**
Did
Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa?**

The
Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses

**
By
John V. Walsh**

February 08, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- Hillary Clinton “won” the Iowa caucuses,
in part because of 6 coin tosses all of
which she won! Six precincts, at least,
ended up with a dead tie between the two
candidates. The tie was broken and a winner
declared based on a coin toss in each case.

What
are the odds of one of two candidates
winning all six coin tosses if the outcomes
are random, that is, if the tosses are fair,
unbiased and with honest coins?

The
calculation is so simple that a schoolboy or
schoolgirl can do it. The formula is simply
1/2 raised to the power of 6 – that is, 1/2
taken six times and multiplied.

The
probability of winning all six tosses by
chance alone is 1/64. That is 0.016 or 1.6
in 100 or 1.6%. Not even 2%! In many areas
of science including many areas of biology,
one must demonstrate that the result of
one’s experiments is unlikely to happen by
chance alone. If the probability of getting
the results by chance alone is less than
less than 5%, the result reported is
considered to be “significant,’ that is, not
likely to be a chance finding. Such a result
is publishable in highly respected journals.

Since
the probability of the outcome in Iowa was
1.6%, it is quite unlikely, highly
improbable that the coin tosses resulted
from chance and were honest. And if the
results did not occur by chance alone, then
the coin tosses were manipulated, fixed! Why
has no one in the mainstream media looked
into this?

It is
not unusual for results of an election to be
questioned based on what the facts of the
matter really are. For example some may
claim that voting machines are rigged but
others will say no. However, everyone agrees
on the fact of the six coin tosses, and the
simple calculation above is based on the
fundamental laws of probability, i.e.,
counting. That gives the conclusion that the
results were rigged very strong standing. At
the very least, the probabilities demand a
thorough investigation.

A good
scientist would, however, not rest with
simply one set of results that satisfied the
probability criteria outlined above. He or
she would look for other observations that
would shore up the conclusion and make it
more convincing. Similarly we may ask
whether there were other indications of
cheating in the Iowa Dem primary. And indeed
there were. As Justin Raimondo of
Antiwar.com pointed out in his essay, “__The
Establishment’s Last Stand__,”
Democratic results went missing from nearly
100 precincts, which accounted
__
for 5% of the vote__
according to the Sanders campaign. That 5%
was more than enough to hand the race to
Sanders. This led the Sanders to lament that
__
the real results may never be known.__
And we should note that
__
ballots have gone missing before in Iow__a,
notably in the 2012 Republican caucuses
where Mitt Romney was falsely declared the
winner.

Is it
not strange that Hillary was so very lucky?
It was very clear going into the polling
that Sanders and Clinton were in a dead
heat. Might we conclude that she and her
supporters anticipating a tie in some
precincts were prepared for a coin toss or
to disappear some ballots, the latter having
happened before in Iowa. Is Hillary’s
reputation for honesty so sterling that we
cannot possibly suspect that? You can answer
that for yourself, dear reader.

But I
will give you odds that Bernie won.

*
John
V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com*