What is your interpretation of the Chicago audit of Democratic primary election results?

[Time for change]

In the Illinois Democratic Primary this year, there was an exit poll discrepancy of 4.1%, with Clinton winning in the official count and Sanders winning the exit poll. Clinton won the official vote count by 2.3%, but the exit polls predicted a Sanders win of 1.7%. That is just background information, but not directly related to the question for this poll:

A group of citizens who watched the auditing of Democratic primary election results in Chicago testified that the results of hand-counted votes from voting machines were changed to match the machines’ electronic counts. For example, in one instance, 21 Sanders votes were erased and 49 Clinton votes were added to the hand count so that it matched the machine count.

If you want to watch the video at the above link of the Chicago Election Board meeting where the citizen testimony took place, it gets interesting at about the 24 minute mark, and the bombshell is dropped at the 30 minute mark.

What is your interpretation of the difference between the machine and the hand counts observed by the above noted citizens’ group:

31 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	This is evidence of election fraud. It should be thoroughly investigated with more audits before the IL results are certified
	30 (97%)
	The audits observed by the citizens group are probably isolated cases of machine malfunction. It is not of significant concern
	0 (0%)
	The auditors acted properly by changing their hand count to match the machine count because machine counts are more accurate
	0 (0%)
	The whole story is a lie. The citizens group is probably lying about it because they want their candidate to win
	1 (3%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[mooseprime]

1. based on what we've seen so far

most of them should be subject to a rigrous audit. because math!!

[Kip Humphrey]

2. Not a matter for interpretation. A 70 vote discrepancy is fact.

Election fraud is real. It is caused by humans. And it needs to be stopped if we want to salvage our democracy.

[senz]

3. Only those who benefit from cheating would resist an audit.

[brooklynite]

4. I'm waiting to see Bernie Sanders' challenge...

....there's going to be one, right?

[Time for change]

6. I'm not close enough to Bernie to know the answer to that

I'm struck by the lack of further information coming from our national corporate "news" media on this issue. I happen to think it's of much importance as news.

By the way, did you vote in this poll? I'd be interested to know how you voted.

[brooklynite]

7. I didn't, because I don't know the issue...

...I'm not studying the issue because, if Sanders doesn't care enough, why should I?

[senz]

9. Any American who values democracy would care.

Up to you, brooklynite.

[brooklynite]

10. Anyone would care if it was true...and not another conspiracy theory

That's why I'm waiting for Bernie to tell me if HE cares...

[Time for change]

12. I didn't present a theory. I presented facts, along with a link to a video of the Board meeting

The poll asked for an interpretation of those facts.

I included in the poll answers all the possible options that I could think of.

If you know enough about this to call it a "conspiracy theory" (a common term used by people to deny facts that they don't like), then surely you must have an opinion as to which one of the options in the poll seems most likely to you. So which one is it?

By the way, it seems to me that if there is a conspiracy theory in this thread it is option # 4.

[senz]

13. But we won't know until they investigate.

Bernie doesn't have to challenge the irregularities as long as the authorities are investigating it. That's what matters.

[Time for change]

14. Also

You have no idea what Bernie is doing about this issue, so to assume he's doing nothing as an excuse for refusing to give an opinion on it is really disingenuous.

[Time for change]

5. I forgot to mention that

In the example in the OP, the difference between the machine and hand count represented an 18.4% difference for that particular machine.

[MFM008]

8. Because

every time someone votes for Hillary Clinton it is automatic fraud.
Every time Sanders loses its fraud.
Hes gotten every vote so far including the one I cast for HRC.

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

[senz]

11. That's what the Republicans said in 2000 and 2004.

Remember? Democrats were sore losers, paranoid, conspiracy theorists.

Nothing to see here ... move along ...

[Time for change]

15. This is very interesting

I was interested to know what percentage of poll responders were Bernie vs. Hillary supporters. I evaluated that by looking at their avatars, their sigs, and their "favorite group" (Bernie or Hillary).

Of the 54 responders who interpreted the incident in the OP as indicative of election fraud, 45 were Bernie supporters, 8 were indeterminate, and 1 appeared to be a Hillary supporter (based on favorite group listed as Hillary group). Of the two that interpreted the OP to mean that the citizens group lied about the incident (what a conspiracy theory!), both were Hillary supporters.

Based upon the huge amount of flack I get from certain people every time I post something about election fraud in the Democratic primaries, calling me a "conspiracy theorist", "sore loser", "sour grapes", etc, one might have expected a large amount of such people to participate in this poll.

So why didn't they?

I think the answer is that it doesn't take any thought or intelligence to use phrases such as "conspiracy theorist", "sore loser", or "sour grapes" whenever someone says something you don't want to hear. But when faced with the task of coming up with a plausible alternative explanation, that's quite another story.

My opinion is what 96% of poll respondents said: that when a citizen observer group observes substantial discrepancies between electronic machine counts and hand counted audits (and observes the auditors changing the hand count to mimic the machine count), that is clear evidence of election fraud (and coverup), and especially when the official vote count for the state differs substantially from the exit poll, it is highly unlikely that the observation represents an isolated incident, but rather that it represents the tip of a very large iceberg, in which a systematic attempt was made to electronically manipulate the election results.

That's why I say that any state with a substantial exit poll discrepancy from the official vote count should, in the interest of fair elections, require a statewide hand counted audit that is closely observed -- regardless of which candidate won the election or is favored in the official vote count relative to the exit poll. That is absolutely necessary to save our democracy, and if we don't get it then we can't say that we have a democracy.

And by the way, the exit polls in the Republican primary were spot on in every state that was polled.