ElectionJusticeUSA.Org Election Fraud and Vote Manipulation Report is out...And Its Devastating

Election Justice USA is a new group formed when there started to be serious anomalies noted in the recent primaries. The link to a full detailed report PDF (96 pages) is below:

www.election-justice-usa.org...

I've only glanced through it so far but it details numerous instances of voter fraud, party registration changes making it impossible to vote or the need to use a provisional vote that may not have been counted, serious discrepancies between vote totals and exit data numbers especially in the Democratic primaries (the Republican exit data polling seems to be within statically normal variances, interestingly), and much more.

From the Electionjusticeusa.org site:

In our research we examined the election results of the 2016 presidential primaries, and found irregularities in the overwhelming majority of the twenty-one states that we analyzed. The data indicates, in particular, that the totals reported on the Democratic side in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders may not be correct.

In state after state, independent examination by two separate analysts found suspect statistical patterns giving Clinton inflated percentages, that in all likelihood, are not fully based on actual votes, and showing Sanders with what appear to be artificially depressed totals.

The difference between the reported totals, and our best estimate of the actual vote totals, varies considerably from state to state. However, these differences are significant—sometimes more than 10%—and could change the outcome of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

We found irregularities in the 2016 Republican presidential primary as well, and while concerning, we do not believe they are large enough to change the outcome of that race. It is important to note that the fact that a candidate benefits from irregularities does not imply that a candidate is responsible for them.

Fritz Scheuren, a member of the statistics faculty at George Washington University, and a former president of the American Statistical Association, has been a collaborator in this research. Examining the data from the study, Scheuren said, “As a statistician, I find the results of the 2016 primary voting unusual. In fact, I found the patterns unexpected [and possibly even] suspicious. There is a greater degree of smoothness in the outcomes than the roughness that is typical in raw/real data.”

In the New York 2016 primary, over 120,000 voters were purged from the rolls in Brooklyn alone, and a large number of voters also had their voter registration changed without their knowledge or intent. It is this subset that, when counted by hand, shows a consistently higher percentage for Sanders. There are two possible explanations for this. One is that the machines are counting the votes differently. The other is that the voters who were forced to use provisional ballots were targeted Sanders voters. Possibly, both of these factors are at work. Either way, the data indicates the footprint of manipulation in the election, and calls into question the validity of the reported results.

The report indicates that several lawsuits have already been filed, and the upshot of it all seems to indicate that the election was indeed stolen from Sanders.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Bernie should replace Hillary right now.

I am glad that someone is monitoring these a-holes.

The corruption needs to end.

I wonder if ElectionJusticeUSA will be focusing on all elections, or just the ones for which their (Democrat) candidate doesn't win.

originally posted by: NthOther
I wonder if ElectionJusticeUSA will be focusing on all elections, or just the ones for which their (Democrat) candidate doesn't win.

I wondered that as well.

We really need someone that keeps an eye on these things moving forward.

a reply to: Metallicus

At what point is vote count fraud treason? At what point is the top of the ticket, the beneficiary of the fraud, culpable?

I've been saying all along since over a year ago, Clinton is a fatally flawed candidate and she cannot run the country under the numerous storm clouds she is racking up - all of them perfectly demonstrated by Thursday's violent thunderstorm in Philadelphia right before her acceptance speech.

I've actually lost count of the number of FOIA demands, lawsuits, investigations and referrals to the FBI and IRS for both her and the Clinton Foundation that have piled up just since the beginning of the year.

originally posted by: NthOther
I wonder if ElectionJusticeUSA will be focusing on all elections, or just the ones for which their (Democrat) candidate doesn't win.

They stated on their home page they are nonpartisan.

Election Justice USA (EJUSA) is a national coalition of seasoned election integrity experts, attorneys, statisticians, journalists and activists.

Non-Partisan - We are a non-partisan organization advocating for voters’ rights and election reform. We are a young, fresh organization that came together through our common understanding of the need to address the fraud and voter suppression that has been widespread in the 2016 presidential primaries. Witnessing state after state experience long lines, voters removed from the rolls, registration tampering, targeted closing of polls and large statistical irregularities in the results, we felt that action must be taken to restore the integrity of our democracy.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

They also stated this on their homepage (among other damning things):

Mandating issue-based election coverage on the networks.

Election Justice USA

That's one of their "planks"--toss free speech out the window and force the media to show only what they want people to see.

Sounds like a die-hard, statist Sanders supporter to me.

a reply to: NthOther

'Mandating issue based election coverage' simply means (to me) that the networks should provide as a public service debates and discussions of the issues needed for an informed electorate.

Most of the 'speech' we got now is hardly free, and it's often not issue-based. It's bought and paid for, mostly by large donors with hidden agendas.

This "organization" seems to be two people that appeared overnight. And mostly used to hype one of the two's documentary. They are clearly agenda driven as they pretend the GOP primary did not exist so did not need to be monitored I guess.

You can find real non partisan voter fraud organizations that have been around for a long time and monitor all elections and then you have these kind that pop up for a single primary or single election with a very clear agenda that disappear right after. Remember the American Center for Voting Rights. Same sort of shady group.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

What do you think "mandate" (as a verb, in this context) means?

Sounds like some of the Ron Paul people got together with some of the Bernie people due to what they saw happen/ing before their very eyes. There's a pretty good-sized portion of each party now that has experienced watching their candidate get robbed of votes.

man·date
ˈmanˌdāt/Submit
noun
1.
an official order or commission to do something.
"a mandate to seek the release of political prisoners"
synonyms: instruction, directive, decree, command, order, injunction, edict, charge, commission, bidding, ruling, fiat; formalordinance
"a mandate from the UN"
2.
the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.
"a sick leader living beyond his mandate"
synonyms: authority, approval, acceptance, ratification, endorsement, sanction, authorization
"they won a mandate to form the government"
verb
1.
give (someone) authority to act in a certain way.
"other colleges have mandated coed fraternities"
synonyms: instruct, order, direct, command, tell, require, charge, call on
"they were mandated to strike"
2.
historical
assign (territory) under a mandate of the League of Nations.
"mandated territories"

My read on it in this context would be what I stated earlier - require the networks that use the public airways to provide a free discussion platform to encourage an informed electorate. 'Free' being important because right now, much of our information depends on advertising dollars, lobbyists and special interest groups.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

How is that not a blatant violation of the First Amendment?

originally posted by: MrSpad
This "organization" seems to be two people that appeared overnight. And mostly used to hype one of the two's documentary. They are clearly agenda driven as they pretend the GOP primary did not exist so did not need to be monitored I guess.

You can find real non partisan voter fraud organizations that have been around for a long time and monitor all elections and then you have these kind that pop up for a single primary or single election with a very clear agenda that disappear right after. Remember the American Center for Voting Rights. Same sort of shady group.

I don't have any way of knowing how many people are involved - perhaps only two wanted their names out there. They mention the GOP primary plenty in the report, and it's very detailed; they just didn't seem to find any anomalies in it, certainly not as widespread as the Dem primary, this time around. I highly doubt only two people wrote that report, and some statisticians and legal personnel were quite obviously involved. I consider myself highly educated, and I was challenged getting through it, this late at night.

If there are 'real' non partisan voter fraud organizations around for a long time, how come we still are seeing these problems, and all the old hackable voting machines everywhere? Their oversight results are obviously inadequate.

a reply to: NthOther

Seriously? It's quite late at night, have you been imbibing, m'dear?

Perhaps you prefer Donald Trump's version of freedom of speech. Otherwise known as 'freedom to spiel whatever comes to mind, no matter how ridiculous it may be on its face, disavow saying it moments later, and call that a policy statement...'

But that's another day, another fight.

I would welcome free, frequent, detailed debates and discussions between all persons involved in an election. The airways DO belong to the people, y'know. I'm pretty sure somewhere in the small print of the cable network contracts, they are required to give a certain amount of fiberoptic time to 'public service' use, also.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

So you think it's ok for the government to prescribe media content by law?

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

They also stated this on their homepage (among other damning things):

Mandating issue-based election coverage on the networks.

Election Justice USA

That's one of their "planks"--toss free speech out the window and force the media to show only what they want people to see.

Sounds like a die-hard, statist Sanders supporter to me.

What the heck is wrong with demanding that the candidates discuss the issues? Would you rather they just got up and called one another nasty names or discussed what somebody's Grandpa did back in the '60s? From what I saw from the Republicans in this past primary, somebody needs to tell them to STOP with the size of hands crap and act like adults rather than a bunch of hormone-engorged teen boys.
Both parties were despicable. Both parties have blatantly manipulated the primary process. This is becoming more clear with each passing election and due to today's communication technology. Thus the increase in independent voter registrations.
Until we can put aside the party affiliation obsession, we will remain mired in the corruption.

originally posted by: diggindirt

What the heck is wrong with demanding that the candidates discuss the issues?

Nothing wrong with demanding.

Huge, gigantic problem with forcing through state coercion.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

So you think it's ok for the government to prescribe media content by law?

This is what you're objecting to:

Mandating issue-based election coverage on the networks.

Seriously?

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian

originally posted by: MrSpad
This "organization" seems to be two people that appeared overnight. And mostly used to hype one of the two's documentary. They are clearly agenda driven as they pretend the GOP primary did not exist so did not need to be monitored I guess.

You can find real non partisan voter fraud organizations that have been around for a long time and monitor all elections and then you have these kind that pop up for a single primary or single election with a very clear agenda that disappear right after. Remember the American Center for Voting Rights. Same sort of shady group.

I don't have any way of knowing how many people are involved - perhaps only two wanted their names out there. They mention the GOP primary plenty in the report, and it's very detailed; they just didn't seem to find any anomalies in it, certainly not as widespread as the Dem primary, this time around. I highly doubt only two people wrote that report, and some statisticians and legal personnel were quite obviously involved. I consider myself highly educated, and I was challenged getting through it, this late at night.

If there are 'real' non partisan voter fraud organizations around for a long time, how come we still are seeing these problems, and all the old hackable voting machines everywhere? Their oversight results are obviously inadequate.

The only time you see these problem are when they are created by these fly by night organizations. When DoJ investigates their claims and find nothing they groups disappear. Or they are rooted out by people look into their background and find they are created by political groups. The are not the first, they appear every election, make lots of claims and the go poof. So of course they find nothing with the GOP primary because that is not why they were created. Pretty much never trust a group that just appears out of nowhere, they always end up like American Center for Voting Rights