That crazy 2004 Election!

Table of Contents:

Lies, ignorance, and manipulation

Bush somehow managed to propagandafy the people into believing that he was:

1. An honest man

2. Virtuous and similar to Jesus

3. Protecting them from a terrorist threat
4. Not creating an amorphous and ambiguous enemy to spread fear which makes people ignore the truth and become easier to manipulate
5. Not attempting to widen the gap between the rich and the poor

It's interesting that the countries who are most rigorously pursuing public surveillance and an ambiguous and amorphous war on the "terrorist threat" are the two countries in which the gap between the rich and the poor is widening the fastest. This whole "war on terror" is pretty much a giant misdirection, to stop people from noticing that rich corporations are looting the average citizen, invading their privacy, and that the government is helping the corporations by dumping tons of money into them in the form of favoratist contracts. All of their tactics are geared towards manipulating the public mindset and deflecting the truth. The media is quite complicit as well since their parent corporations benefit greatly by the widening class gap. Reporters in the media are afraid of telling the truth about what's going on because they know that they'll lose their jobs.

When the media stops reporting the truth, the only way the truth can get around is by word of mouth. I believe that's why big cities voted for Kerry and rural areas voted for Bush. The greater the population density, the more information-hunters there are, and the faster word of mouth can spread. In rural areas, it's much less likley that you'll run into educated activists. You can see this correllation on a region-by-region breakdown of the US -- the greater the population density, the higher the percentage of Kerry-supporters (aka. Bush-againsters ) :

• US voter density map (2004)

• US population density map (2003)

Another factor is that an educated populace won't accept what the media says at face value, and will do their own research -- talking to people who are actually WORKING with people in Washington, reading books written by insiders, and reading books by intelligent people who have been collecting facts and trying to understand what's really happening. This seems to be the case, since the more educated a state is on average, the more likely they are to vote against Bush. Observe:

• Who each state voted for, sorted by education

Where'd these ideas come from?

Well, I've been following the covering up of the truth for a long time, as well as the surprising inability of the public to find out about it. When I saw this, however, I felt completely vindicated:

• Who each state voted for, sorted by IQ

Now, those numbers seem a little too perfect. It's almost a perfect bell curve, with the highest and lowest IQ's being exactly one standard deviation from the mean. After a friend pointed out that state-IQ's total bunk (an ad-hoc score based on SAT and ACT scores), and I started to question it, another person pointed me to a thread on Snopes.com:

• Votes for Bush/Gore by IQ and Income

An identical meme went around in 2000 about IQ and voting for Bush/Gore! In fact, this 2004 voting/IQ chart uses the exact same data -- it's just been updated to show the way the states voted this year.

What's interesting, however, is that whoever invented this chart didn't pull the IQ scores out of their butt -- they're actually correllated to average state-wide income. So, it's not surprising to see that sorting the results by education ends up giving similar results, since how educated you are effects your income.

To the cellar, maw... scandal's a-brewin'!

It seems that the voting machines were tampered with. Look at the comparison here between paper ballots vs. exit polls, and electronic voting vs. exit polls:

• Exit polls vs. paper and electronic results

There's more strange discrepancies here too:

• Voting irregularities in Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

• StolenElection.net - Statistical breakdown

• States with electronic voting machines gave Bush mysterious 5% advantage; bloggers do the math that broadcast networks fail to follow

Here's a good summary of the situation:

• Evidence mounts that election was hacked

Something's up, and it ain't INCREASING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY! GoNNNNnnnNNgggGGgg..

WhatReallyHappened.com has a slew of articles from media entities who are actually willing to report on the situation.

All these facts are so subtle, though, that it's hard to make people believe that something sinister is happening. They've gotten acclimatized to people warning them about danger, then having spin-doctors make it seem like nothing. The spin doctors don't even have to do it anymore -- people are just conditioned to ignore anything which claims that president is a Bad Man. 60 million people are really happy that Bush won, and probably about 100 million don't care.

Other factors to analyze

• How university students voted

  • I bet that there was a strong anti-Bush majority in unversities.

• Correllating information-habits to voting

  • I bet people who got all their news from talk-radio were the biggest Bush supporters, those who watched TV were the second-biggest, and those who read the newspaper were the third-biggest.

• Was it THIS MAN who "STOLE THE ELECTION"?:

  •