Skip to main content

The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything - Joseph Stalin

Fraudulent New York Results

Likely Fraudulent New York Results Highlight Need to End E-Vote Counting—Ernest Canning

Mathematician Richard Charnin wisely captured the April 19 CNN screenshot of its "unadjusted" exit poll as it briefly appeared on television. Hillary Clinton narrowly defeated Bernie Sanders in the New York Democratic Primary 52 to 48 percent. Much later in the evening, long after the screenshot was removed and the the official count was completed, the media reported that Clinton trounced Sanders 57.9 to 42.1 percent. In other words, there was an 11.8% discrepancy between the "unadjusted" exit poll and the official count.

As observed by Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D. and Joel Bleifuss in Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud and the Official Count (2006), properly conducted "exit polls should mirror actual votes with a high degree of reliability." Pre-election polls are akin to often unreliable weather forecasts. Exit polls are like representative measurements of snowfall on the day of a storm. They are considered so reliable that the U.S. government funds exit polls for foreign elections. Those foreign exit polls are performed by the same experts used by the U.S. corporate-owned media in domestic elections. Both the government and corporate owned U.S. media will cite marked discrepancies between those foreign exit polls and the official count as evidence of election fraud.

Edison Research currently serves as the exclusive provider of domestic exit polls for the corporate-owned mainstream media consortium known as the National Election Pool (NEP). It is their exit polls that most often provide the media with the data necessary to declare a winner shortly after the polls are closed. This often occurs within minutes and long before so much as a fraction of the actual vote has been counted.

There are significant differences in domestic exit poll practices as compared to those applied to foreign elections. Neither the U.S. government nor the NEP cite marked discrepancies between exit polls and the official count as evidence of election fraud in U.S. elections. Instead, most often both speculate that the discrepancy is indicative of exit poll error. Worse, the corporate media-retained pollsters engage in a practice that calls to mind George Orwell's famous novel, 1984.

Inside 1984's Oceania's, at the Ministry of Truth, inconvenient facts were incinerated inside "memory holes." In U.S. elections, pollsters "adjust" the exit polls to conform to the official count. Absent the capture of the original "unadjusted" exit poll as it appears live on television or on a media website, the discrepancy between the original "unadjusted" exit poll and the later reported official count simply vanishes.

According to Charnin, there's only a one in 236,000 chance that Hillary Clinton actually performed 11.8% better in the New York official count than on the "unadjusted" exit poll. Charnin, who describes the process as part of a "matrix of deceit," points to a number of states where there were discrepancies between the unadjusted exit polls and the official count, all favoring Clinton. In Ohio, Clinton was the beneficiary of a 10% discrepancy in her favor.

Curiously, the NEP did not conduct an Arizona exit poll, prompting Charnin to wonder whether the pollsters anticipated a "massive discrepancy." He added: "The networks called it for Hillary with less than 1% of the votes in. How did they know this if they did not exit poll?"

How indeed?

While he failed to discuss pollster credentials at the Yavapai Daily Courier, Charnin does point to an Arizona exit poll performed by that local paper. That exit poll declared that Sanders won Yavapai County 63 to 37 percent (a 26 point landslide). According to the official count, Clinton won the county by 11 points (54 to 43 percent). The 37% gap between the Courier's exit poll and the official count was, according to Charnin, mathematically impossible. (That, of course, assumes that the pollsters utilized the same professional standards ordinarily applied by Edison.)

These gaps between exit polls and official counts do not appear in nations that rely on what my colleague, investigative journalist Brad Friedman refers to as "Democracy's Gold Standard": hand-marked paper ballots that are publicly counted at each precinct on Election Night.

In 2009, Germany's highest court outlawed all forms of e-voting and e-vote counting. It ruled that all e-voting systems violated that nation's constitution, which mandates the transparency that can only be insured by a publicly observed hand count. In Germany, according to Freeman and Bleifuss, the gap between exit polls and the official count is less than 1/2 of one percent.

Charnin reported that in this year's Massachusetts Democratic Primary, Clinton defeated Sanders 51 - 49 on e-voting machines. "Sanders won hand-counted precincts 58 - 41." He added that a similar divergence occurred in 2008. "Obama won hand-counted precincts by 5%. Clinton won machine counts 5%."

Faith-Based Voting

Wherever the vote becomes an electron and touches a computer, that's an opportunity for a malicious actor potentially to...make bad things happen.

"I follow the vote," CIA cyber-security expert Steven Stigall explained to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in 2009. "And wherever the vote becomes an electron and touches a computer, that's an opportunity for a malicious actor potentially to...make bad things happen."

As I observed in Hillary's Touch Screen Landslide, there's absolutely no way to determine whether votes cast on the easily hacked and 100% unverifiable touch screen voting systems that declared landslide victories in South Carolina. Hillary Clinton secured similar landslide victories in a number of Southern States (e.g., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi) all of which continue to deploy touch screen voting. In other words, a major portion of Hillary Clinton's pledged delegate lead came via the easily hacked, 100% unverifiable touch screens.

Scroll to Continue

Recommended Articles

Over the past decade, there have been numerous cases in which voters have seen their votes flipped to an opposing candidate on screen. Whether or not that occurs, there is simply no way to verify that the results reported by the touch screen machines have anything to do with the actual votes cast or whether they simply reflect pre-programmed percentages. Touch screens are essentially electronic black holes.

Because it entails hand-marked paper ballots, optical scan systems, like the ones used in New York's primary election, are potentially verifiable. That verification can be supplied by a publicly conducted hand count. Unfortunately, in most U.S. elections a winner is declared even though no ballot has been counted by a human being.

Like touch screens, optical scan computer counts can be rigged by a single malicious insider, or simply fail due to mis-programming or physical failure.

In the dramatic final scene from the widely acclaimed HBO documentary Hacking Democracy (see video below), Finnish computer scientist Harri Hursti demonstrated the ease with which an election insider can commit the wholesale theft of an American election. All that is required is a few lines of computer code and access to the memory card of an optical scan central tabulator.

Like touch screens, optical scan systems have produced mathematically impossible results. The most poignant example occurred during the Florida 2000 Presidential Election. The networks, according to Freeman and Bleifuss, first called the election for Al Gore based on a Voter News Service exit poll that gave him a 7.3% victory (435,000 votes). Florida's Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris (a Bush/Cheney campaign co-chair) declared that Bush won by 537 votes.

While much was made during the ensuing election contest about hanging chads, few took note of the impossible result reported by a Volusia County optical scan system. The computers declared that Gore received a negative 16,022 votes. In other words, the vote in Volusia County was used to "subtract" 16,022 from Gore's statewide totals.

Additional Indices of NY Insider Theft

As is reflected by the pending federal lawsuit (Campanello v. New York State Board of Elections), Leonard J. Campanello is one of the more than 125,000 voters who were illegally purged from the eligible Democratic voter rolls in New York..

Campanello had been a registered Democrat since 2009. On March 15, 2016, according to the federal complaint, "he discovered that his party affiliation had been switched to Republican without his knowledge or consent." The Suffolk County Board of Elections produced what purported to be a "a signed paper form" in which the request for change of registration had been made. Campanello insists the form was fraudulent. It contained "an identical, pixel-by-pixel copy of the electronic signature appearing on his driver's license in 2007."

The massive purge of New York's eligible Democratic voter rolls entails insider election fraud as well as illegal voter suppression. The purge of entire city blocks in Brooklyn could not have occurred absent the deliberate act or acts of election officials. Those same election officials had the same type of unfettered access to the optical scan systems that Hursti used in Hacking Democracy.

Given the four point spread in the initial CNN exit poll, there's a likelihood that Hillary Clinton would have prevailed in New York absent either the massive purge or the likely insider manipulation of the computer count. But that's not the point. Having lost eight of the last nine contests, many by wide margins in caucus states where undetectable insider manipulation would have been unavailable, Clinton needed a landslide in New York to put a swift end to the threat posed by the Sanders's campaign.

The Empire State's election insiders appear to have delivered just what the Clinton campaign needed.

Sanders Should Contest NY Election Results

Throughout the campaign Bernie Sanders has challenged a corrupt campaign finance system that threatens to supplant democracy with oligarchy. Massive voter purges and the ability of insiders to undetectably engage in a wholesale theft of an election pose an even greater danger to the survival of our democracy.

The Sanders campaign should immediately challenge the results of the New York primary in state court. That legal challenge should include a demand for a statewide hand-count of all paper ballots.

The Sanders campaign should also file a motion to become a party plaintiff in the Campanella case. In a democracy, wholesale disenfranchisement is unacceptable.

Finally, Bernie Sanders should speak out against the dangers posed by e-voting and for the need to adopt "Democracy's Gold Standard." Win or lose, the campaign should utilize the time between now and the Democratic National Convention to highlight the overlooked by vital question of election integrity.


Ernest Canning