Mystery:Nevada Election 2010

Liberal Harry Reid was trailing by four points in several independent polls on the eve of Election Day, 2010, but the next day was declared the winner by more than five points. This was an unexplained discrepancy of more than nine points.

What is the explanation? The mainstream media have been silent in even asking this question of their own side, which implies that they fear disclosure of the truth. Fox News Channel was prepared to run a show on election fraud in Nevada but canceled it when Sharron Angle prematurely conceded.

This is not the first time that Nevada results have been far more liberal than predicted by many independent polls. In 2008, Barack Obama won by a 12.5 point margin when an independent newspaper-funded poll had him winning Nevada by only 4 points. In 2004, the average of polling near the election had George W. Bush defeating John Kerry by six points, and then Bush won by only three. Note that the size of the discrepancy has increased with each election:

Year	Liberal candidate	Gain by Liberal over Polling
2000	Al Gore	0.5 points
2004	John Kerry	3 points
2008	Barack Obama	8.5 points
2010	Harry Reid	9+ points

Nevada converted to its touch-screen computer voting for its entire State beginning in 2004. Before the installation of this computer voting system in Nevada, actual results in 2000 were consistent with exit polls in the Bush versus Gore contest.

Computer voting was banned in the Netherlands in 2008 due to concerns about fraud.

Pre-selection of Reid

Nevada uses a sensitive touch-screen computer system for voting, and at least one voter complained about her, her husband's, and several others' screens being pre-selected to vote for Harry Reid:

“

Boulder City resident Joyce Ferrara complained to FOX5 that when she went to vote for GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, Reid's name was already checked. 'Something's not right,' Ferrara said. She claimed her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.

”

Criticism of the Computerized Voting used by Nevada

Nevada uses the "Sequoia Edge" high-tech, touch-screen voting system, and it has been criticized by others. In the Pittsburgh area, for example, "a group opposing Allegheny County's purchase of the Sequoia AVC Advantage [a prior model of Sequoia] said the problems in Chicago were not as simple as is being portrayed. Several voting machines in Chicago had results of 'zero' at the end of the night."

Calibrated Bias

Touch-screen computer systems like those used by Nevada must be calibrated for sensitivity and also visual accuracy at different heights. Bias -- intentional or unintentional -- can easily exist and it is unclear if Nevada has any safeguards against sensitivity or visual bias in the calibration of these machines for an election.

Unions Are Big in Las Vegas

There are more than 50,000 members of the culinary workers' union alone in Southern Nevada. Did a massive turnout by union workers on Election Day cause the outcome discrepancy? If so, then those numbers would turn up in higher-than-expected turnout where union workers live in high numbers, and only voting by workers who were not represented in the polling would contribute to a discrepancy.

False Liberal Explanations

A large Hispanic turnout for Reid?

For most part, liberals are mum about this discrepancy. But some have suggested that Hispanics are not being fully polled, and that they boosted Reid to higher numbers on Election Day.

This cannot explain the discrepancy. Hispanics comprised only 18% of the voters in Nevada in 2010 -- the same percentage as 2008. They voted about 2-to-1 for Reid, giving him a 6-point advantage. But much, if not all, of that advantage was incorporated into the polling data. So there could not have been much of a discrepancy caused by this factor.

Did the immigration issue sink Angle?

Some liberals suggest that the immigration issue hurt Sharron Angle. In fact, 60% of the voters surveyed in an exit poll support Arizona's law against illegal aliens, which Sharron Angle also supported, while only 33% opposed it; moreover, 67% said this was an important issue in deciding whom to vote for.

Did voters turn against Angle herself?

Some liberals suggest that voters turned against Angle herself, causing the discrepancy. But the polls would reflect that phenomenon as much as actual voting would. Moreover, a similar nine-point discrepancy was observed between the polling and the actual results for a physician who was running for Congress in Clark County, the Democratic stronghold in the State. Polls predicted that Joe Heck would win by ten percent, but voting results showed him winning by less than 1 percent. If there was ballot manipulation based on party affiliation, that would explain this similar discrepancy, while issues specific to Sharron Angle would not.

GOP below its average turnout rate for midterm elections?

In a year when polls show Republicans are highly motivated, Reid spokesman Kelly Steele says the GOP had less turnout. More early-voting Republicans means fewer voting-day Republicans.