11.20.06 1 in 76 BILLION: Odds of 5.1% Discrepancy in Dem House Vote vs. Generic Poll —TruthIsAll
11.29.06 Electionline.org gives midterms mixed grades; e-voting failures 'plentiful' —Paul McNamara, Networkworld.com
12.05.06 TGDC Resolution # 06-06...passed unanimously —TGDC, upon report prepared by the Security and Transparency Subcommitee of the TGDC in conjunction with NIST staff

"The TGDC has considered current threats to voting systems and, at this time, finds that security concerns do not warrant replacing deployed voting systems where EAC Best Practices are used."

12.07.06 Yet Another Stolen Election? —Unofficial Results In Seventeen Ohio Counties Cannot Be Right —Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

12.08.06 Reconciling 2006 Discrepancies: Generic 120-Poll Trend vs 7:07pm and Final Exit Polls —TruthIsAll

01.01.07 (To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
¹ DREs with problems were identified as one of these 11: Sequoia Advantage and Edge (all models); Diebold DREs
(all models); Hart InterCivic eSlate; Microvote Infinity and M464; ES&S iVotronic (all models); Unilect Patriot;
Danaher Shouptronic 1242; AVS WINVote; VTI VoteWare. No problems were reported for the Avante Vote-Trakker
(used in NY).
² Precinct Scanners with problems were identified as one of these 6: Diebold AccuVote OS (all models); ES&S M-
100 and InkaVote; Optech 3P Eagle; HartInterCivic eScan and BallotNow; Sequoia Insight. Two types of central
count scanners malfunctioned: Optech 400C and ES&S 650.
³ EBMs with problems were AutoMARK (27 states), InkaVote (CA, MO). No problems were reported for the Populex
(NY and WI). …
Many polling places couldn’t open on time because of machine failures, and complex procedures often left pollworkers frustrated and reluctant to serve again. Election directors were often forced to rely on voting equipment vendors to set up the election, administer it, and tally the votes because it was too complicated for their personnel to handle. Others blamed themselves for not following the poorly documented, non-intuitive procedures required to collect and tally the votes.

After the polls closed, poll workers and election officials struggled with a myriad of reporting problems. Many couldn’t retrieve data from memory cards or couldn’t get the tally software to combine totals from different computerized systems, while others couldn’t figure out why the software was subtracting votes instead of adding them, or adding them two and three times instead of only once; couldn’t determine for sure whether the first set of results was correct, or the second set, or the third; couldn’t explain why one out of every six voters didn’t have an electronic vote recorded for a hotly contested race; or why the machines recorded more ballots than the number of voters who signed in to vote.

Often hidden from public view, equipment malfunctions such as these have normally been exposed only when they are severe enough to attract media coverage. Reports from Pollworkers for Democracy and voters provided additional insight into the extent of these problems. The frequency of reports of difficulties retrieving results even casts doubt on the accuracy of the certified results in affected areas, particularly since it is reasonable to assume that many such retrieval problems were never reported.

An increasing number of voters, poll workers, and election officials are finding the election process to be more difficult, not easier, and confidence in the final tallies has been undermined. While our source material is neither a complete list of problems nor even a representative sampling, the number of incidents and the broad range of problems reported is indicative of the widespread failure of electronic voting systems across the country and how this failure affected the experience of voters on November 7, 2006.
…E-Voting Failures in the 2006 Mid-Term Election —A sampling of problems across the nation — A report prepared by VotersUnite.Org, VoteTrustUSA, Voter Action, Pollworkers for Democracy

 Three  Preliminary  "Non-Matched"  Exit Polls of Interviewed-Voters'  Votes 
vs. A  Final Exit Poll  " Forced to Match"  the  Recorded  " (To scroll  use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area to focus)


[Click for Full Article] Count"  of 

See  e-Vote Hacking  for videos of hacks of the two main types of electronic "voting machines":

I. paper-fed     Optical Scanner   vote-mark Counting computer

Programmable

A paper format...but once fed and disappearing inside a programmable "blackbox"
Optical Scanner, ballot vote-marks can be counted differently from the
INTENDED VOTE

See video of the Harry Hursti Hack of a Diebold Optical Scanner
for programmed mis-counting that SWITCHES VOTES

Paul Lehto: By what right or authority did my right to watch the counting of the vote get taken away?

II. paper-less    DRE    vote-mark Direct-Recording-and-Counting computer

Programmable

"Touch Screen"
Paper-less entry of vote-marks,
No machine-independent record of vote-marks entered,
No means to verify the recording and/or counting of vote-marks as the
INTENDED VOTE

See the Princeton Hack video for programmed, untraceable
mis-recording-&-counting of vote-marks

(vote-marks entered for G. Washington counted as votes for Benedict Arnold)

"NIST's recommendation to the STS
is that the DRE in practical terms
cannot be made secure."

ABSTRACT: In the Nov 7, 2006 election in Ohio, there were:

• 350,669 more ballots cast than the number of votes counted for US Senator
• In 16 counties        : 268,987 uncounted votes, or 19.46 % of ballots cast
  In 71 other counties:  82,957 uncounted votes, or   2.99 % of ballots cast
  
  This indicates that 227,000 votes may have been lost by the touch screen voting machines (DRE), which were utilized in all 17 of the suspect counties.
  
  Source:  2006 Landslide Denied   12.07.06  Yet Another Stolen Election?

Vote-Marks 

2004 Exit Polls background, from excerpts of "An Open Letter to Salon's Farhad Manjoo" by TruthIsAll :

THE  EXIT  POLLS  WE  WERE  NOT  SUPPOSED  TO  SEE Many voters went to sleep on election day assuming Kerry won. Jonathan Simon stayed up long enough to spot and download the 12:22am state exit polls. Luckily for us, The Washington Post chose not to delete the corresponding National Exit Poll ( 13047 respondents at 12:22am) which showed Kerry the 51-48% winner. We also have the earlier NEP timelines at 4pm ( 8349 respondents) and 7:30pm ( 11027 respondents) which established the 51-48% Kerry trend. He held the lead until the Final National Exit Poll ( 13660 respondents), when the numbers magically reverted to a 51-48% Bush win. The numbers (weights and vote shares) were revised to match the vote. click to open PDF On Election Day, exit polls … by six leading news organizations showed Kerry winning handily in four crucial states: Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Ohio. Since the poll results were beyond the margin of error, Bush's odds of victory were less than one in 450,000 But when the ballots were tallied, the four states "flipped" to Bush, depriving Kerry of fifty-seven electoral votes — and the White House. click to read Timeline shows the midnight "forcing" of exit polls to the "count" of  vote-marks from: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?—RFK Jr. for  Rolling Stone, June 2006 THE  IMPOSSIBLE  FINAL  EXIT  POLL According to the ( To scroll  use scrollwheel or arrow keypad— if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus ) Final National Exit poll, 43% of the 122.3 million who voted in 2004 were Bush 2000 voters and 37% were Gore voters. These weightings in and of themselves debunk rBr. Now 43% of 122.3 is 52.57 million. And since Bush only got 50.5mm votes in 2000, of whom about 1.75mm died, only 48.7mm (39.8%) could have returned to vote in 2004, so the 43% Final NEP weighting was mathematically impossible.  The Bush vote was inflated by 4 million . I have just shown that the Final Poll at 1:25pm on Nov 3 is bogus, and that the earlier 12:22am numbers are close to the truth. Here's proof that the Final NEP weights are impossible. Here's the National Exit Poll Timeline.  Notice the smooth trend in the first three timelines  (4pm, 7:38pm, 12:22am). Compare it to the discontinuous Bush jump in ALL the demographic weights and/or vote shares in the Final NEP. ... THE  NEP  TIMELINE — A  TRAGEDY  IN  FOUR  ACTS 11.02.04   3:59pm   8349 respondents: Kerry 51 - Bush 48 11.02.04   7:33pm  11027 respondents: Kerry 51 - Bush 48 11.03.04  12:22am  13047 respondents: Kerry 51 - Bush 48 11.03.04   1:25pm  13660 respondents: Kerry 48 - Bush 51 11.04.04 "... a server at Edison/Mitofsky malfunctioned shortly before 11 p.m. The glitch prevented access to any exit poll results until technicians got a backup system operational at 1:33 a.m. yesterday. The crash occurred barely minutes before the consortium was to update its exit polling with the results of later interviewing that found Bush with a one-point lead. Instead, journalists were left relying on preliminary exit poll results released at 8:15 p.m., which still showed Kerry ahead by three percentage points. It was only after the polls had closed in most states and the vote count  was well underway  click for link to a state-by-state    Regional Analysis State Exit Polls of Voters   vs.   Vote "Count" Discrepancies EASTERN US:    All 21 states (and DC) deviated to Bush by an average of 2.80% the odds:  1 in 4.2 million    12 states deviated beyond the margin of error probability:  1 in 32 trillion    Ohio and Florida "flipped" from Kerry to Bush    in the East that it became clear that Bush was in a stronger position in several key battlegrounds, including Ohio, than early exit polls suggested."

• 11.04.04 To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe...—Part I—TruthIsAll
  
  11.15.04 To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe...—Part II—TruthIsAll
  12.28.04 To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe...—Part IIIb, IIIa, III—TruthIsAll
  03.23.05 To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe...—Part IV—TruthIsAll
• 11.04.04 Kerry Won —Greg Palast
• 11.04.04 Faun Otter: Vote Fraud - Exit Polls Vs Actuals —Alastair Thompson, “Scoop” Co-Editor
• 11.04.04 The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy —Thom Hartmann
• 11.05.04 Report Says Problems Led to Skewed Surveying Data —Jim Rutenberg, NYT
• 11.05.04 Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam —Michael Keefer, Centre for Research on Globalisation
• 11.06.04 Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked —Thom Hartmann
• 11.09.04 For DUers who wanted a summary of my posts... —TruthIsAll
• 11.10.04 Mathematical proof that TV network polling results are FRAUDULENT —Petrodollar Warfare
• 11.11.04 47 State Exit Poll Analysis Confirms Swing Anomaly —Jonathan Simon —Introduction by “Scoop” Co-Editor Alastair Thompson
• 11.12.04
  
     But then, in key state after key state, counts showed very different numbers than the polls predicted; and the differentials were all in the same direction. The first shaded column in Table 1.1 shows the differential between the major candidates’ predicted (exit poll) percentages of the vote; the next shaded column shows the differential between their tallied percentages of the vote. The final shaded column reveals the “shift.” In ten of the eleven consensus battleground states,⁵ the tallied margin [recorded vote count] differs from the predicted margin [unadjusted exit polls], and in every one, the shift favors Bush.
  
     The media have largely ignored this discrepancy (although the blogosphere has been abuzz), suggesting either that the polls were flawed, or that the differential was within normal sampling error, a statistical anomaly, or could otherwise be easily explained away. In this report, I examine the validity of exit poll data, sampling error, the likelihood of statistical anomaly, and other explanations thus far offered to explain this discrepancy.
  … (To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
  The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy Steven F. Freeman¹
     Most Americans who listened to radio or surfed the internet on election day this
  year sat down to watch the evening television coverage thinking John Kerry won
  the election. Exit polls showed him ahead in nearly every battleground state, in
  many cases by sizable margins. Although preelection day polls indicated the race
  dead even or Bush slightly ahead, two factors seemed to explain Kerry’s edge:
  turnout was very high, good news for Democrats,³ and, as in every US
  presidential election with an incumbent over the past quarter-century, undecided
  voters broke heavily toward the challenger.⁴ The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy —Steven F Freeman, Ph.D.  (Dec 29, 2004)

• 11.17.04 Complete US Exit Poll Data Confirms Net Suspicions — Full 51 State Early Exit Poll Data Released For The First Time —Alastair Thompson, “Scoop” Co-Editor
• 11.19.04 Working Paper: The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections —Michael Hout, Laura Mangels, Jennifer Carlson, Rachel Best —With the assistance of the UC Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team
• 11.20.04 How the Grinch stole the White House … again —Alan Waldman, Online Journal contributing writer
• 12.05.04 Evidence of Fraud in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election: A Reader —Michael Keefer, Centre for Research on Globalisation
• 12.06.04 Whistleblower Affidavit: Programmer Built Vote Rigging Prototype at Republican Congressman's Request! —Exclusive: BLOGGED By Brad ON 12/6/2004
• 12.13.04 Clint Curtis Testifies —claims Tom Feeney (former Jeb Bush running mate/now-Congressman, R-FL) hired him to prepare vote-rigging software —Video of testimony, December 13th, 2004 Congressional hearing in Columbus, Ohio
  UPDATES: Curtis/Feeney FL-24 Congressional Seat Challenge —The BradBlog
• 12.15.04 Proof of Ohio Election Fraud Exposed —includes affidavit of Sherole Eaton, Hocking County, OH, deputy director of elections—William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
• 12.19.04 EXIT POLLS: THE LATEST MYSTERY POLLSTER BLOG - AND MY COMMENTS —TruthIsAll
• 12.19.04 A "GLITCH". IT'S ALWAYS A "GLITCH" WHICH FAVORS THE REPUBS. A "GLITCH" —TruthIsAll
• 12.22.04 TV Networks Officially Refuse to Release Exit Poll Raw Data —Gary Beckwith, The Columbus Free Press
• 12.24.04 Kerry votes switched to Bush and ballots pre-punched for Bush —Dr. Werner Lange

• 12.28.04 The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won The Popular Vote? —An Examination of the Comparative Validity of Exit Poll and Vote Count Data —Jonathan D. Simon, JD and Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D.
• 01.05.05 Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio —Executive Summary —Full Report —Status Report, House Judiciary Comm Democratic Staff, Rep. John Conyers, Ranking
• 01.24.05 The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame Ohio —Michael Keefer, Centre for Research on Globalisation

 E/M  Non-Response Bias  Hypothesis-Testing ("rBr" Debunked) 

• 01.28.05 Summary
  The Edison/Mitofsky report confirms there were large differences between their exit polls and the official results
  of the 2004 presidential election — much more so than in previous elections (p 31). The [unadjusted] national exit poll
  indicated a 3 point victory for Kerry; whereas the ['forced'] official election results indicated that he lost by 2.5%,
  a difference of 5.5%.                                                                                                                    [ed: see  Exit Polls ]
  
  The Edison/Mitofsky report fails to substantiate their hypothesis that the difference between their exit polls and official
  election results should be explained by problems with the exit polls. They assert without supporting evidence that (p 4),
  “Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.” In fact, data included within
  the report suggest that the opposite might be true.
  
  Their analysis of the potential correlation of exit poll errors with voting machine type is incomplete and inadequate,
  and their report ignores the alternative hypothesis that the official election results could have been corrupted.
  …
  We invite all those who care about democratic processes in this country to join us in fully investigating and explaining what
  really happened in the 2004 Presidential election.
  Study of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies —Response to  Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004  Report — USCountVotes.org, contributors & supporters: Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D.; Kathy Dopp, MS, USCV-President; Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D.; Brian Joiner, Ph.D.; Frank Stenger, Ph.D.; Richard G. Sheehan, Ph.D.; Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D.; Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D.; Campbell B. Read, Ph.D.; Peer Reviewers
  02.12.05 BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS: Mitofsky's "Reluctant Bush Responder" Theory —TruthIsAll
  
  05.21.05 Patterns of Exit Poll Discrepancies - Working Paper —USCountVotes.org - National Election Data Archive
  07.05.05 It's a shutout: FRAUD 3 , rBr 0 —TruthIsAll
  07.09.05 EXIT POLL RESPONSE OPTIMIZER: KEY RESULTS —TruthIsAll
  10.16.05 CLINCHER III: EXIT POLL RESPONSE OPTIMIZER: KEY RESULTS —TruthIsAll
  "This analysis confirms the USCV simulation...Bye, bye rBr: ..."
  07.29.05 Response Optimizer analysis of State Exit Polls [DU post & comments] —[PI post & comments] —TruthIsAll
  09.08.05 The 2004 Presidential Election: Exit Poll Error or Vote Miscount? —USCountVotes.org - National Election Data Archive
  08.13.06 Exit poll non-responders: the income factor means it's rKr, not rBr... —TruthIsAll
  
  
• 02.15.05 A Corrupted Election —Despite what you may have heard, the exit polls were right —Steve Freeman & Josh Mitteldorf

• 03.17.05 (To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
  ...
  Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. - Temple University Statistics Dept
  Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
  Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics & Dir of Statistical Consulting (ret), Univ of Wisconsin
  Frank Stenger, PhD in mathematics - School of Computing, University of Utah
  Richard G. Sheehan, PhD - Dept of Finance, University of Notre Dame
  Elizabeth Liddle, MA - (UK) PhD candidate at the University of Nottingham
  Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. - Dept of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
  Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. - Dept of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
  Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Dept of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
  Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics - USCountVotes, President …
  
  They give odds of 10 million to one that the exit polls could be skewed the way they were skewed. So, it's not so much that Kerry won the exit polls (by 3%), or that the Edison-Mitofsky excuse for this (that Republicans were shy of the pollsters) is without foundation, or that USCountVotes found E/M data that completely contradicts this excuse (the exit poll was likely skewed to Bush if anyone) — it's that the high peaks for Bush in 7 to 50 states is virtually IMPOSSIBLE.
  ----------
  The 2004 election and its exit polls occurred IN A CONTEXT. You cannot divorce it from that context. That context included:
  
  
  
  • the TV networks CHANGING the onscreen exit poll data, alterering it to fit the official results, thus depriving Americans of this evidence of fraud and preventing early and rigorous investigation of the results
    
    
  • the election was non-transparent, unverifiable, and thus invalid on its face
    
    
  • Tom Delay and other BushCons deliberately blocked a paper trail requirement and other auditing provisions for electronic voting
    
    
  • the votes were tabulated by computers using secret, proprietary software, owned and controlled by major partisans of the Bush regime
    
    
  • Republican Secretaries of State in at least two states, Ohio and Florida, committed massive violations of the Voting Rights Act and other election laws, to suppress minority and other Democratic voters; there were 57,000 complaints to Congress about it; and virtually all machine malfunctions and vote suppression favored Bush and hurt Kerry
    
    
  • recent opinion polls show continued, widespread opposition to every major Bush domestic and foreign policy, in the 60% to 70% range
    
    
  • Dr. Freeman adds up Gore repeat voters, the blowout Dem success in new voter registration (Dem 57%, Rep 41%), and the big jump of Nader voters to Kerry, and concludes that Kerry had a margin of 4 to 8 million votes that just somehow disappeared on election day
    
    
  • this is what the exit polls are showing us — those disappeared Kerry votes
    
    
  • and the exit polls don't count voters whom Republican electon officials prevented from voting, with every manner of illegal activity and dirty tricks (novel registration rules, lost registrations, purges of black voters, lost absentee ballots, too few precincts, too few voting machines, disinformation on where to vote, etc., etc.); the exit polls only count voters who made it to the polling place.
    
  
  The exit polls represent one piece of the picture—a rather powerful one, since it is a method that is used worldwide to verify elections and check for fraud. It is particularly useful when the election is non-transparent and with strong evidence of partisan control of the results—as was the case with the 2004 election. But it is not the only evidence of fraud. For instance, what do you make of the numerous reports of touchscreens changing Kerry votes to Bush votes, and almost never the other way around. What are the odds of that happening by chance?
  
  At some point you have to look at INTENT. Was it the intent of the Bush regime to have an honest, transparent, verifiable election? And if the answer is "No"—and I think the evidence is overwhelming for that—then you have to ask, "What is the evidence for a wrong result?"
  
  And here it all is, STARTING with the exit polls.
  
  "...And here it all is, STARTING with the exit polls." —Peace Patriot
• 03.31.05 (To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
  Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies
  —U.S. Count Votes' National Election Data Archive Project —
  Ron Baiman, Ph.D.; Kathy Dopp, MS, USCV-President; Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D.;
  Brian Joiner, Ph.D.; Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D.; Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D.; Campbell B. Read, Ph.D.;
  Richard G. Sheehan, Ph.D.; Jonathan Simon, JD; Frank Stenger, Ph.D.;
  Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D.; Bruce O'Dell, USCV-VP
  
  [ Table of Contents,  Abstract & Excerpts - Click link above for full report (PDF) ]
  Table of Contents
  
  Introduction.................................................................................................................... 4      Importance of Exit Polls ................................................................................................ 4
  Background .................................................................................................................... 4
  ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................6
  1. Explanation #One - Random Error........................................................................6
     1. Definition of WPE — "Within Precinct Error"
        Chart: Difference between
                  Exit Polls  [of Voters on Nov 2, 2004] and
                  Official Results [the reported-and-recorded count of their Votes]
                  by state
  2. Explanation #Two - Exit Poll Error........................................................................7
     1. Exit Poll Science .............................................................................................7
        1. Best Practices Exit Poll Methodology involves three steps
        2. Were the Right Precincts Sampled?
        3. Were Voters Randomly Selected and Interviewed?
        4. Adjusting the Exit Polls using Reported Election Results
        5. The "Reluctant Bush Responder” (rBr) hypothesis
     2. Exit Poll Discrepancies Rise with Concentration of Bush Voters............................ 9
        1. Chart: Response to Exit Polls Slightly Higher in Republican Precincts
           The chart above was constructed from data within the E/M report (p. 37). This data bears directly on the plausibility of the report’s central hypothesis, and it goes in the wrong direction...
     3. Implausible Exit Poll Participation Patterns Are Needed to Satisfy E/M's data........ 11
        1. Implausible Patterns of Exit Poll Participation as a Proportion of Those
           Asked to Take the Polls Are Needed to Satisfy E/M's data........................ 13
        2. Very Implausible Patterns of Exit Poll Participation Are Required to
           Satisfy E/M's data in 80-100% Bush Precincts......................................... 14
        3. Even When Using Assumptions that Minimize the Differences between Bush and Kerry Response Rates, Participation Patterns Remain Implausible...... 15
     4. The Same Exit Polls More Accurately Projected the Senate Races ...................... 16
     5. Other Possible Reasons for Exit Poll Bias.......................................................... 17
  3. Explanation #Three - Inaccurate Election Results...............................................18
  4. Misleading Use of Adjusted Exit Poll Data ...........................................................19
  Summary ........................................................................................................................22
  Appendix A: Voter Response Rate Calculations..............................................................23
  Appendix B: WPE and Differential Partisan Response....................................................26
  Appendix C: Jonathan Simon Exit Poll Data ...................................................................28
  Appendix D: Calculation of National Exit Sample Odds..................................................30
  
  ABSTRACT
  
  What is the Main Cause of the Discrepancies between the Official Election Results and the Exit Polls?
  
  The exit pollster of record for the 2004 election was the Edison/Mitofsky¹ consortium. Their national poll results projected a Kerry victory by 3.0%, whereas the official count had Bush winning by 2.5%.² Several methods have been used to estimate the probability that the national exit poll results would be as different as they were from the national popular vote by random chance. These estimates range from 1 in 16.5 million to 1 in 1,240³. No matter how one calculates it, the discrepancy cannot be attributed to chance.
  
  Edison/Mitofsky disavowed the results of their own poll, saying that the data cannot be construed as evidence that the official vote count was corrupted, and hypothesized that Kerry voters were more amenable to completing the poll questionnaire than Bush voters.
  
  However, Edison/Mitofsky's own exit poll data does not support their theory that a higher exit poll response rate by Kerry voters accounted for the discrepancies between the exit polls and the presidential election results. Using Edison/Mitofsky’s data tables we demonstrate that the “reluctant Bush responder” hypothesis is implausible because it is inconsistent with the combination of high response rates and high discrepancy rates among the precincts with the highest percentage for Bush.
  
  There are Three Primary Explanations for the Discrepancies: …
  
  Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies —US Count Votes' National Election Data Archive Project —Ron Baiman, Ph.D.; Kathy Dopp, MS, USCV-President; Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D.; Brian Joiner, Ph.D.; Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D.; Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D.; Campbell B. Read, Ph.D.; Richard G. Sheehan, Ph.D.; Jonathan Simon, JD; Frank Stenger, Ph.D.; Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D.; Bruce O'Dell, USCV-VP
• 04.14.05 The silent scream of numbers — The 2004 election was stolen — will someone please tell the media? —Robert C. Koehler, Tribune Media Services

• 04.20.05 The Silence of the Scams: Psychological Resistance to Facing Election Fraud —Diane Perlman, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist

• 05.10.05 The Biggest Story of Our Lives —Jim Lampley
• 05.12.05 Ohio 2004: Ignoring the Canary —Rep. John Conyers
• 05.22.05 A non-statistician's view of the E-M exit poll controversy —Time for change
• 05.22.05 Many thanks, Time For Change! This summary is indeed outstanding. —Peace Patriot
• 05.25.05 Summary of the USCV/E-M and Liddle Debate —Ron Baiman
• 05.25.05 A "digest" of Ron's post —tommcintyre
• 05.25.05 Revisiting the Biggest Story of Our Lives —Jim Lampley
• 06.16.05 Introduction: Did George W. Bush steal America's 2004 election? —Bob Fitrakis
• 07.24.05 None Dare Call It Stolen: Ohio, the election, and America's servile press —Mark Crispin Miller
• 08.13.05 No Paper Trail Left Behind: The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election —Dennis Loo, Ph.D.
• 08.22.05 Bill, I don't think California voters are/were fickle. Here's why... —Peace Patriot
• 09.08.05 (To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
  The 2004 Presidential Election:  Exit Poll Error or Vote Miscount ?
  — USCountVotes.org - National Election Data Archive —
  Ron Baiman, Ph.D.; David Dodge, BSMME; Kathy Dopp, MS, USCV-President
  
  [ click link above to open full report (PDF) with references ]
  Contents & Excerpts
  
  PG  CONTENT
   1  Introduction
  The exit polling firm Edison/Mitofsky¹ (E/M), and USCV, agree that the historically unprecedented discrepancy between the exit polls and the reported vote count for the 2004 U.S. Presidential election cannot be a result of random sampling error.² This leaves either exit poll error or vote miscount as the only two possible explanations for the exit poll discrepancy.
  
  E/M has claimed that the exit poll discrepancy is exclusively a result of “within precinct error” (WPE)³, and that the entire WPE observed in 2004 could be explained by a hypothetical exit poll completion rate of 56% among Kerry voters and 50% among Bush voters (herein referred to as “the E/M hypothetical”).⁴ The E/M hypothetical was widely interpreted by the media and by USCV as a claim that the 2004 exit poll discrepancy was caused by a pervasive, and on average uniform, shortfall in Bush voter exit poll response relative to Kerry voter exit poll response that was dubbed the “reluctant Bush response” (rBr) hypothesis.⁵
  
  A recent clarification by E/M indicates that the “E/M hypothetical” should be interpreted as referring to hypothetical average (rather than constant average) partisan exit poll response rates.⁶ In this interpretation, average precinct partisan response rates may vary widely by reported precinct vote shares, yet all of the reported WPE could be explained by partisan response rates whose average across the sample is K=0.56 and B=.50.⁷ This interpretation of the “E/M hypothetical” does not depend on the “rBr hypothesis” of constant average partisan response rates which was shown by USCV to be inconsistent with the pattern of the exit poll discrepancy.⁸
  
  However, our analysis below shows that even if the “E/M hypothetical,” is interpreted as referring to average, rather than constant average, partisan exit poll response rates, it is inconsistent with the reported WPE data. ...
  ...
  Ten months after the election, no plausible explanation of the 2004 exit poll discrepancy, based on exit polling error, has been provided by E/M. The precinct level exit polling and official vote count data that would enable independent investigators to analyze the exit poll discrepancy has not been provided to the public. Perhaps an exit poll explanation for the discrepancy does exist. However, a cloud of suspicion is cast on the 2004 presidential election results because the possibility that a “vote miscounts” explanation is required to generate the reported exit poll discrepancies is still open. It is a matter of the utmost national importance that detailed precinct level exit polling and election data that would allow for investigation by independent analysts, such as USCV, be publicly released.¹¹
   3  Analysis of the Aggregate Exit Poll Data¹⁴
   6  The Signature of Exit Poll Response Bias
  What happens to exit poll within precinct error (WPE) patterns when there is a voter response bias? ...
  
  Graph 3 below compares (orange line) the actual data reported by Edison/Mitofsky versus (blue line) the simulated WPE patterns that would result from exit poll response bias of Bush and Kerry voters with means 50% and 56% that was hypothesized by Edison/Mitofsky and nicknamed the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) theory.
  
  Notice how the patterns differ on the leftmost side in high Bush vote precincts where WPE is much higher than expected.
  
   7  What Happened in Precincts where Bush Vote was Over 80%?
   8  Outlier Precincts in Mitofksy's Scatter-Plot
   9  Ohio Exit Polls Show Similar Unexplained Patterns of Discrepancies
  
   11  Conclusions
   12  Recommendations
  Few procedures are more important to the strength and health of U.S. democracy than credible and transparent, fair and free, elections. We appeal to our fellow citizens, the media, our courts, and our elected officials, to implement:
  • a thorough non-partisan investigation of the 2004 presidential election
  • full funding of the National Election Data Archive precinct level database
  • election equipment that permits access by non-specialist citizen election judges to recount
    voter verified paper ballots
  • routine 3%, randomly selected, independent audits of vote counts in all elections
  • transparent and publicly accessible exit polling
  • election administration by non-partisan public civil servants
  • non-proprietary open-source coding for all computerized election equipment
  • no wired or wireless network connections to any vote casting or counting equipment
  
  [ click link above to open full report (PDF) ]
  The 2004 Presidential Election: Exit Poll Error or Vote Miscount? —USCountVotes.org - National Election Data Archive —Ron Baiman, Ph.D.; David Dodge, BSMME; Kathy Dopp, MS, USCV-President
• 09.18.05 A conversation about exit polls... —TruthIsAll
• 10.09.05 It's very clear: Kerry's pre-election state/national and exit poll state/national —TruthIsAll

These are the PRE-ELECTION Polls. And they match the EXIT Polls           ... i.e., the Preliminary exit polls of Voters. Kerry won them ALL           ... but not the Final 'exit poll' which was — as usual —          'forced' to match the recorded 'count' of vote-marks.

10.20.05 (To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)

History of the Debate Surrounding the 2004 Presidential Election

[ Click link above to open full report (PDF) ]
PG  CONTENTS
 2   Kerry Wins Presidential Election according to Exit Polls (November 2, 2004)
 2   Pollsters Alter Exit Polls to be the Same as Election Results (November 3)
 4   Surprising Florida Election Results (November 3)
 5   Are "Theories of Fraud Easily Debunked"? (November 9)
 6   "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy" (November 10, updated January 5)
 6   Trying to Explain Surprising Florida Election Results (November 14)
 7   Bush Wins the Popular Vote: One in 959,000 Chance (December 28, updated January 2, 2005)
 7   New Mexico Election Data Reveals Vote Tampering (January 3)
 8   Irregular Touch-screen Election Results in Washington State Governor's Race (January 6)
11   Exit Pollsters' Explanation is "Bush Voters Respond Less" (January 19)
11   Precincts with Highest Bush Vote Responded More to Exit Polls (January 28)
12   Analysis of the Exit Poll Discrepancies (March 31)
13   Differential Non-response or Vote Miscount? (April 19, updated April 27)
14   "Vote Fraud Theorists Battle Over Plausibility" (April 24)
15   Scatter-plot of Exit Poll Discrepancies (May 14)
17   Exit Poll Error or Vote Miscount? (May 15, updated September 8)
17   Ohio Exit Polls: Does ESI Explain the Discrepancy? (June 6)
18   Carter-Baker Recommend Audits & No Early Release of Exit Polls (September)
19   U.S. EAC Voluntary Guidelines for Voting Equipment (as of September)
19   Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems
19   Freeman - Mitofsky Exit Poll Debate (October 14)
22   Mathematical Proof that ESI/Mitofsky Analyses Are Logically Invalid (October 31)
22   Ohio Exit Poll Discrepancy Is Consistent with Vote Miscount (2005)
22   Conclusion: Evidence of Vote Miscount in the 2004 Presidential Election
24   Recommendations: Public Election Data Monitoring and Independent Audits
26   Appendix A: Flaws in the Sekhon, Liddle, Lindeman, and O'Dell Arguments
26   Appendix B: "The 2004 Presidential Election: Exit Poll Error or Vote Miscount?

History of the Debate Surrounding the 2004 Presidential Election —ElectionArchive.org   Author: Kathy Dopp    Contributors: Ron Baiman, Jonathan Simon, Josh Mitteldorf, & Paul Lehto   Reviewers: Robert Klauber, Robert C. Koehler, & Jill Hacker

• 01.02.06 TruthIsAll: Plain English — “The Past is Prologue"- 1st Line Fraud Defense —autorank
  
• 01.05.06 The "Game": An implausible response to the challenge —TruthIsAll
  

• 12.21.05 Kerry Won!!! Statistical Tools Everyone Can Use + An Interview with TruthIsAll —Michael Collins
  
• 01.10.06 The Soon-to-be-Indicted Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio's Connection To Electoral Fraud —A BRAD BLOG EXPOSÉ: The dots begin to converge -- big time -- between Ney, former staffers turned Diebold lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, the ACVR, HAVA legislation, pay-offs and other top-level GOP operatives!—BLOGGED BY Brad on 1/10/2006
• 01.14.06

  (To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
  
  [ Click link for full post ]

  2004 Pre-election Monthly Polls — Kerry led in every month except Jan. & Sept.

                 Jan     Feb     Mar    April    May    June    July     Aug     Sept    Oct
  Mean
  Kerry         40.78   47.80   47.58   46.31   46.86   46.64   47.47   47.40   44.33   47.17
  Bush          51.56   46.10   44.83   45.62   44.71   45.71   45.20   45.40   48.28   46.89
  
  Projection
  UVA:75% to Kerry
  
  Kerry         45.78   51.63   52.52   51.62   52.43   51.63   52.22   52.05   49.13   50.88
  Bush          53.22   47.38   46.48   47.38   46.57   47.38   46.78   46.95   49.88   48.13
  Other          1.00    1.00    1.00    1.00    1.00    1.00    1.00    1.00    1.00    1.00
  
  2-party
  Kerry        46.53   52.38   53.27   52.37   53.18   52.38   52.97   52.80   49.88   51.63
  Bush          53.47   47.63   46.73   47.63   46.82   47.63   47.03   47.20   50.13   48.37
  
                     

  2004 Pre-election Monthly Polls. Kerry led in every month except Jan. & Sept. —TruthIsAll

e-Vote Hacking — Insecurity of Electronic VoteMark-Recording & -Counting  Machines 

• 01.19.06 (To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
  
  [ excerpt —Click link above to see full article ]
  ...what is the real significance of the "Harri Hursti hack?" There are several answers to that question.
  
  The Significance of Harri's Hack
  
  First of all, the Hursti hack reveals only one vulnerability in an almost unlimited number of potential flaws or vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems (both op-scans and DREs). However, the Hursti hack is individually significant because the flaw it exposed is a planned vulnerability in the system, not something that is accidentally there. It had to be PUT there (programmed) on purpose. For Diebold to claim innocence about this would be absurd. It would be like saying you didn't know your garage had a door while you were standing there holding the garage door opener. Or, because this security vulnerability is so huge, it would more accurately be like saying you didn't know your house had a garage at all!!
  
  Since something like 95% of computer scientists agree that electronic voting machines (op-scans and DREs) have an almost infinite number of potential flaws or vulnerabilities, the Hursti hack shows, above all, THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING PAPER BALLOTS for an independent confirmation of machine results. The beauty of paper ballots is that they are completely independent of any machine, unlike the printer paper trail. Therefore, they provide a true independent, manual audit of machine results. Paper ballots are also the only electronic voting method that eliminates, almost completely, any question about voter intent because the ballots are voter-generated, filled in by the voter's own hand, thus eliminating the need for a voter to confirm his/her choices on any printer-issued receipt. Paper ballots are the only way to have a fail-safe election with any electronic voting machine. You must have paper ballots and you must manually audit (count) a portion or all of those ballots in every election.
  
  The ONLY evidence in the Hursti hack that could discredit his alteration of results were the paper ballots themselves. But these ballots can only be useful if they are actually counted after an election to check against the machine count. The Hursti hack shows clearly that there must be an independent paper trail that can be manually audited to confirm (or discredit) machine results. The hack exposes a serious electronic voting flaw, but then, ironically, re-instates optical scan as the only electronic voting method that provides truly independent, manual audit capabilities.
  
  National Defense Issue
  
  There is another aspect of this hack that is of vital importance to our nation. Harri and Dr. Thompson explained to me that there are 3 levels of computer attack (and please remember that electronic voting systems are computers, whether they are networked or not).
  
  Level One, called a "script kiddy," is the most primitive and can be copied by a novice from an internet site and then be used to create a virus or hack a computer or a computer system.
  
  Level Two is more sophisticated and is the level at which most viruses, worms, Trojan horses and hacks are conducted, often by "casual hackers" who, for whatever reason, enjoy conducting "electronic break-ins" into computers.
  
  Level Three is called a "Nation-State" attack. A Nation-State attack is a highly sophisticated, heavily funded electronic attack by a foreign country, a foreign operative, a terrorist group, organized crime, or a political group or operative within our own country. In other words, a Nation-State attack could be mounted by any well-financed group that would benefit from sympathetic candidates being placed in powerful positions or by certain agenda(s) being implemented, or by any group that wants to gain political or financial advantage or wreak havoc on our nation.
  
  Harri told me, and Dr. Thompson confirmed, that Harri's hack was Level One (the first, primitive level), and could have been done by an 8th grader with some basic information. They explained to me that the voting machines in this country are so vulnerable that they cannot even withstand a Level One attack, much less a Level Two or a Nation-State attack.
  
  Our country spends billions of dollars on national defense, and yet we have a gaping hole in our national security through the widespread use of completely vulnerable, electronic voting machines. Counting paper ballots is not a step backwards. It is a vital component for the security of our elections and our protection against a "bloodless coup" or the overthrow of our government through our elections system. It seems inconceivable, yet is all too possible, that such an electronic attack could occur without detection, as did Harri's hack on the Leon County voting system.
  
  A paper audit trail is, as almost all computer scientists agree (except for those who are the equivalent of tobacco company doctors who stated for years that smoking was fine for your health), absolutely necessary to preserve our democracy, and paper ballots are the fail-safe audit trail (as long as those ballots are manually audited and are guarded like the gold in Fort Knox).
  
  This is not something that can be delayed until next year or until the next decade. Whatever investment has been made in DREs must be re-evaluated in the same way we re-evaluated the exploding gas tanks of Ford Pintos. Just as Ford knew, but never disclosed for years that people were dying from the exploding tanks, the voting machine companies know their machines are completely vulnerable. There is too much at stake to trust machines that have been proven to be untrustworthy. We must have paper ballots, and we must have them now. To do less, with the knowledge we have, would be to sacrifice our democracy for the sake of convenience. It is not important that our elections be convenient, but it is vital that they be accurate, secure and verifiable. Otherwise, why hold elections at all?
  
  [ Click for full article ]The Harri Hursti Hack and its Importance to our Nation —Susan Pynchon, Florida Fair Elections Coalition (updated Jan 21, 2006)

• 02.14.06 Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter —David Wagner, David Jefferson, Matt Bishop —Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB)

??.??.06 Procedures for Approving, Certifying, Reviewing, Modifying, and Decertifying Voting Systems... —Bruce McPherson, Sec of State, California ("Currently missing in action from the Calif. Sec. State Bruce McPherson's Web site..." —Bev Harris, BBV Inc, 07/08/06)

02.17.06 Approval of Use of Diebold Election Systems, Inc DRE & Optical Scan Voting System —Bruce McPherson, Sec of State, California
02.22.06 Voting System Memory Card Issues —Sandra J. Steinbach, Chairperson, NASED Voting Systems Board
03.01.06 California: Where's The Hearing on Diebold's Security Flaws Discovered By The Secretary of State? —VoteTrustUSA.org —New Report From Diebold-Hired Testing Company Reveals Security Flaws in Machines Certified By Secretary of State —State Senator Bowen Criticizes Secretary's Refusal To Publicly Vett Two SoS-Requested Reports Identifying Security Flaws in Diebold Machines
Busby-Bilbray  —Democracy Denied
06.14.06 EXPOSÉ: Security Breaches for 'Sleepover' Voting Machines Used in Busby/Bilbray Race Invalidated, Decertified Their Use in the Election! —BLOGGED By Brad on 6/14/2006
• 06.16.06 A Line in the Sand —Why the Busby/Bilbray Election Matters (or Should) to the Entire Nation… —BLOGGED By Brad on 6/26/2006
  06.30.06 Yolo County, CA Registrar on Voting Machine Sleepovers: 'If E-Voting Systems can't be secured, perhaps they ought not be used at all. Period.' —BLOGGED By Brad on 6/30/2006
  07.26.06 Lehto Selected For Election Challenge —To head Busby/Bilbray Recount Effort in California's 50th Congressional District —Michael Collins
  08.25.06 Speaker of the House Nullified San Diego Congressional Race —Michael Collins
  08.28.06 Election Nullification II: Speaker of House had Special Source for Election "Certification" —Michael Collins
  08.30.06 Pre-Certification Swearing in by Hastert Terminates All State Legal Authority Over Elections —Michael Collins
  09.08.06 Appeal to be Filed By Plaintiffs in Busby/Bilbray CA-50 Election Contest —BLOGGED BY Emily Levy on 9/8/2006
  10.06.06 Appeal Filed in Bilbray Election Challenge —Speaker Hastert’s Swearing In At Issue — Michael Collins, Special for “Scoop”
  01.10.07 Like Asking the Mob to Reverse a Hit: Paul Lehto in Appeals Court —Oral Arguments On CA50 Election Lawsuit Heard In Appellate Court —Mark E. Smith, OpEdNews.com
  FILINGS: All Busby/Bilbray Election Challenge Documents —Election Fraud News
  UPDATES: Busby/Bilbray election fiasco —The BradBlog

• 05.11.06 Diebold TSx Evaluation. Critical Security Issues with Diebold TSx. SECURITY ALERT:... —Harri Hursti, for BBV, Inc
  05.04.06 DIEBOLD DISASTERS DEEPEN: Pennsylvania Issues 'Security Vulnerability' Alert... —BLOGGED By Brad on 5/4/2006
  05.05.06 Newly Discovered Diebold Threat Described as 'Major National Security Risk'! —BLOGGED By Brad on 5/5/2006
  05.11.06 Diebold's Deliberate Security Vulnerability —BLOGGED By John Gideon on 5/11/2006 4:16PM
  05.16.06 Diebold Was Warned About Problem in 2004! Did Nothing! —BLOGGED By Brad on 5/16/2006
• 05.22.06 Diebold TSx Evaluation. Suppl. report, additional observations. SECURITY ALERT:.. —Harri Hursti, for BBV, Inc
• 06.22.06 Malfunction and Malfeasance: A Report on the Electronic Voting Machine Debacle —Common Cause
  •CHART A Status of State Voting Systems
  •CHART B State-By-State Risk Assessment
  •CHART C Mid-and High-Risk States That Allow No-Fault Absentee Voting
  06.22.06 New report shows 17 states at high risk for election results compromised due to electronic voting machine problems — Press Release
• 06.27.06 The Machinery Of Democracy: Protecting Elections In An Electronic World — Full Report. —Executive Summary. —Brennan Center for Justice
06.27.06 Brennan Center Task Force Says Software Attacks Pose Real Danger To All Electronic Voting Machines. — Press Release.
06.26.06 Analysis Finds E-Voting Machines Vulnerable. —Andrea Stone, USA TODAY ("...more than 120 security threats...")
• 06.28.06 Study: Fed 'Guidelines' Imperil E-Voting Security —Michael Hickins
  06.30.06 Key Authors of Federal E-Voting Certification Guidelines Say Machines Can Be Hacked, Outcomes of Elections Changed… —BLOGGED By Brad on 6/30/2006
• 08.06.06 Worst Ever Security Flaw Found In Diebold TS Voting Machine —Alan Dechert, President, The Open Voting Foundation

• 09.13.06 Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine—Abstract, Video Demonstration and Links —Ariel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, & Edward W. Felten, Center for IT Policy, Princeton University

The Princeton Hack

Security Demonstration Diebold Accuvote-TS "Touch Screen" [ DRE - Direct Record Electronic ] No paper ballots used No record of voter-intent independent of machine Logic & Accuracy Test useless for detecting malicious software Malicious software can steal votes AND cover its tracks to avert detection Fraudulent vote-count recorded on internal memory AND on removable memory card (uploadable to central tabulator) Software deletes itself at election close No evidence of machine being hijacked No evidence the vote count is fraudulent No recount possible (no independent records)

Full Technical Report (PDF)

09.13.06 Diebold Election Systems Response to the Princeton University AccuVote-TS Analysis —Press Release
09.15.06 A Response To Diebold's Response To The Princeton Report —Douglas W. Jones, University of Iowa
09.15.06 Computer Scientist David Dill Rebuttal to the Diebold Response to the Princeton Study
09.15.06 Diebold says "They're poor researchers" —Martin McKeay, Computerworld, Rebuttal
09.16.06 Diebold should let us analyze the "new" system —Computer Scientist Avi Rubin Rebuttal
09.16.06 My Response to Diebold Response... ("Doubletalk, Bosh, and Mumbo Jumbo") —Kathy Dopp, Utah Count Votes


• 09.13.06 HACKED: Virus Implanted, Spread On Diebold Touch-Screen Voting Machine! —Brad Friedman EXCLUSIVE —BLOGGED BY Brad ON 9/13/2006

• 09.28.06 AP Story on Congressional E-Voting Hearing Slants Hard Against Paper Balloting —BLOGGED BY Brad on 9/28/2006
  
  TGDC + NIST —NIST Draft Report to TGDC:   "...the DRE...cannot be made secure" 
  
• 07.30.03 NIST and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) —Fact Sheets from NIST
• 01.09.07 Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) —NIST         TGDC Members —NIST
  TGDC Working Subcommittee Memberships:
     •Security and Transparency (STS)     •Human Factors and Privacy (HFP)    •Core Requirements and Testing
• 04.28.05 Is the NIST Technical Guidelines Development Committee Working For You, The Voter? —John Gideon, Information Manager for VotersUnite.Org and VoteTrustUSA
  IN PROG Written Comments and Position Statements Submitted to the TGDC
  05.06.05 Letter from Sandra Milunich (CA), May 6, 2005

• 12.01.06 Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC —Discussion Draft —NIST staff per request of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC)
• 12.01.06 NIST Recommends Not Certifying Paperless Voting Machines —Ed Felten, Princeton University

12.01.06 Questions and Answers on the Draft Report: “Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC” —Fact Sheets from NIST

• 12.12.06 EXCLUSIVE: Renowned Computer Security Expert Agrees to Meet California County Supervisor's '1000 to 1' Challenge to 'Manipulate' Sequoia Voting Machine! —Harri Hursti --- The Lead Programmer Who Hacked Diebold Systems in Both Florida and Utah --- Looking Forward to Testing the Security Vulnerability of Riverside County's Systems!—BLOGGED BY Brad on 12/12/2006
  01.05.07 RIVERSIDE '1000 to 1' HACK CHALLENGE: CA County Official Gets Desperate! Makes Up New Rules! —BLOGGED BY Brad on 01/05/2007
  UPDATES: Articles in Category: Sequoia Voting Systems —The BradBlog
• 01.03.07 E-Voting Failures in the 2006 Mid-Term Elections—A sampling of problems across the nation —Report prepared by VotersUnite.Org, VoteTrustUSA.org & VoterAction.org
• 01.08.07 E-voting flaws put Florida in spotlight again —Robert Lemos, Security Focus 2007-01-08


• 01.25.06 Kerry 12:22am NEP: 52.4-46.7%; Win Prob 99.95% (assuming 100% Cluster Effect) —TruthIsAll
  
  

Vote-PAD — Non-electronic, Voting-on-Paper Assist Device

• 01.25.06 Vote-PAD: The Simple Voting Device that May Save American Democracy! —Yolo County, CA Spurns ES&S, Signs up to Use Vote-PAD for Voters with Disabilities, Other Jurisdictions may be Right Behind! —Made of paper, plastic and NO SOFTWARE AT ALL, the device works with a paper ballot and costs about one-tenth of flawed, hackable electronic voting machines...Could this be the HAVA voting solution America has been waiting for? —BLOGGED BY Brad on 1/25/2006


•Videos about the Vote-PAD

08.09.06 Vote-PAD Defends Itself In Public Hearing In California —Vote-PAD's President Explains The Flaws in The State's Test Plan and Certification Process —BLOGGED BY John Gideon on 8/9/2006
08.29.06 "Off with Their Heads!" cried the Queen of Hearts —Ellen Theisen, President, Vote-PAD, Inc.

In response to joint applications submitted by Vote-PAD, Inc. and California counties, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's voting system staff set up two days of certification testing of the Vote-PAD in July. With no training or experience in usability testing, the Secretary's staff and computer voting system consultants conducted "usability" testing on the Vote-PAD...

10.26.06 Vote-PAD, Inc. Files Legal Claim Against California Secretary of State —Ellen Theisen, President, Vote-PAD, Inc.


• 02.08.06 G.W. Bush Conspired with Others to Steal the 2000 and 2004 Elections (#4 of the Top 10 'Conspiracy Theories' re George W. Bush) —Maureen Farrell
• 03.07.06 An Appearance of Guilt —Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers
• 04.19.06 Free Press uncovers evidence of ballot tampering in Warren County, OH —Bob Fitrakis (ballot-analysis by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.)

HAVA + EAC — Help America Vote Act of 2002 + Election Assistance Commission

• 04.20.06 Secret Vote Counting Crammed Down the Throat of Democracy —Special Report for “Scoop” Independent News, First in a Series on HAVA and the EAC: "Cramdown, Stripdown, Lockdown Democracy In The USA" —Michael Collins

CONTENTS: INTRODUCTION The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was passed on the heels of the Florida 2000 presidential election and its “hanging chad” problem. These ambiguous ballot chads riveted and frustrated the nation for a couple of months in late 2000. However, few thought the solution to the ambiguity of hanging chad evidence of a voter’s intent would be to completely eliminate that evidence. With the help of nearly $4 billion in federal grants, HAVA eliminates the evidence of voter intent by eliminating the paper. Instead of paper ballots we have votes registered and counted on "touch screens" — computer-based direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines. Invisible electronic ballots are the result of these DRE touch screens. Electronic vote counting software does the vital vote tabulation in secret. For citizens and public officials, the vote counting processes are strictly off limits. There is literally nothing to see. As a result, the public records of vote counting are gone. To preserve this secrecy, DRE purchase contracts often pledge the government to cooperate with the vendors to fight the very citizens the government is pledged to serve. What is this secrecy in vote counting, really? To have the votes counted in secret by your political enemy is the picture of tyranny. To have the votes counted in secret by your political friend is the picture of corruption. To even desire such an unaccountable power is itself corrupt. So how is HAVA cramming this down the throat of American democracy? HAVA, it turns out, provides a $3.8 billion carrot of federal money to assist election jurisdictions with purchases that comply with HAVA’s “standards”. This federal carrot is combined with a big lawsuit stick for noncompliance. The date for required compliance with HAVA is the first federal election in 2006 (the primary), and violations of HAVA are routinely guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Justice to be cause for a lawsuit. New York was the first major example made of a big state, when DOJ filed suit to force compliance with HAVA’s “standards” in March 2006. HAVA standards require voting accessibility for people with all “disabilities”. They also require at least one “accessible” voting device per polling location. Adding considerably to the stress of some local jurisdictions is the fact that there is no single voting system that allows accessibility for all disabilities, whether of sight, motor abilities up to quadriplegia, or other disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, HAVA “helpfully” states an example of compliance with this accessibility requirement in a single machine: DRE voting systems, such as touch screen voting systems. While other technologies are at best problematic and fraught with risks of noncompliance and lawsuits by both disabled groups and the DOJ, there exists a relatively safe harbor with DRE touch screens. HAVA names them as an example of a voting system that is compliant by law, though obviously not in fact, because touch screens serve less than half of the total disabled population. Clearly, the HAVA safe harbor, misrepresentations about other technologies, and the hype about DREs all combine to clear the way for touch screen DREs, and all the threatened lawsuits make perfect the “HAVA Cramdown” of DRE touch screen voting technology into our elections. At $3,000 to $5,000 a piece, and with regular breakdowns and vote switching behaviors reported, with touch screen DREs crammed down the throat of democracy, we can look forward to bottlenecked long lines for these expensive machines, together with many years of elections that nobody can verify because of the secret vote counting. Because of the trade secrecy claims and the nature of electronic vote counting on hard drives, with touch screen DREs, the voters never see the final form of their ballots, and the ballots are all counted in complete corporate trade secrecy. Making any reasonable connection between the intent of the voters and the invisible electronic ballot requires an elections theory that borders on magical thinking. The wildly unaccountable features of invisible ballots and secret vote counting, and the fact that DREs do not accommodate more than half of all disabilities yet get a free pass under HAVA, should give us reason to pause to reevaluate the law and its outcomes. Yet at this very moment, the Department of Justice is proceeding, suing and threatening to sue any and all jurisdictions that do not comply with HAVA, scaring them into the only seemingly safe route to go under HAVA: touch screen DREs, even though some brave jurisdictions have still rejected that route. Local and state activists have taken a variety of approaches. Some have filed complaints under HAVA, others are lobbying Congress, and some are litigating, in states including Washington, California, New Mexico, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Ohio. On Saturday, April 8, a group of nearly 100 election integrity activists gathered in Washington DC for a conference. They heard a speech [by] Commissioner Ray Martinez, one of the four commissioners on the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), who is an attorney. The EAC, it turns out, administers HAVA and, with the help of the DOJ, administers what they will not want to call the HAVA Cramdown, sweetened by the $3.8 billion in federal money that can be used for the purchase of voting systems, including DREs for all voters, not just disabled voters. Nevertheless, Martinez spoke of EAC’s commitment to fair elections and provided some background on HAVA. He is a Democratic appointee and lawyer who had recently in a speech at Princeton made constructive comments on election reform, and is probably the most sympathetic voice for citizens on the EAC in an area where the public has few friends these days. At the beginning of the question-and-answer period for Commissioner Martinez, business law and consumer fraud attorney Paul Lehto, of Everett, Washington, pointed to the secret vote counting that always takes place on touch screen voting machines, and asked a simple but powerful question: Paul Lehto:     My question is: By what right or authority did my right to watch the counting of the vote get taken away? Along with Lehto’s two follow-up questions, the responses by Commissioner Martinez point out more detail in the massive civil rights violation of the HAVA Cramdown... [ed: some links and emphases added. Click section link above for original (and resizable) text.] THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Citizen Paul Lehto Questions Ray Martinez, Attorney-at-Law and Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission. ... MR. MARTINEZ:     Okay, in what way was your rights - how did you get - how did it get taken away? Comment: Lehto, an attorney himself, begins by describing his rights as a citizen of Washington State under state election laws to Martinez, another attorney in election law. These state rights are similar to those in many other states that seek to provide election transparency and public or political party witnessing of various aspects of the vote-counting process to act as a check and balance against fraud. Lehto says he can see his own vote as he marks the ballot, watch the overall vote count both in the precinct and in the county counting center, and be present at canvassing board deliberations on disputes. He has a personal right of appeal should his voting choices be in any way vague, whether or not exactly similar to the “hanging chad”. Lehto points out that the EAC forces state purchases of DREs and gets the ball rolling for DREs, then provides the funding for the initial purchase through HAVA grant money. He points out that the use of DREs takes away all of his rights, yet that has never been debated directly anywhere in Congress or state legislatures; it’s at best a side effect but a very real and destructive one nevertheless. The initial response by Martinez is not encouraging. He stumbles and either fails to understand Lehto’s question or seems unaware of any rights that might be denied by touch screen DREs. The exchange then continues: MR. LEHTO:     Well, you know, I can look at the outside of the [touch screen voting machine] DRE all day long and I’ll never see how the vote is counted and I’ll never get any information about how the electronic vote is counted after the fact [either], so I have no idea how the vote is counted. MR. MARTINEZ:     Then I understand your question. The answer is that Congress didn’t — I mean the federal government didn’t trump your rights under state law to see the counting of the vote. Now, I understand what your point is. That is, what you’re talking about is these electronic voting machines do not leave the evidence under that you would have under a paper-based system, where you’d see a lot more of what’s actually going on, so I don’t have a good answer for you. Congress is not intending to obstruct your rights as a citizen under Washington State law to see what’s in the vote count. What I would suggest to you is that you better define your state law so if you want to see what’s going on with the machines, then you gotta have your legislature write a law that deals with the fact [of] changes in voting technology [inaudible]. Your legislature can request [inaudible] that you as a citizen to be able to witness every single aspect of the vote count, you’re going to have to get your state law changed, or you’re going to have to do it a different way like 25 and 26 [inaudible] which may not mean anything to you because most of these states [inaudible] It’s not a good answer to your question but I can tell you...I’m pretty sure that the intent of HAVA was not to trump your rights under state law; that may be what the effect was, but that’s not what the intent was. (Author’s note: At this point, the EAC has been effectively put on notice that it may well be abridging citizen rights, with knowledge of the same, by facilitating contracts for DREs and cramming them down the throat of democracy by litigation threat after litigation threat, all in the name of the disabled and yet serving only a fraction of the disabled community, favoring some disabilities over others, all at the expense of democracy itself.) Comment: The second exchange reveals a great deal more about EAC’s consideration or lack thereof of voting rights in the various states, together with HAVA’s central role in the forcible denial of election transparency and institution of a secret vote counting across America. Lehto points out that watching a DRE means nothing. The implication is clear: Observing vote-taking and -counting on a DRE means simply watching the motionless case of a computer, much like watching paint dry. Such “observation” reveals nothing about the processes of vote counting, their accuracy, or the presence of any malicious vote-switching code, whether source code or code added later as a virus. The secret software is not accessible by citizens or even government officials, because the software and methods that replaced public vote counting are private corporate property interests called trade secrets. The violation of citizen rights goes directly to the issue of observing and being involved in election processes which are themselves a check and balance designed to preserve the integrity of the voting system and are essential voter rights. These rights are abridged completely, taken away by the manufacturer contract with the elections board or county, which prohibits any examination of the machines or the software that runs them. Counties commonly agree via the same contract to gang up on and defeat any citizen records request, subpoena, or lawsuit that might be filed seeking such information, such as Lehto’s lawsuit. www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp (see Contract, Appendix B to Complaint, paragraph 37) Martinez provides contradictory responses...First, he says Congress did not take away any rights or intend to trump Lehto’s state rights. Then, he seems to think about it and seems to get Lehto’s point: Observing electronic voting doesn’t give the citizens information about what’s going on in electronic vote counting. Finally, in a stunning remark, Martinez (a lawyer) says that the restoration of rights is the citizen’s responsibility. Basically, the response is, Get a bill passed in your state: “…you better define your state law if you want to see what’s going on with the machines…” This constitutes a tectonic shift in the role of the federal government, from the preserver of individual and citizen rights to an indifferent pusher of technology which eviscerates those voting rights.  Citizens are now informed that it is now their job to patch their rights up after the government damages them, provided they have the ear of their legislators. Of course, today the reelection of those legislators depends on the outcome of the secret vote-counting programs. With each new electronic election, given the hardball nature of politics today, our representatives would have to weigh whether they need to be nice to those corporations, or risk retaliation in the secret vote-counting process. The burden placed on today’s citizens is enunciated in the most casual way by the EAC Commissioner: “…you gotta...write a law”. Sure, citizens do this every day, no problem. The final sentence of the second exchange is worth reading carefully. It reveals just how little thought EAC has in fact given to this issue. In one sentence, the Commissioner says HAVA does not “trump your rights”, but acknowledges “that may be the effect [anyway]”; but if that is “the effect”, well, sorry “that’s not what the intent was”. This argument is little more than a complex version of “Ignorance of the law is our excuse”, or a reflexive denial of intentional wrongdoing. Did Congress give any thought to voter rights within the states in the drafting and deliberations of HAVA? To democracy? To the very credibility of our system of government? Did the EAC spend any time at all considering voter rights while implementing this act that claims to help us vote, or at least to help a fraction of this country’s disabled population? How do the disabled themselves feel about having only a fraction of their community served by HAVA, and having democratic vote counting as a whole denied to all of society, in their name? The picture becomes clearer below: MR. LEHTO:    HAVA set that whole thing into motion. But I think that the question is who does the burden fall on of moving the legislature? I would say that citizens’ rights cannot be changed except by an act of the legislature or by an amendment to the Constitution. In other words, a contract can’t change citizens’ rights, and yet [these purchase contracts for electronic voting systems are changing citizens’ rights…] So, you don’t have an explanation for how that can possibly be the case? ... Shortly after this Saturday April 8, 2006, address and Q&A with voting rights activists, as well as exchanges with Lehto and numerous other activists, on Monday morning, April 10, 2006, Commissioner Martinez resigned his seat on the commission effective June 30, citing “strictly personal and family reasons” in his resignation letter to President Bush. [ed: some emphasis added...click section link above for full original text.] THE IMPLICATIONS: The Citizen Lehto - Commissioner Martinez Exchange. The implications of this exchange with EAC Commissioner and attorney Ray Martinez are significant. (1) Although the Declaration of Independence and most state Constitutions include language like the Declaration’s statement that “to secure these [individual] rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”, the primary purpose of the EAC and the DOJ as regards HAVA is clearly not to secure any citizen rights. They are tasked with enforcing the rapid implementation of secret counting of invisible ballots throughout America, using a carrot and stick approach together with a statutory “safe haven”... (2) The EAC is now, if it wasn’t before, on notice that the civil rights of many citizens will be curbed by HAVA’s contracting process; namely their current right to open access to the voting process, whether statutory, common law, or “unalienable” under the Declaration of Independence... (3) Specifically, as Lehto said, you can observe a touch screen voting machine all day long and never see any evidence of vote counting. Asking for reports on the machine or the nature of the software, or testing the machines operations and methods, will frustrate questioners, since the machine vendors do not allow in-depth access to and examination of their software and methods at any time, and they claim exemptions to freedom of information laws and other laws based on claims of trade secrets... (4) The Election Assistance Commission, in a misguided effort that only partially serves some disabled voters in America by often forcing all voters in a district to vote on touch screen DREs, has violated one of the most fundamental aspects of voting rights, namely open, transparent access to the process of taking and tabulating votes... (5) The EAC is not willing to take the existing citizen rights to election access into account in the process, given HAVA’s main goal based on the comments of Commissioner Martinez: “HAVA does require … voting technology upgrades for a lot of different and I think very compelling reasons”. This indicates the tunnel vision of the EAC, DOJ, and Congress for passing the act.  HAVA advocates like to claim that “it’s about Florida 2000” — lost votes — yet they create a system that loses all of our votes in a maze of privately owned and controlled voting machines and software... (6) The EAC knows that it will be inflicting all of this collateral damage on American elections by making them nontransparent, hidden, and out of the public view. Yet the EAC is preceding full force with lawsuits and threats attempting to force states into HAVA “compliance” that will amount to what Lehto has elsewhere called a dark age of democracy. [ed: emphasis added] CRAMDOWN, STRIPDOWN, LOCKDOWN The HAVA cramdown is delivered in the form of twin inducements to counties and states that are nearly irresistible: “We will buy you your voting machines” and “We’ve got language in HAVA that says these types of machines, DREs, will make you largely immune from litigation by those pesky citizens who might object”. When those inducements fail to gain the necessary compliance, the next step in the cramdown of electronic voting is threats of litigation and actual lawsuits by DOJ in behalf of EAC. Once the machines are purchased and contracted for, the stripdown of our rights takes place. We are no longer able to know where our votes go once they leave the screen, nor can we have someone examine the process for us. We are no longer to challenge the vote because DREs are the final word now. Even if so-called voter-verified paper ballots become part of HAVA, currently HAVA makes the DRE-generated invisible ballots the “ballots of record” only if state law so requires, thus rendering the DREs as the headline-makers, even with full “paper trails”. The HAVA lockdown will be discussed in depth in the next article in this series of affronts to freedom. Once we have HAVA crammed down our throats and we have been stripped of our most fundamental rights to free, fair, and transparent elections, we will find ourselves in a HAVA lockdown, an iron cage composed of bureaucratic, regulatory, and politically predetermined results in which government and its friendly vendor corporations certify each other’s qualifications, all strictly enforced by a judicial system that may not be able to offer relief if we fail to take up the challenge to defend democracy soon. DEFENDING DEMOCRACY Citizen lawsuits have provided the most notable resistance to the HAVA cramdown, stripdown, and lockdown... CITIZEN ACTION NOW The EAC may have opened up the opportunity for civil rights litigation against government officials, forcing this dark age for democracy and leaving no basis for public confidence in elections. Concerning the civil rights of citizens, the United States Code says: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress… — United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Civil Rights, Subchapter I- Generally. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. When deprived of their rights by statute, regulation, or other means, individuals or groups of citizens can take their case to court. Citizens can defend democracy by reminding their elected officials and their bureaucratic employees of two important points. First, governments are instituted solely to secure and protect the rights and well-being of citizens. Second, it is the role of elected officials to be the guardians of democracy at all times. The necessary effects of EAC- and HAVA-driven purchase contracts for DREs should be noted clearly. If you complain about losing your rights through DRE secrecy and your government officials persist in instituting technology with secret vote counting, their behavior constitutes a violation of public rights that is then intentional, not simply negligent, because you have put them on notice. A certified letter pointing out some of the facts and legal realities here or those located in the complaint in the following link should suffice for starters and can be adapted to your jurisdiction by a lawyer if a lawsuit becomes necessary. Check and inquire about your state law as part of the process. See www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp (complaint link). ... APPENDICES:     A. Key Help America Vote Act 2002 language.     B. Illustration of paper versus electronic voting.

10.17.06 EXCLUSIVE: FIRST BUSH-APPOINTED CHAIR OF U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION SAYS 'NO STANDARDS' FOR E-VOTING DEVICES, SYSTEM 'RIPE FOR STEALING ELECTIONS'! —Former Chair Says He 'Was Deceived', EAC and Federal Efforts for Election Reform 'A Charade', 'Travesty'! —BLOGGED BY Brad on 10/17/2006

The BRAD BLOG has obtained an EXCLUSIVE partial transcript from a recent, unaired interview by a major broadcast network with former U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) chair Rev. DeForest Soaries. ...Soaries says there are "no standards" for voting systems and that Congress and the White House "made things worse through the passage of the Help America Vote Act." "...This was a travesty. I was basically deceived by the leaders of the House, the Senate and the White House." "...Someone in America has got to hold America accountable for protecting the most fundamental right in a democracy and that is the right to vote."  ... [emphasis and links added]

01.09.07 EXCLUSIVE: The EAC Now Admits 'The Ciber Report' Does Exist After All —Federal Commission Admits There is Paperwork on 'Barred' Voting Machine Testing Lab, Will Release 'When the Process is Complete'
— Lab Was Secretly Refused Credentials in July, State and Local Voting Officials Were Kept in Dark Throughout November Elections Until NYTimes' Revelations... —BLOGGED by John Gideon on 1/9/2007
01.12.07 Senator Feinstein Seeks Answers from EAC On Unreported Failures at Voting Equipment Test Lab —VoteTrustUSA.org

The following is the text of Senator Feinstein’s letter to Donetta Davidson, Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Dear Chair Davidson: As the incoming Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I am writing about the failure of the Election Assistance Commission to provide timely information to election officials and the public about your Commission’s decision to withhold accreditation to Ciber Labs. Until the New York Times published an article on January 4 about the denial, election officials and the public were generally in the dark about the apparent failure by Ciber Labs to properly test electronic voting systems.  This raises questions about the security and accuracy of our nation’s voting equipment.  I request information from the Commission that answers the following questions: ...

01.13.07 Banned test lab certified electronic voting machines used by 68.5% of nation's registered voters in 2006 elections —Michael Richardson, OpEdNews.com
01.25.07 EAC's "New York Brother" and "Sis" responsible for NASED's certification of banned test lab Ciber, Inc. —Michael Richardson, OpEdNews.com
01.26.07 Subpeonas May be Issued by NY State After 'Outrageous' Snub by U.S. Elections Assistance Commission —Election Board Ire as EAC Fails to Disclose 'Soiled Laundry' on Failure to Accredit Voting System Test Lab —Guest Blogged by Michael Richardson
01.29.07 Assessment of Labs Reveals Flawed Voting System Testing —John Washburn, VoteTrustUSA Voting Technology Task Force

On Friday, January 26, 2007 the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) released the Interim Accreditation Assessment report submitted to the EAC back in July of 2006. The report “Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Interim Accreditation Independent Test Authorities (ITA) Assessment Report CIBER & Wyle” is an assessment of an on-site review conducted July 17 to July 22, 2006. It is a damning indictment of the ITA team of the CIBER lab and the Wyle lab, which tested the voting equipment used by at least 70% of the voters in the November 7, 2006 election. The failures documented in the report exceed the direst fears of those who had come to question the independence, authority and testing competence of the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) ITA labs. The cadre of doubters came to include many computer security experts, election integrity activists, several state examiners and eventually candidates themselves. Doubt grew with each NASED qualified system which later proved to have significant defects. Doubts grew with revelations of significant defects in systems qualified through NASED ITA program. The defects and illegal system configurations had gone undiscovered by these labs through many rounds of “testing” and remained undiscovered [by] the two labs over the course of years. The recurring question of the doubters has always been: “How could such a system pass the qualification testing?” And make no mistake — this was not an idle question. The NASED/ITA qualification process using ITA labs was vital to the sales and acceptance of many voting systems in many states. For years manufacturers of voting equipment, state election officials, and current EAC personnel have repeatedly stated the testing done by the ITA labs was thorough and rigorous and thus ensured strict conformance of the qualified systems to the tough standards documented in the 2002 Voting Systems Standards (2002 VSS). The testing and conformance to standards has often been the first line of defense against reports of security vulnerabilities in voting systems. However, this assessment report released on January 26, 2007, makes clear that for systems tested by the CIBER/Wyle team these frequent statements were unjustified. And even with the publication of this assessment report, most of the details such as what was and was not tested in those systems, remain cloaked behind a veil of secrecy. After reading this assessment, one also has to wonder why Wyle was granted interim accreditation. The following discussion reveals that: ...

01.30.07 HAVA — The road to Boondoggle was paved with good intentions —Help America Vote Act (HAVA) LOBBYIST List —Bev Harris, BlackBoxVoting.org
08.30.07 (To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
[ed: Excerpts reformatted … Click to view original text]
[Regarding:]
1. the [EAC] is mandated by law to study voter fraud and intimidation
   1. this new [EAC] report was titled simply "Election Crimes" and excluded a wide range of serious offenses that harm the system and suppress voting but are not currently crimes under the U.S. criminal code
1. widespread agreement among administrators, academics and election experts from all points on the political spectrum that allegations of fraud through voter impersonation at polling places were greatly exaggerated. ...
   1. ...The [EAC] chose instead to state that the issue was a matter of considerable debate.
1. problems of voter intimidation were still prevalent in a variety of forms...
   1. ..the [EAC] excluded much of the discussion of voter intimidation.
1. questions about the way the Justice Department was handling complaints of fraud and intimidation.
   1. The [EAC] excised all references to the department that might be construed as critical -- or that Justice officials later took issue with.
1. Once these "revisions" to the report were revealed, there was an uproar among voting rights advocates. I was eager to set the record straight...
   1. ...but the [EAC] would not allow me to speak about the report because of a broad "confidentiality provision" in my contract.
…
What was behind the strange handling of our report? It's still unclear, but it is worth noting that during the time the commission was holding our draft,
1. claims about voter fraud and efforts to advance the cause of strict voter identification laws were at a fever pitch in Congress and the states.
2. … it has been reported that some U.S. attorneys were being fired because they failed to pursue weakly supported voter fraud cases with sufficient zeal.

We have learned that
1. several Republican officials — including a state official, a former political appointee at the Justice Department and current Federal Election Commission member (Hans Von Spakovsky), and a Capitol Hill staffer — complained about our project, particularly about my role in it.
2. Officials at Justice were actively involved in the report throughout the process and even exerted some degree of editorial control over the new report.
3. … evident from the commission's "document dump" that its Republican general counsel assumed primary control over the rewriting of the report.

Even without a smoking gun showing political motives in the handling of the draft, the results are disappointing. This is not the way an institution created to promote democracy should function. A government entity that seeks democratic progress should be transparent. It should not be in the business of suppressing information or ideas. Such an institution must be thoroughly insulated from political interference from outside operatives or other parts of the executive branch.

We need an institution like the Election Assistance Commission to provide guidance and research information to the states, election officials, elected leaders and voters. But this agency's structure and procedures need to be seriously reexamined in light of this episode.
…

A Rigged Report on U.S. Voting? — Tova Andrea Wang

After the 2000 Florida election debacle, Congress established a body called the Election Assistance Commission to improve voting and democracy in this country. Two years ago, the commission approached me about doing a project that would take a preliminary look at voter fraud and intimidation and make recommendations for further research on the issues.
…

1. … After submitting the DRAFT in July 2006,
   1. we were barred by [EAC] staff from having anything more to do with it.
2. … after sitting on the draft for six months,
1. the EAC publicly released a report -- citing it as based on work by me and my co-author -- that completely stood our own work on its head.

Consider the title. …

--------------------------------------------
[ed: also, see  Imbalance of Power  ]

08.31.07 …
The general public, and most particularly many in the election integrity
movement, are blissfully unaware of the dangers posed to our American
Republic by a little known entity called the Election Assistance Commission.

This White House Agency was slipped into the 2002 Help America Vote Act
(HAVA) in a late night, behind closed doors meeting, by the architects of that
law: Congressman Bob Ney (now a convicted criminal), Congressman Steny
Hoyer, Senator Mitch McConnell, and Senator Chris Dodd (now a presidential
candidate).
…
Whatever prompted the HAVA architects to do this — against their own legal
counsel’s advice — they certainly didn’t consult the wisdom of the Founders.

Founding father Alexander Hamilton:
"Suppose an article had been introduced into the Constitution, empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power, and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments?" --- Federalist No. 59, 1788
…EAC for Dummies: How the White House has designs on your elections ——Nancy Tobi , OpEdNews

• 05.09.06 How to Keep Democrats From Blowing the November Election —Bernard Weiner for The Crisis Papers
• 05.10.06 Poll: 2004 Election Was Stolen; according to viewers of all news networks except Fox News —Rob Kall, OpEdNews.com
• 06.02.06 How They Stole Ohio: The GOP 4-step Recipe to 'Blackwell' the USA in 2008 —Greg Palast for BuzzFlash
• 06.13.06 ( To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus )
  "There’s not a war on terror. It’s a war on democracy." …
   BuzzFlash : Now let's quickly move to the scheme to steal '08. We first met you, Greg, in 2002 …
  You were the first to zero in on the role of the infamous ChoicePoint data collection firm in purging the Florida voting rolls in 2000 of eligible and ineligible Democratic voters alike.…
  
   Greg Palast : Here's what happened, in a nutshell … For BBC Television, I discovered that before the election, [Gov] Jeb Bush and [SoS] Katherine Harris scrubbed tens of thousands of black voters off the voter rolls. They called them felons, when their only crime was voting-while-black. That gave little George the White House.
  
  I reported that for BBC,…in America…it was completely blacked out … You couldn’t talk about the theft of the 2000 election. It was a lockup fest.
  In 2004, they did it again, and it was bigger and wider and sneakier and stinkier and nastier. … It was Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and on and on. 3.6 million votes were cast and never counted in the 2004 election—3.6 million. … This is … our team going through the computer files of the election information agency … and, by the way, the computer files of the Republican National Committee, … some e-mails, in which they were discussing exactly how to jigger the election. We were able to suck that down through a fake web site.
  
   BuzzFlash : …In the 2002 election, there was a phone-jamming case in New Hampshire, where they jammed the lines of a union to prevent them from getting out the vote for the Democratic candidate for the senate. And people have gone to jail for this, including … the former head of the Bush campaign for the northeast. The RNC paid his legal defense …well over a million dollars. You couldn’t get any more proof … of the Republican Party being involved … in felony suppression of vote by legal verdict. There were direct connections through phone calls to the RNC, and some indication even to Rove.
  …
  So it’s a wide swath of voter suppression, theft, and illegal disenfranchisement that the Republicans have been engaged in. …If it weren’t for ChoicePoint, Gore would have run away with it [in 2000].
  
   Greg Palast : That's right.
  …
   BuzzFlash : Then we have the 2004 election, and we have a more subtle combination of suppression of the vote, use of electronic voting machines to miscalculate the vote and so forth. Now in your book you say, “Watch out for 2008.” Why do Americans not understand the threat here? It's only after Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. brings it up in Rolling Stone that some people suddenly say, whoa, someone who's really got credibility brought it up. Hey, maybe it is serious.
  
   Greg Palast : …I wrote a story for the British Guardian paper … And I put on the top of the BBC Nightly News — “Kerry Won” — okay? …This is in 2004. … But how do I know Kerry won? The whole BBC team did an incredible investigation, and we found 3.6 million votes cast but not counted.
  1. It was called "spoilage"
     1. that’s everything from hanging chads to paper ballots that have extra marks, and are junked and thrown away — you name it.
     2. But it’s not just anyone's ballot that doesn't count. Whose votes are they? We did a precinct-by-precinct analysis of whose votes were thrown away.

  1. If you are in a black majority precinct, the chance that your vote will be thrown in the electoral dumpster is
     900% higher than if you’re in a white precinct.
  2. If you are       Hispanic
     500% higher than if you’re in a white precinct.

  1. This also includes something called "rejected provisional ballots," a whole new gimmick.

  1. A million people were shunted to back-of-the-bus ballots called provisional ballots.
     over half a million of those were never counted
          — never counted.
  2. Who made the decision not to count them? The Secretaries of State, like the Secretary of State of Ohio [Kenneth J. Blackwell], who is also the head of the Bush reelection campaign.

  1. It’s black voters and poor voters. [whose votes are thrown out]
  Greg Palast Uncovers the 'Armed Madhouse' of the Bush Reign of Greed, Fear and Stolen Elections —A BuzzFlash Interview with Greg Palast
• 06.16.06 African-American Voters Scrubbed by Secret GOP Hit List —Greg Palast
• 06.22.06 Malfunction and Malfeasance: A Report on the Electronic Voting Machine Debacle —Common Cause
         •CHART A Status of State Voting Systems  •CHART B State-By-State Risk Assessment  •CHART C Mid- & High-Risk States with No-Fault Absentee Voting
• 06.29.06 COURT TV's Catherine Crier on Electoral Crisis: 'A Full Frontal Attack on Democracy'! —BLOGGED By Brad on 7/7/2006
• 07.03.06 The Stolen Election of 2004 —Michael Parenti
07.12.06 Regarding Michael Parenti's article: "The Stolen Election of 2004" —TruthIsAll
• 07.11.06 COURT TV's Catherine Crier on Electoral Crisis: Scathing Video Editorial Covers Busby/Bilbray 'Sleepovers', Clint Curtis, Tony Anchundo, DeForest Soaries, Brad Friedman and BRAD BLOG! —BLOGGED By Brad on 7/11/2006
• 07.14.06 The Exit Poll Controversy Continues —BeFree
• 07.18.06 Democracy in Crisis - An Exclusive BRAD BLOG Interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. —Guest-BLOGGED By Joy & Tom Williams on 7/18/2006
• 07.24.06 Salon's Farhad Manjoo: "No Exit" (6/15/05) linked to my DU threads —TruthIsAll

• 07.28.06 Lipstick on a Pig —Michael Collins

Citizens of the United States of America have the right to know that their votes are marked and counted in a way that assures citizens that the candidates declared the winners are in fact the winners. This is axiomatic. "The voting system shall produce or require the use of an individual voter-verified paper record of the voter's vote..." So begins House Resolution 550. It is worth looking at this phrase carefully. The "system" produces a record of the "voter's vote." We are immediately tied to "the system," the very same system that produces incomprehensible results all over the country in a variety of ways. The key to H.R. 550 is that it ties citizens to "the system," one which they trust so little we see snap polls like those on Lou Dobbs showing that well over 80% of respondents favor dumping voting machines of all types entirely and returning to paper. The primary objection to H.R. 550 is that it puts "lipstick on the pig" that is HAVA. That legislation was cleverly written with the intent of pushing localities into electronic voting with touch screens (DRE's)...

• 08.06.06  Amend or End HR 550  — What's wrong with the Holt Bill in three easy bullets  —Nancy Tobi, OpEdNews.com
• 08.17.06 EDA Study Finds Major Flaws in HR 550 Election Audit Proposal —Study Proves Flaws in HR 550 Audit Leave Congressional Elections Fully Exposed To Outcome-Altering Fraud And Error —Statistical Analysts Propose Effective and Powerful Alternative —Bruce O'Dell; Jonathan Simon, JD; Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D.; & Steven Freeman, Ph.D.

Today a group of computer security and statistical analysts released a study proving that the election audit procedure set forth in HR 550, popularly known as the Holt Bill, would in practice leave elections for the US House of Representatives completely exposed to undetected programming errors and deliberate fraud. (Read the Abstract or Download the full report...) The study demonstrates that the HR 550 audit [Sec. 5] is so ineffective that in 40% of races examined, the audit would completely fail to detect fraud or error affecting 10% of precincts in an average US House race. Fraud or error on this scale could easily alter the election outcome if left undetected. Statistical experts and mathematicians associated with Election Defense Alliance (EDA) propose an effective alternative approach in their report issued today. Their validation approach detects fraud or error affecting as little as one percent (1%) of the electronic tally with a ninety-nine percent (99%) level of confidence. EDA urgently recommends replacing the audit proposed in HR 550 with this alternative approach. The EDA study first tested the HR 550 audit by applying its protocol in 10,000 simulated congressional elections. The simulation revealed serious flaws in the HR 550 audit design that cannot be remedied by typical quantitative means, such as by selecting larger samples. To avoid this intrinsic flaw, the report then presents and tests an alternate validation protocol that can immediately achieve 99% confidence of detection of manipulation of even 1% of the total vote. The alternative protocol calls for a hand count of 10% of the paper ballot records in a U.S. Congressional District race in 100% of the precincts. EDA will present this Universal Precinct-based Sampling (UPS) in a full report soon to be released. ...

• 11.18.06 Stopping H.R. 550 Because We Can't Compromise on Democracy —Nancy Tobi and Paul Lehto, OpEdNews.com

Following the General Election of 2006, which returned control of the U.S. House and Senate to the Democrats, Common Cause sent a mass email to its members exhorting them to support House Resolution 550, also known as the Holt Bill. H.R. 550 provides for the addition of "paper trails" to electronic voting, provides for audits of 2% or more of the paper trails with discrepancies to be resolved in favor of the paper trail, makes permanent and further strengthens the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), and requires that source code for e-voting machines be disclosed and placed in escrow. Yet Common Cause is DEEPLY wrong about H.R. 550 as a solution to the problems in America's election systems. Citing the Sarasota Florida's now-famous 18,000 undervotes in a disputed Congressional race, they suggest we lobby for H.R. 550 paper trails, yet Sarasotans themselves learned from their experience, blew right past H.R.550's paper trails for touchscreens, and went to paper ballots. If citing Sarasota, why not follow the Sarasotan example and ban touchscreens instead of validating them? Touchscreens make one's own ballot invisible, and at best create a paper trail that studies suggest only 25% of people actually check, and most of those who do check still miss many errors, making errors, fraud and legitimate votes equally "voter-VERIFIED" to use H.R. 550's deceptive terminology. Thus, H.R. 550 paper trails as applied to touchscreens is the gold standard of fraud-approval, allowing 75% and then some to sail through totally unnoticed, but nevertheless earning public confidence. With H.R. 550, Common Cause seems to want to do something "realistic", but these "realistic" Band-Aids don't help; they actually make things worse. In the case of H.R. 550, this is not entirely unsurprising. The legislation, in its first iteration (H.R. 2239), was first proposed in 2003, shortly after the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that it purports to favorably amend, and a lot has happened since then. The election integrity movement has shown that the technology solutions HAVA foisted on the American public — with the full support of the federal government to the tune of an appropriated $4 billion — were based on a singularly faulty premise that was not fully disclosed to the American public: the idea that private ownership of elections through proprietary technology and trade secret software has a legitimate place in a truly democratic election system, and that the safekeeping of our ballots and the counting of our votes should be outsourced to private corporate interests who claim the Constitution is inapplicable to them as private actors, rather than held in the hands of our American communities and overseen by local citizens. This premise of HAVA, that secret vote counting and privatization of elections and removal of public oversight is somehow OK, flies in the face of one of the most widely held political values ever measured. This political value is the 92% of the American public which support, as measured in an August 2006 Zogby poll, the right of the public to witness vote counting and obtain information about vote counting: the necessities of public oversight of elections. That HAVA is trying to make this sacred democratic value extinct is the brewing scandal of the century in elections. Because it questioned this faulty premise, the citizens' election integrity movement was able to uncover many other holes in the approach taken by HAVA. The movement discovered that HAVA undermined community-centered, paper ballot-based voting systems, along with transparency in elections... The movement discovered that the HAVA-created Election Assistance Commission effectively hands oversight of the nation's elections squarely to the Oval Office and the Executive Branch, causing a dangerous shift in the balance of governmental powers... And the movement also discovered, with astonishment and sadness but not surprise, that HAVA was largely written and funded by lobbyists working for an industry for whom profit trumped patriotism... Rather than taking into account these lessons, H.R. 550 continued to build on the false premises of HAVA, and as a result, H.R. 550, if passed as written, now promises to become HAVA II, building an even more expensive and elaborate superstructure on top of an undemocratic foundation that is radically hostile to the public's right to supervise its own elections and be a watchdog on the only mechanism of power and money transfer to government: elections. H.R. 550's defects are stated below in brief form. Paper Trails Can't Work ... Auditing as Described in H.R. 550 Won't Work ... Imbalance of Power It was against the dangerous centralization of power that the Patriots of American history arose in revolt and revolution. By making permanent and strengthening the EAC, H.R.550 pushes us to a dangerous brink. It's a simple matter for the White House to stack the EAC with crony appointments, leading to any number of dangerous decisions about our elections. With technological elections in place, it also puts the "keys" to the codes programming our elections in the hands of the incumbent administration, precisely the folks (of whatever party) who are most likely to throw elections so they can stay in power. The Founders were adamant about not allowing an aristocracy or “One of the steps for getting there is a permanent Republican government, in the sense of fifty-five Republican senators and a thirty-vote margin in the House and a Republican President for twenty years in a row...”self-perpetuating class to rule this country. ... Transparency and Citizen Oversight The only solution to the problems caused by HAVA is radical transparency and observation, combined with the robust checks and balances that are available, if and when they are used, by a physical paper balloting system. Although fraud or incompetence in elections has occasionally caused the proper checks and balances to not be in place in paper balloting systems, at least with paper the average payoff per election crime is low and evidence is created. Whereas, with electronic voting the average payoff is high, little or no evidence is created, making the prospects of undetected fraud unprecedented in our history as a democracy. ... The sine qua non of democracy is not elections per se, it is the fact that all legitimate power comes from the people. In light of this, there is simply NO consideration that has the weight necessary to sacrifice public supervision of elections and public observation of elections, particularly the concern for vendor profitability or election official convenience. The HAVA-caused elimination of public oversight and official accountability via computerization and privatization ultimately means the end of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" if the people can not fully understand and check the legitimacy of their own elections. As such, HAVA, and anything that attempts to put a shiny coat of confidence on HAVA, must not be tolerated by democracy-loving Americans. [Ed: emphases and links added]

• 11.22.06 Paper for President — The Time is NOW —House Resolution 6200 —Michael Collins
• 11.30.06 The Two Other Holt Bills —More than Bits and Bytes —Michael Collins
  •H.R.4463 (Summary) (Full) Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005
  •H.R.4989 (Summary) (Full) Electoral Fairness Act of 2006

It’s conceivable to support HR 4463 and 4989 and not support HR550. It’s inconceivable to support HR550 yet fail to pay equal attention to the other two Holt bills. The problems with DRE’s don’t take place in some politically neutral laboratory. They occur in minority and poor communities across the country. They're an extension of the old “spoiled ballots” which were used to disenfranchise millions of minority votes each year. The problems with elections, DRE's, registration, access, misinformation emerge almost exclusively from the political party with the greatest interest in contracting the franchise — keeping minorities and poor people from voting. Holt's HR 4463 and 4989 address this real world political situation. It's about time we did to rather than dwelling on bits and bytes as though that's the real problem...

• 12.18.06 Coalition Paper Ballot Call Spares Vote Villains —Opinion: Michael Collins

An impressive coalition of election fraud-election integrity groups signed an open letter to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives calling for paper ballots as the only standard for voting in the United States. Paper trails and paper records are not sufficient to safeguard elections and restore confidence among the electorate. Unless there is a paper ballot for every vote cast, three fundamental principles of democratic elections are violated: 1. Observable tallies... 2. Equal Access... 3. Accurate Results... [Emphasis mine, Ed.] The letter states clearly: ...we now hold that a paper ballot, whether counted by optical-scan system or hand, is the minimum requirement for any Election Reform legislation in which voters may have confidence. [Emphasis mine, Ed.] ... This open letter is encouraging on a number of levels, but it leaves the door open for election fraud by allowing optical scan voting machines to stay in place. Referring to "a paper ballot, whether counted by optical-scan system or hand…" does not address the numerous problems associated with optical scan systems. In a case of collective amnesia, the organizations have erased any problems associated with optical scan voting machines or the vendors that sell and service them...

12.18.06 Venezeula hand-counts FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of their ballots, cuz the —Peace Patriot

Venezuelans are smart, and don't trust the electronic voting machines.* What does that make us? DUMB! ... Here is what we need: 1. Paper ballot. 2. Substantial audit.[*] The coalition for a paper ballot--the subject of this OP--seems to be limiting itself to the first need, in a Congressional venue. I don't know why. The letter should say: paper ballot AND 10% audit (or whatever). [*] It may be that the groups could not agree on size of the audit, and so are going for the other bottom line need, a paper ballot. ... [* Ed: link to a proposal added]

12.21.06 Scoop Feedback: Re. The Paper Ballot Coalition —Two pieces of feedback in response to Michael Collins report —Brad Friedman & Paul Lehto
01.02.07 Why Paper Ballots Are Not Good Enough —Micharl Richardson, OpEdNews.com

• 08.13.06 Exit poll non-responders: the income factor means it's rKr, not rBr... —TruthIsAll
• 08.18.06 Some basics: —Peace Patriot
• 08.21.06 New Zogby Poll: It's Nearly Unanimous —Michael Collins, Part I of a II Part Series (Part II) for “Scoop” Independent News

At a stunning rate of 92%, Americans insist on the right to watch their votes being counted. And, at an overwhelming 80%, they strongly object to the use of secret computer software to tabulate votes without citizen access to that software.

Ohio Ballots and Litigation

• 09.01.06 New lawsuit alleges ballot tampering in 2004 election —Group says ballots in Democratic precincts were pre-punched, negating Kerry votes —Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch
  09.01.06 Declaration of Richard Hayes Phillips —Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. —filed 09/01/06, Case No. 06-CV-745, King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Assoc, Plaintiffs v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, et. al., Defendants, U.S. Dist Court, Southern Dist Ohio, Eastern Div
  •Exhibits to Richard Hayes Phillips' Affidavit —18 Photos

4. "...I have recently collected and examined photographs and photocopies of poll books, voter signature books, and tens of thousands of ballots from eleven counties in Ohio, and have found evidence of ballot tampering in all of them. My investigation is ongoing."

09.11.06 Opinion And Order —Judge Algenon L. Marbley, Case No. 06-CV-745, ibid. —"This Court concludes that the most effective way to preserve those [2004] election ballots during this litigation is for it to enjoin directly each Ohio county's board of elections from destroying them."
09.25.06 Court Victory Lets Preserved Ohio 2004 Ballots Tell New Tales of Theft and Fraud as Indictments and Convictions Mount —Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
12.13.06 "The Interpretation of Randomness" —Next Month's 'Rigged Recount' Trial Is Sure To Be As Contentious As the '04 Election That Sparked It —James Renner
01.03.07 Missing Votes in Ohio Call Races into Question —Bob Fitrakis, OpEdNews.com

While Democratic Party supporters celebrate their success in Ohio, where their statewide candidates won four out of five executive offices and they now control both the U.S. House and Senate, they are ignoring massive and verifiable irregularities in the 2006 election. Similar irregularities — including missing votes, undervotes and overvotes — may come back to haunt the Democrats in the 2008 general election. The only statewide partisan loss for the Democrats was also the closest contest. Republican Mary Taylor defeated Democrat Barbara Sykes for State Auditor by an official vote of 50.64% to 49.36%. Taylor prevailed by 48,826 votes. The Columbus Dispatch's final poll, usually the most accurate in the state for candidate races, predicted Sykes would win by 10%. An analysis by the Free Press documents massive discrepancies between the unofficial turnout reported by Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell immediately following the election and the official general election turnout numbers reported in December 2006. These discrepancies may help explain Sykes' unexpected loss. In Cuyahoga County which contains the Democratic stronghold of Cleveland, immediately following the election 562,498 votes were reported cast with 30,791 listed as absentee or provisional ballots. The official results show 468,056 counted in Cuyahoga. This means that 94,442 ballots cast in the unofficial total disappeared in the official tallies. This represents a shocking 16.8% of all the votes cast in Cuyahoga. Sykes won 62% of the vote in Cuyahoga County. ... Similarly in Lucas County, another Democratic stronghold, 17,351 votes disappeared (10.6% of the total vote) between the unofficial and official turnout numbers. ... Other counties with significant and unexplained loss of votes include: Auglaize (15.7%), Coshocton (14.1%), Jackson (11.3%), Licking (14.1%), Morrow (17.4%), and Tuscarawas (11.7%). In these less populated counties, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland won in five out of six and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Sherrod won in four out of the six. ... The voting irregularities in the 2006 election appear to be greater than in 2004, but many Ohio Democrats have chosen to ignore that reality. But one who hasn't taken that position is newly-elected Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who has pledged a complete review of the electronic voting machines. The facts remain that not every vote is counted or accounted for in the Buckeye State, and this could be the key factor in deciding the next president of the United States.

01.18.07 Prosecutor Says Presidential Recount Rigged in Ohio County —M.R. Kropko, Associated Press

In Cuyahoga County, a Democratic stronghold where about 600,000 ballots were cast, the recount did not have much effect on the results. Kerry gained 17 votes and Bush lost six. Patricia Wolfe, election administrator in the Ohio Secretary of State's office, testified that election boards are expected to follow the law and can choose the way precincts are selected randomly for recounts. Ohio law states that during a recount each county is supposed to randomly count at least 3 percent of its ballots by hand and by machine. If there are not discrepancies in those counts, the rest of the votes can be recounted by machine. Sample precincts were to be selected randomly before witnesses. Baxter said the case will show that the three county workers chose sample precincts for the Dec 16,2004 recount to ensure the tally sample matched a previous computer vote count, avoiding a lengthy hand recount of all ballots. "This was a very hush operation," Baxter said.

01.19.07 Do New Ohio Recount Prosecutions Indicate Unraveling of 2004 Election Theft Cover-Up? —Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman

The county prosecutors do not allege vote fraud. Nor do they say mishandling the recount affected the election's outcome. But Cleveland, which usually gives Democrats an extremely heavy margin, was crucial to Bush's alleged victory of roughly 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million counted. Some 600,000 votes were cast or counted in Cuyahoga County. But official turnout and vote counts varied wildly and improbably from precinct to precinct. Overall the county reported about a 60% turnout. But several predominantly black precincts, where voters went more than 80% for Kerry, reported turnouts of 30% or less. In one ward, only a 7% turnout was reported, while surrounding precincts were nearly ten times as high. Independent studies indicate Kerry lost thousands of votes in Cuyahoga County that rightfully should have been counted in his column. Similar allegations have been made in other counties. Indeed, such illegal non-random recounting procedures appear to have been common throughout the state, carried out by board of election employees with the tacit consent of Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell... ... But the trial in Cleveland represents just a small sampling of what happened during the Ohio recount. At a public hearing sponsored by the Free Press in Toledo in December, 2004, sworn testimony claimed that Diebold technicians were party to picking the "random" precincts to be recounted... In Miami County... In Fairfield County... In Hocking County, Board of Elections Deputy Director, Sherole Eaton was fired after she submitted an affidavit to U.S. Rep. John Conyers outlining how Hocking BOE officials pre-selected one precinct because it had the "right" number of voters (3%), thus illegally prescreening like Cuyahoga County... In Coshocton County, Green Party recount observer Tim Kettler acquired public records showing that election officials pre-counted in secrecy in clear violation of Ohio law. Coshocton BOE officials desperately begged Secretary of State Blackwell for advice when the recount did not match. Blackwell's office urged the county to simply send in the results as official. But after being confronted by angry recount observers, Coshocton BOE officials became the only ones in Ohio to hand count every ballot. The recount resulted in a statistically significant vote pickup for John Kerry among previously uncounted ballots. ...

01.20.07 The Significance of a Corrupted Recount of the Cleveland 2004 Presidential Vote —Time for Change

... The significance of the corrupted recount If my assumptions and calculations are correct — if the Kerry/Edwards ticket did lose 43 thousand votes in Cleveland because the Cuyahoga County central tabulator deleted Cleveland votes, that would not by itself have changed the results of the Presidential election in Ohio, which John Kerry “lost” by 118 thousand votes. However, this analysis may have underestimated the number of deleted votes, for example if it underestimated the voter turnout in Cleveland[*] or if vote deletion was selectively targeted at the most Democratic Cleveland precincts. Additional evidence (See Cuyahoga County results) for that possibility comes from a study that shows that in Cuyahoga County there was an inverse relationship between voter turnout and percentage of the vote for John Kerry, county wide. Also, there is a great deal of additional evidence of election fraud in Ohio. In Cuyahoga County alone there appears to have been massive illegal purging of registered voters, resulting in a net loss of additional tens of thousands of net Kerry/Edwards votes in Ohio. John Conyers' report, “Preserving Democracy— What Went Wrong in Ohio”, provides a great deal of additional solid evidence of numerous “irregularities” occurring in the 2004 Ohio Presidential election. And there is much much more. The prosecutors who are prosecuting the Cuyahoga County election officials for rigging the Cuyahoga County recount have implied that the sole reason for that crime may have been to avoid the excess work of having to recount all the votes in the county. That explanation does not seem very plausible to me. Election workers get paid for their work. If they didn't have to hand count the presidential votes they certainly would have been given other work to do. Would three people commit a felony simply to avoid a little excess work? Far more important than the prosecution of those three individual election officials is figuring out what happened, so that measures may be taken to prevent a repeat occurrence — in Ohio or elsewhere. Perhaps the trial will shed light on this. But just as or more important than the trial would be a complete hand recount of the Cuyahoga County vote. I don't know if the records are still available, but if they are there is no reason not to proceed with a full recount — which should have been done a long time ago.    [* ed: link added]

01.24.07 2 election workers convicted of rigging '04 presidential recount —M.R. Kropko, Associated Press
01.26.07 Election attorneys amplify importance of convictions for recount rigging in Ohio 2004 presidential race —Paul Lehto

"The rigging of the recount was the NORM in Ohio, and the Cleveland convictions are just the tip of the iceberg. The recount rigging came right from the top with Ken Blackwell saying that the definition of "random" recount was whatever the locals decided -- including nonrandom selection of ballots and allowing private vendors to pick the precincts to be recounted. I think Blackwell (who was co-chair of the Bush Cheney campaign) knew that a proper recount would have revealed that John Kerry was elected by Ohioans in 2004, and not the candidate Blackwell represented in Ohio. As attorneys in pending litigation in Ohio, in our case it is our goal is to continue to preserve the ballots in Ohio so that citizens and scholars can determine the true count someday soon. As a matter of fact, limited proper recounts have been performed and wherever we've counted we've found discrepancies in favor of Kerry." —Bob Fitrakis

01.27.07 First criminal convictions from Ohio's stolen 2004 election confirm recount was rigged —Bob FitrakisThe Free Press

The first felony convictions of two Cleveland poll workers stemming from Ohio's stolen 2004 election confirm that the official recount in that contested vote was, in the words of county prosecutors, "rigged." The question now is whether further prosecutions will reach higher up in the ranks of officials who may have been involved in illegalities throughout the rest of the state. ... Throughout the rest of the state, under the direction of Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, mandatory random sampling was not done, as prescribed by law... Blackwell simultaneously served as state co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. This fall he was defeated in his campaign for governor by Democrat Ted Strickland. ...

• 09.07.06 Pollster guilty of fake data conspiracy —Michael P. Mayko, Connecticut Post
• 09.16.06 ABRAMOFF-DIEBOLD-NEY TIMELINE: HOW THE GOP STOLE DEMOCRACY —Dems Will Win
• 09.21.06 Will The Next Election Be Hacked? —ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. for Rolling Stone Magazine
• 09.25.06 ZOGBY POLL: VOTERS QUESTION OUTCOME OF 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION —Only 45% of Voters “Very Confident” Bush Won Election “fair and square”—Michael Collins, Part II of a II Part Series (Part I) for “Scoop” Independent News
• 09.30.06 Direct Material Proof of Massive Election Fraud in Ohio in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election —Ron Baiman, Ph.D.
• 10.01.06 OUR RIGGED ELECTIONS —The Elephant in the Polling Booth—Mark Crispin Miller
• 10.05.06 Alaska: 2004 Electronic Election Data Was Changed in 2006 —Division of Elections Asked to Explain Changes —Kay Brown, Alaska Democratic Party
• 11.01.06 Repairing the U.S. System of Voting: 50 Concrete Steps —Harvey Wasserman, Bob Fitrakis & Steve Rosenfeld
• 11.23.06 Ballot Formats, Touchscreens, and Undervotes: A Study of the 2006 Midterm Elections in Florida (Dec 3, 2006 Draft) —Laurin Frisina, Michael C. Herron, James Honak, Jeffrey B. Lewis
• 11.23.06 TIA: A Reply to DUers who question my probability assumptions/calculations —TruthIsAll
• 11.29.06 E-voting measures sought to avoid disputes —Frank Davies, San Jose Mercury News
• 12.01.06 NIST Recommends Not Certifying Paperless Voting Machines —Ed Felten, Princeton University
• 12.03.06 A Comprehensive Debate with a Naysayer —"Febble, here is my response..." —TruthIsAll
• 12.03.06         THE SIMPLE MATH  (1948-2006):
                  FRAUD = UNCOUNTED + SWITCHED VOTES
                  "This is an analysis of historical elections." —TruthIsAll
• 12.05.06 New CA SoS Debra Bowen won't push for return to paper ballots —Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee
• 12.15.06 How Kerry lost 7 million votes: 2.6 uncounted; 4.4 switched —TruthIsAll
• 01.02.07 My response to Mark Lindeman's “TruthIsAll FAQ” —TruthIsAll
• 01.02.07 Why Paper Ballots Are Not Good Enough —Michael Richardson, OpEdNews.com
• 01.02.07 BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT: Why Kerry Won — the 2004 True Vote Excel Model —TruthIsAll

The 2004 TRUE VOTE MODEL encapsulates the mathematical arguments which indicate why Kerry easily won the 2004 election BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Download and run the Excel model: http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/KerryTrueVote.zip ... The TRUE VOTE MODEL uses factual historic election data. It considers voter mortality and turnout estimates in order to calculate reasonable Exit Poll weights. It assumes that the early 12:22am NEP vote shares are a good starting point (base case) for the analysis, but allows the user to change ANY AND ALL ASSUMPTIONS. Users of the model are challenged to find one plausible Bush win scenario. In lieu of this, the base case scenario indicates that Kerry won by over seven million votes. ...

 

• 01.05.07 New CA SoS Bowen Believes Voting Machine 'Sleepovers' Illegal, Will Review Every System in Use From 'Top to Bottom,' Will Consider Decertification of Machines Approved by Predecessor McPherson! —BLOGGED BY Brad on 1/5/2007
• 01.14.07 2004 Pre-Election Polls Monthly Trend —TruthIsAll
• 01.30.07 HAVA — The road to Boondoggle was paved with good intentions —Help America Vote Act (HAVA) LOBBYIST List —Bev Harris, BlackBoxVoting.org
  
  
  
• "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines" — Answers.com
• "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities" —Wikipedia

Audio

• Forum: What Went Wrong in Ohio? -- July 21, 2005 About the Forum & Panelists: Rick MacArthur (publisher, Harper's Magazine), John Conyers, Jr., Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Sherrod Brown, Eleanor Clift, and Mark Crispin Miller —(32.6 Mb MP3 file)
• Jim Lampley interviewed by Brad Friedman of The BRAD BLOG
• Ion Sancho Interviewed by Brad Friedman - April 3, 2006
• None Dare Call It Stolen - Mark Crispin Miller on WNYC
• Mark Crispin Miller on WPR 11-17-05
• Mark Crispin Miller on Media Matters with Bob McChesney 11-20-05
• Thom Hartmann and Paul Lehto on the Corporate takeover of America's elections at the First Unitarian Church in Portland on July 16, 2005
• Dr. Dennis Loo —Author of "No Paper Trail Left Behind: The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election"
• Mark Crispin Miller on KPFA 04-26-06
• RFK Jr. & Farhad Manjoo discuss election fraud on WNYC 6-12-06
• Brad Friedman discusses Busby/Bilbray Election with Ed Shultz 6-12-06
• Randi Rhodes discusses election fraud - Air America Radio 6-7-06
• Greg Palast discusses CAGING LISTS on Democracy Now! —6/14/06.mp3
  

Video

• Rep. Peter King (R-NY) with GW Bush at Summer 2003 White House BBQ —"It's already over. The election's over. We won...It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."
• America's Illegitimate Election 2004 | Source
• Bob Fitrakis at Election Fraud Teach In
• Mark Crispin Miller on Washington Journal (C-Span) 11-27-05
• Voting Machines Hacked?
• Mark Crispin Miller on BookTV - CSPAN2 4-09-06 —(QuickTime - 53 minutes)
• Mark Crispin Miller on BookTV - CSPAN2 4-09-06 Q & A Session —(QuickTime - 31 minutes)
• Fixing Elections: Who Will Your Voting Machine Vote For? —University of Washington, 4/25/06 (QuickTime 1hr. 45mins)
• RFK Jr. on The Colbert Report discussing Election Fraud —6/12/06 (QuickTime)
• CNN's Lou Dobbs Series: Democracy At Risk —June 2, 2006 to Sept 22, 2006, video & transcript
• Free DVD Set: CNN's Lou Dobbs: Democracy At Risk —Vol 1: 6/20/2006 to 9/15/2006, Vol 2: 9/20/2006 to 10/31/2006 —Table of Contents
• Lou Dobbs discusses foreign ownership of voting machine companies —6/05/06 (QuickTime)
• Lou Dobbs on E-Voting Vulnerability —6/12/06 (QuickTime)
• Lou Dobbs discusses Diebold in Georgia —6/20/06 (QuickTime)
• Catherine Crier editorial — "Defending Our Democracy I: Can we promote democracy in Iraq while our own is under attack?" — 6/21/06
• Catherine Crier editorial — "Defending Our Democracy II:" — 7/11/06
• Security Demonstration Video — Diebold AccuVote-TS Electronic Voting Machine — Center for IT Policy, Princeton University, 9/13/06 (WMV)

Downloadable .pdfs with much more information

• TruthIsAll PDF —TruthIsAll, Aug 2006..."It's all here in one, easy to read PDF"
(includes Interactive Election Simulation Model (xls), with links to National Exit Poll data and Statistical & Probability Topics)
• 2004 True Vote Model (zip-file) —TruthIsAll
• On the notion of “software independence” in voting systems —Draft Version July 28, 2006 —Ronald L. Rivest, John P. Wack, MIT for NIST
• Requiring Software Independence in VVSQ 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC —Discussion Draft, Nov 2006 —Prepared by NIST Staff
• The Gun is Smoking: 2004 Ohio Precinct-level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount —USCountVotes.org - National Election Data Archive, January 23, 2006
• Help America Vote Act of 2002 —Public Law 107-252, October 29, 2002, 107th Congress
• The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy —Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D. (12/29/04, orig. publ 11/12/04, rev. 11/21/04)
• EAC —Interim Accreditation —Independent Testing Authorities (ITA) —Assessment Report —CIBER & Wyle —Conducted: Jul 17-22, 2006—Assessor: Steven V. Freeman
• The HR 550 Election Audit Methodology in U.S. Congressional Elections: Fundamental Shortcomings and Proposed Solutions —Bruce O'Dell; Jonathan Simon, JD; Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D.; & Steven Freeman, Ph.D.
• Repairing the U.S. System of Voting: 50 Concrete Steps —Harvey Wasserman, Bob Fitrakis and Steve Rosenfeld
• Affidavit of Clinton Eugene Curtis —Exclusive to BradBlog
• Affidavit of Sherole Eaton, Hocking County, OH Deputy Director of Elections
• Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio —Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, Rep. John Conyers, Jr, Ranking
• Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 —Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, for the National Election Pool (NEP)
• Study of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies —Response to Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 Report—USCountVotes.org
• Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies —USCountVotes.org
• Patterns of Exit Poll Discrepancies - Working Paper —USCountVotes.org - National Election Data Archive
• The 2004 Presidential Election: Exit Poll Error or Vote Miscount? —USCountVotes.org - National Election Data Archive
• Evidence of Election Irregularities in Snohomish County, Washington, General Election, 2004 —Paul R. Lehto, JD & Jeffrey Hoffman, Ph.D.
• The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won The Popular Vote? —Jonathan D. Simon, JD & Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D.
• ELECTIONS—Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems... —GAO Report, Sept 2005, U.S. Government Accountability Office
• History of the Debate Surrounding the 2004 Presidential Election —ElectionArchive.org   author: Kathy Dopp    contributors: Ron Baiman, Jonathan Simon, Josh Mitteldorf, & Paul Lehto
• Vote-Switching Software Provided by Vendors - a partial list
• Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter —Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB)
• Critical Security Issues with Diebold Optical Scan Design. The Black Box Report. SECURITY ALERT:... —Harri Hursti, for BBV, Inc
• Diebold TSx Evaluation. SECURITY ALERT:...Critical Security Issues with Diebold TSx —Harri Hursti, for BBV, Inc
• Diebold TSx Evaluation. Supplemental report, additional observations. SECURITY ALERT:.. —Harri Hursti, for BBV, Inc
• Malfunction And Malfeasance - A Report On The Electronic Voting Machine Debacle —Common Cause
• The Machinery Of Democracy: Protecting Elections In An Electronic World — Full Report. —Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
• The Machinery Of Democracy: Protecting Elections In An Electronic World — Executive Summary. —Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
• Declaration of Richard Hayes Phillips —Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. —Exhibits to Richard Hayes Phillips' Affidavit
• Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine — Full Report. —Ariel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, & Edward W. Felten, Princeton University
• E-Voting Failures in the 2006 Mid-Term Elections —A sampling of problems across the nation —A report prepared by VotersUnite.Org, VoteTrustUSA.org, & VoterAction.org, January, 2007
• Ballot Formats, Touchscreens, and Undervotes: A Study of the 2006 Midterm Elections in Florida (Dec 3, 2006 Draft) —Laurin Frisina, Michael C. Herron, James Honak, Jeffrey B. Lewis
• Electionline.org Briefing: The 2006 Election —Nov 2006—Electionline.org

In Print

• Myth Breakers: Facts about Electronic Elections —2nd edition - designed for County Officials  FREE DOWNLOAD  Help distribute Myth Breakers 2nd edition, to ALL local election officials in the country.
  
• What Went Wrong in Ohio: The Conyers Report on the 2004 Presidential Election —Rep. John Conyers, Anita Miller (Editor), Gore Vidal (Introduction)
  
  
• Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election? —Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld, Harvey Wasserman
  
  
• Fooled Again —Mark Crispin Miller
  
  
• Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? —Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count —Steve Freeman & Joel Bleifuss
  
  
• How the Gop Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008 —Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
  
  
• What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election —Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld, Harvey Wasserman
  
  
• Armed Madhouse : Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf? China Floats, Bush Sinks, The Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left, and Other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War —Greg Palast



• Brave New Ballot: The Battle to Safeguard Democracy in the Age of Electronic Voting —Aviel David Rubin
  (click here for video interview of author by Kitty Pilgrim of CNN's 8/21/06 "Lou Dobbs Tonight")
  
  
• HACKED! High Tech Election Theft in America —11 Experts Expose the Truth —edited by Abbe Waldman DeLozier & Vickie Karp. Authors: Lynn Landes, Jeremiah Akin, Bev Harris, Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, May Schmidt, Victoria Collier, Cynthia Ann McKinney, Kathleen Wynne
  

Movies

• No Umbrella — Election Day in the City (w/Trailer...Cleveland, OH Election Day '04) —Laura Paglin, Director Review



• Hacking Democracy —HBO Documentary Films      DVD Availability and Review —Brad Friedman, The BradBlog



• Eternal Vigilance —The Fight to Save Our Election System —David Earnhardt



• Stealing America: Vote by Vote (...a work-in-progress...) —Dorothy Fadiman, Producer/Director



• Electile Dysfunction —Penny Little

Take Action

• Send copies of the above books & movies, & the Solar Bus Multimedia CD-R to the media and politicians
• Write a letter to the editor of your local paper
• Support verifiable voting technologies, random audits, hand counted paper ballots, and the Vote-PAD

Other Sites

• Solar Bus Election Justice Center
• The BRAD BLOG
•  ELECTION  FRAUD  NEWS  —Michael Collins (Publisher) —Resources & Articles, Legal Information, Activist & Policy Groups, News & Editorial
• Election Defense Alliance
• Statistical Analysis by TruthIsAll and 'TruthIsAll PDF' site and 2004 True Vote Model and Election Fraud Analytics
• Election Reform Forum at Democratic Underground
• Elections & Voting Rights at Progressive Independent
• The Free Press —"Speaking Truth to Power" —Ohio & National Elections News & Analysis —Voter Suppression & Disenfranchisement
• BlackBoxVoting.org
• OHIO 2004: Another Stolen Election —Archive of Reports by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
• Election Law @ Moritz —Election Law Litigation —Major Pending Cases & Archives by state —Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University
• EIRS —Election Incident Reporting System — 42,841 Incident Reports in 2004: described, mapped & accessible by State & County
• U.S. Census Bureau —109th Congressional Districts Geographic Products (for 109th Congress of U.S., January 2005-2007).
• VerifiedVoting.org —USA Election Officials
• ElectionLine.org —Voting Systems 2006 (updated as of 9/26/06), by State & County
• VoterAction.org — State Lawsuits: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
• Election Fraud Blog
• VotersUnite.org —Election Problem Log - 2004+: compilation of problems reported in the media, adding stories about elections in 2006
• 2004 Election Theft
• USCountVotes.org —NEDA: Analyses by USCV statisticians (10) —Debate: Academic Criticisms of NEDA's work (8) —Response: USCV's debate responses (6)
• VoteTrustUSA.org —CNN's Lou Dobbs Series: Democracy At Risk —June 2, 2006 to Sept 22, 2006, video & transcript

Any questions or suggestions on how to make this page better? E-Mail me!

Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, economic, democratic, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.