EDA is reproducing this content as a public service, with full credit to Bev Harris and Blackboxvoting.
Hand-counts Favored Coakley
Hand-counted Results Generally Arrived Faster Than Machine Counts
Machine Counts Favoring Coakley Arrived Late -- After Concession
Sole-source E-voting Contractor, LHS Associates
. . . and No Exit Polls to Check Any of It__________________________________________________
By Bev Harris
This article is about our right to know, not about Martha Coakley or Scott Brown. And lest you think something here favors a Democrat, just you wait, I'm still working on anomalies in the NY-23 election that are just plain hard to 'splain. As Richard Hayes Phillips says when people tell him to forget it, "I'm a historian, I've got all the time in the world." NY-23 still has history to be written. My public records are starting to arrive. But that's another story.
Back to Massachusetts, I think you have a right to know that Coakley won the hand counts there.
You can discuss this here: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80830.html
According to preliminary media results by municipality, Democrat Martha Coakley won Massachusetts overall in its hand counted locations,* with 51.12% of the vote (32,247 hand counted votes) to Brown's 30,136, which garnered him 47.77% of hand counted votes. Margin: 3.35% lead for Coakley.
Massachusetts has 71 hand count locations, 91 ES&S locations, and 187 Diebold locations, with two I call the mystery municipalities (Northbridge and Milton) apparently using optical scanners, not sure what kind.
ES&S ResultsThe greatest margin between the candidates was with ES&S machines -- 53.64% for Brown, 45.31% for Coakley, a margin for Brown of 8.33%. It looks like ES&S counted a total of 620,388 votes, with 332,812 going to Brown and 281,118 going to Coakley. Taken overall, the difference -- 8.33% Brown (ES&S) added to 3.35% Coakley (hand count) shows an 11.68% difference between the ES&S and the hand counts.
Of course, as Mark Twain used to say, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. These statistics don't prove anything, and probably shouldn't be discussed without a grain of salt handy before examining more detailed demographics.
Republished as a guest contribution to The EDA Blog with attribution and appreciation to Bev Harris, Blackboxvoting.org
By Bev Harris
Shining a Bright Light on an Undemocratic Tactic
For 10 years, I've been watching a trend to manipulate elections through premature "call" of the race by a media outlet. See below for predictions on what may follow a media call for either candidate in Massachusetts.
The media "call" can be manipulated because the public doesn't know that projected winners come from a system that is not even a governmental source! In fact, the media "calls" elections based on data from just one media outlet -- usually a quiet little division of the Associated Press that occupies a little corner somewhere and answers very few questions.
Volunteers call in result reports to the corporation. The reports are often inaccurate (see below for examples). The names of these volunteers are not part of the public record. We will never get the list of names for those who will call in the 351 numbers which will result in "calling the election" for Tuesday's Massachusetts election.
How the Media "Call" May Ultimately Control PolicyIf Tuesday's Massachusetts special senate election is "called" for Democrat Martha Coakley, expect to see a rush to install her, copying a Republican tactic in 2006 whereby San Diego's Brian Bilbray was seated by the US House of Representatives before tens of thousands of votes were even counted.
'The media "call game" is a political game that can be played dirty,
and in Massachusetts, the media "call" could ultimately control national healthcare policy'
Yes, the Senate can override the actual election results, or pre-empt the real results, and pre-emptively install a candidate based on a media prediction, or a bunch of unofficial tallies, or whatever they want. It can be done. It has been done. And if the media calls the race for Coakley, expect to see it done again.
If the race is "called" for Republican Scott Brown, expect to see a rush from Republican lawyers to claim that Brown has the right to vote immediately, instead of Paul Kirk who is current interim successor to Ted Kennedy. If that fails, look for an attempt to force abstention on the Massachusetts vote while stall tactics play out.
Sixty votes are needed. If Coakley is called and installed, they've got the 60. If Brown is called and stalled, they've got 59. Either way, the media "call" on Massachusetts is going to be under exceptional political pressure.
No matter where you stand on the controversial healthcare bill, be aware that what you see reported on Election Night is not only not "official" or "final", but is not even real, and may not even be the numbers written down by poll workers or printed out by the voting machine.
There's more than enough evidence in the surface debris to suggest that the methods for counting and reporting the votes have more to do with the reputed outcome, than all the post-facto speculations about voter motivation rolled up together.
Blaming the losing candidate for an inept campaign is always convenient, but in this case that's really not sufficient to explain the 15% reversal from pre-election tracking polls.
If you have any press reports, first-hand observations, or other accounts of election irregularities from Tuesday's special election for Senate (such as ballots pre-marked for Brown, etc.) please send in those items to Info@ElectionDefenseAlliance.org with "Senate MA" in the subject line.
Also, if you kept records of pre-election tracking polls, or made screen captures of any early election results, please
send those as well.
While the political press and blogs are picking apart weaknesses in the Coakley campaign -- all of which may be true -- on the EDA site we're directing attention to fundamental questions the political press and blogs habitually overlook, about how the votes were counted and reported.
Massachusetts is crawling with reasons to doubt the veracity of the reported election results. Here are some of them:
First, a report by Bev Harris examining the MA voting results by jurisdiction, according to the vote-counting methodology employed, machine or hand-count.
Keep in mind that all of MA's votes are managed by a single contractor, LHS Associates, and all the machines (whether
labeled ES&S or Diebold/Premiere) are now owned and operated by a single E-voting vendor, ES&S.
Second, Bev Harris demonstrates how early, unofficial newsmedia "election calls" are used to condition perception of electoral outcome reality, resulting in reactions such as premature candidate concessions. (As Bradblog described it, Coakley set a new world record).
Third, a review of the fishy Obama-Clinton results in the 2008 MA presidential primary, analyzed by Jonathan Simon and Bruce O'Dell.
Massachusetts holds the national record for most extreme divergence (15.5% ) between exit polls and reputed official results.
2/5/2008: Super Tuesday
Super Tuesday was essentially a standoff, each candidate doing what was necessary to remain viable. There were, however, several exit poll-vote count disparities far beyond the expected margin of error, each involving a shift toward Clinton.
In Massachusetts, another LHS state like New Hampshire, the shift was a whopping 15.5%, turning a projected narrow Obama victory into a 15% Clinton rout.
In Arizona, site of some of the most dubious counting antics over the past several election cycles, the pro-Clinton shift was 11%, again reversing the outcome.
And in New Jersey, where machines are currently under high scrutiny supported by a court order, the shift was 8.6%.
Each of these shifts was well beyond the margin of error of the respective polls. Each resulted in shifts in delegate count to Obama’s detriment, as well as the loss of two victories that would have put a very different complexion on the outcome of Super Tuesday as a whole. The overall effect was, again, to maintain Clinton’s viability.
Unfortunately, in this Brown-Coakley special Senate election, there were no exit polls at all.
The Massachusetts Special Election For US Senate
By Jonathan Simon
August 27, 2010
On January 19th, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held a Special Election to fill the Senate seat left open by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy. It would be difficult to overstate the political implications of this election. Because the seat was the 60th for the Democrats, it carried with it the effective balance of power in the Senate: without it, in a dramatically polarized and decidedly uncooperative political environment, the Democrats would not be able to override a GOP filibuster. As the media let Americans know, everything from the shape of healthcare policy to financial regulation, from energy and environmental policy to critical judicial appointments hung in the balance.
Just as significantly, the victory by Republican Scott Brown over supposed shoo-in Martha Coakley was taken and trumpeted as a “sign:” the political calculus for the upcoming general elections in 2010 and 2012 was instantly rewritten, with the anger and unrest that apparently produced Brown’s victory establishing expectations of catastrophic losses for the Democrats in November and beyond. All in all the political impact of this single, under-the-radar state election was seismic, very nearly “presidential.”
The Electoral System
With stakes that high, citizens not only of Massachusetts but of the rest of the United States would hope to find firm basis knowledge, as opposed to mere faith that the votes were accurately counted as cast and that the seating of the certified winner, along with the massive implications alluded to above, at least reflected the will and intent of the voting constituency. Instead, this is what a citizen seeking such knowledge about the Massachusetts Special Election would find:
Election Defense Alliance