Why does the video have to be so long though? Can't he condense everything into a couple minutes?

I normally don't, as I've already said.

Sure, I know that.

So in the national election in 2008 when over 129 million voted, you're telling me that they could know the results from interviewing just over 6,000 people? And at the very moment the polls close? That is absurd.

The important thing in any poll is its margin of error, and the method of sampling employed. It goes without saying that the more persons polled relative to the persons considered, the more accurate the estimate is, but do you, on the other hand, think that, say, any marketing research company, which is looking for nationwide trends across 300 million people interviews each one or even a few million people?

No, they also make estimates to the closest measure based on the responses of a few ten thousand people. You'd have to compare the final results to the projected results to see what percentage they were off by, and I'll bet there would be at least some divergence.

Funny how most people who have commented on this haven't really watched much of the video.

Well, I tried, but Dimond's voice has a soporific effect, if you know what I mean. Besides it seemed to me from the other comments that the major point of the video was the above, and was flawed, so why go further?

Just to pick up on the statistical commentary. Any kind of statistical analysis of a vote is fraught with bias and confounding. Basically a waste of time and should only be treated a source of disinformation.

In any case, elections do not really need to be rigged. If you come from a background that is at odds with the powers-that-be, (say for example you're a traditional Catholic who decides to run for office) you have zero chance of getting even to the first debate.

In other English speaking countries it is the same. Look at the profiles of the members of parliament in your country and dig a little. They are likely all to be members of a service club (Rotary, Lions, Apex, whatever), directly members of a masonic lodge, or some other front organization such as the Mormons. I could imagine that a member of Opus Dei might run for office also, as they are no less under the thumb.  But if you aren't, you can't. Go ahead and try, prove me wrong - I'd be delighted!

Politics today is like the British police force in the early 1900's - all masons.