Liar, liar, whose pants are on fire?

As reported by PolitiFact/Pennsylvania and Cassie Owens, “There are items on the internet that promote allegations of voter fraud (during the 2012 Presidential Election) in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. For Pennsylvania, it has been reported that, ‘In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes, with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility.)’”

There is a general feeling among certain people (those with brains) that Philadelphia rigged the 2012 presidential election in favor of Barack Obama. Some “experts,” however, still say “no.”

According to Ms. Owens, “This kind of happened, and it’s not actually mathematically impossible. First, the 59 (voting ‘districts’) refers to (‘areas’ in) the City of Philadelphia, not the metropolitan area or region. An absolutely crucial fact: The 59 zones that saw no votes for Romney were not districts, but divisions. There are nearly 1,700 divisions in Philadelphia. Each of the city’s 66 wards claims between 10 and 50 of them.”

Ok…, let’s play the old liberal word game here. So there are called divisions or zones in Philadelphia and not districts, whatever.

She continues, “To provide a sense of how small divisions are, currently, the average number of registered voters per division is 616. The division out of the 59 with the lowest turnout counted 139 votes in 2012; the highest was 612.”

Ok, so if we take the average of the “divisions’” turnout, that would be 376. Then if you take that average times the 59 “divisions,” we come up with 22,184 votes.

Just to be clear, that would be 22,184 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.

That’s 22,184 – 0.

Sean Hannity, of Fox News, first brought this voting “abnormality” to light, on a nation level, but of course, the biased mainstream media chose to ignore the story. What a surprise.

The “experts” cited all sorts of different conditions that would make tampering with the vote virtually impossible.

22,184 – 0.

The “experts” cited changing voting trends that could explain extreme vote differences.

22,184 – 0.

The “experts” cited the fact that, “Romney was going against the nation’s first black president as well.” There aren’t any racist connotations there, are there? But irregardless…

22,184 – 0.

Note one vote for Romney? Not 1?

Ms. Owens and Politifact ruled that this WAS NOT a statistical impossibility, and that there were no indications of improprieties.

22,184 – 0.

Note one vote for Romney. Not 1.

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

– Abraham Lincoln


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: