Stanford University Confirms
Democratic Election Fraud
by Sean Adl-Tabatabai
Posted on June 16, 2016
(even back several months there was proof that Hitlary was attempting to rig the election to win. but then i guess the Wash Post and other SMS outlets owned by the DNC will say that Sanford is also part of Russia's attempt to manipulate ,... LOL,... ROTFLMAO)
A bombshell study released by Stanford University
confirms evidence of election fraud during the 2016
Democratic Party primaries.
According to a paper released this week entitled, “Are
we witnessing a dishonest election?,” a state
comparison based on the voting procedures used
during the election reveals endemic election fraud
within the system.
Given the stakes in the outcome of the American presidential elections, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process is of the utmost importance.
Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary
elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed
a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the
Democratic contest between former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders
has been far more competitive.
At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent
advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage
legitimate?
We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation
for the advantage: States that are at risk for election
fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly
favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging
evidence for this claim.
First, we show that it is possible to detect
irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by
comparing the states that have hard paper evidence
of all the placed votes to states that do not have this
hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final
results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls.
Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred
in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama.
As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud
has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts
may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton
with an exaggerated margin of support.
THE ACTUAL STUDY ====>
Are we witnessing a dishonest election?
A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures
of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for
the Presidency of the United States of America
Axel Geijsel
Tilburg University – The Netherlands
Rodolfo Cortes Barragan
Stanford University – U.S.A.
June 7, 2016
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you
cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Abraham Lincoln
“No one has yet figured out a straightforward method of ensuring that one of the most revered
democratic institutions – in this case, electing a U.S. president – can be double checked for
fraud, particularly when paperless evoting systems are used.” Larry Greenemeier, Scientific American
Summary Statement
Given the stakes in the outcome of the American presidential elections, ensuring the
integrity of the electoral process is of the utmost importance. Are the results we are witnessing
in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge
over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary
Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We
contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for
election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide
converging evidence for this claim.
First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries
by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do
not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the
discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008
competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we
find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may
have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.
Different outcomes in primary states with paper trails and without paper trails
Data procurement: Given the potential that the underlying voting number has been corrupted,
we had to restrict our analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton
and Senator Sanders. To group states according to the accountability of the vote, we used
Ballotpedia and created two groups. First, there are 18 states that feature voting procedures
wherein the accuracy of electoral results of a primary ballot vote are backed by a paper trail.
Second, there are 13 states that do not have such a paper trail.
Analysis: ?The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States
without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton, (M no paper trail = 65.13%, SD = no
paper trail = 10.41%) than states with paper trails (M paper trail = 48.53%, SD = paper trail = 16.00%), t(29)
= 3.21, P = 0.003, d = 1.19 [Figure 1]. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting
procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the
Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations,
including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time.
Supplemental analysis on caucus states: Does the pattern seen in ballot states occur in caucus
states? By the very nature of caucusing procedures, caucus results are generally thought to be
more trustworthy. However, in the current Democratic caucusing cycle, Iowa and Nevada had
caucuses widely alleged to have involved a considerable level of voter suppression and
potential fraud. We examined the [data] and found that these two states had far higher support
for Secretary Clinton, [M fraud allegations = 54.71%, SD = fraud allegation = 3.44%] than the other caucus
states, [M no fraud allegations = 31.61%, SD = no fraud allegations = 9.98%], t
independent means
(11) = 3.13, P =
0.009, d = 3.10.
Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results
Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the
American elections.
Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data
show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest, [M exit
= 54.38%, SD = exit = 13.95%; M final = 57.52%, SD = final = 13.87%], t dependent means
(23) = 3.49, P =
0.002, d = 0.71. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable
difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even
more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without
paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the
Secretary in the hours following the exit polls [M exit = 62.93%, SD = exit = 8.80%; M final = 65.68%,
SD = final = 9.52%], t dependentmeans
(9) = 4.68, P < 0.001. In contrast, the effect size is much smaller
in states with paper trails, [M exit = 48.28%, SD = exit = 13.94%; M final = 51.69%, SD = final =
13.77%], t dependentmeans
(13) = 2.27, P = 0.04, d = 0.58.
Irregularities are unique to 2016
To show that the pattern of votes may suggest a systematic effort to undercut Senator Sanders,
we must show that no such patterns were in place in similar elections. Given that Secretary
Clinton lost to President Obama in 2008, their data is a natural control and the best possible
point of comparison for the 2016 data. Thus, as we did for 2016, we tabulated the percentage of
delegates won in each state by (then Senator) Hillary Clinton. The data show that, contrary to
the 2016 data, there is no evidence that primary states without paper trails favored Senator
Clinton in 2008, P = 0.38. As such, the patterns of 2016 are different from their best point of
comparison.
Conclusion
Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting
outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our
examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the
exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns
of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud iS occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.
