A retired national security analyst working on Arizona, then national, results; and another researcher looking into South Carolina Republican primary results, found a startling and ominous correlation between precinct size and Romney votes.
What are these analysts saying? They are saying that all across the country,
Republicans get more votes from larger precincts. This is
counterintuitive, right? Rural areas are supposed to be more
conservative, but more populous precincts are more likely to vote for
Republicans in general and Romney (but not Santorum) in particular.
Even more amazing, in the South Carolina Republican primary, there was no trendline on
Gingrich votes, which did not depend on precinct size, but Santorum and
Paul votes both dropped in the larger precincts, and Romney votes rose.
When that researcher tried to control for income level, rural percent, population
density, etc. there was no correlation. There was only correlation
around precinct size, nothing else.
Why does that indicate fraud? If you steal in smaller
precincts, it is more likely you will end up with negative votes, or
there will be few enough people so they can all compare votes and note
that the final totals do not match. It therefore makes sense to steal
votes from larger precincts in order to hide what you are doing and also to reduce the number of results you are touching. Different
voting results for larger precincts is exactly what you would expect to
find when elections are being systematically stolen.
What can be done? I'm not sure, but I think these systems still use phone lines for reporting. Maybe the Dems (or the Feds) could jam electronic signals at every Secretary of State's office to prevent remote vote tampering. There has to be a technical way to foil whatever is planned, even if it's in the proprietary software of the voting machine companies.
In the meantime, when you hear of polls showing the presidential race neck and neck, all of which presume a white landslide for Mitt Romney, remember that they are already factoring in Republican election stealing to get these numbers. Also pay attention on election night to clues they are manipulating the exit polls.
Right now, for instance, we are hearing that Obama leads 53-45 in early voting. How would we know that, why would anyone publish that, and isn't that just an instruction to steal more than 10%? Obviously, if you only steal 8-10% in the larger precincts, that wouldn't be enough to overcome an 8% Obama lead among voters. Therefore, you would have to steal more than that to be sure of victory.
Think of what this all means. Americans have probably not voted for a Republican for president since 1988. Republicans probably lost Congress probably in 2004, not 2006; and they never regained it. Imagine how much better life would be today in the US without the hard right turn it has taken since 1994. We pretend we would fight for freedom, but all future generations are going to think is that we didn't care enough to do anything about an obvious usurpation.