The Brexit Vote Will Be Rigged by Jeff Nielson, Sprott Money

How important is the upcoming “Brexit” vote in the UK? In a recent commentary , it was noted that the current leader in French polling to become France’s next president is Marine Le Pen, of Front-National. Ms. Le Pen has already dubbed herself “Madame Frexit”, going back to the time of the “crisis” in Greece.

Given that the UK has never been fully “in” the European Union, a British vote to leave the EU would not, by itself, be a fatal blow for this fascist entity. But the effect of a Brexit vote on France would be twofold. First, it would undoubtedly provide a further boost in popularity for Ms. Le Pen. Secondly, it would strengthen the resolve toward Frexit among the large majority in France who already have an unfavorable opinion of the EU.

Brexit Vote

The numbers above, cited in an article by Mike Shedlock, paint a clear picture. In only one of the European Union’s founding members (Italy) do we see anything resembling a “strong majority” when it comes to supporting EU membership. Apart from two EU newcomers – Poland and Hungary – we see European populations which are either evenly split in terms of support for the European Union, or (like Greece) are strongly opposed to this political union.

A successful Frexit would undoubtedly trigger a wave of nationalism across Europe, and lead to further, fatal defections in this made-for-the-bankers political hierarchy. Thus in the eyes of the Big Bank crime syndicate, Frexit must be prevented, at any/all costs. Since a successful Brexit would greatly increase the odds of Frexit, it too must be prevented, at any/all costs.

This brings us to the title for this commentary. Alleging the “rigging” of any election is still considered to be a very serious charge in the minds of most Western inhabitants, because the majority of these inhabitants still cling to the myth that we have a political system which provides some bastardized version of “democracy”. What evidence is there to support allegations that the One Bank’s oligarch proprietors are already rigging Western elections? The best kind: statistical evidence.

This evidence comes in the form of election polling. Here readers need to understand that political polling is a science. There is a very specific set of parameters which are used in gathering the data. The results released by the polling agencies are precise, statistical representations of that data.

Because the “data” involves only a sample of the electorate, there is a margin of error in such polling. That margin of error is also the result of precise, statistical calculations. Because the data involves the voting inclinations of human beings, this produces a second margin of error, known as “the confidence interval.” This is the possibility of an anomalous result, meaning something outside of the margin of error attributable to the mere size of the sample.

This confidence interval is also the product of a precise, statistical calculation. Typically, statisticians calculate a “95% confidence interval” as the level of certainty they seek to achieve in their polling. In other words, 95% of the time (19 times out of 20) the actual election result would fall within the specified margin of error, if voting occurred at that moment.

In aggregate terms, this means that polling agencies are able to “call” elections (within their margin of error) 95% of the time. Decades of practice in such polling has only improved upon the accuracy of this science. In the media, what we saw was a steady trend to announce election “victories” earlier and earlier on ballot night, based in large part upon the consistent degree of accuracy of pre-election polling, and the tendency for those poll results to be reflected in the early hours of tabulating voting.

Then, a few years ago, suddenly everything changed. Popping up in different spots, across the Western world, we began to see an increase in what were more than mere, anomalous results (i.e. elections which “defied the polls”). We suddenly began to see significant numbers of outrageous anomalies. Here we are not talking about election results which were merely slightly outside the margin-of-error boundaries of the polling, but rather results which were virtually opposite to these scientific polls.

For those seeking specific examples, let’s start with the domicile of this writer: the Province of British Columbia. In the last provincial election here (May 2013), the election result was supposed to be a foregone conclusion: a victory for the New Democratic Party.

[Liberal victor, Christy] Clark started the campaign as the clear underdog in the poll, trailing by 20 points.

However, the final result was something much different:

Not only did Clark defy countless polls predicting her defeat , she increased her party’s majority in the legislature by five seats and became the first woman to be elected premier in a general election in B.C . [emphasis mine]

Countless polls predicting her defeat . Admittedly, the NDP lead in the polls shrank from the original, enormous 20-point margin. However, that was to be expected, as even among a polarized electorate we rarely ever see such an extreme margin of victory in the final result. What is of significance in this rigged election is that throughout the political campaign, “countless polls” from several, different polling agencies mathematically predicted Clark’s defeat. Not a single poll result, at any time in the election indicated even the possibility of a Liberal majority victory.

This was not merely an anomalous result, outside of the confidence interval of the polling. It is was an outrageous anomaly – i.e. an impossible anomaly. It was a rigged election. For Canadian readers unimpressed with this single example, how about our last federal election (October 2015)?

As the campaign began, political polls showed the election as “a three-horse race” , too close to call. Toward the end of the election, support for the NDP faded somewhat, leading to polling agencies calling it a two-horse race , but still too-close-to-call.

The NDP, historically Canada’s most socially progressive party, had looked federally electable for the first time ever, buoyed by the Alberta win and a shift away from the far-left policies that had previously alienated voters.

But it has failed to distinguish itself from fellow center-left party the Liberals as the best alternative to the nine-year government of Conservative Prime Minster Stephen Harper.

As all Canadians know, the actual result was a Liberal landslide majority. Once again, we are not dealing with a mere “anomaly” outside the confidence interval. We are dealing with another outrageous anomaly, an election result which according to all the polls, from all the polling agencies, over the entire duration of the campaign, was not even possible.

Are we to believe that (at least in Canada) polling agencies have suddenly abandoned their scientific methodology, or become too inept to follow that methodology? Or, has the Canadian voter (for no reason) turned into a politically capricious beast, whose electoral whims have suddenly become completely unpredictable?

We don’t have to even bother asking the mainstream media for its opinion. We see these sorts of suspicious anomalies across all facets of our

1, 2  - View Full Page