Many election-integrity activists with good mathematical intuitions looked at the returns and exclaimed, “That just couldn’t have happened by accident.” What they were speaking of, of course, was the fact that Barack Obama led Hillary Clinton by 53.25% to 46.75% in the 35,864 votes cast for one or the other of them on hand-counted paper ballots (HCPBs), whereas he lost to her by 47.27% to 52.73% of the 81,753 *computer-counted* votes cast for one or the other of them on optical scanners (op-scans).

Since it has been so thoroughly demonstrated that the 1.94w memory cards on the op-scans and the GEMS central tabulator are easily hacked (for example, http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html ), it looked to be an open-and-shut case that that was exactly what had happened.

But this well justified suspicion (besides being ignored by the main stream media) was instantly discounted in a cacophony of unsupported arguments advanced by the stolen-election denier community ...as well as by some election-integrity activists fearing their cause will be discredited in the event that any of their arguments should ever be proven wrong. So the deniers get a free pass, while the hard working election-fraud sleuths feel they have to hold their tongues.

By contrast, there is no such “asymmetric warfare” in the world of science. All scientists make errors, but their principal concern lies, not with shielding themselves from embarrassment, but instead with advancing of science. So, whenever a given scientific problem proves too complicated to solve in one fell swoop, scientists “bravely” look for new ways to simplify the problem to the point where mathematics will give at least approximately-correct answers almost all of the time.

Here’s the classic example: In the early days of quantum mechanics (which, by the way, is *100% based on* *statistics*) it proved absolutely intractable to calculate the quantum-mechanical behaviors of even small molecules. So in 1927 Max Born and J. Robert Oppenheimer published a paper proposing that, since electrons move so much faster than atomic nuclei, it might be useful to perform calculations that assume (for the sake of actually being able to do any calculations at all) that all nuclei are absolutely stationary. Absurd? Absolutely not! The “Born-Oppenheimer approximation” has proved its extreme usefulness for fully 80 years!

While I’m not a Born or an Oppenheimer, I *am* an accomplished physicist (http://impactglassresearchinternational.com/ ). So, what should I care if anyone should nit-pick the assumption I found necessary – *and appropriate* – for purposes of calculating the probability that the outcome of the Obama-Clinton contest in New Hampshire was honest?

Here’s what I know to be true (no assumptions yet): The boundaries between the HCPB precincts and the op-scan precincts in New Hampshire were laid out years ago by individuals who could not possibly have foreseen the Obama-Clinton contest of 8 January 2008. If they had had anything devious in mind, surely it would have been to give some advantage to Democrats or Republicans (depending on the sympathies of the deciders) in the *General Election.*

Therefore, I assume that, from the standpoint of the Obama-Clinton primary contest, these boundaries were chosen * randomly*.

Shades of Born-Oppenheimer. Under this modest assumption, instructive results can be obtained by proper application of statistics. And when I did perform the appropriate Binomial Statistical calculations, the results I got for the outcome of the Obama-Clinton contest were absolutely stunning – perhaps they will stand as the all-time record for the degree of “statistical impossibility” of any putatively accidental election anomaly! (http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/New_Hampshire_Binomial_Statistics )

In other words,* I find 100% probability that the op-scan tallies were hacked!*

So my challenge to all election-theft deniers is this: *Prove me wrong!* Give me your best shot. But please sign your proofs with your real name ...and don’t fail to append your scientific/mathematical credentials.

8 people are discussing this page, with 16 comments