In Democratic Individuality, I argued that at a high level of abstraction, modern conservatives, liberals and radicals believe that the best economic, social and political institutions foster each person’s individuality. Their differences are largely empirical or social theoretical. All clash with modern authoritarians. I will take up practical issues such as torture and the lineage of the neocons and link them to larger issues in how we conceive a decent regime, locally and internationally.
Interview with Jim Banks on KGNU 8:30 Wednesday morning on New York and exit polling
I will be on KGNU – FM 88.5, AM 1390; outside Colorado, google KGNU – with Jim Banks at 8:30 Wednesday morning. The nucleus or test point for identifying electoral fraud, as we discuss, is exit-polling (an exit polling/recorded “vote” discrepancy far outside the margin of error of the poll). This point is not widely realized in the movement protesting pre-voting anti-democratic practices – “voter suppression” – but it needs to be made a central issue. Here are two decisive, currently not widely known points we will discuss: : 1) the U.S. State Department uses initial exit polling as a test for the fairness of elections in 14 cases abroad. Exit polling is, in fact, an easy check for fraud. 2) But in the US and in the USalone, the Edison Group – which has a monopoly of polling for the big media outlets – doctors what then become so-called exit “polls” to fit the “results” on electronic machines which leave no paper trail. That practice, however, inverts what exit polling is designed to do: warn us when the machine-recorded “results” are mistaken or fraudulent.
Thus, Edison/media practice licenses theft rather than being a test to reveal it.…In sections 5-8 of the essay here, I cite, in detail, US AID and Edison polling documents to underline these points.
How big an effect does this Edison Group malpractice about exit polling have on the Democratic primaries? In 2016, exit polling reveals the “results” in New York, Massachusetts, Ohio and Illinois to be false. Sanders, not Clinton, won the latter 3, and was at the least, very close in New York. And even Clinton’s margins in Alabama and Georgia, while still a landslide, are off by roughly 10-14 points. Even in the South, a substantial number of delegates would shift to Sanders…