California Voter Fraud On Prop 37? Will The Truth Prevail?

“So look, there are fifteen million votes out there we haven’t counted yet. What do you want to do?”

“How long have the polls been closed?”

“Let’s see. Two hours.”

“The hell with it. Let’s call it a defeat for Prop 37.”

“Okay.”

This isn’t over.

We’re not just looking at how many votes in California are still uncounted. We’re not just guessing how it’ll turn out and making little projections. That’s a sucker’s game.

We’re looking at real symptoms of fraud. And fraud has tentacles and arms. You see one piece of fraud, you keep digging for other pieces. You usually find them.

Start with the incredibly early projections made by media outlets on election night. Those projections sank Prop 37.

When you’re in the middle of a football game and the outcome is still in doubt, if somebody suddenly posts the final score on the scoreboard, that’s called a lie.

It isn’t an estimate or a guess or a prediction. It’s a lie.

There was once a day in American politics when news networks would wait for conclusive election results. They weren’t greedily bent on reporting projections soon and sooner and soonest.

So let’s get that projection-brainwashing out of our heads, all right?

The whole business of making early and earlier predictions on election night is a sham. And it has the effect of inducing people to tune out.

“Okay, Jones won. That’s that. What percentage of the votes have been counted? One half of one percent? Zero percent? Gee, I guess these prediction guys really know what they’re doing. They must have some fabulous computer models, honey. Let’s watch a CSI rerun…”

Here is what happened on election night in California. With many millions of votes still not counted, television stations up and down the state sealed the fate of Prop 37, by saying it had lost.

Many of those California votes are still uncounted. Yesterday, by consulting four of the 57 county registrars in the state, I found 1.6 million votes still unprocessed. That was chicken feed.

An updated report, as of noon today, November 9, posted at the California Secretary of State’s website, indicates that, for all of California, a boggling 3.3 million votes remain uncounted.

So who called the shots? Who made the early and grossly premature projection on election night? Who told all the media outlets that Prop 37 had been defeated?

I suspected it was Edison Media Research, an outfit that works for the National Election Pool (NEP). NEP is a media consortium that supplies election-night information to the press. This morning I spoke with a representative of Edison, who told me they didn’t make the projection on Prop 37.

If true, that leaves Associated Press (AP) as the leading suspect. AP is part of the National Election Pool as well. AP has awesome resources.

I spoke with Erin Madigan White, media relations manager at AP. I asked her whether AP had made the projections for Prop 37 to media outlets.

She emailed me the following tidbit. It was not quite an answer to my question, but it was illuminating:

“To clarify: AP does not make ‘projections,’ but bases our reporting on counting real votes from every precinct. As our story notes specifically, ‘With all the state’s precincts reporting, Proposition 37 failed 53.1 percent to 46.9 percent.’”

When someone gives you this kind of sleight-of-hand maneuver, it’s called a clue. Let’s start with this phrase: “With all the state’s precincts reporting.” The precincts were all reporting PARTIAL results. Even today, there are 3.3 million votes in CA still to be counted.

This tells you that AP was lying. That’s right. Let’s call it what it was. They were lying about “all precincts.” It was an intentional con.

And what does the phrase “bases our reporting on counting real votes” mean? It certainly means “calling the result of an election.” Because that’s exactly what AP did with Prop 37, based on partial results, on Nov.8. That’s a projection. They say they don’t make projections, but they do. That’s another lie.

On election night, I believe AP must have been the entity who passed voting information on Prop 37 to media outlets throughout California.

AP will not speak about their business relationships with media outlets. They will not name those outlets. They claim “client confidentiality” on this matter. Why?

I believe the answer is obvious. AP, the giant wire service, doesn’t want people to know how much influence they have on what media outlets report. AP doesn’t want the public to know how much of the news, everywhere, comes from AP. And media outlets don’t want their own customers to know how much of what they report is really flat-out or recycled AP material.

This powerful AP influence certainly would extend to election-night reporting.

Knowing how the National Election Pool basically works, I see no other entity who could have played that information-provider role for all the networks, TV stations, radio stations, websites, and newspapers in California…and in the country, on this past election night, with respect to Prop 37.

With millions of votes outstanding and uncounted, I conclude it was AP who provided the data to the networks, who then made the early calls against Prop 37 and sank it.

After I wrote the original article yesterday, which exposed the big lie about Prop 37 early projections, I received many emails. You can read that article here:

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/did-peop-37-really-lose-or-was-it-vote-fraud/

Most of the emailers stated they were glad to get the information. A few people questioned my report. They said, “Well, a hundred percent of voting precincts have already sent their vote-counts to the Secretary of State of California.”

Wrong. A hundred percent of precincts have sent PARTIAL vote-counts to the Secretary of State.

A few people said, “Well, the counties in California, who are in charge of counting all votes in their districts, have several weeks to wrap up the count. That happens in every election. Nothing new there.”

I know that. My attack is leveled at the early call against Prop 37 given to the media, on election night, when so many votes were still uncounted, when there was no way to know the final outcome.

A few people said, “Well, of the votes that remain to be counted in California, about two-thirds would have to go YES ON 37 to swing 37 over into victory. That won’t happen.”

Let’s leave that question to the actual vote-count. But we’re not only talking about the odds of getting a victory through counting the rest of the votes. With these horrendous early projections, we’re looking at a symptom of huge fraud here. The smoke in front of the fire:

Who can guarantee that the votes already tallied in California were done faithfully and honestly? Who can guarantee that the voting machines were accurately recording votes?

Given AP’s replies to me, and their policy of secrecy about their media clients, who wants to trust that news giant?

Concerning machine vote-fraud, wake up and smell the coffee. See Bev Harris’ work at blackboxvoting.org and also Victoria Collier’s important articles on this subject. Read up on the 2000 Bush-Gore fiasco and the 2004 Bush-Kerry voting nightmare (especially in Ohio).

Many people have emailed me to ask, “What can we do now?” First of all, the YES ON 37 people have to forget about their concession of defeat. They need to get busy and look into vote fraud.

They have to come back to the playing field.

To return to the football analogy, if you’re in the middle of the game and somebody suddenly posts the final score on the scoreboard, do you hang your head and walk off and accept the loss? Is that what you do?

Do you bow down to the system, because you’re afraid that, if you object, people will label you “sour grapes” and crazy? Or do you become more relentless?

YES ON 37 needs to demand to look at the voting machines, the software used in the vote-count. YES ON 37 needs to probe, with all they have, into what AP did on election night. And that’s just for starters. Bring on the lawyers. Make some real waves. Shake people up.

Think about this as well. Why was Prop 37 launched in California? Why not Arkansas or Louisiana?

Because it’s well-known that California, historically and presently, is the core of the natural health movement in America. CA is where it really took hold and spread. CA is where everybody and his brother want gluten-free bicycles and organic streetlamps and raw unpasteurized sunglasses and GMO-free underwear.

The sentiment for Prop 37 was overwhelming a couple of months ago. Then, boom. Everything went the other way. It wasn’t just the NO ON 37 ads. It wasn’t just the massive spending by the NO ON 37 forces.

The real specter of vote fraud is here, whether you like it or not.

If, indeed, AP made the early reports or projections or suggestions or advices of defeat for 37 to media outlets, let’s see their data and their models of interpretation. Did they do exit polls? I’ve never heard of AP conducting exit polls.

If as AP claims, they don’t do projections, are we supposed to believe they sent out nothing more than raw-vote counts to a few thousand media outlets in California, and each and every one of those outlets decided, on their own, through their own analysis, that Prop 37 was a lost cause early on election night?

Don’t believe that for a second. These local TV stations and newspapers aren’t independent enough to do that kind of projecting on their own. They were taking advice from somewhere. They were all falling into line. They were merely mouthpieces for someone’s projection.

This should trouble you. It should trouble you greatly. Unless you’re so enamored of projections and computer modeling and data interpretation and honest and honorable vote machines that you’re sure everything is just fine and dandy.

Early dismissive projections on election night are part and parcel of the Big Con. They are wands waved that put people to sleep and elections to bed.

So, no, Virginia. No. Everything is not okay.

Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.