Menu Close

Category: ProgressiveLineUp2020

What if Bernie……


In order for progressives to advance beyond the Democrat Party (i.e. Bernie Sanders – Bernie will NOT be exiting the Dem Party) We the Progressives must form and institute a “third party” of true progressives.

TRUE PROGRESSIVES UNITE!

The first thing we must do is file our IRS docs and create the organization; then we get on the ballot in each of the fifty states;
then as a registered political organization/entity we sue each state for denying our constitutional right to free and fair elections and provide evidence of the mechanically and constitutionally defective system in place and ask the court to: (1) declare the defendant state election system defective; (2) direct the defendant state to produce and submit to the court a mechanically and constitutionally sound election system; (3) submit our own sound election system recommendation.

Dear Bernie Sanders: Your campaign should immediately file a federal lawsuit seeking court intervention, investigation and oversight of the 2020 Democratic primary – Progressive Lineup 2020
PROGRESSIVELINEUP2020.COM

I propose the Social Security Voting Act, whereupon anyone with a Social Security number can simply log into their online Soc. Sec. Acc’t and select your choice of candidate on the ballot on the voting webpage in your personal online Social Security account. Every person who has a Social Security number already has an online Social Security account. If you never set up your personal Social Security account you can do it right now by visiting: www.socialsecurity.gov/

The American people should be voting via their online Social Security account, instead of using voting machines and paper ballots. We could employ the use of unique identifiers like banks do to secure and verify transactions. Such a system would provide the voter the ability to verify their vote was recorded properly; when you vote, your Soc. Sec. acc’t gives you a multi-digit code you write down or save and then log back in later to verify your vote by matching the unique identifiers.
Such a system would be the first time voters could actually verify their vote was properly recorded.

Earle L. Bailey: Ron Harold, We need something with a paper trail that is auditable.
I know they can do it. If ATMs were as unreliable as electronic voting and ballot-counting machines, they would have never been implemented.

Ron Harold: Instead of paper receipts/trails, we can employ the use of write-once discs to permanently record every keystroke made on that particular device.
The current election systems are wholly unacceptable in every way. Bernie and his staff seem completely oblivious to this fact of defective election systems in each state. Many states are using antiquidated systems designed to fail and easy to manipulate. Does Bernie know the meaning and significance of high, unacceptable levels of exit polling disparity far beyond standard norms? I thought Bernie learned about the meaning of bad exit polling back in 2016, when exit polling discrepancies were off-the-chain as they are now in 2020.

In my opinion, Bernie, bless his heart, made a serious fatal error by failing to file a federal lawsuit challenging the defective election system and process in Idaho.and the other problematic states. Bernie should have filed suit seeking a federal court order mandating several items, including:

– ordering the Iowa Democrat Party NOT TO RELEASE ANY PARTIAL ELECTION RESULTS until further notice by the court;

– confiscate all election materials, devices, softwares, presidential preference cards, ballots, etc and store them in a warehouse for audit/inspection by court-appointed officials, such as DOJ personnel or FBI;

– interview/question all election system operators, including the Iowa Democrat Party and DNC members;

– court-ordered review and retabulation of election materials, producing court’s final results.

The moment Bernie’s campaign detected a defective election process, the campaign should have filed suit seeking injunctive orders I described.

Had Bernie done these things, his outcome would have been much different than “coming in second to Buttigieg.”

Dear Bernie Sanders: Your campaign should immediately file a federal lawsuit seeking court intervention, investigation and oversight of the 2020 Democratic primary

ADMIN:
Dear Bernie Sanders: Are you aware of the fact sufficient evidence exists to substantiate a valid claim of election fraud occurring against your campaign specifically, drastically reducing your campaign’s final election results in those states where the unadjusted exit polling data was at very high unacceptable levels of variance with the actual final election count?

In this 2020 Democratic Primary massive election fraud has already occurred in nearly each state thus far, and will most likely continue throughout the remainder of the primary. How do we know this? Because of exit polling discrepancies, that’s how.

A federal lawsuit should be filed immediately in each state where the final election results are at great variance with the exit polling data.

But what about right now, before the next set of states? Bernie should seek court-ordered paper ballots for each of the remaining states, if the court finds evidence election fraud may have occurred in the previous states. There’s no need to rush this primary but damn good reason to seek an election free of criminals manipulating and cheating the American voter out of their vote. We need paper ballots now and court-ordered independent election monitors to observe, record and deter election interference and fraud.

The evidence shows large, unacceptable levels of election negligence/fraud in voting machine operation (vote flipping) chain-of-custody issues regarding thumbdrives and other devices/methods used to transmit machine tabulations and large exit polling data variance from the final election results, drastically reducing Bernie Sanders final election results in those states where such great variance took place. Such great variance is not coincidence, but evidence of election fraud.


I believe a voter has a constitutional right to free and fair elections. I believe sufficient evidence exists to substantiate a legitimate cause of action in a U.S. District court lawsuit seeking justice in this primary – which means seeking our constitutional right to a free and fair election in this 2020 Democratic primary.

The Bernie Sanders campaign (or We the People) should file a federal lawsuit in each defective state to seek justice and fair results in this 2020 Democrat primary election. What would justice look like? A U.S. District court judge could institute court oversight of a court investigation of election fraud claims and make findings of fact subsequent to the court appointing independent investigators to inspect all election materials, devices, documents, ballots, tabulations, software etc. and reach some final conclusions which could result in the court adjusting the final election results or ordering a new election to be held again.

The court could direct a federal agency to interview all witnesses and election officials and workers involved in the processing of votes in those states, including Democrat Party officials state and national.

Here’s some of the evidence substantiating such a claim in a federal lawsuit:

Exit Polling Discrepancies

The evidence indicates the final election results do not match the exit polling data. A variance of 1-3% in the exit polling data has been deemed normal and acceptable for decades, worldwide and nationally. In this 2020 Democratic primary the exit polling variance is upwards of 3%, 8% and much higher depending upon which state.

The evidence exists proving election fraud occurred in Super Tuesday’s elections and the first four states:
http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/02/south-carolina-2020-democratic-party-primary/

More evidence of DNC rigged voting machines in SC, just like the 2016 primary and presidential elections in which Sanders and Trump were cheated.

Probability of Fraud= 99.2%
Prob=normdist (EP, RS, MoE/1.96, true)
RS = Biden recorded vote share
EP = Biden exit poll share
MoE = margin of error

Biden RS…. EP……Diff….MoE…Prob Fraud
SC… 48.4% 44.7% 3.7% 3.0%… 99.2%
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2020/03/04/more-evidence-of-dnc-rigged-voting-machines-in-sc-just-like-the-2016-primary-and-presidential-elections/

South Carolina 2020 Democratic Party Primary Exit Poll >>> Published by CNN at polls’ closing on election night.

Note: The exit poll vote proportions for each candidate was derived from the gender category. Candidate’s share of the male vote was multiplied with the total male proportion and added to the candidate’s proportion of the female vote multiplied with the total female vote to arrive at the candidate’s exit poll share in the state.

Please share this article:
http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/02/south-carolina-2020-democratic-party-primary/

HubPages
Super Tuesday Biden Victories Questioned by Election Watchers

Wildly divergent exit polls in South Carolina and Massachusetts, and documented voting problems in California and Texas, have prompted veteran election watchers to suggest that there may have been election fraud on Super Tuesday, always at the expense of the Bernie Sanders vote.

Edison Research/CNN polls show 4 point and 7 point discrepancies in South Carolina and Massachusetts, respectively, between the computer-tallied vote totals and exit polling. Exit polls are considered by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to be one reliable indicator of election fraud. Election fraud may be perpetrated by hacking of vote tabulation machines, or reporting incorrect results that are different from the tally tapes from each machine.

In South Carolina, where Joe Biden scored what was described extensively in the media as the “Biden Bounce,” Biden gained nearly five points in the official tally over the exit poll projection, and an astonishing seven points in the official tally in Massachusetts. The typical margin of error for Edison Research polls is 3%. In both SC and MA, exit polls showed Sanders doing better than the official vote tallies.

South Carolina voters say machines ‘flipped’ their votes
By Mark Moore November 6, 2018 | 1:29pm | Updated

Voters in South Carolina said machines at some polling places “flipped” their vote, according to a report on Tuesday.

The voters began to complain after they said their candidate picks, including in the governor’s race, did not match those on their final ballot submission, CBS station WLTX reported.

One person told the station that she tried to correct her vote several times before a poll worker took her to another machine so she could cast her vote.

Richland County elections director Rokey Suleman said no votes were switched and blamed the malfunctions on a calibration issue with the voting machines.

He told the station that if the touchscreen calibration is off, it could make an unintended selection.

He cautioned voters to review their final selection page to ensure it reflects their correct picks.

Suleman said polling places in the county have also reported problems with flashcards, electrical cords and non-functioning outlets.

He said the voting machines are usually recalibrated several times on Election Day.

The complaints in South Carolina follow similar reports at the end of October about voting machine glitches in Texas.

Early voters casting straight party tickets in Houston said the machines changed their ballots to include a candidate from the other party.

Democrats and Republicans said their selections were affected.

Election officials rejected claims that the machines malfunctioned and chalked up the mistakes to “operator error.”

“It’s not a glitch, it’s a user-induced problem that comes from the type of system that we have,” Ft. Bend County election administrator John Oldham told ABC 13. “I think both sides could be equally hurt.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Owner of TDMSResearch.com Theodore de Macedo Soares, wrote of Massachusetts after the primaries:

“The 2020 Massachusetts Democratic Party presidential primary was held on March 3, 2020. Election results from the computerized vote counts differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. As in the 2016 Massachusetts primary between candidates Sanders and Clinton, disparities greatly exceed the exit poll’s margin of error. Sanders won Massachusetts in the exit poll and lost it in the computer count.”

Soares has noted that it is particularly suspicious when other exit polls seem to be quite accurate in other contests, or with respect to candidates of little interest. In 2016, exit polls between Hillary Clinton and Sanders were GROSSLY off in a manner which favored Clinton, but were always within a point of being accurate in other races.



DEFCON Video Shows Voting Machine Used in 18 States Is Hacked in 2 Minute – link >>>

MASSACHUSETTS 2020 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY Exit Poll Versus Reported Vote Count
Posted on March 4, 2020 by Theodore de Macedo Soares
http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/04/massachusetts-2020-democratic-party-primary/

The 2020 Massachusetts Democratic Party presidential primary was held on March 3, 2020. Election results from the computerized vote counts differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. As in the 2016 Massachusetts primary between candidates Sanders and Clinton, disparities greatly exceed the exit poll’s margin of error. Sanders won Massachusetts in the exit poll and lost it in the computer count.

The discrepancies between the exit poll and the vote count for Sanders and Biden totaled 8.2%— double the 4.0% exit poll margin of error. Warren’s and Biden’s discrepancies totaled 8.0%, also double the margin of error. These discrepancies replicate the total discrepancy of 8.0% favoring Clinton in the 2016 Massachusetts Democratic Party primary between her and Sanders. This time two progressive candidates exhibit the same discrepancies now favoring Biden representing the establishment’s choice.

Presidential candidates Biden’s and Bloomberg’s vote counts exhibited the largest disparity from their exit poll projections. Biden’s unobservable computer-generated vote totals represented a 15.7% increase of his projected exit poll share. Given the 1,342,905 voters in this election, he gained approximately 60,900 more votes than projected by the exit poll. Bloomberg increased his vote share by 28.2% and approximately 34,500 more votes than projected. Their gain came largely at the expense of candidates Sanders and Warren whose combined vote counts were 97,000 less than projected by the exit poll.[i]

Noteworthy is the fact that the 2016 Massachusetts Republican Party exit poll taken at the same time and at the same precincts as the Democratic Party primary, and also with a crowded field of five candidates, was matched almost perfectly by the computer count—varying by less than one percent for each candidate.

Exit polls are widely recognized—such as by, for example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—as a means for checking the validity of vote counts. The U.S. has financed exit polls in other countries to “ensure free and fair” elections.

The United States remains one of the few major democracies in the world that continue to allow computerized vote counting—not observable by the public—to determine the results of its elections.[ii] Countries such as Germany, Norway, Netherlands, France,[iii] Canada,[iv] United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and many other countries protect the integrity of their elections with publicly observable hand-counting of paper ballots.[v]

[1] Exit poll (EP) downloaded from CNN’s website by TDMS on election night, March 3, 2020 at 8:00 PM. Candidates’ exit poll percentage/proportion derived from the gender category. Number of EP respondents: 1,394. As this first published exit poll was subsequently adjusted towards conformity with the final computerized vote count, the currently published exit poll differs from the results above.

[2] Candidates’ percentage/proportion of the total computer-generated vote counts derived from reported counts (94% reporting) updated on March 4, 2020 and published by The New York Times. Total number of voters: 1,327,374

[3] The difference between the exit poll proportion and reported vote proportion for each candidate (subtracting values in column two from the values in column three). A positive value indicates the candidate did better and received a greater share of the total reported count than projected by the exit poll. For example, candidate Biden, reported percentage/proportion of the total vote increased by 4.5% compared to his exit poll share.

[4] This column shows the percentage increase or decrease from the candidate’s exit poll projection (difference in column four divided by exit poll proportion in column two). Shown only for candidates with 4% or more share in the exit poll.

[5] This column presents a distinct Margin of Error (MOE) of the exit poll (EP) for the differences between candidate Biden and each of the other candidate’s EP results. The exit poll MOE, for example, between Biden and Sanders is 4.0% and the MOE between Biden and Warren is 3.9%. For simplicity MOE not shown for candidates with less than 4% share in the EP. MOE calculated according to multinomial formula in: Franklin, C. The ‘Margin of Error’ for Differences in Polls. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. October 2002, revised February 2007. Available at: https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf

[6] The disparities between the exit poll and the reported computer-generated vote counts comparing Biden and each of the other candidates (subtracting each candidate’s difference between exit poll and computer count from Biden’s difference of 4.5%.). Disparities for candidates Sanders and Warren are double their respective MOE. For example, candidate Biden’s unverified computerized vote count exceeded his EP projected vote proportion by 4.5% while Sander’s computerized count understated his EP projected vote proportion by 3.7% for at total discrepancy of 8.2%. This 8.2% disparity, greatly exceeding the statistical 4.0% margin of error based on their exit poll proportions, is significant as it cannot be attributed to the MOE.

[i] Sanders received 49,045 less votes than projected by the exit poll and Warren 48,000 less.

[ii] Fittingly, according to a recent Gallup World Poll, only 40% of Americans say they are confident in the honesty of U.S. elections. Finland and Norway with 89% of their citizens expressing confidence in the honesty of their elections along with the citizens of 25 other countries have greater confidence in their elections than do Americans.

[iii] During the 2007 presidential election, eighty-three municipalities (France has 36,569 municipalities) were allowed to use voting machines. Due to security concerns and the inability of voters to determine if their votes are counted correctly a moratorium, that remains today, prevents additional municipalities from introducing voting machines. In the 2012 elections only 64 municipalities continued their use. The French government desires a total ban on their use.

[iv] In Canada, the results of federal elections are determined exclusively by hand-counted paper ballots. Some provinces have adopted voting machines for local elections. See here, here and here.

[v] The United States’ long ballots–containing federal, state, and local races–are commonly cited as being unwieldy for hand-counting. The use of Sweden’s method of providing different colored paper ballots for federal, state, and local races that are then sorted prior to hand-counting addresses this objection and allows for at least the hand-counting of federal elections with only three races per ballot.

Massachusetts 2020 Democratic Party Primary Exit Poll. Published by CNN at poll’s closing on election night.

TEXAS 2020 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY
Posted on March 7, 2020 by Theodore de Macedo Soares ↓

Exit Poll Versus Reported Vote Count

By Theodore de Macedo Soares

The 2020 Texas Democratic Party presidential primary was held on March 3, 2020. Election results from the computerized vote counts differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. According to the exit poll Sanders was tied with Biden but lost in the unobservable computer counts by 4.5%.

In this election candidate Sanders saw the largest discrepancy between the exit poll and computer vote counts. His projected vote proportion fell 4% in the vote counts—an 12% reduction of his exit poll share. The combined discrepancies between the exit poll and the vote count for candidates Sanders and Biden at 4.4% significantly exceeded the 2.9% margin of error for the exit poll difference between the two. The discrepancies between Sanders and Bloomberg at 5.4% was triple their respective margin of error. See table below.

There is good reason to believe that the exit poll just prior to publishing showed a Sanders win in Texas.

As explained by Joe Lenski, executive vice president of Edison Media Research in a 2016 interview with The Washington Post, as soon as polls close in a state Edison Research alters the exit poll in accordance with incoming vote counts. They are hired by the networks to predict the winners and losers in an election as soon as possible and to provide the proportion and voting patterns of various demographics and their views on topics of interest. The incoming vote counts are useful to them to better predict the results of the unobservable computer counts. They were not hired to ascertain their accuracy.

Texas as in a few other states such as New Hampshire and Florida have the great majority of the state’s polls closing an hour earlier than the remainder. This is great for Edison Research because they can use that hour’s access to the tabulating votes from much of the state to adjust their exit poll prior to first publishing after all polls close in those states. In Texas, as the final vote count shows, candidate Sanders was losing the state and they likely used these results to downgrade a Sanders win to a tie with Biden in their first published exit poll. Edison Research and or the major networks with access to this unpublished poll would be able to confirm if it indeed showed a Sander’s win and by how much.

The United States remains one of the few major democracies in the world that continue to allow computerized vote counting—not observable by the public—to determine the results of its elections.[i] Countries such as Germany,[ii] Norway, Netherlands, France,[iii] Canada,[iv] United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and many other countries protect the integrity and trust of their elections with publicly observable hand-counting of paper ballots.[v]

Texas 2020 Primary

[1] Exit poll (EP) downloaded from CNN’s website by TDMS on election night, March 3, 2020 at 9:03 PM ET. Candidates’ exit poll percentage/proportion derived from the gender category. Number of EP respondents: 3,130. As this first published exit poll was subsequently adjusted towards conformity with the final computerized vote count, the currently published exit poll differs from the exit poll used here and available through the link below.

[2] Candidates’ percentage/proportion of the total computer-generated vote counts derived from reported counts (94% reporting) updated on March 6, 2020 and published by The New York Times. Total number of voters: 3,290,429

[3] The difference between the exit poll proportion and reported vote proportion for each candidate (subtracting values in column two from the values in column three). A positive value indicates the candidate did better and received a greater share of the total reported count than projected by the exit poll. For example, as candidate Sanders, reported percentage/proportion of the total vote decreased by 4% compared to his exit poll share this value is negative.

[4] This column shows the percentage increase or decrease from the candidate’s exit poll projection (difference in column four divided by exit poll proportion in column two). Shown, to simplify the table, only for candidates with greater than 4% share in the exit poll.

[5] This column presents a distinct Margin of Error (MOE) for the exit poll (EP) differences between candidate Biden and Bloomberg versus each of the other candidate’s EP results. This MOE, for example, between Biden and Sanders is 2.9% and the MOE between Bloomberg and Sanders is 1.7%. For simplicity MOE only shown for candidates with greater than 4% share in the EP. As this election involves multiple candidates the common method of ascertaining an MOE of the poll and then doubling it to see if the difference between two candidates is significant is replaced by a more appropriate method that directly calculates a distinct MOE for the difference between any two paired candidates. MOE calculated according to multinomial formula in: Franklin, C. The ‘Margin of Error’ for Differences in Polls. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. October 2002, revised February 2007. Available at:
https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf

[6] The discrepancies between the exit poll and the reported computer-generated vote counts comparing candidates Biden and Bloomberg with each of the other candidates (subtracting each candidate’s difference between exit poll and computer count from Biden’s difference of 0.3% and in a separate column from Bloomberg’s difference of 1.0%. If the MOE is greater than the discrepancy it the discrepancy is not significant as it can be explained by the MOE. Conversely if the MOE is smaller then it cannot explain the discrepancy and another explanation is required. As shown in the table the combined discrepancies between Warren and Biden and separately between Warren and Blomberg are smaller than their respective MOEs and thus not significant. The combined discrepancies between Sanders and Biden and separately between Sanders and Blomberg are significant and cannot be explained by their respective MOEs.

[i] Fittingly, according to a recent Gallup World Poll, only 40% of Americans say they are confident in the honesty of U.S. elections. Finland and Norway with 89% of their citizens expressing confidence in the honesty of their elections along with the citizens of 25 other countries have greater confidence in their elections than do Americans.

[ii] In 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that every important aspect of an election must be observable by the public and thus “meet the constitutional requirements of the principle of the public nature of elections.” The Court explicitly ruled that no amount of voting machine testing, security requirements, and licensing procedures can compensate for this constitutional requirement. With this ruling, Germany abandoned inherently unobservable computerized vote counting and reverted to the hand-counting of every ballot in the precincts in which they were cast and in the plain view of the public.

The court also noted that while vote fraud with hand-counted ballots would be easy to detect, “programming errors in the software or deliberate electoral fraud committed by manipulating the software of electronic voting machines can be recognized only with difficulty.”

[iii] During the 2007 presidential election, eighty-three municipalities (France has 36,569 municipalities) were allowed to use voting machines. Due to security concerns and the inability of voters to determine if their votes are counted correctly a moratorium, that remains today, prevents additional municipalities from introducing voting machines. In the 2012 elections only 64 municipalities continued their use. The French government desires a total ban on their use.

[iv] In Canada, the results of federal elections are determined exclusively by hand-counted paper ballots. Some provinces have adopted voting machines for local elections. See here, here and here.

[v] The United States’ long ballots–containing federal, state, and local races–are commonly cited as being unwieldy for hand-counting. The use of Sweden’s method of providing different colored paper ballots for federal, state, and local races that are then sorted prior to hand-counting addresses this objection and allows for at least the hand-counting of federal elections with only three races per ballot.

Dallas County asks to recount Super Tuesday election results after 44 thumb drives discovered >>>

Texas 2020 Democratic Party Primary Exit Poll published by CNN at poll’s closing on election night >>>

California 2020 Democratic Party Primary

Millions of uncounted California ballots to shed light on Sanders’ future
A big win in the state could help the senator stay afloat. But nothing is certain as counting continues: ‘It’s like a black box

Search Voting Machine Type State-by-State >>>

Massive election fraud occurred in the 2016 Democratic Primary and the 2016 U.S. Presidential general election. There were GIANT-SIZED exit polling discrepancies up to 33% variance in the 2016 Democratic Party primary.

Now in this 2020 Democratic primary we’re suffering more massive election fraud again.

During the Iowa caucuses, I called for the Sanders campaign to file a federal lawsuit seeking a federal court order to:

*STOP ALL COUNTING, TABULATING AND REPORTING OF PARTIAL ELECTION RESULTS;

*COURT DECLARE LEGAL DOMINION AND OVERSIGHT OVER THE IOWA CAUCUSES;

*SUBPOENA AND CONFISCATE ALL IOWA CAUCUS ELECTION MATERIALS, INCL. DEVICES, SOFTWARE, PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE CARDS, TABULATION DOCUMENTS AND NOTES;

*APPOINT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS TO REVIEW SAID ELECTION MATERIALS;

*DIRECT INDEPENDENT PERSONNEL TO RE-TABULATE, RE-COUNT VOTES;

*ADJUST THE FINAL ELECTION RESULTS PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S RECALCULATION AND COUNTING OF VOTES OR THE COURT ORDERING A NEW ELECTION.

In my opinion, it seems the Sanders campaign will NOT be filing a federal lawsuit for any reason in this 2020 Democratic primary. I could write plenty as to the possible reasons and excuses the Sanders campaign is failing to file a federal lawsuit in this primary. Apparently Bernie and his staff are unaware of the campaign’s rights in this matter. After 2016, Bernie should have produced a legal team of federal civil attorneys ready to file actions in the 2020 primary.

According to a recent Gallup World Poll, only 40% of Americans say they are confident in the honesty of U.S. elections. Finland and Norway with 89% of their citizens expressing confidence in the honesty of their elections along with the citizens of 25 other countries have greater confidence in their elections than do Americans.

The United States’ long ballots–containing federal, state, and local races–are commonly cited as being unwieldy for hand-counting. The use of Sweden’s method of providing different colored paper ballots for federal, state, and local races that are then sorted prior to hand-counting addresses this objection and allows for at least the hand-counting of federal elections with only three races per ballot.

Rising Up: How the DNC plans to block Bernie in California

How the DNC plans to block Bernie in California: By the raw numbers, there is no state which is more expert and more vicious at vote suppression than the state of California. Alex Padilla, the so-called Democratic Hispanic Secretary of State, has been an absolute pro. He’s been the Brian Kemp and the Katherine Harris of California.The vote suppression that the Democrats engage in in California is to keep independent No Party Preference (NPP) voters from voting in the Democratic primaries. The California Roper Poll, which is the gold standard here in California, says that three quarters of NPP voters who want to vote in the Democratic primary — three quarters — support Bernie Sanders.They know that if NPP voters are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, Sanders walks away with it. So in California, yes, you can technically vote in the Democratic primary if you’re an NPP voter, but they make it difficult. You have to know the magic word. If you’re an NPP voter, you have to go to the polling station with your ballot — and the envelope — and ask for a “Democratic party crossover ballot”. If you ask for a regular Democratic party ballot, your vote will be disqualified. Disqualified! It has to say “crossover Democratic party ballot”.Now, if you’re listening in the rest of the nation, you think this is nuts. No, it’s not nuts. It’s called stopping Bernie. So if you’re an NPP voter and you want to vote in the Democratic primary in California, make your life easy, and register as a Democrat. And do it TODAY since the voter registration deadline in California is February 18.Watch Greg's full half-hour interview on Rising Up with Sonali and make a donation to support our work at: gregpalast.com/palast-scores-victory-in-lawsuit-against-brian-kemp/#Bernie #BernieSanders #Bernie2020 #CAPrimary #VoterSuppression #ElectionFraud

Posted by Greg Palast on Sunday, February 16, 2020

California:
Bernie Sanders was declared the winner in California just moments after polls closed but his final haul of delegates could remain uncertain for days, or even weeks, as election officials tally the millions of provisional votes and mail-in ballots.

And while triumph in the Golden State will help Sanders remain competitive in what has become essentially a two-person race between him and Joe Biden, the eventual delegate math could indicate a decidedly shakier path to the nomination than the Vermont senator expected last week.

Voting on Super Tuesday in Los Angeles county, the state’s most populous, was marked by chaos after a $300m new voting system resulted in hours-long lines that kept people waiting even as midnight approached. Meanwhile, nearly half the state’s ballots still remain uncounted, estimates Paul Mitchell, with the campaign research firm Political Data Inc, which tracks ballots as they are returned.

“It’s like there’s this black box of how many ballots are at the post office right now,” said Mitchell. So far, about 5.3m ballots have been counted, according to Mitchell, just over 50% of the 10m he expects have been cast in this election. “The x-factor really is: do we see some big surging coming with the uncounted ballot results?” he said. “It’s just a huge unknown.”

Many voters dropped off or posted ballots at the last minute, and election officials are required to count mail-ins that arrive as late as Friday, as long as they are postmarked by 3 March.

SOMEBODY TELL JOE BIDEN TO CONTROL HIS WILD RACIST ENDORSERS FROM THE 2016 HILLARY CAMPAIGN.

Rosen is lying the racist lie. Hilary Rosen is factually incorrect when Hilary tells us what Dr. Martin Luther King said. Dr. Martin Luther King did not use the phrase or words, ‘…the silence of moderates.’

Rosen continued to whitesplain, “You know, Nina referenced Dr. Martin Luther King before, saying that he said from the Birmingham jail, we should be concerned about white moderates. That’s actually not what Martin Luther King said. What he said was we should be concerned about the silence of white moderates. Nina…(Cuomo interrupts saying ‘She’s making a language point.’) …what he said was, we should worry about the silence of white moderates. And what we have in Joe Biden is a man who is not silent. He has a long record and many votes in today’s world feel like the wrong thing, were the wrong thing, and he has discussed that over and over again as Bernie Sanders did on the gun votes and other things.”

SHOTS FIRED! Incredible video of Nina Turner excoriating Hillary Clinton's former staffer Hilary Rosen; Hilary endorsed Joe Biden tonight on CNN, then Hilary attacked Nina Turner about Nina quoting and invoking Dr. Martin Luther King in criticizing Joe Biden: ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE! Hilary Rosen engaged in extreme racism by intentionally misquoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosen claiming MLK said he didn't hear enough from white moderates, which is a verifiable lie. MLK said the exact opposite and much more in his historical criticism and complaint of white moderates.

Posted by Ron Harold on Thursday, March 5, 2020

Why Bernie Needs To Sue the DNC, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, California state partys, chairs

BERNIE VS. THE DNC AND ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRATS & MEDIA

Bernie needs to file a federal lawsuit IMMEDIATELY in U.S. District court against the Democratic National Committee, DNC Chairman Tom Perez, Iowa and New Hampshire state Democrat Party Chairs and personnel, seeking the court’s intervention and oversight of the Democrat Party primary process. Bernie needs to immediately file a federal lawsuit in Nevada and California, due to the high probability of election fraud and negligence. The evidence exists and I have provided some of the evidence on this webpage.

Why file? For several reasons, not the least of which is to COUNT THE DAMN VOTES RIGHT! In Iowa and New Hampshire, there exists plenty of evidence to sustain a federal investigation. In Iowa, the court could make certain caucus operations and tabulations were performed correctly; in New Hampshire the Accuvote optical scanners should be examined and tested by federal investigators.

The Sanders’ campaign needs to ask the court to intervene in the states where primaries/caucuses have not yet occurred. A Plaintiff has the right to seek court intervention and correction BEFORE the violation occurs. There exists sufficient evidence of potential election fraud, tampering and negligence in Nevada and California. Bernie needs to provide this evidence to the court as basis for court intervention.

The DNC is a shady private corporation whose shamelessness knows no boundaries. In 2016 DNC INC. was sued by Democrat Party donors for misleading donors and misdirecting funds intended for Bernie Sanders’ campaign to Bernie’s opponents. The court ruled that the DNC is a private corporation, and as such, has no need to follow its own rules and can make up rules as they go.

I believe Bernie needs to challenge this ruling because this ruling should not apply to the Democrat Party primary process. I believe a candidate enjoys a constitutional right to a federal fair process – free of election fraud harming Plaintiff. A U.S. Presidential Election is not a game of Three-Card Monty or a backroom poker game; but is arguably the most important national event in America every four years.

I contend sufficient evidence of election fraud and negligence exists in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and California:

IOWA:
Vote tabulation issues; Caucus operations & management; caucus app software; intentional lack of testing and training of caucus app;

It’s not too late for Bernie to file, but had Bernie filed the next morning after the Iowa caucus Bernie could have asked the court to not only to legally intervene but to stop the release of any partial count and ask the court to confiscate all documents, devices and evidence in this matter and interview and depose defendants, witnesses/participants and state and party officials. Bernie should not have trusted the failed Iowa Democrat Party and the DNC to execute any recanvassing, but petition the court to intervene and determine the proper tabulations, final results and outcome.

NEW HAMPSHIRE:

(1) New Hampshire Accuvote Optical Scanners: in the counties where paper ballots were used, the results matched the exit polls. In counties where Accuvote machines were used, Buttigieg’s final results were 12 POINTS HIGHER THAN BUTTIGIEG’S EXIT POLLS!

Buttigieg and Co. are guilty of felony election fraud; I contend Buttigieg & associates used these SAME EXACT ACCUVOTE machines IN THE SAME MANNER as George W. Bush used these SAME EXACT ACCUVOTE machines to steal the election by pre-programming these optical scanners to register an opposition vote instead of the true original vote on the ballot card.

These Accuvote optical scanners have been discussed and detailed in Bev Harris’ HBO election fraud special as well as written about in several books.

Yes, George W. Bush stole two election using these SAME EXACT OPTICAL SCANNERS and now in 2020 PETE BUTTIGIEG HAS USED THESE SAME EXACT SCANNERS TO STEAL VOTES FROM BERNIE SANDERS.

THE CONCORD MONITOR

Experienced New Hampshire voters will see something quite familiar when they cast their primary ballots Tuesday: A vote-counting machine that hasn’t changed in more than two decades.

The AccuVote optical reader has been part of Granite State elections since the early 1990s, when it was first accepted by the Secretary of State’s office.

It’s a 14-pound box that looks like an oversized laptop computer sitting on top of a collection bin. As each voter leaves the polling place, poll workers slip their ballot into the AccuVote

slot and the machine bounces light off the paper. Sensors tally filled-in circles next to candidates’ names and then the ballot falls into the bin below the reader.

After polls close, the reader prints out the results, with all the paper ballots available for a recount.

Other technologies have come and gone over the years but AccuVote has remained, and today is still the state’s only legal ballot-counting technology. On primary day it will be used in 118

towns and 73 city wards, leaving the other 100 or so towns in the state, including several in the Concord area, to count ballots on election night by hand.

Link >>>> https://www.concordmonitor.com/voting-machines-election-new-hampshire-32538778

In 2008 election, New Hampshire had more “problems” with their Accuvote optical scanners making opposition votes:

CALIFORNIA: An L.A. poll worker was interviewed on 15 February, 2020 by the Convo Couch and here’s what he said about the training he had just received that day:

California defines a “new voter” as a first time voter or anyone who has changed their voter registration. You must bring an ID that exactly matches your registration information or you will be given a provisional ballot.

There was a very hostile environment with the trainers. When I brought up the subject how this could affect millions of voters. But this information is nowhere on your website. The voter has no way of knowing they have to bring their ID to the polls. There’s about 30 different IDs you can show, but it must match the name and address on your registration exactly.

The computer decides who gets which ballot. There are two buttons: one says ID PROVIDED or NO ID PROVIDED. If you do not provide an ID, there’s a big red bar that goes across the screen that says “provisional.” When your ballot is printed, at the voter check in, it’s the same ballot for everyone, except there’s a little QR code up in the corner.

When you check in it will be blank with no QR code in the corner; once you check in, the poll worker will put the blank ballot into their printer and will print this QR code; this QR code will tell the ballot-marking device – WHICH IS A SEPARATE COMPUTER THAT YOU VOTE ON – whether or not it is a regular ballot or a provisional ballot.

THROUGH THIS QR CODE, THEY CAN IDENTIFY WHO THE VOTER IS.

They admitted that back at the county clerk office, they can identify the voter with the QR code. There are two QR codes that go on this ballot: the first QR code identifies the type of ballot and links that to the specific voter; the second code is printed on the ballot underneath; with how you voted. You put in your selections, you put your ballot into the computer – it prints another QR code. Through this they are able to identify both the voter and how they voted.

The voter will be told there will be a provisional ballot and you will have to fill out the pink envelope to put the ballot in. When they try to vote, that vote at the ballot-marking device, the machine will reject that ballot at the end and you will be forced to vote provisionally. There’s another problem with the ballot-marking devices: they are very fragile.

We were instructed that you must put the ballot into the slot WITH BOTH HANDS – to make sure that it doesn’t jam. The voters will be the ones handling the ballots. The poll workers will not be handling the ballots. So the voter who has no training on these machines, will have to carefully put these ballots into this device and they are very prone to jamming. We had one out of three poll workers jam the machines at our training.

It’s technically illegal. The maximum allowed is one jam out of 500 insertions; these jam at a 1 to 103 rate.

They will be counted by the machine that does the QR code. Each machine will hold 200 ballots. It will need to be emptied and changed at every 200 ballots, but it will jam far before it counts 200 ballots. Throughout the process, whether it’s opening the poll center, whether it’s midday checks, whether it’s closing or whether it’s jamming and resetting the machines, you need to scan bar codes, security codes for change of custody so there’s no tampering with the machines or ballots. The problem with this is, the poll workers are not trained on how to use the scanners; only the lead receives training. When the question was brought up about we had not received training on to use the scanner itself, the response was, “Are you a lead? If you’re not a lead you don’t need to use it.”

The votes will be put into a cardboard box and taken to a tally station.

There are three types of poll centers: large, medium and small; large center will haves 50 machines; a medium center will have 30 machines and a small center will have 10 machines.

Depending on which center you are at, will determine how many poll workers will be there. Jamming could cause long delays and more problems.

The whole system is designed for human error. It feels as if the system was intentionally designed for error. I have more concerns now than when I walked in the door this morning.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Ashley: NH In 2016 I was doing a lot of phone banking to California. I can’t tell you how many people told me that their ballot did *not* include the presidential primary and as such were not able to vote for Bernie. I called an election integrity hotline and they could barely talk to me — they said their phones had been ringing off the hook about this.
In the end, I talked to hundreds of people — many of which were berners who ultimately were unable to vote for Bernie.

Using the same procedures as used with vote-by-mail envelopes, the county elections official compares the signature for the provisional ballot with the signature on that voter’s affidavit of registration. (Elections Code, § 3019.) If the signature does not match, the county elections official must follow specified procedures to notify the voter and allow the voter an opportunity to verify his or her signature before certification of the election.

If the signature matches, the county elections official checks the voter registration database to verify whether the voter is properly registered to vote. Once the signature on the envelope has been verified and the voter’s registration is confirmed, the ballot is separated from the envelope and counted as a regular ballot.

Only the votes for contests for which the voter is eligible to vote are counted. If the voter’s registration cannot be confirmed, the ballot is not counted, and the reason for not counting the ballot is recorded; however, beginning in 2019, by virtue of completing a provisional ballot envelope, voters may be registered for future elections. (Elec. Code, § 2160.)

Similar to HAVA, California law also requires the establishment of a Free Access System so the voter can find out if his or her provisional ballot has been counted. (Elec. Code, § 14310(d).) Information about how to access each county’s Free Access System can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status.

Goldstein Investigation: Officials Warn Of ‘Vulnerabilities’ With E-Voting Machines Ahead Of March 3 Primary

February 4, 2020 at 11:00 pm – Filed Under: David Goldstein Investigates, David Goldstein Investigation, New Voting Machines