- Politics and Social Issues
Will Establishment Steal the Nomination from Bernie Sanders in Iowa/NH the Way it Did from Ron Paul?
First the good news: Americans are not as stupid as they are made out to be, and they will ultimately make the right choice. Had the votes been counted honestly in 2012, an anti-war, anti-Patriot Act, anti-NSA, pro-Constitution candidate might be president, who was polled early on as able to beat pro-Syrian war, pro-NDAA, Constitution-shredding Obama. The bad news is it hardly matters who actually wins nomination contests in either party, as it stands. It is virtually certain that the GOP nomination was stolen from Ron Paul in 2012. This can only be remedied by campaign leadership which places at least as much emphasis on the integrity of the vote count in Iowa, NH, and elsewhere, as they do on getting the votes themselves.
The efforts of citizens placing their faith in the process by stomping through the freezing cold, for their candidates, deserve no less.
Many Americans still do not know that under Obama's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA,) they have lost the absolute right to a jury trial. The Obama administration pushed for, and won, the power to throw American citizens in military prison indefinitely, without a trial, whenever the accusation involves being “associated” with terrorism.
If 2012 showed anything, it is that the presidential candidate who get the most votes and wins the party nomination is not necessarily the one who gets nominated. Jared Glenn said in OpEdNews.com:
Huffington Post reported that [Ron] Paul was ahead by one point over Romney and Rick Santorum in entrance polls conducted by Edison Media Research for the AP before the caucuses. For the first time ever, the Iowa GOP changed the final vote count to a secret location . After the caucus, results from 8 precincts (including those with colleges, in a state where Paul won 48% of the youth vote) went missing. Interestingly, these were all precincts Romney lost in 2008. In addition, GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts. Though polling in a comfortable first place, Paul finished third in this non-binding straw poll, behind Romney and Santorum.
Iowa, remember, is critical, and Ron Paul was ahead. Although small, it and New Hampshire are taken out of all proportion by the media to be an indicator of future viability, and momentum gained in Iowa, New Hampshire, and then South Carolina tend to determine the two or three candidates who will be receiving most of the attention for the rest of the race.
The title of the OpEdNews.com article is “How the GOP Establishment Stole the Nomination from Ron Paul.”
A funny thing happened in NH. Click and look closely at the charts below:
The top four graphs are what has happened in every election in history, called a “flattening” of the line as precincts are counted according to a random order, which just means as more votes are counted, the wild swings tend to diminish and an average gets settled into, a simple statistical concept. These graphs are from the paper "Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections” by the Von Mises Institute, a conservative think tank. In this case the order of counting is precinct size. Now click and look at the bottom graph, the New Hampshire Republican Primary 2012:
This graph reflects a statistical anomaly of enormous proportions: the Paul vote getting smaller as the district gets bigger. Ordinarily district size is a non-indicator of voting tendencies. A big district, by population, is just as likely to be conservative as liberal. They are all roughly the same size by Constitutional design.
What we see with the Paul vote in the NH primary is what you would see if you went around stuffing the ballot boxes for Romney in the biggest districts the most, where presumably it would be less noticeable.
It is statistically nearly impossible, say mathematicians, that such a pronounced and consistent divergence is an accident. Elections experts have a name for it: vote flipping.
In South Carolina, the third primary of 2012, a similar pattern emerges. SC differed from NH and IA in that it had a purely electronic voting system, with no paper trail whatsoever. Recall SC is where George W. Bush stopped John McCain’s momentum in 2000 by putting out that McCain had a mixed race, illegitimate daughter. Below is the graph pertaining to Richland County.
This is a clear and consistent pattern of vote fraud against Ron Paul in all three critical early states. The same can be expected to happen against Bernie Sanders, who is not the establishment candidate.
Recall Ron Paul was consistently filling rooms and stadiums to capacity during the primary season, while Romney’s people had to promise free coffee and donuts to get a front row. Who else is getting standing room only crowds now? Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump on the right, whose support may yet prove to be a mile wide but an inch deep.
The shenanigans did not stop in the early states, but continued throughout the primary season. In Travis County, Texas, an election official, Anne Beckett, stepped forward to voice her concerns:
"As MY number was a conservative ESTIMATE of sixty-six percent going with RON PAUL, I have a feeling the real percentage for Paul was seventy-two percent...It is just NOT possible that Mitt took Texas and, particularly, Austin or Brazoria County (HIS OWN DISTRICT!) or San Antonio (Behar County). where Dr Paul worked for so LITTLE in their poorest hospital, Santa Rosa. And there is zero chance that anyone in Texas or outside of Texas can convince me this vote-flipping was NOT DONE. "
The OpEdNews.com article “How the GOP Establishment Stole the Nomination from Ron Paul” details the shenanigans in state after state.
Without the nuclear trigger-happy Romney on the right, Obama’s foreign policy options would have been far more constrained in the war-making department, with liberals deprived of the mindless of oft-repeated rationalization that “Romney would have been worse.” The establishment GOP candidate was not Ron Paul. Just as the Democratic establishment’s prefered candidate is not Bernie Sanders.
So the question becomes: If Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination in terms of true popularity and honest votes, would anyone know it?
The answer, say elections experts, is organizing a citizens’ monitoring apparatus for the 2016 primaries which simply makes it too risky to cheat. This means posting observers inside and outside at every step of the process, looking over shoulders, watching back doors for boxes walking out as well as calling foul on any “secret locations.” A legal apparatus ready to file injunction motions overnight, and at a moment's notice, must also be part of the deployment.
There should be absolutely nothing secret about vote counting. it is just the opposite: the entire integrity of the process depends on utter and total transparency. It should start in Iowa and New Hampshire.