Taiwan’s Stolen Election, Part II

Taiwan’s Stolen Election, Part II
The Magic of Numbers
Bevin Chu
March 29, 2004

Executive Summary: On March 20, 2004, 13 million ROC voters elected Lien Chan and James Soong president and vice-president of the Republic of China. Lien/Soong’s margin of victory was an estimated 1.3 million votes, or 10%. So why did the numbers posted by the Central Election Committee indicate that Lien/Soong lost by 29,000 votes, or 0.2%? Because the Central Election Committee was not the nation’s referee. It was Chen Shui-bian’s Re-election Committee.

The Magic Number

In my earlier op eds “Taiwan’s Potemkin Referendum” and “Taiwan’s Stolen Election,” I noted how Chen Shui-bian illegally “linked” his “defensive referenda” to his presidential re-election campaign. Unfortunately for Chen, his successful linkage of the two events is a sword that cuts both ways. It also reveals how the Chen-controlled Central Election Committee “adjusted” the final numbers in order to steal the election.

“Official” Chen administration-controlled Central Election Committee Figures

Voter Turnout: 13,251,719

Lien/Soong Election Ballots: 6,442,452
Chen/Lu Election Ballots: 6,471,970

“Spoiled Election Ballots”: 337,297 [The Magic Number — triple the number for the 2000 Presidential Election]

Referendum One Ballots: 7,452,340
Referendum Two Ballots: 7,444,148

The Presidential Election and Referendum One

A. Voters who cast presidential ballots, but didn’t cast Referendum One ballots: 5,799,379
B. Voters who cast Referendum One ballots, but who didn’t vote for Chen: 980,370

Add A to B:
5,799,379 + 980,370 = 6,779,749
Logically, these are Lien/Soong votes.

Subtract the Magic Number, the Central Election Committee’s “Spoiled Election Ballots”:
6,779,749 – 337,297 = 6,442,452
and one miraculously winds up with the “official” total for Lien/Soong!

If that wasn’t miraculous enough for you, let’s look at Referendum Two.

The Presidential Election and Referendum Two

C. Voters who cast presidential ballots, but didn’t cast Referendum Two ballots: 5,807,571
D. Voters who cast Referendum Two ballots, but who didn’t vote for Chen: 972,178

Add C to D:
5,807,571 + 972,178 = 6,779,749
Logically, these are also Lien/Soong votes. The same total again!

Again, subtract the Magic Number, the Central Election Committee’s “Spoiled Election Ballots”:
6,779,749 – 337,297 = 6,442,452
and again one winds up with the “official” total for Lien/Soong!

Will miracles never cease?

Taiwan’s Latest Product, Reverse Engineered Election Returns

Is this Magic of Numbers sheer coincidence? Are Pan Blue voters nothing more than conspiracy kooks? Or are you getting a clue as to what Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party mean when they wax poetic to the New York Times and the Washington Post about “the sanctity of democracy?”

Chen regime flunkies have been dismissing Lien Chan and James Soong as “sore losers?” But who lost? And who’s sore? So sore they would resort to election fraud to remain in office when they know full well the electorate has thrown them out?

Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo were dictators. The Two Chiangs however, like Singapore’s Lee Kuan-yew, were clean, uncorrupt dictators. Under their strict but honest rule, visionary economic reformers Li Kuo-ting and Chao Yao-tung brought forth Taiwan’s Economic Miracle, by which Taiwan became one of Asia’s Four Little Dragons.

Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian are also dictators. Lee and Chen however, are nothing like the Two Chiangs or Lee Kuan-yew. Lee and Chen, like Marcos and Suharto, are unclean, hopelessly corrupt dictators. Chen Shui-bian’s dictatorial misrule has brought forth another kind of miracle — Taiwan’s Electoral Miracle, in which a candidate losing by a 10% margin inexplicably winds up “winning” by a 0.2% margin.

You’ve heard of “reverse engineering?” Reverse engineering involves starting out knowing the result one wants to achieve, then working backwards to ensure that one achieves it. Introducing Taiwan’s latest reverse engineered product — Taiwan’s 2004 Presidential Election Returns.

An Open Letter to Jimmy Carter

An Open Letter to Jimmy Carter
Bevin Chu
March 29, 2004

The Carter Center
One Copenhill
453 Freedom Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30307

Dear President Carter:

Americans want democracy to prevail on Taiwan. For democracy to prevail on Taiwan however, the person inaugurated president on May 20, 2004 must be the person actually elected president by the 13 million voters who went to the polls on March 20, 2004.

Alas, the credibility of the Republic of China’s 2004 Presidential Election has been thoroughly undermined by rampant election fraud, including vote-stealing, ballot box stuffing, manipulation of vote totals, and even a stage-managed “Wag the Dog” assassination attempt.

That is why Taiwan desperately needs the Carter Center. Taiwan needs an honest broker. Taiwan needs the Carter Center to supervise a fresh, clean, credible presidential election that 23 million Chinese on Taiwan, 1.3 billion Chinese on China’s mainland, not to mention 290 million Americans can genuinely trust.

As a libertarian anti-interventionist, I categorically reject foreign interventionism. Unqualified respect for national sovereignty is an essential safeguard against neoimperialism and neocolonialism. As Private Citizen Carter however, you would be acting in an unofficial capacity, as a private arbitrator, not the Imperial President of a foreign hegemon.

If ever the world needed former American president James Earl Carter to be its political and moral conscience, now is the moment. Please help save Taiwan from the tragic fate that has befallen Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines, and other failed Asian states.

Sincerely,

Bevin Chu
A Concerned Citizen

Contact the Carter Center. Request emergency assistance. Force the Chen regime to hold a real, not a fraudulent election, this time under microscopic Carter Center supervision!
The Carter Center

Taiwan’s Stolen Election

Taiwan’s Stolen Election
Thinly Disguised Election Fraud
Bevin Chu
March 25, 2004

Executive Summary: On March 20, 2004, 13 million registered voters on Taiwan elected Lien Chan and James Soong president and vice-president of the Republic of China. Their margin of victory over incumbents Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu was an estimated 1.3 million votes, or 10%. So why did the numbers posted by the Central Election Committee indicate that Lien/Soong lost by 29,000 votes, or 0.2%? Simple. Because the Central Election Committee had long ceased being a referee. It was a player. It was the government’s star quarterback, its Secret Weapon. Central Election Committee Members of conscience such as former legislator Wang Ching-feng had resigned in disgust the month before, because they saw what Chen was doing to the Central Election Committee, transforming it into Chen Shui-bian’s Reelection Committee.

Referendum/Election Linkage

Consider this common sense, shorthand way of making some sense of the final result.

Both referenda failed because 55% of the voters who went to the polling stations on election day boycotted them. Only 45% of the voters who went to the polling stations on election day obtained referenda ballots.

What does this fact mean to the Central Election Committee’s “official version” of the presidential vote outcome?

It means the Central Election Committee’s presidential vote tallies were a lie.

As everyone, Blue (KMT), Yellow (NP), Orange (PFP), Green (DPP), and Purple (“Naderite”) knows, A-Bian’s media campaign explicitly bound voting Yes! on the referenda to voting 1 in the presidential election. It was part and parcel of his reelection strategy. He was determined to exploit antipathy for Beijing to boost his reelection prospects.

Pan Green voters were instructed to vote “100,” meaning for president vote 1, for referendum one vote YES, and for referendum two, vote YES.

Pan Blue supporters responded with their own, mirror image binding of the referenda and election. The Pan Blue catechism, which rhymes in Chinese and was memorized by all Pan Blue voters was “For president vote 2! Boycott the referendum!”

Chen’s heavy-handed publicity campaign polarized the voters exactly as he intended. None of the above is disputed by anyone across the ROC political spectrum.

Election Day

On election day, 55% of the voters — Pan Blue voters, obtained presidential ballots, stamped the 2 box for Lien/Soong, then walked out the door, boycotting both referenda.

Conversely, 45% of the voters — Pan Green voters, obtained presidential ballots, stamped the 1 box for Chen/Lu, obtained both referenda ballots, stamped the Yes boxes in order to say “Yes! Taiwan.”

So the obvious question staring everyone in the face, which has somehow eluded the notice of the international media is,

How did the 55% majority of Lien/Soong votes suddenly become a 48.6% minority of votes!?

And conversely, how did the 45% minority of Chen/Lu votes suddenly become a 48.8% winning plurality of votes!?

Furthermore, even some of those who took part in the referenda probably did so under duress. They felt pressured to take part in the referenda because local voting booths were staffed by people they knew, who might leak their failure to take part in the referenda to their superiors.

In principle this cuts both ways. In practice, the DPP is the ruling party and controls the machinery of government. Pan Blue public servants in particular might lose their rice bowls if they refused to at least go through the motions. These voters in the privacy of the voting booth stamped the NO box on the two referenda after stamping the 2 box for Lien/Soong on the presidential ballots.

Among those who did not boycott the referendum, 20% voted NO. Did these voters vote for Chen/Lu or did they vote for Lien/Soong? You tell me.

The TVBS/Mitofsky Exit Poll

Need more common sense, off-hand, rule of thumb corroboration of flagrant, bare-faced, shameless election fraud?

TVBS, one of Taiwan’s largest cable TV companies, has a solid record for accuracy with its telephone polls. The TVBS 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll was conducted in association with America’s largest exit polling company, Mitofsky International. The poll, drawing from a sample of 16,500 voters, with a margin of error of under 1%, revealed that Lien/Soong was leading Chen/Lu by approximately 6% just before the Chen administration “suggested” that TVBS discontinue announcing exit poll results.

Update: The TVBS/Mitofsky Exit Poll results were eventually posted. [traditional Chinese]

The internationally respected Gallup Market Survey Corp., aka Gallup Poll, showed Lien/Soong consistently in the lead right up to election day. One poll had Lien/Soong leading by 14%.

The Secret National Security Bureau Poll

The National Security Bureau or NSB is the Republic of China’s counterpart to America’s FBI. Secret NSB polling data is known for its accuracy. Just before election day the results of a secret NSB poll leaked out. Lien/Soong was leading Chen/Lu by 1.2 million votes.

The Professional Oddsmakers

Professional oddsmakers on Taiwan, i.e. “bookies,” had Lien/Soong widening the gap between themselves and Chen/Lu right up to election day. Lien/Soong were slated to win by a margin of 600,000 to 1 million votes.

Annette Lu, Prophetess of the Polls

Following the enormously successful 3,000,000 strong Pan Blue organized “Change Presidents, Save Taiwan!” Rally/March of March 13, Annette Lu should have been worried sick. Instead she appeared before the media and smugly predicted “a DPP victory of 20,000 to 30,000 votes?”

Why was she so confident, and in retrospect, so “accurate?”

Could it be because she knew in advance the ostensibly neutral Central Election Committee was planning to “correct” the final results by exactly that much? Could it be 29,000 votes was the margin Chen figured he could get away with claiming, once he and Lu finished acting out their phony “Wag the Dog” assassination attempt, so 29,000 it would be?

Deja Vu, All Over Again

Two friends from the Philippines shared something with me that has been swirling around in my head. They told me they experienced an uncanny sense of deja vu, or as Yogi Berra quipped, “deja vu, all over again.” They, along with millions of others on Taiwan, watched the election returns on Saturday night. When the numbers for the opposition, clearly set to win by a comfortable margin, suddenly stopped climbing, their words to each other were “Doesn’t this look awfully familiar?” Upon which they broke out laughing. They had seen it all before in their native Philippines. They had “been there, done that.” They recognized flagrant, thinly-disguised election fraud when they saw it. They said we were innocent virgins on Taiwan.

Is that all? Hardly. Stay tuned for more.