It's time to call for multiple class-action lawsuits against the DNC  fraud in the 2020 Democrat Presidential Primary. Read article 5 section 4 of the following bylaw from the DNC charter addressing the DNC chair position.  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2989759-Impartiality-Clause-DNC-Charter-Bylaws-Art-5-Sec-4.    listen to the Appellate argument and the Judge in the 45 minute oral argument about the judge dismissing the 2016 DNC Fraud lawsuit.  Click below to open and access. 

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?title=&field_oar_case_name_value=wilding&field_oral_argument_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=&field_oral_argument_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bmonth%5D= 

the Appellate Judge states, weak as it was, there was a stance for Fraud in the 2016 Democrat Presidential Primary.  We know from Iowa, S. Carolina, California, Michigan, Illinois, and many more state primaries voter suppression and the DNC methodology used brought us another rigged Primary.  We know  Bill Clinton told Perez "no Bernie" and Obama said he'd get involved if Bernie was winning.  We know about the Iowa all device funded  by Hillary Clinton's largest donor and was busted when it was reading voting numbers incorrectly.  

 

 

 

 

The following articles from England's Observer newspaper by a Miami Herald reporter coverage of the 2016 lawsuit against the DNC  so you can learn how this case was argued from both sides and was ultimately dismissed after the  DNC's motion of dismissal was granted by the judge in Federal court.  

The 2020 DNC lawsuit will argue fraud.   Democrat party member donors interested in recouping their donations may sign this petition calling for a class action lawsuit against the DNC and government for the 2020 Presidential Primary. 

DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms

Attorneys claim the words 'impartial' and 'evenhanded'—as used in the DNC Charter—can't be interpreted by a court of law.  This is bull because this come from the Charter's own bylaws, and these bylaws are clear and serves as advertisment what donors are to expect in exchange for their donations. 

By Michael Sainato • 05/01/17 9:08am 
  
  "On April 28 the transcript was released from the most recent hearing at a federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on the lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National Committee and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton. Throughout the hearing, lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party’s status quo.

Shortly into the hearing, DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter—stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries—is “a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” Based on this assumption, DNC attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with whether the DNC remains neutral in their presidential primaries.

The attorneys representing the DNC have previously argued that Sanders supporters knew the primaries were rigged, therefore annulling any potential accountability the DNC may have. In the latest hearing, they doubled down on this argument: “The Court would have to find that people who fervently supported Bernie Sanders and who purportedly didn’t know that this favoritism was going on would have not given to Mr. Sanders, to Senator Sanders, if they had known that there was this purported favoritism.”

Jared Beck, the attorney representing Sanders supporters in the class action lawsuit, retorted that the DNC Charter is not akin to political rhetoric a politician would use during a campaign, but rather an inherent and important part of democracy in America. The entire argument of the DNC in this lawsuit is to conflate the promises of a political candidate with those of an election arbiter bound to neutrality by the DNC Charter, and to claim that fraudulent inducement cannot ever be proven as the DNC attorneys allege, “I think there’s an impossible showing of causation.”

“People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee—nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial,” Beck said. “And that’s not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that’s what the Democratic National Committee’s own charter says. It says it in black and white. And they can’t deny that.” He added, “Not only is it in the charter, but it was stated over and over again in the media by the Democratic National Committee’s employees, including Congresswoman Wassermann Schultz, that they were, in fact, acting in compliance with the charter. And they said it again and again, and we’ve cited several instances of that in the case.”

Later in the hearing, attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” By pushing the argument throughout the proceedings of this class action lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee is telling voters in a court of law that they see no enforceable obligation in having to run a fair and impartial primary election.

The DNC attorneys even go so far as to argue that the words 'impartial' and 'evenhanded'—used in the DNC Charter—can’t be interpreted by a court of law. Beck retorted, “I’m shocked to hear that we can’t define what it means to be evenhanded and impartial. If that were the case, we couldn’t have courts. I mean, that’s what courts do every day, is decide disputes in an evenhanded and impartial manner.”

Argument from DNC Attorney. US District Court
The judge then questioned the DNC lawyers about what the Democratic National Committee does and what it is responsible for—and the DNC lawyers had trouble answering these questions. 'I’m 90 percent on that,' responded the DNC attorneys in response to a question as to whether the DNC funded State Primaries.

The judge ended the hearing by stating to both parties he would issue an written order on the DNC’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, though no specific timeframe was given as to when that decision may be handed down. If the class action lawsuit moves forward, it would entail a discovery process that would open up the inner workings of the Democratic Primaries and force figures like Wasserman Schultz to testify in court on their actions and decisions during the Democratic Primaries."

 Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders
By Michael Sainato • 08/26/17

In June 2016, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted in July 2016, “I knew—everybody knew—that this was not a fair deal.” He added that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned much sooner than she did. The lawsuit was filed to push the DNC to admit their wrongdoing and provide Bernie Sanders supporters, who supported him financially with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with restitution for being cheated.

On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.

The order then explained why the lawsuit would be dismissed. “The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct—the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.” The Court added that it did not consider this within its jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'”

The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.”

The order reaffirmed that regardless of whether the primaries were tipped in Hilary Clinton’s favor, the Court’s authority to intervene based on the allegations of the kind set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint is limited at best.

“This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Jared Beck, the leading attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit told The Observer, “The standard governing the motion to dismiss requires the Court to accept all well-pled allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion. Thus, the Court recited the allegations of the Complaint that it was required to accept as true, and in so doing, acknowledged that the allegations were well pled. Indeed, if you look at the if you look at the Complaint, you will see that all of these allegations accepted by the Court specifically rely on cite materials that are readily available in the public record...

The same journalist followed up Nov. 3, 2017 with an article Elizabeth Warren Says the Democratic Party Needs to Be Held Accountable

By Michael Sainato , this is an excerpt"

"On November 2, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told CNN’s Jake Tapper that she agreed with former DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile that the DNC rigged the 2016 presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton. She explained that DNC Chair Tom Perez must enact reforms and hold the Democratic Party accountable for how it has treated voters.

'What we go to do now as Democrats is hold this party accountable,'Warren said. 'When Tom Perez was first elected chair of the DNC, the very first conversation I had with him was to say, ‘You have got to put together a Democratic Party in which everybody can have confidence that the party is working for Democrats rather than Democrats working for the party.''

She continued, 'He’s being tested now. This is a test for Tom Perez and he’s going to succeed by bringing Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders’ representatives into this process and they’re going to say its fair, it works, we believe it, or he’s going to fail.'

So far, Perez and the rest of the Democratic establishment have failed to unify the party. In Trump’s first year in office, the DNC has continued to malign Bernie Sanders supporters and progressives. Rather than embracing progressives as an asset required to recoup the party’s losses, the Democratic Party has tried to push them out. Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) and several other Democrats have smeared progressives as the “Tea Party of the left,” and others like Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have reduced their policy stances to “purity tests.” Obama officials hand-picked Tom Perez to stop progressive Keith Ellison from becoming DNC chair in February 2017, and delegates were reportedly intimidated and threatened into supporting Perez. Once Perez became chair, he loaded DNC staff positions and appointments with former Clinton staffers and lobbyists, while leaving out progressives. Several state Democratic parties, most notably Florida and California, held party chair races this year that were won by establishment-backed candidates under dubious circumstances that further disenfranchised progressives.

In order for Democrats to be successful at the ballot box in 2018 and 2020, the party needs to mend the rift between progressives and the establishment. Democratic insiders constantly attacking Sanders and his supporters perpetuates their distrust of the party and demobilizes them. Instead, progressives need to be permitted to hold party leadership positions, and the Democratic Party’s operations need to be reformed to expand and promote democracy and transparency. It is critical that the DNC and Democratic Party need to take the necessary steps to rebuild progressives’ trust."

The DNC has had no intention of ever unifying the party as  Perez and  Democat leaders continued their hate and maligned 2018 Progressive Democrat candidates in local races in states using mechanisms like bullying tactics trying to get the candidate to drop out, (what they are doing now with Sanders,  recruiting the help of  media and tv personalities Chuck Todd, Whoopie Goldberg, etc),  withholding funding, (is this legal when you're a democrat candidate),  in Texas, going to the exxtent  running a negative TV ad against a Progressive candidate, by a Dem pac,  their own party.  Presently, the DNC, nor the Committee, nor Democrat leaders, the leaders who have ordered the DNC are not  allow Senator Bernie Sanders to win this another election using a whole set of mechanisms to secure their canidate's win.  This isn't over since the DNC can do whatever it wants to, they can dump Biden at the convention and choose even a non running candidate, say Hillary Clinton.    What the 2017 dismissal did was to allow free reign to the DNC?  Why have elections at all then, if this is obviously the case.  

  Not so fast,  the DNC does NOT have the right to interfere with state county elections nor the voting process.  The sanctity of our elections are protected by the 15th Amendment.  We need to prove to a judge that so far, this election cycle the DNC has violated our voting process with their actions to suppress votes trying to cheat voters in Iowa with a bogus counting app, and were only caught because Sanders campaign was prepared for this and we prove DNC chair's influence over the system when Perez publicly tweets (mocking Sanders' catch phrases), "Enough is Enough.  In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass".  This was after growing demands he resign as DNC chair.

  https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/08/reminder-dnc-lawyers-to-court-we-do-not-owe-voters-an-impartial-or-evenhanded-primary-election.html

When the DNC chair makes  "calls" to local level state Demoract party leaders to do something, it happens.  To say the DNC stays out and away from our Democrat primary elections is  false. The State party leaders coordinate and work with the county supervisors organizing and execting state primary electins. Because of this, our current Democrat Primary system is fixed, therefore broken.    The  GOP Primary system shows more fairness in their rules as delegates must adhere to voting majority rules, they are not allowed to make backroom deals as the D.C. lawyers to the judge said this is what the DNC does and is entitled to do.   July, 2019 the Democrat National Committee while voting to give the DNC a raise, passed a rule allowing current DNC chairs to vote for future chair positions. Our current establishment Democrat chairs get to also vote for their successors. This ensures their protection from seeing a Progressive ever have a seat as chair at the top level of the party.  Forever.  Recently, the DNC laced their super delegates with lobbyists and elite, establishment democrats to lock out any chance of a Sanders nomination. 

The DNC may "HAVE THE RIGHT TO PICK THEIR CANDIDATES IN THE BACKROOM" as DNC attorneys agrued in 2017, but they do NOT have the right to mess with state county elections nor the voting process,it is here the DNC crosses the line.   When the DNC calls, the state counties election offices listen.  When a Democrat party state county chair makes a "call", code for instruct, the election offices listen.  To say the party, whose race it specifically is, when it states Democrat Primary race the party leaders take the lead. 

 The DNC works for the rich party donors, not its party members.  The DNC has rigged the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary election since it's onset.  Chair Tom Perez's job, as well as DWS's job in 2016 and was his job in 2018 was and is to keep Progressives and Senator Bernie Sanders from winning, by any means.  The DNC is no different than our politicians who take lobby money to become wealthy.  They take their money from many wealthy Republicans who turned Democrat after Trump was elected.  

Democrat Party members do not elect their leadership as some people believe. The delegates perform that job. The DNC cheats this process as well ensuring they have more establishment delegates than progressives. For example, in 2016 Pete Buttigieg signed up as a Bernie Delegate was elected as a delegate to go to the by his local Precinct Committee people. Once at the convention he voted Hillary. They ignore the oath to stick with the pledged person they support. This was a nationally led DNC tactic practiced in all states, kept quiet, to eliminate Progressive delegate votes. .  Class action lawsuits in Federal and state courts are our only hope to eventually change this. We're witnessing another DNC controlled state-county Democrat Party process who is utilizing voter suppression techniques to control and suppress the Progressive vote since the  2016 Democrat Presidential Primary cycle, in 2018 Democrat Midterm Primary cycle, and now our current 2020 Dem Presidential Primary cycle. Exit polls are indicating votes are being flipped from Bernie and Warren to Biden. 
Why is this important?  We have to find the brightest law firm that will convince the courts that the DNC is violating our 15th Amendment with election fraud.

1. Our current voting system is broken evidenced by Republicans changing their party affiliation to Democrat to vote in Democrat Presidential Primary election, then simply return to their Republican status and vote for Trump.  This accounts for the higher voter turnout and Biden surge we have seen.  Project Chaos They voted for Biden and cleverly changed on their website to Bernie to further their cover up, as Biden wins miraculously began popping up.  Exit  polls clearly show Bernie won in all these states. Please read the research (5 minute read) https://tdmsresearch.com/?fbclid=IwAR0XVLCFeP7cQRRGZQVqbtpZtIhwtO921ZNX2pBgcOAz6PlXdwyU5VdAnPc

2.  The DNC  simply states it "calls" to state Democrat party heads for counties to instruct, and the states yield to party insructions, 100% of the time, whether done privately or publicly.  I believe the DNC tactics used in our current state"s county Democrat Presidential Primary elections  have violated our Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution which prohibits the federal government and each state from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." We saw the miscounting from a dark app. in Iowa, 50 last-minute poll station closures in S. Carolina designed to confuse voters and suppress their votes. 100 last min poll station closures in Texas in heavily populated minority counties in Texas, Independents made to fill out provisional ballots in California which to date have not been counted plus voting machine problems being reported, to intentional long lines in Michigan.  https://www.foxnews.com/tech/hacking-a-voting-machine-is-getting-easier

The DNC has exerted control over the whole process from the start, to support their favored candidate and has set off many mechanisms designed to favor that candidate from a record number of candidates who run against a progressive candidate to controlling the debates. They have violated the 15th Amendment since 2016. We as donators to the Dem party and Dem candidates by Constitution law are entitled to a fair election process, and as taxpayers., Enough is enough. Help us bring justice to our elections! Every citizen in this country deserves easy access to vote in every county and state. Make our vote count honestly and accurately, whether it's intentional hacking of a voting machine or accidental, change to paper ballots. Our establishment Democrat leaders are approving this DNC deception at the state county level because a candidate does not conform to their ideology, this is wrong, this is illegal, this is unAmerican. Hit them where it hurts. We have no Democracy if we do not have a fair election process.

3.  Our Media's propoganda, Democracy Is Staged.  https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/incredible-animation-summarises-noam-chomskys-5-filters-of-the-mass-media-machine/?fbclid=IwAR0Nc9q8dqv4CSljxeMxyoYPXV1wPaZo0NVz_PT5HLxdwqZR69OhU6Y_e_M#.Xn3eeIVPCS4.facebook

Are you aware of the fact sufficient evidence exists to substantiate a valid claim of election fraud occurring against your campaign specifically, drastically reducing your campaign’s final election results in those states where the unadjusted exit polling data was at very high unacceptable levels of variance with the actual final election count?

In this 2020 Democratic Primary massive election fraud has already occurred in nearly every state thus far, and will most likely continue throughout the remainder of the primary. How do we know this? Because of exit polling discrepancies, that’s how.

A federal lawsuit should be filed immediately in each state where the final election results are at great variance with the exit polling data.

But what about right now, before the next set of states? Bernie should seek court-ordered paper ballots for each of the remaining states if the court finds evidence election fraud may have occurred in the previous states. There’s no need to rush this primary but damn good reason to seek an election free of criminals manipulating and cheating the American voter out of their vote. We need paper ballots now and court-ordered independent election monitors to observe, record and deter election interference and fraud.

The evidence shows large, unacceptable levels of election negligence/fraud in voting machine operation (vote flipping) chain-of-custody issues regarding thumb drives and other devices/methods used to transmit machine tabulations and large exit polling data variance from the final election results, drastically reducing Bernie Sanders final election results in those states where such great variance took place. Such great variance is not a coincidence, but evidence of election fraud.

 

I believe a voter has a constitutional right to free and fair elections. I believe sufficient evidence exists to substantiate a legitimate cause of action in a U.S. District Court lawsuit seeking justice in this primary – which means seeking our constitutional right to a free and fair election in this 2020 Democratic primary.

 We the People should file a federal lawsuit in each defective state to seek justice and fair results in this 2020 Democrat primary election. What would justice look like? A U.S. District Court judge could institute court oversight of a court investigation of election fraud claims and make findings of fact subsequent to the court appointing independent investigators to inspect all election materials, devices, documents, ballots, tabulations, software etc. and reach some final conclusions which could result in the court adjusting the final election results or ordering a new election to be held again.

The court could direct a federal agency to interview all witnesses and election officials and workers involved in the processing of votes in those states, including Democrat Party officials state and national.

Here’s some of the evidence substantiating such a claim in a federal lawsuit:

Exit Polling Discrepancies

The evidence indicates the final election results do not match the exit polling data. A variance of 1-3% in the exit polling data has been deemed normal and acceptable for decades, worldwide and nationally. In this 2020 Democratic primary, the exit polling variance is upwards of 3%, 8% and much higher depending upon which state.

The evidence exists proving election fraud occurred in Super Tuesday’s elections and the first four states:
http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/02/south-carolina-2020-democratic-party-primary/

More evidence of DNC rigged voting machines in SC, just like the 2016 primary and presidential elections in which Sanders and Trump were cheated.

Probability of Fraud= 99.2%
Prob=normdist (EP, RS, MoE/1.96, true)
RS = Biden recorded vote share
EP = Biden exit poll share
MoE = margin of error

Biden RS…. EP……Diff….MoE…Prob Fraud
SC… 48.4% 44.7% 3.7% 3.0%… 99.2%
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2020/03/04/more-evidence-of-dnc-rigged-voting-machines-in-sc-just-like-the-2016-primary-and-presidential-elections/

South Carolina 2020 Democratic Party Primary Exit Poll >>> Published by CNN at polls’ closing on election night.

Note: The exit poll vote proportions for each candidate were derived from the gender category. The candidate’s share of the male vote was multiplied with the total male proportion and added to the candidate’s proportion of the female vote multiplied with the total female vote to arrive at the candidate’s exit poll share in the state.

Please share this article:
http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/02/south-carolina-2020-democratic-party-primary/

HubPages
Super Tuesday Biden Victories Questioned by Election Watchers

Wildly divergent exit polls in South Carolina and Massachusetts, and documented voting problems in California and Texas, have prompted veteran election watchers to suggest that there may have been election fraud on Super Tuesday, always at the expense of the Bernie Sanders vote.

Edison Research/CNN polls show 4 point and 7 point discrepancies in South Carolina and Massachusetts, respectively, between the computer-tallied vote totals and exit polling. Exit polls are considered by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to be one reliable indicator of election fraud. Election fraud may be perpetrated by hacking of vote tabulation machines or reporting incorrect results that are different from the tally tapes from each machine.

In South Carolina, where Joe Biden scored what was described extensively in the media as the “Biden Bounce,” Biden gained nearly five points in the official tally over the exit poll projection and an astonishing seven points in the official tally in Massachusetts. The typical margin of error for Edison Research polls is 3%. In both SC and MA, exit polls showed Sanders doing better than the official vote tallies.

South Carolina voters say machines ‘flipped’ their votes
By Mark Moore November 6, 2018 | 1:29pm | Updated

Voters in South Carolina said machines at some polling places “flipped” their vote, according to a report on Tuesday.

The voters began to complain after they said their candidate picks, including in the governor’s race, did not match those on their final ballot submission, CBS station WLTX reported.

One person told the station that she tried to correct her vote several times before a poll worker took her to another machine so she could cast her vote.

Richland County elections director Rokey Suleman said no votes were switched and blamed the malfunctions on a calibration issue with the voting machines.

He told the station that if the touchscreen calibration is off, it could make an unintended selection.

He cautioned voters to review their final selection page to ensure it reflects their correct picks.

Suleman said polling places in the county have also reported problems with flashcards, electrical cords, and non-functioning outlets.

He said the voting machines are usually recalibrated several times on Election Day.

The complaints in South Carolina follow similar reports at the end of October about voting machine glitches in Texas.

Early voters casting straight-party tickets in Houston said the machines changed their ballots to include a candidate from the other party.

Democrats and Republicans said their selections were affected.

Election officials rejected claims that the machines malfunctioned and chalked up the mistakes to “operator error.”

“It’s not a glitch, it’s a user-induced problem that comes from the type of system that we have,” Ft. Bend County election administrator John Oldham told ABC 13. “I think both sides could be equally hurt.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Owner of TDMSResearch.com Theodore de Macedo Soares, wrote of Massachusetts after the primaries:

“The 2020 Massachusetts Democratic Party presidential primary was held on March 3, 2020. Election results from the computerized vote counts differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. As in the 2016 Massachusetts primary between candidates Sanders and Clinton, disparities greatly exceed the exit poll’s margin of error. Sanders won Massachusetts in the exit poll and lost it in the computer count.”

Soares has noted that it is particularly suspicious when other exit polls seem to be quite accurate in other contests, or with respect to candidates of little interest. In 2016, exit polls between Hillary Clinton and Sanders were GROSSLY off in a manner which favored Clinton, but were always within a point of being accurate in other races.

 

DEFCON Video Shows Voting Machine Used in 18 States Is Hacked in 2 Minute – link >>>

MASSACHUSETTS 2020 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY Exit Poll Versus Reported Vote Count
Posted on March 4, 2020 by Theodore de Macedo Soares
http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/04/massachusetts-2020-democratic-party-primary/

The 2020 Massachusetts Democratic Party presidential primary was held on March 3, 2020. Election results from the computerized vote counts differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. As in the 2016 Massachusetts primary between candidates Sanders and Clinton, disparities greatly exceed the exit poll’s margin of error. Sanders won Massachusetts in the exit poll and lost it in the computer count.

The discrepancies between the exit poll and the vote count for Sanders and Biden totaled 8.2%— double the 4.0% exit poll margin of error. Warren’s and Biden’s discrepancies totaled 8.0%, also double the margin of error. These discrepancies replicate the total discrepancy of 8.0% favoring Clinton in the 2016 Massachusetts Democratic Party primary between her and Sanders. This time two progressive candidates exhibit the same discrepancies now favoring Biden representing the establishment’s choice.

Presidential candidates Biden’s and Bloomberg’s vote counts exhibited the largest disparity from their exit poll projections. Biden’s in-observable computer-generated vote totals represented a 15.7% increase in his projected exit poll share. Given the 1,342,905 voters in this election, he gained approximately 60,900 more votes than projected by the exit poll. Bloomberg increased his vote share by 28.2% and approximately 34,500 more votes than projected. Their gain came largely at the expense of candidates Sanders and Warren whose combined vote counts were 97,000 less than projected by the exit poll.[i]

Noteworthy is the fact that the 2016 Massachusetts Republican Party exit poll taken at the same time and at the same precincts as the Democratic Party primary, and also with a crowded field of five candidates, was matched almost perfectly by the computer count—varying by less than one percent for each candidate.

Exit polls are widely recognized—such as by, for example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—as a means for checking the validity of vote counts. The U.S. has financed exit polls in other countries to “ensure free and fair” elections.

The United States remains one of the few major democracies in the world that continue to allow computerized vote-counting—not observable by the public—to determine the results of its elections.[ii] Countries such as Germany, Norway, Netherlands, France,[iii] Canada,[iv] United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and many other countries protect the integrity of their elections with publicly observable hand-counting of paper ballots.[v]

[1] Exit poll (EP) downloaded from CNN’s website by TDMS on election night, March 3, 2020, at 8:00 PM. Candidates’ exit poll percentage/proportion derived from the gender category. The number of EP respondents: 1,394. As this first published exit poll was subsequently adjusted towards conformity with the final computerized vote count, the currently published exit poll differs from the results above.

[2] Candidates’ percentage/proportion of the total computer-generated vote counts derived from reported counts (94% reporting) updated on March 4, 2020, and published by The New York Times. Total number of voters: 1,327,374

[3] The difference between the exit poll proportion and reported vote proportion for each candidate (subtracting values in column two from the values in column three). A positive value indicates the candidate did better and received a greater share of the total reported count than projected by the exit poll. For example, candidate Biden reported percentage/proportion of the total vote increased by 4.5% compared to his exit poll share.

[4] This column shows the percentage increase or decrease from the candidate’s exit poll projection (difference in column four divided by exit poll proportion in column two). Shown only for candidates with 4% or more share in the exit poll.

[5] This column presents a distinct Margin of Error (MOE) of the exit poll (EP) for the differences between candidate Biden and each of the other candidate’s EP results. The exit poll MOE, for example, between Biden and Sanders is 4.0% and the MOE between Biden and Warren is 3.9%. For simplicity MOE not shown for candidates with less than 4% share in the EP. MOE calculated according to the multinomial formula in Franklin, C. The ‘Margin of Error’ for Differences in Polls. The University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. October 2002, revised February 2007. Available at: https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf

[6] The disparities between the exit poll and the reported computer-generated vote counts comparing Biden and each of the other candidates (subtracting each candidate’s difference between exit poll and computer count from Biden’s difference of 4.5%.). Disparities for candidates Sanders and Warren are double their respective MOE. For example, candidate Biden’s unverified computerized vote count exceeded his EP projected vote proportion by 4.5% while Sander’s computerized count understated his EP projected vote proportion by 3.7% for a total discrepancy of 8.2%. This 8.2% disparity, greatly exceeding the statistical 4.0% margin of error based on their exit poll proportions, is significant as it cannot be attributed to the MOE.

[i] Sanders received 49,045 fewer votes than projected by the exit poll and Warren 48,000 less.

[ii] Fittingly, according to a recent Gallup World Poll, only 40% of Americans say they are confident in the honesty of U.S. elections. Finland and Norway with 89% of their citizens expressing confidence in the honesty of their elections along with the citizens of 25 other countries have greater confidence in their elections than do Americans.

[iii] During the 2007 presidential election, eighty-three municipalities (France has 36,569 municipalities) were allowed to use voting machines. Due to security concerns and the inability of voters to determine if their votes are counted correctly a moratorium, that remains today, prevents additional municipalities from introducing voting machines. In the 2012 elections, only 64 municipalities continued their use. The French government desires a total ban on its use.

[iv] In Canada, the results of federal elections are determined exclusively by hand-counted paper ballots. Some provinces have adopted voting machines for local elections. See here, here and here.

[v] The United States’ long ballots–containing federal, state, and local races–are commonly cited as being unwieldy for hand-counting. The use of Sweden’s method of providing different colored paper ballots for federal, state, and local races that are then sorted prior to hand-counting addresses this objection and allows for at least the hand-counting of federal elections with only three races per ballot.

Massachusetts 2020 Democratic Party Primary Exit Poll. Published by CNN at poll’s closing on election night.

 

TEXAS 2020 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY
Posted on March 7, 2020 ↓

Exit Poll Versus Reported Vote Count

By Theodore de Macedo Soares

The 2020 Texas Democratic Party presidential primary was held on March 3, 2020. Election results from the computerized vote counts differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. According to the exit poll Sanders was tied with Biden but lost in the unobservable computer counts by 4.5%.

In this election candidate, Sanders saw the largest discrepancy between the exit poll and computer vote counts. His projected vote proportion fell 4% in the vote counts—an 12% reduction of his exit poll share. The combined discrepancies between the exit poll and the vote count for candidates Sanders and Biden at 4.4% significantly exceeded the 2.9% margin of error for the exit poll difference between the two. The discrepancies between Sanders and Bloomberg at 5.4% was triple their respective margin of error. See table below.

There is good reason to believe that the exit poll just prior to publishing showed a Sanders win in Texas.

As explained by Joe Lenski, executive vice president of Edison Media Research in a 2016 interview with The Washington Post, as soon as polls close in a state Edison Research alters the exit poll in accordance with incoming vote counts. They are hired by the networks to predict the winners and losers in an election as soon as possible and to provide the proportion and voting patterns of various demographics and their views on topics of interest. The incoming vote counts are useful to them to better predict the results of the computer counts. They were not hired to ascertain their accuracy.

Texas as in a few other states such as New Hampshire and Florida have the great majority of the state’s polls closing an hour earlier than the remainder. This is great for Edison Research because they can use that hour’s access to the tabulating votes from much of the state to adjust their exit poll prior to first publishing after all polls close in those states. In Texas, as the final vote count shows, candidate Sanders was losing the state and they likely used these results to downgrade a Sanders win to a tie with Biden in their first published exit poll. Edison Research and or the major networks with access to this unpublished poll would be able to confirm if it indeed showed a Sanders win and by how much.

The United States remains one of the few major democracies in the world that continue to allow computerized vote-counting—not observable by the public—to determine the results of its elections.[i] Countries such as Germany,[ii] Norway, Netherlands, France,[iii] Canada,[iv] United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and many other countries protect the integrity and trust of their elections with publicly observable hand-counting of paper ballots.[v]

Texas 2020 Primary

[1] Exit poll (EP) downloaded from CNN’s website by TDMS on election night, March 3, 2020, at 9:03 PM ET. Candidates’ exit poll percentage/proportion derived from the gender category. The number of EP respondents: 3,130. As this first published exit poll was subsequently adjusted towards conformity with the final computerized vote count, the currently published exit poll differs from the exit poll used here and available through the link below.

[2] Candidates’ percentage/proportion of the total computer-generated vote counts derived from reported counts (94% reporting) updated on March 6, 2020, and published by The New York Times. Total number of voters: 3,290,429

[3] The difference between the exit poll proportion and reported vote proportion for each candidate (subtracting values in column two from the values in column three). A positive value indicates the candidate did better and received a greater share of the total reported count than projected by the exit poll. For example, as candidate Sanders, reported percentage/proportion of the total vote decreased by 4% compared to his exit poll share this value is negative.

[4] This column shows the percentage increase or decrease from the candidate’s exit poll projection (difference in column four divided by exit poll proportion in column two). Shown, to simplify the table, only for candidates with greater than 4% share in the exit poll.

[5] This column presents a distinct Margin of Error (MOE) for the exit poll (EP) differences between candidate Biden and Bloomberg versus each of the other candidate’s EP results. This MOE, for example, between Biden and Sanders is 2.9% and the MOE between Bloomberg and Sanders is 1.7%. For simplicity MOE only shown for candidates with greater than 4% share in the EP. As this election involves multiple candidates the common method of ascertaining a MOE of the poll and then doubling it to see if the difference between two candidates is significant is replaced by a more appropriate method that directly calculates a distinct MOE for the difference between any two paired candidates. MOE calculated according to the multinomial formula in Franklin, C. The ‘Margin of Error’ for Differences in Polls. The University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. October 2002, revised in February 2007. Available at:
https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf

[6] The discrepancies between the exit poll and the reported computer-generated vote counts comparing candidates Biden and Bloomberg with each of the other candidates (subtracting each candidate’s difference between exit poll and computer count from Biden’s difference of 0.3% and in a separate column from Bloomberg’s difference of 1.0%. If the MOE is greater than the discrepancy it the discrepancy is not significant as it can be explained by the MOE. Conversely, if the MOE is smaller then it cannot explain the discrepancy and another explanation is required. As shown in the table the combined discrepancies between Warren and Biden and separately between Warren and Blomberg are smaller than their respective MOEs and thus not significant. The combined discrepancies between Sanders and Biden and separately between Sanders and Blomberg are significant and cannot be explained by their respective MOEs.

[i] Fittingly, according to a recent Gallup World Poll, only 40% of Americans say they are confident in the honesty of U.S. elections. Finland and Norway with 89% of their citizens expressing confidence in the honesty of their elections along with the citizens of 25 other countries have greater confidence in their elections than do Americans.

[ii] In 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that every important aspect of an election must be observable by the public and thus “meet the constitutional requirements of the principle of the public nature of elections.” The Court explicitly ruled that no amount of voting machine testing, security requirements, and licensing procedures can compensate for this constitutional requirement. With this ruling, Germany abandoned inherently unobservable computerized vote counting and reverted to the hand-counting of every ballot in the precincts in which they were cast and in the plain view of the public.

The court also noted that while vote fraud with hand-counted ballots would be easy to detect, “programming errors in the software or deliberate electoral fraud committed by manipulating the software of electronic voting machines can be recognized only with difficulty.”

[iii] During the 2007 presidential election, eighty-three municipalities (France has 36,569 municipalities) were allowed to use voting machines. Due to security concerns and the inability of voters to determine if their votes are counted correctly a moratorium, that remains today, prevents additional municipalities from introducing voting machines. In the 2012 elections, only 64 municipalities continued their use. The French government desires a total ban on its use.

[iv] In Canada, the results of federal elections are determined exclusively by hand-counted paper ballots. Some provinces have adopted voting machines for local elections. See here, here and here.

[v] The United States’ long ballots–containing federal, state, and local races–are commonly cited as being unwieldy for hand-counting. The use of Sweden’s method of providing different colored paper ballots for federal, state, and local races that are then sorted prior to hand-counting addresses this objection and allows for at least the hand-counting of federal elections with only three races per ballot.

Dallas County asks to recount Super Tuesday election results after 44 thumb drives discovered >>>

Texas 2020 Democratic Party Primary Exit Poll published by CNN at poll’s closing on election night >>>

California 2020 Democratic Party Primary

Millions of uncounted California ballots to shed light on Sanders’ future
A big win in the state could help the senator stay afloat. But nothing is certain as counting continues: ‘It’s like a black box

Search Voting Machine Type State-by-State >>>

Massive election fraud occurred in the 2016 Democratic Primary and the 2016 U.S. Presidential general election. There were GIANT-SIZED exit polling discrepancies up to 33% variance in the 2016 Democratic Party primary.

Now in this 2020 Democratic primary, we’re suffering more massive election fraud again.

During the Iowa caucuses, I called for the Sanders campaign to file a federal lawsuit seeking a federal court order to:

*STOP ALL COUNTING, TABULATING, AND REPORTING OF PARTIAL ELECTION RESULTS;

*COURT DECLARE LEGAL DOMINION AND OVERSIGHT OVER THE IOWA CAUCUSES;

*SUBPOENA AND CONFISCATE ALL IOWA CAUCUS ELECTION MATERIALS, INCL. DEVICES, SOFTWARE, PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE CARDS, TABULATION DOCUMENTS, AND NOTES;

*APPOINT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS TO REVIEW SAID ELECTION MATERIALS;

*DIRECT INDEPENDENT PERSONNEL TO RE-TABULATE, RE-COUNT VOTES;

*, ADJUST THE FINAL ELECTION RESULTS PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S RECALCULATION AND COUNTING OF VOTES OR THE COURT ORDERING A NEW ELECTION.

Under tight restrictions due to DNC/Sanders contract, I believe the Sanders campaign will NOT be filing a federal lawsuit for any reason in this 2020 Democratic primary.It's up to the people to address.  Sign the petition. 

Look who Naomi Klein includes in her latest video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niwNTI9Nqd8