of hand-off requires a second, even third approving eye, to ensure that the vote cast is legitimate and properly counted. As a necessary minimum, those extra eyes-on should be from the respective parties.

A Way Forward: Voter Fraud can’t be caught easily, but it can be prevented totally.

QA/QC and TQM (Quality Control/Quality Assurance and Total Quality Management)

I left the manufacturing industry in 1990, but continued to consult for a few years more, including the small business side of critical production in the defense industry.

This was in the early days of ISO-9000 programs which themselves were derived from Defense Department quality assurance programs for items of varying levels of criticality. ISO-9000 is derived from MIL-Q defense quality standards, where items, say a parachute, must have a process design that insures no (100%) possible variances at every “hand off” in the production process. It’s a matter of criticality. With parachutes, it isn’t good enough that 98.5% open every time. There must be proof positive in the production process that 100% of them will be in accordance with design standards.

This is Quality Assurance, compared to Quality Control, which is method of policing (and counting) the process.

Voting should be treated in the same manner, and while many of you believe the photo-ID to be the solution, it is not, UNLESS there is at least one, preferable two people, both watching each other as well as the certifying election official, to ensure the voter is who he claims to be. A little redundancy in the quality control process is worth every bit of the effort.

Over the next two years I propose detailed audits be conducted of every key voting unit in key swing states, along the lines of the audit I’ve attached. (About 8 man hours per county the size of 600,000, if you’re hiring.) It wouldn’t hurt to cover the entire country. At the same time QA strategies for all the states should be custom-designed for all the situations as they are known on the ground…including the more onerous jurisdictions such as Cleveland/Cuyahoga County. (Trust me, this can be done, even in the toughest of neighborhoods.)

Both Democrats and Republicans, in their respective roles of poll-watchers have a vested interest in this process, as neither would allow the other to be there without them, but need to be trained in specific duties, inasmuch as their principal job will be to insure on-site election officials (in Virginia this is crucial) do their jobs properly.  There should be at least 1-2 watchers per election official, who should witness/certify the opening and closing of ballot boxes, including applying seals just like you would an ocean-going container (which I favor) upon final closure.

All this according to state law, of course. I also recommend access to some sites by voting rights groups, especially where parties show little interest. It should be the principal duty of the parties to select and train poll-watchers, but in states where they are indifferent or hostile, at the state or local level, then non-partisan voting rights groups should be granted access. (There are ways they can audit elections without the permission of anyone, but not discussed here.)

But for now, I’m getting ahead of myself.

The evidence about massive voter fraud is at least as convincing as the statistics of death and injury caused by texting while driving. “Cheating while voting” is almost as impossible to catch in the act, but just as easy to prove in the abstract simply by comparing actual vote counts to a known reality. We are not interested in filling the jails or the states’ coffers with fines, but we are certain, by the application of a few simple quality control measures in all or most of the voting precincts in America, every American can go to bed on election night knowing that the election that day was carried out in fair way and will reflect the true will of the people.

–The solution to every problem begins with a unified theory.