Thank you for your fine writing and meticulous analysis, Mr. Gundert.
Since 2004, I’ve been concerned about the scandalous susceptibility of electronic voting machines in the United States to external manipulation. But my concern has ratcheted up into outright alarm during this primary season with the frequency and extent of deviation from initial exit polls to “official” election results.
Making this situation particularly troubling is the way the discrepancies in this cycle have only benefitted a single candidate — Mrs. Clinton—and hurt the performance of only Senator Sanders.
Since, as the old saying has it, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating,” you have may have helped demonstrate a more contemptorary — and contemptible — political allegory: “The proof of election fraud is in the ‘winning’.”
We need not “follow the money” to build this case—although it certainly points in the same direction. We need only follow the numbers.
Thank you for following them so well.