Analysis: A Formula for Catching Election Fraud

Analysis: A Formula for Catching Election Fraud


Democrats Should Take Up To 40 House Seats And 6 In The Senate

Michael Collins and TruthIsAll
“Scoop” Independent News, Washington, DC
Part 1 (10/26) - Part
2 (10/31)


November 7, 2006 promises to be a watershed event in the political history of the United States of America. After six long years of the Bush Administration the public is poised to clean house and throw the bums out. These colloquial phrases represent the fervently held hopes of the 55% to 60% of the people who consistently disapprove of the Bush presidency. However, a darker horizon beckons due to the inevitable temptations to deliver the vote in ways that deny the public will.

Two major reasons for concern about a free and fair election are found in these simple title changes that will occur in a Democratic House of Representatives: Chairman Conyers and Chairman Waxman. The thought of these two experienced, intelligent, and wily legislators in charge of the key House investigative committees must strike terror in the hearts of those who may be subject to investigations. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that what can be done will be done to avoid thishorror. It makes perfect sense.

We know that there have been frequent instances of elections gone wrong since 2000. The curious
events preceding the surprise losses of Senator Cleland and Governor Barnes in Georgia 2002 were an immediate cause of concern for careful observers. The intense concern just might have had something to do with the software patch applied to one third of that state’s electronic voting machines just before the election. That software patch that was never investigated or even explained even though it occurred right before an election that saw a highly improbable last minute reversal of substantial leads by those two Democrats.

We then witnessed the travesty of 2004 when, at the very least, the state of Ohio was moved from the Democrat to Republican column through an assortment of highly effective voter suppression and ballot alteration tactics. The remainder of the country saw significant anomalies as well. Battle
ground state after battle ground state switched to the Republican column throughout the night violating the
well established laws of mathematics concerning large sample polling. Of course, everyone paying attention at the time knows that the 2000 election was stolen away from the Florida hot house of political intrigue and handed to the
most partisan Supreme Court in US history to do its dirty work.

There is a powerful incentive to alter the results
of this election and a recent history of election outrages
to justify extreme vigilance. Sadly, only the tiniest
fraction of the population would endorse this were there any
degree of general awareness. The recent demonstration of
voting machine problems at Princeton
that caused such a
stir is just a punctuation mark in a much longer history of
election fraud that began in earnest with the Compromise of
1876. Black Americans have not voted in higher numbers
since Reconstruction which that compromise ended. As we
pointed out in the first article of this series, there are
many methods of voter suppression and voter
disenfranchisement that exist entirely outside the realm of
electronic voting. The opportunities for election fraud are

This is the ultimate comment on the status of
the election tomorrow can be found

Soaries excoriates both
Congress and the White House, referring to their dedication
to reforming American election issues as "a charade" and "a
travesty," and says the system now in place is " ripe for
stealing elections and for fraud."

DeForest Soaries, appointed by George W. Bush as first
Chairman, Election Assistance Commission. Exclusive
reporting by Brad Friedman, The BradBlog


Based on
extensive analysis of a broad range of pre-election polls,
it appears likely that, absent election fraud, the following
will result:

  • A Democratic House – 36 to 40
    seats change from Republican to Democratic

  • A
    Democratic Senate - 6 seats change from Republican to

In order to protect the democratic
voting process and assure the realization of the will of the

  • A simple formula is presented to the
    built in anti-Democrat bias of the current

  • 27 of 41 best Democratic pick up
    opportunities are at risk based on this

Once again, we’re poised to live
through another of those miraculous last minute comebacks
with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter. We’ve heard
Rove say his math is right and that of the pollsters is
wrong. Just today ABC and PEW released two outlier polls
showing a tightening of the generic preference for House
control. While these firms may have adopted Rovian math,
the other nine national polls conducted at the same time
record the same large spread reflecting an overwhelming
public preference for Democratic control of Congress.

basis for a big surprise is already being laid. The vote
switching has begun with absentee ballots, and the voters
who will be turned away because they’ve been purged (now
in all 50 states) have not even had a chance to get

Please vote, regardless of your party
affiliation or candidate choice and while you’re dong
that, observe locally and read nationally about the calamity
that awaits us, election day November 7, 2006.

GENERIC POLLING DATA: The Democrats are consistently

The Republicans got their best news since the
day Mark Foley went into seclusion. The PEW and ABC polls
showed a tightening of the generic public preference
congress. This news was treated as revealed truth by the
usual suspects: Blitzer, Greenfield, and Larry King. Unfortunately for
the spin doctors, the other nine polls
conducted about the same time show a 50% preference for
Democrats and only 38% for Republicans nationwide.

Even with the Pew and ABC
polls in the mix, the 11 poll average shows a continuing
public preference for the Democrats. We can understand why
the Republicans would tout the two anomalous polls but why
would CNN offer such uncritical and false endorsements of
this claim?

The following analysis shows the
latest national average from Taking into
account the Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA) assumption of
60% for Democratic challengers, the Democratic generic vote
should exceed 56% on Election Day.

Big Version


GOP House Seats in
Play: 62. Latest polling: 11/05/06.


There are 62 Republican
seats with a significant Democratic challenge. This
analysis shows that up to 42 seats can move into the
Democratic camp. This trend has been in place for months. The likely
alternative to a Democratic sweep will come about
due to election fraud or election challenges decided by
state legislatures or courts. There is a 62% probability
that at least 40 seats will turn from Republican to Democrat
- presuming no fraud.


Big Version

There are 62
Republicans with significant Democratic challenger. This
analysis shows that up to 40 of those seats can move into
the Democratic camp. The environment causing this change
has been in place for months. The likely alternative would
be election fraud or election challenges decided by state
legislatures or courts. Forty seats are gained at a 62%

Graph: All 62 GOP House Seats In

The Democrats lead in 41 races after
applying the undecided voter allocation (UVA).

With 67%
of the undecided voters, Democrats will pick up even more
seats than the 41 leads thus gaining a huge advantage in the

Big Version

Aside from divine
intervention (which is not anticipated at present) the only
path to a Republican Congress is through the application of
election fraud. ¬

How would the fraud
work? Each election, the Democrats lose between 2% and 3%
of their votes due to spoiled ballots. These spoiled
ballots show up most often in minority and poor
neighborhoods. Professor Phillip A. Klinkner buried
forever the assumption that the poor and minorities cannot
master the voting process. His study of Florida voting in
2000, with particular attention to spoiled ballots, is a
landmark document on elections in the United States.

The United States SENATE

Control of the United States
Senate is a huge prize.

Big Version

Prospects for
Senate control look better than they did in our October 31
article. At just 55%of undecided voters picking Democrats,
there is a 79% probability that the Senate will change

The Democrats need to
win six GOP-held seats (net of any Democratic seats lost) up
for election. The win probabilities are listed above. Based on the
current polling average, if the election was
held today, absent election fraud the Democrats have an
excellent chance of winning the six seats.


Eleven critical Senate races are presented
above. The Democrats must win six of the ten GOP seats to
regain control of the Senate. Unfortunately, Lamont looks
like he will lose (probably due to lack of party support)
and the dynamic Ford has fallen in the polls (after his
opponent ran racist commercials). Webb has pulled ahead of
Allen and McCaskill looks very good now against


  • Determine the level of fraud
    required to reverse the true vote (assumed equal to the
    final poll)

  • The level of fraud is based on two
    components: uncounted votes and switched votes.

  • Approximately 3% of total votes cast are never counted
    (lost, stolen, residual ballots)

  • The majority
    of uncounted ballots are located in minority

Click for big

Applying this model to the
probable – possible wins by the Democrats against
incumbent Republicans (see chart below) 14 likely wins
emerge outside of the fraud margin, but 27 seats remain
within the Margin of Fraud as defined above. These require
careful monitoring and analysis. They are critical targets
if the plan unfolds to keep the House at any

Click for big

This table represents the
races to watch, target for support and monitor post
election. Every win on the right side of the blue line is a
victory for the Democrats and more importantly for
democracy. Holding fair elections isn’t that complicated.
As a result, any meltdowns, supply shortages, switched
votes, voter intimidation, etc. etc., take place in these
districts need to be questioned and examined

What can be done?

This question has
been answered already by the absence of action over the past
two years. Those concerned about the security and sanctity
of our elections were told that voter verified paper ballots
were the solution. These purported auxiliary ballots pop
out of the touch screen voting machines. They verify only
what is printed on them and but not necessarily the votes
that have been cast (the computer can record whatever it is
programmed to record and print a separate item as a
verification). Due to widely varying but almost always
restrictive recount laws, they are not likely to be used at
any time in the near future to settle the outcome of an
election. There are 13 states with both verified paper
ballots for touch screen voting machines and a mandates to
use them. We should watch closely and see if those original
13 are exempt from the anticipated problems on election

We are in an era of inherently unverifiable election
results both in actual fact and in the public perception. Thus, any
result can be challenged for any number of
reasons, most of which cannot be investigated. The computer
voting process typically eliminates any ballot record other
than that stored on the voting machine. The only evidence
of voter intent is recorded in secret in the voting machine
which, like any computer, can be programmed to do just about
anything with that ballot record.

Given the
tentativeness of the election process, we need to bring the
best analysis to bear, expose glaring problems, and demand
investigations immediately. This article is the final of a
three part series on election 2006. Mathematician and
prolific internet poster TruthIsAll’s provides a forecast
of probable wins for the House and Senate by the Democrats. In
addition, he offers a clear method of analyzing election
results and provides methods of identifying
possible/probably instances of election fraud.

yourself these two questions…

How many election
challenges have you seen in your life? How many of those
were initiated by the candidates involved?

It is clear
that in order to clean up our election system and ensure
free and fair elections that include all of those eligible
without hindrance; the citizens are the responsible parties
for change. The politicians have their own agenda as do the
parties. It is up to each of us to make political process
work in a way that produces vastly different results. Neglect of the
process has given us a President who
advocates torture as a national policy, invades nations
without any real justification, ignores the environment,
and, as his first Elections Assistance Commissioner pointed
out, shows no respect for the election process. It is now
time for the people to take responsibility for the conduct
and outcome of the elections that have such great influence
over their lives.

***** ENDS ******

©Copyright: Please feel free to reproduce and
distribute this in any fashion you feel suitable with an
attribution of authorship and the publisher, “Scoop”
Independent News, plus a link to the