The Hidden Truth Behind 2000 and 2004 Elections

Thursday, April 14, 2005

The Fireworks Start: Plus Question & Answers session.

For anyone who didn't catch it last time, right when I started doing this blog I stated that Kenneth J. Blackwell would be next to voluntarily fire his BOE employees and clean the house over several gross misconceptions.

A quote from the report below:
"Ms. Ross and Ms. Brown said yesterday they are still considering their options.
A report stemming from an investigation of the county's management of the election concluded the elections board failed to maintain "ballot security," failed to properly manage a flood of voter registrations leading up to the election, issued and accepted faulty absentee ballots, and lost a poll book during the official canvass, a tool that is critical to determining the credibility of hundreds of votes, among other things.

In Ms. Noe's four-page resignation letter to Mr. Blackwell, she charged that the report "is full of inaccuracies and half-truths," and that the investigator, Richard Weghorst, "was a biased investigator and should not have been assigned to investigate our county" because he was one of those involved in administering the November election in Lucas County."

I would like to remind Mr. Blackwell himself, that these are serious criminal based issues and to merely blame your staff and have them take the fall, is not an ethical, nor a smart choice. The BOE yes, it is completely accurate that they were in fact in charge of the aggregators which were constantly used in seperating the voter registries.

It is correct that they did allow obvious procedures that are against the law, to purge a noted variable of unidentified voters from the rolls illegally. It is shown that those with provisionals, were affected the very worst by this deliberate programming fraud.

However Mr. Blackwell, you are the Secretary of State. You had the orders given to those board members, you were in charge of those on the BOE. You knew about everything. And how about you explain now to the people of this district why you did what you did? How about you yourself take full responsibility for ordering the corrupt BOE administration to do it? I dare you to just this once, come completely clean. Admit to your fellow african americans why this happened. Please explain these disenfranchised voters to the three plus largest precinct in Ohio. Come now and view the results for yourself, this was surely all just some mistake perpetrated by the BOE. No, I do not think this qualifies anymore sir. Both the Secretaries of State in Ohio and Florida, should step down and be held accountable to their actions.

And before I go any further, it needs to be brought up about the telling evidence I have viewed. In-between a constant barrage of attacks I have seen heinous evidence of the game Jeb Bush was involved in. The Department of Agriculture certified, and legalized a system which is severely weak to fraud. One that is so surprising, I'm almost disgusted to have even been witness of it.

It is not enough though that these events are brewing. When I unleash the full history here, it will become quite a shock to the airwaves. Right now I however remain a dilligent programmer, getting my job done.

Not long after my words started snowballing the airwaves, Florida is now officially through with the hodge podge game. Perhaps it didn't come a moment too soon. Miami-Dade County, which I have done a full scale study on now, has called for the removal of all iVotronic machines. Do you hear that statisticians? You had best sieze the tabulator in Florida's Miami-Dade, if you want to prove vote purging. You had best do it before its too late.
"Three years after spending $24.5 million to install a controversial touch-screen voting system, Miami-Dade County elections officials have been asked to study scrapping the system in favor of paper-based balloting.

The request from County Manager George Burgess follows the recent resignation of Elections Supervisor Constance Kaplan and the revelation that hundreds of votes in recent elections hadn't been counted."

Finally the time has come for the questions & answers session. I have quite the story to share with you all later, about someone who has been busy blaming and attacking me as well as, apparently trying to have my blogger website hacked completely down. After handling the matter with the webmaster, I have engaged certain security measures here personally.


Thanks for doing your rigged-aggregators blog, i'm gonna try and catch-up on it now that i've found it.

A question: Have you studied the idea that was floated here that the 2000 results were used as a base from which the 2004 results were manipulated?my statistics are a little rusty, so i'm not sure how much this beats the odds...but i've had this post at the back of my mind since I read it back at the end of december and I still believe it holds some promise.

I only e-mail you due to the content I've read so far being along the same lines, and having read that you were a programmer and have had contact with Clint Curtis, i was curious what your take would be on this data.

Thanks for your time,
-Chris Carter
American University Class '07"

Excellent careful questions and analysis. You know in all the time this has been going on, you are officially the first one I have seen actually get it without a long drawn out explanation or redundant exam. Between statisticians, PHDs, doctors, lawyers, and everyone else- they just don't seem to "get" how easy voters are purged and how this works like winding up a clock.

First of all, there is already complete evidence that the aggregators rigged the election in 2000. Only back then, they didn't streamline these devices. You could not find much trace of anything besides purge lists. The system wasn't automated. It was not made by machine code.

If you want to read up more on this, just check Greg Palast's second iteration of the "Best Democracy Money can Buy" which the Moscow Times has now printed a full page article on. Also seen at

ChoicePoint, and specifically now the new company to take over the corporate reign, Accenture profited from voter purges. All while manipulating the system by having their information pre-stored, in the computers. They took this information from other states through the simple fact of interoperation. Half these deceased voters were already existing in Mexico, United States, or more accurately inside any of the databases produced by Accenture and Choicepoint. Jeb Bush and the group who happened to discuss this with Tom Feeney, wrote the automated system into law back in the year 1997 even longer before Clinton had even considered NAFTA.

Unfortunately, the companies handling this contract are plagued by corruption of discrimination. This has been going on with the department of agriculture for now over 10 years. So the relative ease of Bush getting his tricked out vote lists, was truly disheartening. I'm wary to mention that the specifics of this situation were met by automated systems, because there was only one such system in place.

In 2000, Chris Allen and other statisticians already knew and were correctly informed of discrimination and deceased voters being flooded through the tabulators. More then that, they had a certain level of assumption going on about how this would work based on the Dunbar theory of law. To certain people, the idea of a minority being more representive of the full population is more accurate and therefore should be the common factor for random sampling. In fact, when doing the data for the Cencus department, a real government statistics bureau, they would track their responders carefully and therefore massage the data to agree with one ideal.

In truth, the 2000 election data was used as a base. It was used as a mere primer resulting from a conclusively stolen election, to make sense of the population's next sampling opportunity. The fact is the Dunbar law agrees with re-using sample sizes relative to their sample integrity.

7,000 dead people a year could be surveyed to take taxes and hike them, does that mean the results are being made up? I'm not sure you can put it that way. It means that they keep the sampling as close to their previous mirror as possible, and keep the same outdated results inside of it. In the year 2004 the 2000 data and popular districts was used to "massage" the overall totals to conform to their standard. A standard that is used in Cencus bureaus nation wide.

Therefore, an automated system which has been programmed in this finite way now has the results required to call out and purge any voter neccesary when deemed applicable. If for instance, voters cease to register option C in the question center for an on screen ballot, that vote will therefore be dropped by the iVotronic machines in Florida and will cease to ever register. An error, "tsup.dll" or just plain dll error will always happen in the machine. But the vote itself, when shoved in ES&S tabulator will no longer display as nothing but an undervote.

And by law, in more than several states the same exact thing will occur when one said voter hits the "Straight ticket: Under" option, which will never be used as a valid vote. The problem lies in finding just how many dead and bogus voters really did get fed through the numbers; when at the end of the day every tabulator is different. Alltogether though, with this kind of programming code the automatic streamlining is now present through-out all of the states at once.

Even as each counting system will supply a different aggregator, to pull the votes through. Truth being then, that under the benign laws the government has established someone could be purged from the polls immediately for just forgetting to turn in their credit card report.

Discrimination by numbers, and your proof told answer lies in the numbers themselves like that of the Dunbar theory. I tend to think the hand of justice will reach everyone, and I'm shouting to the experts, you had best audit each tabulator's log file and start actually doing something.

"Rodney, great blog. I was wondering something that you had said earlier about a central computer.

I am confused as to what you were talking about. I thought all the tabulators counted up the results at the state level? What is this about the national computer being knocked offline, thanks in advance for your help.

University of Phoenix"

Another great well-requested question. As I have previously discussed before, what most people seem to miss is that there is a central tabulator, or a computer of sorts controlling the elections. In not just 2004, but 2002 as well as other years, this computer has in fact crashed and gone offline. I have much evidence of this I am still reviewing. What was out of character for this election, is that when the central computer crashed offline, two hours later the exit poll results were re-submitted and had switched.

In every single party affiliation, numbers had switched by definition of the new exit poll numbers. But it was only after the fact the computer crashed. Which now a study has been done that shows this could very well have been a denial of service, and that only a denial of service coming from within could have caused it. The government themselves would had to have known or orchestrated the attack on it, because this computer is far too strong to crash by itself. That very likely put enough downtime out there for the million plus purge across the country.

Rodney N. is fighting ferociously against freepers and all manner of attacks, to press forth and get this blog sized down and spread. Due to repeated spamming and unauthorized attacks, comments have been disabled. You are free however to always reach me by email if you like and need to address your questions.


Post a Comment

<< Home