http://www.philly.com/philly/news/po...ero_votes.html
Could be legit bit I doubt it.
Printable View
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/po...ero_votes.html
Could be legit bit I doubt it.
Almost find it harder to believe that 93% of African-Americans NATIONALLY voted for Obama.
Nationally, 93 percent of African Americans voted for Obama, according to exit polls, so it's not surprising that in some parts of Philadelphia, the president did even better than that.
In a few of them? Sure. In 59? Impossible. Just the normal error rate of someone checking the wrong box means there have to be a few.
If accurate I'm more disturbed by the groupthink than I am by the fraud.
More shenanigans in Ohio?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/odd-...lly-9-in-ohio/
I know there has to be at least one dumb person that marked the wrong box, at least one. If that had been the other way around and Obama had those same totals against him, every liberal news media would have it as the first item they ran each night for a week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Liberals tell us they're smarter, Jazy. Unless it's a hanging chad or butterfly ballot.
It's not unprecedented there. Two straight elections it has occurred. In 2008, McCain got zero votes in 57 Philadelphia voting divisions.
Keep in mind that these include areas in which the residents are 94% African-American. I hope this is politically correct enough, but I would expect 100% of the vote in a 94% black area to go to a candidate who, nationwide, received 93% of the African-American vote; whereas, in "mixed" areas, I would expect African-American vote to still be overwhelmingly in favor of Obama, and maybe close to 100%, and finally, in areas in which an African American voter may be the minority, still overwhelmingly in favor of Obama--but "some." So they're the right places for 100%, given the statistical incidence nationwide of 93% African-American votes for Obama.
There could be shenanigans, but I'm not as skeptical as some.
I could believe 5 or 10 or some insanely low number, but not zero, and certainly not zero in 2008 and again now. Not without people being "helped" to a fraudulent degree. Its highly statistically unlikely to not have a single misvote in favor of the other candidate in 2 election cycles among many thousands of voters.
I'd need to see the particular ballot procedure, but the only way to get something like that would be if they voted "all democratic" on a single check box (Ky has that option) and even then a misvote is likely in that number of votes, maybe not as many as if they don't have that option.
I'll run the numbers some time, but random error should mean at least some votes for the non-Obama candidate, not to mention that it's unlikely for every single person in every single of those districts to vote for Obama. I know what Darrell is saying, but 100% is a lot harder for me to believe than 99.9999%.
As a matter of behavior you'd have one spouse going in there to "vote against his vote b/c the SOB cheated on me" or some other completely insane reason. Once you get to that population you get a percentage of people who do random things for crazy reasons. that not one of them either mis-voted or voted against Obama for some totally irrational reason is very unbelievable to me.
99.99% voting for Obama? OK, maybe. Even 99.99% would mean 1 vote in 10,000 for Romney. 100% for two election cycles? Do we really think that all these voters are that much smarter than those in Florida who couldn't fill out their ballots, so much so not one of them messed up?
I'd like to see their balloting procedure. I'm betting they had "help" and were verified for "accuracy" in some way or the ballot itself was setup to make it outright hard to not vote for Obama. Either that or if it was paper ballots some got lost on the way to the counting center.
Insanely high I see, but not even a mistake vote seems very questionable.
I am with citizen, in two elections not one vote in those precints, not one, not possible unless they had that 'help' he referred to. Not every black loves Obama, maybe a extremely high percentage but not 100% in that many precincts, and in two different states. Reminds me of those 100,000 dead people that voted for Kennedy against Nixon in Chicago, hmmmmmmmm sounds familiar, Chicago.
I don't know if this is correct or not, but if it
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...&type=1&ref=nf
I'm not agreeing if the ballots are anything like ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
You have to use a black marker to complete an arrow pointing directly to your candidate. If it's a butterfly ballot, guaranteed mistakes. But how do you draw a line to the wrong candidate?
They have 1,867 voting divisions in Philadelphia, and 1,808 of them had votes for Romney. Only 59 of them had no votes, similar to what occurred in 2008.
You can play with statistics, but when 96.5% (1,808/1,867) of the voting districts in Philadelphia had votes for Romney, you're going to find 3.5% that didn't, given the population. It's a fun story, but even assuming random samples (which, obviously, voting is not), you'll be closer to that than not.