No Democracy = No Unity!
Greetings, my sisters, brothers, & others — I hope that all of you are well & that, despite the media’s treachery, you are being well-informed.
Today, I’m going to show you a different kind of math & it’s related to#ExitPollGate. For those of you who haven’t read my recent article about the discrepancies between exit-polling & the results of the democratic primaries, I’d suggest reading that before returning to this article (unless you’ve read about it elsewhere, of course).
Let’s begin! I’d like to teach you about something called “cumulative vote shares”or CVS…
What are Cumulative Vote Shares?
“CVS analysis” is basically a statistical way to look at how people voted in an election and, because I feel that it’s really important for you to understand the concept, I decided to make a video to explain it — using jellybeans!
It is my dearest hope that, after watching the video, you have at least a rough understanding of how a CVS graph is made & why they can be a useful way to look at elections results. Once again, just to make sure that you’ve got the main points:
- As the votes accumulate, the vote shares (%) stabilize & approach a straight line, ending at the total % of the votes that each candidate won.
- As the total votes increase, it takes larger & larger wins/losses to change the overall % of votes. That’s why the shape is bell-like.
- Significant fluctuations on the right side (larger precincts) should be regarded as suspicious & warrant further investigation. This is because larger precincts are the most desirable targets for elections-rigging — there aremore votes to steal from larger precincts & it’s harder to detect because you can change the end-result by altering a smaller number of precincts.
Now that we have a good idea about what a CVS graph is, let’s take a look at how some of the 2016 democratic primaries measure up…
[NOTE: Unless you already understand CVS analysis, the rest of the article won’t make a lot of sense if you haven’t watched the video]
A Few CVS Graphs
from the Democratic Primaries
I’ll start with a normal looking CVS graph from Franklin County, Ohio:
Do you notice the nice bell-shape, there? It’s an even nicer bell than the one that I got in my video because these numbers went into the hundreds-of-thousands. This is about what we usually expect to see — no problems there.
Now, compare it to the suspicious-looking graph below:
That’s the CVS graph of the Massachusetts primary — you know, the one that Sanders seemed to be winning but lost? I won’t make any accusations, though — maybe there’s just a magical correlation between precinct-size & exponentially rising vote-shares for Clinton. But wait — here’s another one:
Well — it appears that, in the New York primary, there is an even stronger correlation between exponentially-increasing votes for Clinton & precinct size, which — now that I think about it — seems kinda weird. It could be a coincidence, I guess.
Oh my! But there’s more…
Oh, wow! Now, that’s an odd-lookin’ chart, isn’t it? What do you suppose happenedthere?
Oh, and there’s this:
Alright, c’mon — this is starting to get spooky! Wait a minute — !
Why do all of these states seem so familiar…? Hm. Ah! I remember now!
They’re familiar because, just a week ago, I wrote about all of these states in a different article — the one about #ExitPollGate, remember? All of these states were also on the list of states that exceeded exit-polling by more than the margin of error! Remember this ↓ chart?
(if you need a refresher, please read my piece on #ExitPollGate)
Could it just be luck?
It’s possible (but not probable) that Clinton’s recorded votes might exceed the margin of error of the exit polls a few times. The exit-polling should fallwithin 2% of the result, about 95% of the time — but there is a 5% chance that it won’t. Maybe Hillary Clinton is just a very, very, very lucky person.
But ask yourselves:
Can I really believe that it was “chance” that 26 primaries fell outside that margin, this year? And can I really believe it was just chance that, in 24 out of 26 of those, the unexpected votes were for a particular candidate?
Now, here’s the kicker: can you believe that the CVS data “just happens” to look fraudulent, also?
To Sum It All Up
I’d like you to consider the analogy of fire: if you smell a fire, there could be a fire — but it might just be smoke, right? But, if you smell and see the fire, it’s probably not smoke, right? It most likely is fire. What if you smelled smoke, saw fire, and felt its heat?
That’s what this is — the exit-poll disparities indicate shenanigans but they don’t prove them. Both exit-poll discrepancies and suspicious CVS, however, strongly indicates shenanigans! It’s like smelling smoke and seeing fire.
And I’m sure you feel it, too.
Now, I promise you this: the corporate-media won’t touch this. I think you know why. It’s up to us, then. We have to make some noise — we have to drag all of this into the light, somehow. If we don’t, no one will.
There’s still more than a month before the convention and plenty of things could happen between now & then — FBI investigations, Guccifer 2.0 & Wiki-Leaks, transcripts, scandals — let’s add “evidence of election fraud surfacing” to that list, by SHARING this article & others like it.
Let’s bring this issue into the public discussion & win the media-war. To hell with the major “news” outlets, we don’t need them — we have theinternet.
John Laurits #SeeYouInPhilly
P.S. If this article made you think & you’re interested in real journalism (it’s true, the #LameStreamMedia has really gotten that bad), here are some of my most recent articles:
“What is #ExitPollGate?”
We Endorse Bernie! A Call to Action (6-16)
“The Math of the Convention” (6/15)
“What is ‘Democracy?’” (6/14)
“Take Heart, Berner!,”
“Why I will #SeeYouInPhilly,”