Examining the 2016 Presidential Election
Unfortunately, our presidential election and some senatorial elections may have been subjects of hidden electronic vote manipulation. This is showing up in our exit polls. Our election was also impacted by very significant voter suppression. A number of articles have been written questioning our presidential election results. Links to these articles are listed both in the body and the bottom of this article. In our article, we will also be discussing what you can do to address this profoundly disturbing situation. I hope that you continue to stay on our list and join us in seeking to create a much more reliable election system in the United States.
With continued commitment to creating an election system we can trust,
It is with much disappointment that I, Lori Grace, announce along with many others in the election integrity field that when it comes to the exit polls and the final computer vote totals, a “red shift” has taken place in our elections, a shift indicative of either outsider hacking or insider manipulation of the computerized vote counting process. The word “red shift” refers to a shift from exit poll vote totals to computer vote totals that happened after the polls were closed in a number of swing states. Because this shifting of vote totals moves from the Democratic side to the Republican side, it is called a “red shift”. This shift is over 2% which signals significance beyond the margin of error. This “red shift” also affected the races of certain Democratic senators. The election results were also affected by voter suppression. A good article that covers all of this has just come out on the Columbus Free Press. It is written by our Institute fellow, Robert Fitrakis PhD. http://columbusfreepress.com/article/did-gop-strip-flip-2016-selection
And, here is a very long article by Steven Rosenfeld on Alternet. http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fair-election-serious-hard-explain-questions-arise-about-trump-vote-totals-3-key#.WC9juXjkj0g.hotmail
With respect to electronic fraud, a number of people, including Jonathan Simon, who presented at one time at Sunrise Center were taking screen shots of exit polls just after the polls closed. If someone at the tabulator in the back room wanted to change the computer vote totals, this is the best time to do it. Additionally, according to screen shots also taken of Green party votes,the Green party votes appear to have been adjusted downward as well. I do not have any statistics on the Libertarian party as of now. As most of us know, the computer vote totals gave an Electoral College victory to Trump in the presidential election. while the exit poll results show victories in critical states for Clinton, more than sufficient to reverse the final outcome of the election.
On these tables, drawn from the screen-captured exit poll data in each state, the figures in red show statistically significant jumps that are highly suggestive of vote manipulation that would have reversed the outcome in that state. Anything over 2% is considered significant. The exit poll screen shots below were taken by Jonathan Simon, author of CODE RED: Computerized Election Theft and The New American Century, just after polls closed, and before the “adjustment” process made the exit polls useless for verification purposes. I have known Jonathan for years, since we brought to light the electronic steal from Kerry to Bush. (The first steal was in 2000 from Gore to Bush.) The tables drawn from the screenshots is shown below. A similar set of charts has also been created by statistician, Theodore (Ted) Soares. The link to his article follows which also contains charts. http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/
To discover what is the truth about our elections, we need to undertake paper ballot or ballot image counting ASAP, as soon as elections are certified in as many of the following critical states as possible, preferably all: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. The Green Party has offered to handle recounting states if the money is there. We are inviting the Libertarian party as well. We will also include New York, where there was detected an extremely “blue” shift”, indicating that a manipulation may have benefited Clinton. Since she won New York anyway, she would not have gotten any electoral votes. We will also check out the Green Party votes and Libertarian votes when recounting ballots or ballot images in the following key states: Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The goal of this effort is to show the true will of the American people with respect to our elections, to, in essence, restore public sovereignty.
Please stay tuned to TrustVote.org for further articles about what appears to be a skillful electronically engineered loss for Hillary. There is also evidence of electronic vote padding in rural Wisconsin, possibly other places as well. To understand the vote padding, Please go to the pdf at the bottom of this article to read a study published by Richard Hayes Phillips who was hired by the Free Press in 2004 to analyze the Bush/Kerry steal. We need to raise the money within the next five days to start the vote counting. This would not be accomplished sole by TrustVote.org, but by a number of nonprofit election protection organizations working together. A number of these organizations are gearing up to help the Green Party if the money can be raised. The Green Party is willing to do recounts if the money is there. They may also be joined by the Libertarian Party. Ultimately, we may have to raise over a million dollars to cover five states but the money does not have to be raised all at once. We can start with Wisconsin and Michigan.
We might also be able to check the validity of the election for much less money by doing risk limiting audits.Please see the article that follows by Phillip Stark PhD and Ron Rivest who are major statisticians and who are associated with VerifiedVoting.org. The results of the risk limiting audit would double check the results of the election at a 95% confidence level.
The first states that are making their ballots available are Wisconsin and Michigan. That is because their vote certification time is shorter. After that we will proceed to recount North Carolina, and Florida. Ohio is very resistant to allowing recounts and Pennsylvania uses many DRE’s (voting machines without a paper trail). So this two states may be the last. If we start getting results, though, with even one state, the rest of the money will come in quickly. We ca reduce costs by carefully choosing precincts within the states or by doing a risk limiting audit. Of course, we would like to recount all the ballots and increase the confidence level, but the costs may be prohibitive.
If you wish to contribute to recounting the votes or to the costs of a risk limiting audit, you can contribute any amount on our Donate button for the 2016 Presidential election below. If you contribute over $100 and the money is not used because not enough was raised between all the organizations, TrustVote.org will refund your donation less a 5% administrative charge. You can also choose to direct the money to the Institute’s other projects, which are Preserving Ballot Images and the Ohio Election Litigation lawsuit. Please email me, Lori, at firstname.lastname@example.org if you want a refund less 5% or if you want to direct it to our other projects which are dedicated to making our elections become more transparent and verifiable. If you do not email me, your $100 or more donation will be directed to the projects above that are ongoing. For amounts less than $100, we will direct your contribution to recounting votes automatically to the Ballot Image Preservation Project, which involves long term election reform and to the Ohio Litigation lawsuit. These are the projects I referred to earlier that will help our elections become more transparent and verifiable. To learn more about these projects, please check our earlier articles by going to our Recent Posts section on our website and scroll down to learn more about these ongoing projects. We will also be sending you articles later on further developments with each of these projects. All donations large and small qualify for a tax deduction because the Institute is a nonprofit organization. (501.C3) Please consult with your tax advisor.
Whatever you choose to do whether it is simply staying on our list, donating or sharing our articles with others, we APPRECIATE you. We THANK YOU for caring deeply about creating a democracy here in America that we can trust!
P.S. You can also let us know if you want to volunteer for counting ballots!
The screen shots of the exit polls are in the PDF below.
P.S. Again, If you would like to learn more about our apparent electoral discrepancies, please read the following articles. They are published here as links.
http://columbusfreepress.com/article/did-gop-strip-flip-2016-selection An article written about the election irregularities by our own Robert Fitrakis PhD together with Harvey Wasserman.
Easy to understand, includes history of American election fraud.
http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/ A detailed discussion of exit poll and vote total discrepancies by statistician Theodore de Soares
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/11/18/election-audit-paper-machines-column/93803752 the article about risk limiting audits
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fair-election-serious-hard-explain-questions-arise-about-trump-vote-totals-3-key#.WC9juXjkj0g.hotmail Another very extensive article covering discrepancies in our 2016 Presidential election
Other irregularities researched out by Richard Hayes Phillips who studied also returns in the 2004 elections. He has noted extraordinary voter participation in rural towns in Wisconsin that suggest padding. Padding that was predicted by Beverly Harris to me yesterday.
Excerpt from report by our friend Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
In the City of Baraboo, Sauk County, according to the latest numbers posted on official government websites, there were 8,390 ballots cast, and 6,923 registered voters, which equates to a voter turnout of 121.19%.
In the Village of Stockholm, Pepin County, voter turnout was 105.56% (57 ballots cast, 54 registered voters).
In the City of Wisconsin Dells, Sauk County, voter turnout was 102.30% (89 ballots cast, 87 registered voters).
In the Town of McKinley, Polk County, voter turnout was 100.00% (191 ballots cast, 191 registered voters. Nobody died or moved away. And everybody voted.
In the Town of Tipler, Florence County, previous figures showed a voter turnout of 101.96% (104 ballots cast, 102 registered voters). These numbers have since been amended.
In another 11 towns and villages, voter turnout was 95% or higher. In still another 80 towns and villages, voter turnout was 90% or higher. (I will have more to say on these high-turnout towns and villages in a follow-up report).
Either these voter turnout percentages are an historic achievement, unparalleled in my experience, or the unofficial results are not true and correct.
Full report of THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN WISCONSIN PRELIMINARY REPORT Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. PDF (check back for link)
Contact Us Today!