It is now a documented fact that 100% of the Exit Polls, done by professional pollsters across the political spectrum and including the most extreme of the neo-conservative vote-mongerers, in 2000, and in 2004, came up with "results" which showed that a candidate other than Bush had won the Presidency. (In 2000, it was Gore, in 2004, it was Kerry).
The National Election Pool, which is a consortium of the five broadcase and cable networks with the Associated Press that commissions exist polls, has clearly published the data showing this fact. However, in a remarkable or at least curious inability to draw rational conclusions from this data, the NEP decided that all of the Exit Polling was somehow flawed. So they have studied the "problem" of flawed polling -- claiming that the exit pollsters had trouble getting older people to answer the surveys, or that Democrats are intrinsically more willing to participate in surveys.
In the history of Exit Polling, there are only TWO ELECTIONS which have not been accurately predicted. There are only TWO ELECTIONS in which the results as "counted" were not accurately projected from the data gathered by professional Exit Polling. Exit Polling in US Presidential Elections has not been a haphazard lark performed by amateurs since Jackson.
Why, in the face of a legion of voters who have testified that the voting machines did not respond appropriately, and with technicians logging up failed tests for the voting machines manufactured by Bush patrons, do they presume that the pollsters failed to obtain correct information? The fact that 100% of the Exit Polls had projected a NON-Bush victory, does not point to "a flaw" in the independent pollster methodology. The discrepant results clearly point to the possibility that the machines which created the "winner", are themselves flawed!
This logical conclusion is of course corroborated by the fact that the ACTUAL COUNT of the uncounted ballots in Florida in 2000 (not yet counted by the time that the Republican Registrar of Voters, declared "victory" for George Bush, but thereafter counted under the auspices of the Associated Press with bi-partizan representatives in full control) shows that Gore won the 2000 Presidential Election.
Source: The New Yorker, March 5, 2007, TOTT Comment. Notes that Al Gore was not only the winner of the popular vote by MORE THAN 500,000 votes, he was also "the almost certain winner of any reasonable or consistent count in the state of Florida". Gore was the target of what ended up as a judicial coup d'etat. Not content with damaging our legal system, deeply, Justice Antonin Scalia led the 5 justices who PREVENTED the votes in Florida from being counted after a fraudulent "declaration" of victory for the Republican candidate by the Republican Secretary of State.
ReplyDeleteFuture historians (if any) will look back at this period--especially the electoral bushwack--as the highwater mark for hierarchy run amok. The next phase of the revolutionary decentralization of power already exists in the form of the internet and open source initiatives. The mission of lovers of freedom is to make it bullet and tyranny resistant via massive peer to peer (p2p) backup and decentralization. The way to peace, enhanced peace of mind, at least, can be readily advanced by intelligent preparation of a distributed civilization backup and sustainable restore.In fact, the worldwidePeacePath.org will attempt to create by the year 2012 over 1 million antipodally safe distanced sundials containing strategically preserved knowledge and materials to reboot the best of spaceship earth with a mission of meta-earth's life expansion... stay creatively tuned....
ReplyDelete