Iowa Election Manipulation

We are quickly approaching times when the elections are going to be decided by the power of marketing software and the size and correctness of databases with political profiles of prospective voters

Iowa Election Manipulation

If you lived in Soviet Union and tried to run for the Supreme Soviet (an elective body with powers similar to those of the U.S. Congress) with a political program different from the one advertised by the Soviet ruling clique, you would have everybody against you: the establishment, the press (and its propaganda), the political organizations, and for obvious reasons. But suppose you managed to politically survive until elections, and all your name ended up on the ballot. Obviously, you would lose, badly, on election day. But it would take extreme naiveté to conclude that the citizens of the Soviet Union rejected you and your program. The Soviet “elections” system was controlled by the ruling clique to assure the continuity of their monopoly on power.

No one at his right mind in free world lent any credibility to Soviet “elections” that were often the subject of ridicule and jokes. But how about the system that we have in the U.S.? Are the results of elections here a true expression of the will of the People? Or are they - at least in part - the result of fraud, voter deception, and other manipulations of that sort? Our election system used to enjoy a public trust, but with election fraud becoming more and more rampant and the tools of persuasion becoming more and more effective, the presumption of fairness of election results is fading quickly.

Why should we assume that the election process, the most details of which are unknown to most of the People, controlled by often shady groups and individuals, is not tainted? If the process was sound and unbiased, we would not have those cases of stuffing of the ballot boxes, recounts that always favor one political wing, dead people voting, homeless being dragged to the voting polls, just to name a few? And why pre-election polls are often so dramatically different from the elections results? Which of those, if any, is a more accurate measurement of the will of the People?

If the system is so good then why is it so bad?

There is something definitely fishy with Iowa recent election results. It appears that they were caused by orchestrated manipulation and were not indicative of the level of support that Trump, Cruz, and Rubio actually enjoyed. There is no good reason to believe that those results were a manifestation of the Iowa electorate, and that the numerous polls showing Trump well ahead of his competitors were wrong.

A conclusion that Trump came second because of his narrower base than Cruz’s base would require an assumption that those who voted in the Republican primary in Iowa constituted a fair (unbiased) sample of all registered GOP voters in that state. Although such a fairness is theoretically possible, based what is publicly known, it is a highly unlikely scenario.

The most likely scenario is over-representation of Cruz voters and Rubio voters in the Iowa Republican election paired with persuading a large number of undecided voters to vote on those two. Marketing giants (let them remain nameless here) didn’t even try to hide that they made the most advanced marketing software available to their preferred candidates, and we have seen the results of the successful political marketing of Cruz and Rubio last Monday. However legal it might be at this moment, is a clear case of free election manipulation that produce winners who do not have support of the plurality of (Republican, in this case) voters. And the fact that the result of Iowa Caucus were so dramatically different than the results of most of the polls in recent weeks should be enough to doubt in actual (as opposed to nominal) fairness of the election.

The likelihood that the above scenario was the one that took place in Iowa and that it changed substantially the results of the election is further increased by the fact that the turnout among Iowa Republican voters was unusually high. It strongly suggests that the following three actions took place:

The participation of Rubio voters was increased with profiling software that allowed his campaign to reliably target his supporters and shower them with calls to go out and vote. It is a particularly likely scenario under the circumstances of mega-donors’ large contributions to Rubio in order to eliminate Trump for competition.
A similar scenario, although with slightly lesser probability, applies to Cruz.
But the most likely source of Cruz and Rubio was the precise identification of undecided but persuadable voters and contacting them directly to vote for either of the above two. This kind of manipulation is the core strategy in advanced marketing today, and its effectiveness is nothing short of marvelous.
Add to all the above 24/7 anti-Trump campaign of virtually all “mainstream” media and you will see how it could happen that indisputable front-runner Trump ended up with roughly the same number of votes as Cruz and Rubio did.

We are quickly approaching times when the elections are going to be decided by the power of marketing software and the size and correctness of databases with political profiles of prospective voters. Those candidates who have better software and data will likely defeat those who don’t, regardless of who they are and what they stand for. And our repeated requests to give us the government that follows the will of the American People in its policies and actions are going to end up in a dustbin of history.


Mark Andrew Dwyer