South Carolina Election Results

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:42 am

PostSun Jul 18, 2010 4:55 pm » by Mojorisin


Found this story at ... http://markcrispinmiller.com/

Mail-in paper ballot election results just received from each South Carolina county under
Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests confirm that there were enough voting
discrepancies in the recent U.S. Senate Democratic primary to have reversed the election
outcome. That race had dramatic, inexplicable discrepancies between the verifiable mail-in
absentee paper ballot results and the unverifiable electronic voting results recorded on Election
Day, June 8.

In that race, Alvin Greene was declared the winner based on a near landslide 60-40% margin in Election Day electronic voting results. However, certified mail-in paper ballot results, received
from the counties after a 15-business-day response period allowed under South Carolina law,
show that Vic Rawl actually won the verifiable mail-in paper ballot absentee voting by a solid 55-45% margin.

The near 30% total point differential among the two candidates is unheard-of in South Carolina election history, and, perhaps, nationally as well. Neither candidate emphasized absentee voting,
so there is no reasonable explanation for such a vast difference.

VoterGA issued the FOIA requests because South Carolina counties do not report separate
absentee totals for mail-in paper ballot votes and in-person electronic votes. While some of this information was previously known, here is what the official replies to the requests revealed:

•In not one county did Alvin Greene win the absentee mail-in vote count and lose the Election Day vote count
•In not one county did Vic Rawl win the Election Day vote count and lose the mail-in absentee vote count
•In 41 of 46 counties, Alvin Greene’s Election Day vote percentage exceeded his mail-in paper ballot absentee percentage;
•In 34 of those 41 counties, Alvin Greene’s Election Day electronic votes exceeded his mail-in paper ballot absentee votes by an abnormal margin of 15%
•In no counties with more than 10 paper ballot casts did Vic Rawl have an abnormal margin of 15% or more (total for both candidates)
The individual county results illustrate the differences between Election Day electronic voting results and mail-in paper ballot absentee voting results much more dramatically:

•In Aiken County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 70% to 30%;
•In Barnwell County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 63% to 37% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 75% to 25%;
•In Beaufort County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 82% to 18%;
•In Dorchester County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 67% to 33%;
•In Florence County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 70% to 30% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 58% to 42%;
•In Greenwood County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 76% to 24% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 51% to 49%;
•In Lancaster County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 90% to 10%;
•In Newberry County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 55% to 45% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 84% to 16%;
•In Spartanburg County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 61% to 39% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%;
The differences between absentee in person electronic voting and absentee paper mail-in voting are similarly dramatic:

•In Spartanburg County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 62% to 38% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%;
•In Jasper County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 56% to 44% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 76% to 24%;
•In Orangeburg County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 52% to 48% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%
•In Chester County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 71% to 29% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 55% to 45%;
•In Coleton County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 58% to 42% but
Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 70% to 33%;
•In Berkeley County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 73% to 27%;
A spreadsheet on the voterga.org home page illustrates the discrepancies so that you can review them and make your own decision about the validity of this South Carolina election. However, the spreadsheet still does not take into account the extraordinary differences in the campaigns that were conducted. As you may already know Alvin Greene, an unemployed former military veteran who paid a $10,000 qualifying fee, did not even run a campaign. Greene held no fundraisers, ran no paid advertisements, made no campaign speeches, hired no campaign manager, conducted no state wide tours, attended no Democratic Party county events, printed no yard signs and did not even establish a web site. Vic Rawl, a county commissioner, former judge and four-term state representative, ran a normal, aggressive campaign as his campaign manager, Walter Ludwig, has explained. He personally campaigned in at least half of the counties made radio and TV appearances, attended the state convention, collected official endorsements, had 600 volunteers, printed 10,000 bumper stickers, established 180,000 database contacts, created a 104,000 Email distribution list, had 3,300 Facebook Friends, sent out 300,000 Emails just prior to the election, received 20,000 web site hits on Election Day alone and was more active on Twitter than the other Democratic Party candidates.

So how did this happen? All South Carolina elections are conducted on statewide unverifiable electronic voting equipment manufactured by Election Systems & Software (ES&S). South Carolina’s voting machines have no independent audit trail of each vote cast. This is necessary to audit the accuracy of the vote recording mechanism that transfers the selections the voter sees on the screen to the vote storage areas. All precinct printouts, ballot images and any other forms of paper documents that can be printed are not created independently but produced internally from the machines after the vote was recorded and could have been corrupted. It is technically impossible for anyone in the state to claim that South Carolina’s Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines record accurately on Election Day since there is no mechanism such as a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) to independently audit the vote recording. No amount of pre-election testing can assure DRE recording accuracy. The Federal Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) Technical Guidelines Development Committee concluded that: “The National Institute of Standards and Testing & EAC Security & Transparency Subcommittee do not know how to write testable requirements to satisfy that the software in a DRE is correct” The reason for such a conclusion is that many electronic voting machines, such as those used in South Carolina, can be programmed in a variety of ways to count differently on Election Day than during testing. As a result, South Carolina voters cannot verify that the selections they see on the screen were electronically recorded, election officials cannot audit the actual vote counts and there is no directly created evidence of voter intent that can be used in a recount.
"When the going gets weird... the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

Conspirator
Posts: 1687
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:53 pm

PostSun Jul 18, 2010 5:02 pm » by Noetic


[googlevideo]7926958774822130737#[/googlevideo]
patent pending lol

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostSun Jul 18, 2010 5:05 pm » by Spock


HAHAHAHA - this has been FUN! I live in South Carolina, and find it extremely entertaining.

It's apparent what happened. I won't comment now as, of course I'll b branded racist again.

No trickery. No moles.

Think about, you'll understand too.

Can't wait to see Alvin actually give a speech on anything.

Conspirator
Posts: 1687
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:53 pm

PostSun Jul 18, 2010 5:06 pm » by Noetic


for those people that say the powers that be no longer assassinate highly public people anymore,that is why people like alex jones et.al are still alive,at least one person in this documentary has been killed since this came out.see if you can guess who.
patent pending lol

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostSun Jul 18, 2010 5:29 pm » by Spock


LINK WITH VIDEO

Watching Alvin Greene try to answer the most basic questions about his campaign was painful, and it brought up the obvious mystery of the South Carolina Democratic primary: How did this guy get any votes?

John Sides offers one possible answer: His name came first on the ballot. If you assume an election in which no one knew anything about either candidate, then it's not hard to imagine that 8 percent or 9 percent of Democratic primary voters just checked the box for the first Democrat on the list. That doesn't answer the question of where this guy got the money to run, or why he decided to run, but it's at least plausible in an abstract sense. Which is more, I think, than you can say for Alvin Greene.


BUT IT'S EVEN MORE Basic then that.

Look at the demographics for SC democratic voters.

Here's the party favorite...
Image

Here's Alvin...
Image

Then man won FARE AND SQUARE.

The Dems hate that.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahaha

Image


Has MUCH to do with name recognition, and name observation.

Conspirator
Posts: 1687
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:53 pm

PostSun Jul 18, 2010 5:41 pm » by Noetic


ok I get it now,my memory needed refreshed as to who alvin was,I remember this story now.what a crazy 'system' we have lmao.
patent pending lol



  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook