March 1, 2011, Signal Hill City Election for City Council

 After examining the statistics and doing the math, we found some very interesting facts on the 2011 Signal Hill election. This election had the lowest voter turn out at the polls in the history of Signal Hill elections with the exception when Hansen and Forester ran unopposed in 2003. There’s a difference of 21 polling votes. However, this election had the largest voter turn out in the absentee since 1992 where we found massive vote registration fraud. In 376 polling ballots, Forester had taken 25 votes over Simmons. In 610 absentee ballots, Forester had taken 115 votes over Simmons. In every 15 votes cast at the polls, Forester took one vote over Simmons. In every 5 and a half votes cast by absentee, Forester took one vote over Simmons. Nearly three times as many absentee ballots had cast a vote for Forester then polling ballots and 82% of Forester’s lead over Simmons was cast by absentee. In the 2009 election, there were a total of 416 polling ballots and a total of 495 absentee ballots. In the 2007 election, there were a total of 413 polling ballots and a total of 458 absentee ballots. In 2011, with considerably less polling ballots then the last two elections, there were 115 more absentee ballots in 2011, then the 2009 election and 152 more absentee ballots then the 2007 election. We also found about 150 new registered voters in Signal Hill that are unaccounted for in the city’s population. The 2011 election raises hard question and this election definitely needs to be investigated.

The 376 Polling Ballots produced 38.1% of the vote with a 6.7% Voter Turn Out. The 610 Absentee Ballots produced 61.9% of the vote with a 10.9% Voter Turn Out. There were 986 Ballots Total with a 17.6% Voter Turn Out over all.      

 The polling Vote for Precincts 1 and 2, was cast at the Community Center Polling Place from 89 ballots with a 1.6% voter turn out and 8.8% of the entire vote.

Polling Vote                           [H’s Lead]              [S’s Lead]
                                                                                                                                                                                      Hansen    : 59 = 40.4%                0                                  0

Simmons : 47 = 32.1%               12                                 0

Forester  : 40 = 27.3%               19                                [7]

                   146 = 23.5% of the Polling Vote                     .

At the Community Center, Simmons is leading Forester with 7 votes. This polling place shows no sign of ballot tampering.

In the absentee vote for precincts 1 and 2, 162 ballots were cast with a 2.9% voter turn out with 15.2% of the entire vote.

Absentee Vote                       [H’s Lead]                  [F’s Lead]

Hansen     : 101 = 40.0%              0                                     0

Forester   : 90 = 35.7%                11                                   0

Simmoms : 61 = 24.2%                40                               [29]

Total:         252 = 24.3% of the Absentee Vote                   .

At this point, Hansen has 160 votes, Forester has 130 votes and Simmons has 108 votes in 24% of the total vote.

In 89 polling ballots, Simmons is leading Forester with 7 votes. In 162 absentee ballots, Forester takes 29 votes over Simmons. Forester is now leading Simmons by 22 votes. For every 20.8 votes cast at the polls, Simmons took one vote over Forester. In every 8.6 votes cast by absentee, Forester took one vote over Simmons. Well over twice as many absentee ballots were casting votes for Forester then polling ballots. This is absolutely ridiculous, there is no reason the absentee voters would vote any difference then polling voters from the same neighborhoods. 

                                                             Ballot Average

          Percentage of ballots casting votes for a particular candidate

                                       Polling                         Absentee                       Plus or Minus

Hansen    :                   66.2%                             62.3%                             Minus 3.8% 

Forester  :                [{44.9%}]                      [{55.5%}]                        [Plus 10.6%] 

Simmons :               [{52.8%}]                       [{37.6%}]                     [Minus 15.2%] 

   The plus or minus compares the polling vote to the absentee vote which would remain consistent with each other regardless of the number of ballots cast. This is evident in Hansen’s average. However, in Forester and Simmons’ average, we find the exact opposite. Forester did extremely well in the absentee and Simmons did extremely poor. This points directly at ballot tampering and voter registration fraud.

The Polling Vote for Precincts 3,4 and 6,  cast at the First Family Church Polling Place, produced 179 ballots with a 3.2% voter turn out and 17.8% of the entire vote. 

  Polling Vote                          [H’s Lead]                [F’s Lead]

Hansen : 116 = 39.3%                  0                                    0

Forester : 100 = 33.8%               16                                   0

Simmons : 79 = 26.7%                37                             [{21}]

                     295 = 47.5% of the Polling Vote                     .

At this polling place, Hansen’s polling average dropped 1.1% or about 3 missing votes, Forester’s polling average increased 6.5% or about 19 extra votes and Simmons’s polling average dropped 5.4% or about 16 missing votes. With the exception of Hansen, these are huge numbers with such a low voter turn out. This points at ballot tampering and voter registration fraud.

The Absentee Vote for Precincts 3,4 and 6, produced 284 ballots with a 5% voter turn out and 29.8% of the entire vote. 

Absentee Vote                     [H’s Lead]                    [F’s Lead]

Hansen : 200 = 40.4%              0                                      0

Forester : 162 = 32.7%           38                                     0

Simmons : 133 = 26.8%          67                                 {29}

                      495 = 47.7% of the Absentee Vote .             .

At this point, Hansen has 476 votes, Forester has 392 votes and Simmons has 320 votes in 71.6% of the total vote. Hansen is leading Forester with a 84 votes. Forester is leading Simmons with 72 votes.

In the absentee for precincts 3, 4 and 6, Hansen’s absentee average increased four tenth of one percent, Forester’s average dropped 3% and Simmons’s average increased 2.6%. We find little change in the absentee for the first five precincts. However, Forester is now leading Simmons with 14 polling votes and 58 absentee votes. Forester has taken FOUR times as many absentee votes over Simmons as polling votes in 268 polling ballots and 446 absentee ballots all cast from the same neighborhoods.

At the Willow Ridge polling place for precinct 5, 108 polling ballots were cast with a 1.9% voter turn out with 10.8% of the entire vote.

Polling Vote                              [H’s Lead]               [F’s Lead]

Hansen   : 69 = 38.3%                     0                                  0

Forester  : 61 = 33.8%                     8                                  0                                                                                                                                                                         Simmons:  50 = 27.7%                   19                             {11}

                    180 = 28.9% of Polling Vote                               .

Forester finished with a total of 25 polling votes over Simmons.

In the absentee vote for precinct 5, 164 ballots were cast with a 2.9% voter turn out and the remaining 9.8% of the entire vote.

Absentee vote                             F’s Lead                  H’s Lead

Hansen :  115 = 39.6%                   [1]                                0

Forester : 116 = 40.0%                    0                                  0

Simmons :  59 = 20.3%                [57]                              56 

                      290 = 27.9% of Absentee Vote                        .

Hansen finished with 660 votes, Forester finished with 569 votes and Simmons finished with 429 votes. Hansen was leading Forester with 91 votes. Forester was leading Simmons with 140 votes.

In the polling vote for precinct 5, 56.4% of the ballots contained a vote for Forester. Forester takes 11 votes over Simmons in 108 ballots. In the absentee vote for precinct 5, 70.7% of the ballots contained a vote for Forester. Forester took 57 votes over Simmons in 164 ballots. Forester took FIVE times as many absentee votes over Simmons as polling votes with only a 56 ballots difference between the polls and the absentee. In 72% of the absentee vote, Forester is leading Simmons with 58 votes. In the remaining 28% of the absentee vote cast at precinct 5, Forester’s lead over Simmons doubled to 115 vote. This is obvious fraud do to Voter Registration Fraud and it’s also obvious that polling ballots are missing from the count. In fact, Signal Hill has a history of  ballots missing from the count. A 2007 election document, shows 6 absentee ballots were missing from the count. This accounts for the extremely low voter turn out at the polls. However, this election was literally bombarded with absentee ballots for Forester, which accounts for the huge voter turn out in the absentee.

    In 2010, according to the California Dept. of Finance, the population in Signal Hill increased by 76 people. In 2009, the population increased by 224 people. This is exactly 300 more people in Signal Hill in this two year period. According to City Election Documents, the number of registered voters in Signal Hill increased by exactly 300 people after the 2009 election in March until the 2011 election in March. Only 48.6% of the population in Signal Hill is registered to vote. This leaves about 150 new registered voters that are unaccounted for in the city’s population and this points directly at voter registration fraud.

However, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, at the end of 2010, the population in Signal Hill was only 11,016 people. According to the California Dept. of Finance, at the end of 2010, the population in Signal Hill was 11,465 people. This shows a difference of 449 extra or missing people. The U.S. Census Bureau counts the population every 10 years. The California Dept. of Finance counts the population every year. The city’s web site first displayed the number, 11,465 for population but then change the number to 11,016 for population a few mouths after the election, so take your pick.
                                                                                                                                                             The polling vote cast at the Community Center is the only vote that shows no sign of fraud. By using the candidates average at the Center, we can estimate the candidate’s finial tally according to the Law of averages. This is only a measuring tool and is not met to be exact. Example: Hansen, 1,658 votes total, times 40.4% equals 669 votes, using the % key on a calculator.

Community Center         Predicted Tally        [H’s lead]       [S’s lead]      
                                                                                                                                                                                          Hansen   : 59 = 40.4%   = {669 Votes}                      0                         0
                                                                                                                                                                                        Simmons :47 = 32.1%  = {532 Votes}                    137                       0
                                                                                                                                                     Forester : 40 = 27.3%   =  {452 Votes}                     217                  [{80}]

                   146 Vote             1,653 = 99.7% of the Finial Vote                        .

Predicted Tally          Official Tally                   Prediction Results

Hansen : 669     Minus     660     Equals               9 Missing Votes

Simmons : 532  Minus     429     Equals          103 Missing Votes

Forester : 569    Minus     452     Equals          117 Extra Votes

.                                              1,658 Votes Total

Because Hansen’s average remained consistent through out the election and shows no sign of tampering, Hansen’s prediction is accurate with in 9 votes. However, Simmons and Forester’s prediction show a huge discrepancy. There is no doubt this election was fixed through ballot tampering and voter registration fraud.

By all right, Simmons should have easily won this election in first place. During Simmons campaign, he uncovered numerous hidden facts from the public and Hansen and Forester were caught telling lie after lie to cover their ass. In the end, both Hansen and Forester ended up smelling like fish. As a result, Simmons gained huge support from the voter and hundreds of visitor logged on to his campaign blog every day to stay informed and express their opinions. Matt Simmons knocked on every door in the city, and according to Simmons, not one person had any thing nice to say about Forester, Hansen didn’t do much better. 

PLEASE leave a comment and express your opinion. Good or bad, we would like to hear from you.

A cope of the election document showing the candidate’s vote by precinct and absentee are available by Email at fraud3607@yahoo.com or ccapcsh@yahoo.com

Get Rid of the Problum

Signal Hill is a tiny town infested with big city corruption. With only 2.2 square miles of land and a population of just over 11,000, only several hundred register voters actually vote in city elections. This creates the perfect set up for election fraud. With such a low voter turn out, it’s simple and quick to fix the ballots.

When times where good in the 1990’s, there where huge profits to be made in the new housing development. During the 1990′s, 1,400 new homes were built in the city.  The average cost for a new home on the hill was $750,000 dollars according to the real-estate industry. If we only put the cost at $650,000 dollars for 1,400 new homes, that’s $910,000,000 million dollars in new housing. This created the perfect motive to remain in office through election fraud and this is exactly what’s happening in Signal Hill. The City Council was working for the developers, and everybody was making money. This was confirmed when the Council waived all of the Environmental impact fees for the developers. The developers saved Millions on Millions dollars and the city lost Millions on Millions dollars. This completely stinks to high Heaven with kick back money. Regardless of the Council’s excuse, waving the fee was given before they ever broke ground. This is why the Council installed their fee waving policy in the first place and this is why the developer’s money put the majority of Council members in office.     

 Right now the city is barely hanging on by it’s fingernails but will soon fall into bankruptcy. If the city cuts payroll, pensions and lays off a large number of city employees to dramatically cut overhead, this will only be a solution for bankruptcy. The people of Signal Hill need to resolve the real problem which is the present administration at City Hall, who lie, cheat and steal to maintain control of the city which started back in 1992. It was the City Council who created this mess in the first place and the Council is still spending city money like water and the top city officials are still making outrages salaries.                                                                         

     That this city needs is lot more people in the city that are willing to stand up and be counted. We are not powerless, and there is a solution, if the people of Signal Hill would untie and organize, and because we will never beat them at the polls because they cheat, we need to recall all seven elected officials, which are, the five Council members, the City Clerk and the City Treasurer, and then demand the resignation of the City Attorney and both City Managers. We could then start over with a clean slate and elect the people we want in office with a full time City Attorney and only one City Manager both paid reasonable salaries.

All the top ten city officials are at least dirty but nearly all are filthy dirty. They have pulled every dirty trick in the book of politics and only the people of Signal Hill can do anything about it, otherwise, kiss Signal Hill goodbye and say hello to Long Beach.

 





         

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s