France: 2005 EU Referendum: 59% say NO; all political parties say YES - or why Diebold machines are now a MUST for the illuminati

2005 EU Referendum in France: why the conspirators miscalculated

The script that went wrong

Can you imagine a referendum in the US with Dems and Reps using the media 24 hours to order people to vote YES and yet 59% of the people resolved to vote NO?
That´s what happens now in France.
20% advantage in polls for the people against all the parties representing Dems/Reps in the US.
BTW, Illuminati polls put it at "only" 55% to 39%.
Can you imagine what those polls would be, if electronic vote had already been introduced?

Reasons that the illuminati miscalculated

They thought that all parliament parties ordering the sheeple to vote YES would be enough. It wasn´t.
Note: they announced a last minute poll with 52% YES. Despair forcing them to totally expose how they manufacture polls or do they have some trick to count the votes the "right" way?

Another reason why the illuminati miscalculated - they thought that ethnic minorities have already reached the critical mass to decide any election, starting with 7 million muslims including almost 3 million that can vote, which  The Times "forgot" to mention, on this article about 1.4 million voters in the colonies:
Chirac counts on jungle tribes to swing EU vote (1)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1622161,00.html

Considering all this, no wonder that as far as electonic vote fraud they thought that phase one (sheeple accept introduction of voting machines in some parts) would be enough, covering about one quarter of registered voters.(2)

Notes:

(1) Notice how the article starts: "Among  the Wayampi Indians it is not uncommon for children to give birth at 10 and become grandparents in their twenties."
A lie used to promote the illuminati agenda to legalize pedophilia. Also part of the Big Lie agenda about "primitive" societies.

(2)Introduced in:

Bourg-en-Bresse, Cannes, Nice, Villeneuve-Loubet, Gémenos, Marseille, Royan, Bourges, Brive-la-Gaillarde, Dijon, Bourg-de-Péage, Castanet-Tolosan, Toulouse, Mérignac, Juvignac, Rennes, Saint-Malo, Grenoble, Meylan, La Ferté-Saint-Aubin, Châlons-en-Champagne, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, Lorient, Questembert, Beauvais, Perpignan, Colmar, Mulhouse, Chazay-d´Azergues, Sainte-Foy-lès-Lyon, Le Havre, Niort, Six-Fours-les-Plages, Orange, Les Herbiers, Vouneuil-sous-Biard, Rambervillers, Bures-sur-Yvette, Evry, Juvisy-sur-Orge, Linas, Orsay, Villebon-sur-Yvette, Boulogne-Billancourt, Suresnes, Aulnay-sous-Bois, Rosny-sous-Bois, Marolles-en-Brie, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés and Versailles.

In Forums:

http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=21334

Handbook of fraud - counting votes - Afghanistan vs. US

Reminder of what correct vote count is

There is only one way to prevent fraud in the process of casting and counting votes. Reminder, since each day the gap to the reality of current elections is widening :
- one representative of each candidate at each ballot
- each voter identified by unique ID document;
- each voter manually checked in the voter list entry, as he presents his ID before voting
- votes counted immediately after the ballot, under supervision of representatives of each candidate, which will then sign the count protocol
- results sent to the central entity in charge of computing the totals

Techniques to falsify count - overview

There are two types of techniques to get the "right" results in an election :
Type 1 - making sure you count the votes
Type 2 - any other techniques

Even the worst type 1 technique is x-times more powerful than the best type 2 technique.
The most powerful technique ever created is e-vote (Diebold machines, internet vote, etc).

Now for obvious reasons the people that organized the farse they called free elections in Afghanistan couldn't get the right results by resorting to e-vote.

The technique used in Afghanistan - ink was a diversion

So what was the trick to get the right results in an election with 18 candidates, where the candidate that had to win had less than 5% of the voters behind him ?

Pretending that the main problem in the elections in Afghanistan are ink marks that can be erased (a type 2 technique) is pure diversion, obscuring the fact that type 1 techniques were used. The most important :
- the ballots were transported, without being previously counted at the ballots, to military bases, where they will be "counted"

In Forums

10-12-2004 - http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/t14077-handbook-of-fraud-counting-votes-afghanistan-vs-us.html