|"If you are asked by elections officials what gives you the right to watch over the elections that grant all the legitimate power and money the government ever gets, and why a government official shouldn't be trusted to count secretly the processes that determine the government's own money and power, since you've got lots of things to do, just tell them:
‘Thomas Jefferson sent me.’
Remind them that...
|You will have plenty of energy and time to do these tasks to protect freedom and democracy, if you just remind yourself of
what others have sacrificed so that you could enjoy democracy, and consider whether we have the right to allow democracy to literally disappear on our watch by our inaction. Then you'll be a sentinel of democracy, one of democracy's real defenders."
—Paul Lehto April 18, 2006
|our system of government is not based
on trust; it's based on checks and balances.
|The Rolling Stone article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is just the latest step in realizing the truth about stolen election 2004.
Just so everyone understands, here's how it all started.
National Exit Polls are released periodically throughout election day showing Kerry winning (up through the final poll of the day at just after midnight).
We were not supposed to see them but great lawyer, statistician, thinker Jonathan Simon captured the unintentionally released exit polls. He knew there were problems when the vote count contradicted the exit poll results. So did many of us as we reviewed Ohio and the rest of the voter disenfranchisement efforts across the nation. TruthIsAll TIA got a hold of the data and noticed something very wrong, outlining the case by Nov. 9, 2004.
Simon and Alastair Thompson (althecat) wrote their article in “Scoop” Independent News, Nov. 17, 2004.
The truth was out and TruthIsAll, Steve Freeman, Ron Baiman and the rest of the brave "math people" made the case on the exit polls while Bob Fitrakis, Ph.D., Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D., Cliff Arnebeck, and a host of wonderful activists all over America nailed down the rest of the evidence of voter suppression and disenfranchisement.
Democratic Underground and its Elections Forum was absolutely central to the process...
— autorank, TruthIsAll is Back...!!!
|December 13, 2004||December 13, 2005|
|"It was a powerful moment ...causing me to break down and cry ...because there was proof, before my very eyes, that these machines were every bit as bad as we all had feared."|
|Clint Curtis took a polygraph test on March 3rd, 2005...and passed!||Slide Presentation||The Harri Hursti Hack
|June 1, 2006|
|"...evidence shows Ohio Sec. of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was 'certainly in on' the scheme, and there are indications that the effort went all the way up to the White House."|
|"And that's just the beginning of the story, which includes ballot-box stuffing, electronic voting machine manipulation, 'caging' in defiance of a court order banning Republicans from the notorious practice, threats and intimidation of Democratic voters by imported Republican goon squads, and multiple illegal uses of the office of the Secretary of State to disenfranchise Democratic voters." —Thom Hartmann|
06.02.06 Was the 2004 election stolen? No. —Farhad Manjoo (Salon.com)
06.03.06 A Semi-Comprehensive Quizzing of Manjoo's Rebuttal of RFK Jr. —Malcolm
06.03.06 The False-Fake Debate over RFK Jr's RS Article Started by Salon Ignores Democracy and What's Important —Paul Lehto
(To scroll use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)…
…easy to shift votes on punchcard machines due to the ballot rotation law in Ohio…
By the way, it is easy to shift votes on punchcard machines due to the ballot rotation law in Ohio. For instance, the hole to punch for Kerry would be “4” in one precinct and the hole to punch for Bush would be “4” in the next precinct. Public records reveal that in key southwest Ohio counties, ballots were counted at the county level, not the precinct level, to save money on counting machines. Thus, all one has to do is shift Kerry cards to a Bush tabulating machine to get a shift. There was more than enough time to do this, when votes came in during the wee hours of the morning. In fact, when we finally got to look at the ballots from four precincts in Warren County, we were surprised to discover that two pink “header” cards used to separate precinct ballots had holes punched for Bush.
It appears Manjoo knows very little about Ohio election law. As a licensed attorney in the state and involved in the practice of election law, I’m stunned by the obvious errors that Manjoo makes. The purges in Ohio were, in fact, deliberate, and they occurred in Democratic strongholds. Cuyahoga County records indicate 24.93% of all voters in Cleveland were purged between the 2000 and 2004 election. Census data indicates that most of the people who move in urban areas move within the county, which would make them still eligible to vote under Ohio law, and not be purged. What Manjoo leaves out is the standard practice by counties, which would have moved these individuals to “inactive” status before purging them. Additionally, numerous surveys as well as reports by the Toledo Blade and other newspapers reveal that many of these people had voted in local elections or had contacted their county board of elections, which under voting directives indicates activity. This activity would prevent them from being purged.
Yes, there was the deliberate purging in the Democratic strongholds indeed. The Toledo Blade reports 28,000 voters purged from the Democratic stronghold of Toledo in late August 2004. Perhaps Manjoo should make it a practice to do a Lexus Nexus search prior to attacking people for omitting data. The key here is that it is standard for counties to purge in odd-number years, 2001, 2003, etc. Manjoo also ignores the fact that 95.12% of all the provisional voters in Hamilton County came from the Democratic city of Cincinnati, where only 32% of the county’s voters resided. Less than 5% of the provisional ballots were handed out in the lily-white suburbs. Perhaps Manjoo has a hard time imagining a man of Karl Rove’s high standards targeting black and poor voters.
Salon.com gets it all wrong —Bob Fitrakis
06.05.06 Manjoo Critique in Salon is Superficial and Erroneous Nonsense —Ron Baiman
(To scroll use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
…under Color of Law…
In another specious attack, Manjoo questions whether any of the more than 300,000 voters who were purged in advance of the 2004 election actually showed up at the polls. "It's impossible to know if those were even real people," he writes.
Farhad Manjoo, meet Barbara George. She was among the tens of thousands disenfranchised in this manner. "My God. We are sixty-six years old," she told the Toledo Blade at the time. "We registered when we first turned twenty-one. We have lived in this same house for forty-four years, and [now, because of the purge] I can't vote. It just seems ridiculous that you have to keep re-registering if you don't vote."
Mrs. George was among 28,000 voters who were purged from the voter rolls only a few months before the election in Lucas County. Why before and not after the election? That arbitrary decision was made by the Lucas County Board of Elections, a group so ethically challenged, the whole lot of them, Democrats and Republicans alike, were forced to resign following a state inquiry.
It is also arbitrary that the voter rolls were purged in some cities -- Toledo, Cleveland, Cincinnati -- but not others, notably Columbus. This disparate treatment raises serious equal-protection concerns under the Constitution. Indeed Ohio stands as a case study in how officials, acting under color of law, can deprive citizens of their constitutional rights.
Was the 2004 Election Stolen? - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Farhad Manjoo face off —Robert F. Kennedy Jr. & Farhad Manjoo
06.06.06 Stand Up for Democracy With Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. —Thom Hartmann
06.07.06 More Manjoo Fallacies and Lack of Comprehension —Ron Baiman
06.12.06 Illegitimate Election —Steven F. Freeman (Response to criticism of his analysis of the 2004 election)
06.14.06 Kennedy’s Challenge: Salon, Mother Jones & the Tortured Dialogue On Election Fraud 2004 —Michael Collins
06.15.06 My Response To Manjoo's Salon Critique —Cliff Arnebeck
06.16.06 Some Might Call It Treason: An Open Letter to Salon —Mark Crispin Miller, posted on Huffington Post
06.30.06 The 2004 Election -- Kennedy report ignites controversy —Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone
(To scroll use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
Video: Ohio Ballots Speak - Bush Win Statistically Impossible PDF:
Direct Material Proof of Massive Election Fraud
in Ohio in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election
[Clicking opens both a VIDEO and a PDF with resizable graphs and Mitofsky correspondence
Separate Links for Video and PDF also provided]
September 30, 2006
Dr. Ron Baiman presents to an audience
graphic "Smoking Gun" evidence
MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD in OHIO
using 2004 Edison-Mitofsky raw data sub-samples
from 49 representative-sample state precincts
- “Virtually Irrefutable” Exit Poll Evidence of Vote Miscount
- A One in 187 Billion “Coincidence”?
- The 12 Rural County Remarkable “Series of Coincidences”
- Direct Material Proof of Election Fraud in Ohio
I. “Virtually Irrefutable” Exit Poll Evidence of Vote Miscount" (VIDEO)
- Graphic pattern of ESI Report data is what vote switching2 would look like (see graph):
Dense, Non-random error-distribution vs Random error-distribution [pg 4, graph]
- 22 of 49 representative-sample precincts (45%) show "statistically significant" discrepancy
between precinct exit poll shares and precinct official vote shares [±5% level]. [pg 6, 'Kerry WPD']
- TWENTY of the 22 significantly-discrepant precincts (91%) are "against KERRY" [neg %]
- TWO of the 22 significantly-discrepant precincts (9 %) are "against Bush" [pos %]
- No "Uniform Bias": Adjusting for hypothetical response bias ["rBr"] by subtracting an optimal 18% factor does not remove/explain the discrepancy. [pg 7]
II. A One in 187 Billion “Coincidence”? (VIDEO)
- Two of the 49 representative-sample precincts' data differ by 9% and 6% from data presented in the "No smoking gun" ESI report (Mitofsky, asst-author) [pg 10 table, col 9, row 44/45]
- Odds of EP-discrepancy "due to chance" change from 1:5,500 to < 1:187,000,000,000 and
from 1:154 to 1:526,406 respectively (i.e. statistically impossible). [pg 17, pg 6]
- Correspondence with Mitofsky yielded no satisfactory explanation [pg 11-16]
* * * * *
1 Exit Polls … "Forced" … "Count" … Vote-Marks
2 RFK Jr … Salon.com Gets It All Wrong … Bob Fitrakis
3 FAQ+Analytics … Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ … PART I … ELECTION FRAUD ANALYSIS … Ohio
- Ballots were destroyed in 56 of 88 counties
- 2000-2004 Ohio Votes and Margins by County Voting Machine Type
DRE … OPTISCAN … PUNCH … "Inc" refers to voting machine incidents.
- Initial vs. Final Ohio Exit Poll ( TruthIsAll )
Using the original 12:22am Ohio exit poll weights for the following demographics, it would have been necessary to inflate the Bush vote shares to implausible levels to match the recorded vote. So the weights were changed in favor of Bush to minimize the change.
-First-time Voters: Of the 14% who were first-time voters, 55% were for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 47% of the other 86%?
-When Decided: Of the 21% who decided in the month prior to the election, 62% voted for Kerry. Are we to believe that he won just 45% of the 79% who decided earlier? Did Bush lead by 10% [ 55R - 45D ?] in any of the early polls?
-Party ID: The weights changed from 38D/35R to 35D/40R, a 7.9% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 17% of Democrats to match the recorded vote. He had 8%.
-Ideology: Liberal/Conservative weights changed from 21/32 to 19/34, a 9.5% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 23% of Liberals to match the recorded vote. He had 13%.
-Voted for Senate: Democratic/Republican weights changed from 43/57 to 36/64, a 16.3% shift. With the original weights, Bush needed 14% of those who voted for the Democratic candidate. He had 7%.
Direct Material Proof of Massive Election Fraud in Ohio in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election —Ron Baiman, Ph.D. —PDF only —VIDEO only
07.24.06 An Open Letter to Salon's Farhad Manjoo —TruthIsAll
- 07.02.06 EXCLUSIVE DETAILS: RFK Jr., Florida Law Firm to File Federal Whistleblower Suits Against Two Voting Machine Companies! —BLOGGED By Brad on 7/2/2006
07.12.06 FIRST RFK JR. VOTING MACHINE WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT NOW FILED IN FEDERAL COURT! NEW DETAILS! —BLOGGED By Brad on 7/13/2006
- 09.21.06 Will The Next Election Be Hacked? —Fresh disasters at the polls -- and new evidence from an industry insider -- prove that electronic voting machines can't be trusted — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Rolling Stone Magazine (Oct 5, 2006 issue)
|"The article...covers several new and sometimes explosive details of Diebold's rollouts in both Georgia and Maryland dating back to 2002, as well as Florida, Ohio and Texas in 2004."
From "EXCLUSIVE: New RFK Jr. Article On Diebold Says 'Electronic Voting Can't Be Trusted'" by Brad Friedman
|Protecting The Democratic Vote:|
“Scoop” Independent News, Washington, D.C.
(To scroll use ↓↑ keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)
The election fraud model projected that the Democrats would win at least 240 House seats, but lose 10-15 to fraud. It correctly forecast that they would gain control of the Senate by winning six GOP-held seats, although they barely won Virginia and Montana. The Democratic Tsunami overcame the fraud in the House and Senate.
There is no longer any doubt that the poll/vote discrepancies were caused by uncounted and switched votes. Evidence of fraud was once again found in the Final National Exit Poll which matched to the recorded vote count with the use of fallacious weightings. The 2006 Final “How Voted in 2004” weights were manipulated just like they were in the 2004 Final “How Voted in 2000”.
In 2006, the weights were transformed from 47 Bush/ 45 Kerry at 7pm to 49 Bush/ 43 Kerry at 1pm the next day! This replicated the 41 Bush/39 Gore to impossible 43 Bush/ 37 Gore weight changes in 2004. The net effect of the change was to cut the Democratic margin in half — from 55-43% to 52-46%! Applying realistic weights to the 7pm NEP (using the 12:22am 2004 NEP) the Democratic margin becomes 56.7-42.1%, exactly matching the 120- Generic poll trend projection! Was it a coincidence or confirmation? You decide.
This is the best evidence that once again the Final Exit Poll was forced to match a fraudulent miscount. Simple logic dictates that if just one demographic requires impossible or implausible weights and/or vote shares in order to match the vote count, then all other demographics must be bogus as well.
Matching to the vote is nothing new; exit pollsters have been doing it long before Bush arrived on the scene and stolen elections became the norm. In the pre-BushCo world, matching the Final NEP to an essentially fraud-free recorded vote made sense — until BushCo came along and stole the 2000 election, along with repeat performances in 2002 and 2004. The 2006 Democratic Tsunami overwhelmed the fraud but the Dems still "lost" 10-15 House seats they should have won.
Mark Lindeman said this: “personally, I think Pew was probably not far off”, referring to the final Pew Generic poll (47 Dem / 43% Rep). None are as blind as those who will not see. The Democrats won all 120 pre-election polls. Mark refuses to recognize the obvious. What about the other 119 pre-election polls? Is it just a coincidence that he chose to believe the Pew poll, an obvious outlier in which the 4% Democratic margin was 10% below the trend line?
Talk about cherry-picking!...
[ed. — For additional articles and analysis on the 2006 Mid-Terms click menu-Tab 2006 Landslide Denied
— Election Fraud 2006 —
Quantifying the Risk
|— Election Fraud 2006 —
Risk Assessment Update
Analysis: A Formula for
Catching Election Fraud
House and Senate Take Over
Prospects for a 34 Seat House
Pick Up Look Good
Democrats Should Take Up To
40 House Seats And
6 In The Senate
A: 2006 LANDSLIDE DENIED —Final Exit Poll "does NOT compute —again!"
11.07.06 Early returns on voting machines —Paul McNamara, Networld.com
11.10.06 The 2006 FINAL National Exit Poll does NOT compute — again! —"THE DEMOCRATS DID MUCH BETTER THAN THE FINAL EXIT POLL INDICATES! They always do." —TruthIsAll
11.14.06 THE MATH: Democratic Tsunami and GOP House Election Fraud —"The following analysis estimates the effects of vote switching in the 61 House GOP seats that were in play. It also determines which seats were the most likely candidates for fraud." —TruthIsAll
11.16.06 PRESS RELEASE: Major Miscount of Vote in 2006 Election —Reported Results Skewed Toward Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes —Election Defense Alliance Calls for Investigation
EXIT POLL DATA: 2006 Exit Poll Data Screenshot Captures
FULL REPORT: Landslide Denied : Exit Polls vs. Vote Count 2006 —Under-sampling of Democrats in the House Exit Poll and the Corruption of the Official Vote Count —Jonathan Simon, JD and Bruce O’Dell, Election Defense Alliance
|...there was gross vote count manipulation and it had a great impact on the results of E2006, significantly decreasing the magnitude of
what would have been, accurately tabulated, a landslide of epic proportions|
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.
|ABSTRACT: In the November 7, 2006 election in Ohio there were 350,669 more ballots cast than the number of votes counted for United States Senator. In 16 counties there were 268,987 uncounted votes, or 19.46% of ballots cast, compared to 82,957, or 2.99%, in 71 other counties. Cuyahoga County alone accounted for 148,958 uncounted votes, or 26.48% of ballots cast in the county, and 42.47% of the statewide total of uncounted ballots. In Marion County there were 1,275 more votes counted for United States Senator than the reported number of ballots cast, which is an impossibility. If the rate of uncounted ballots in the 17 suspect counties had been about 3%, as was the case elsewhere in the state, there would have been about 42,000 uncounted ballots instead of 269,000. This indicates that 227,000 votes may have been lost by the touch screen voting machines, which were utilized in all 17 of the suspect counties.|
|...There is no longer any doubt that the poll/vote discrepancies are caused by miscounting votes. The proof is once again found in the 2006 Final National
Exit Poll which matched to the recorded vote count with the use of
fallacious weightings. As in 2004, the Democrats won the
"preliminary" 7:07pm NEP by a solid 55-43%. But the 1:00pm Final
cut the margin in half (52-46%).|
The 7:07pm NEP low-balled the Democratic vote share with the use of "How Voted in 2004" Bush/Kerry (47/45%) weights. The Final NEP (49/43%) weights are even more outrageous; they're a carbon copy of the mathematically impossible 2004 Final Bush/Gore (43/37%). This is the best evidence that once again the Final Exit Poll was forced to match a fraudulent miscount...
(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
|2004 Exit Polls background, from excerpts of "An Open Letter to Salon's Farhad Manjoo" by TruthIsAll :|
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.
According to the 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.
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 To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe...—Part I—TruthIsAll11.15.04 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
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.
… The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy —Steven F Freeman, Ph.D. (Dec 29, 2004)
|A random sample of a population can be modeled as a normal distribution curve. Exit polls,
however, are not random samples. To avoid prohibitive expense, exit poll samples are clustered,
which means that precincts, rather than individuals, are randomly selected. This increases
variance and thus the margin of error because of the possibility that precinct voters share similar
characteristics which distinguish them from the rest of the state in ways that past voting behavior
would not predict. An analysis of the 1996 exit polls estimated that the cluster sample design adds
“a 30 percent increase in the sampling error computed under the assumption of simple random
sampling” (Merkle and Edelman, 2000, p. 72).
Figure 1.2 depicts the resulting distribution curve for samples of 1,963 randomly selected respondents from approximately 40 randomly selected precincts in Ohio, a state in which 48.5% of the vote went for Kerry...It turns out that the likelihood that Kerry would poll 52.1% from a population in which he receives only 48.5% of the vote is less than one-in-one-hundred (.0073).
Conducting the same analysis for Florida...the chances that he would poll 49.7% out of 2,846 respondents in an exit poll with no systematic error is less than two-in-one-hundred (.0164). In the third critical battleground state, Pennsylvania...the likelihood that an exit poll would predict 54.1%, given 50.8% support of the electorate is just slightly more than one-in-one-hundred (.0126).
Assuming independent state polls with no systematic bias, the odds against any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together are more than 5,000:1 (five times more improbable than ten straight heads from a fair coin). The odds against all three occurring together are 662,000-to-one. As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.
- 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
|Pre-punched ballots; touch-screen vote switching; more absentee votes than absentee voters; unfair provisional voter deletions; change of voting sites on Election Day; voter suppression; voter intimidation; double voting; malfunctioning machines; recalibrated machines; evidently rigged machines; and even 25 million negative votes registered in some races in Mahoning County [Ohio]!
Those were among the problematic incidents shared at a 3-hour public hearing on vote irregularities in the Mahoning Valley held on December 21 at the Warren-Trumbull Public Library...
Finally, note was taken at the hearing of the curious fact that exit polls showed Kerry with a 4.2% lead over Bush in Ohio, but the vote results gave Bush an alleged 2.5% victory over Kerry, a 6.7% final vote tally percentage shift toward Bush. The chances of this enormous shift being legitimate and the exit polls so wrong are infinitesimal. Another explanation is much more likely, plausible and real. It was clearly expressed well before this rigged election by the CEO of Diebold, Walden O'Dell , brother of the top executive at ES&S: “I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral vote to the President next year” . That sentiment and intent were undoubtedly shared again on Election Day itself with President Bush personally by key Ohio election officials, including the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio who doubles as Ohio’s Secretary of State, when Bush came to his state headquarters on High Street in Columbus, site of what may be the crime of the century. It is unlikely that anyone there on that crucial day invoked the spirit of Joseph Stalin who is reputed to have said “those who vote determine nothing; those who count the vote determine everything” . But whether explicitly invoked or not, that anti-democratic spirit was clearly invited to Ohio.
- 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 —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)
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 —TruthIsAll05.21.05 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
The exit polls themselves are a strong indicator of a corrupted election. Moreover, the exit poll discrepancy must be interpreted in the context of more than 100,000 officially logged reports of irregularities during Election Day 2004. For many Americans, if not most, mass-scale fraud in a U.S. presidential election is an unthinkable possibility. But taken together, the allegations, the subsequently documented irregularities, systematic vulnerabilities, and implausible numbers suggest a coherent story of fraud and deceit.
What’s more, the exit poll disparity doesn’t tell the whole story. It doesn’t count those voters who were disenfranchised before they even got to the polls. The , the fraudulent felony purges of voter rolls, the barriers to registration, and the unmailed, lost, or cavalierly rejected absentee ballots all represent distortions to the vote count above and beyond what is measured by the exit poll disparity. The exit polls, by design, sample only those voters who have already overcome these hurdles...
[Ed: emphasis and links added]
(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 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
|As they slowly hack democracy to death, we´re as alone — we citizens — as we´ve ever been, protected only by the dust-covered clichés of the nation´s founding: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
It´s time to blow off the dust and start paying the price.
The media are not on our side. The politicians are not on our side. It´s just us, connecting the dots, fitting the fragments together, crunching the numbers, wanting to know why there were so many irregularities in the last election and why these glitches and dirty tricks and wacko numbers had not just an anti-Kerry but a racist tinge. This is not about partisan politics. It´s more like: "Oh no, this can´t be true."
- 04.20.05 The Silence of the Scams: Psychological Resistance to Facing Election Fraud —Diane Perlman, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist
The psychology of electoral domination has two parts—what is being done to people and how they allow it.
Psychological techniques, used deliberately, allow many tricks to go unnoticed and unchallenged. For example, "mystification"" is a plausible misrepresentation of reality in which forms of exploitation are presented as forms of benevolence. Like magic and the use of distraction, the issue of voting reform was manipulated and misrepresented, so people felt calmed by the illusion that the problems from the 2000 election were being corrected. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Elements of the Help America Vote Act, HAVA (a name as Orwellian as the Clear Skies Initiative, should be more accurately called "Hide America's Voting Anomalies"), include intrusive identity checks, the introduction of the "provisional ballot" most of which were not counted, and the use of electronic voting machines. Each of these was brilliantly misused for the opposite intention— to corrupt and deny votes to Kerry in ways people wouldn't notice.
- 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
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
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
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.
(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) ]
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
- 12.18.05 How we won the DU "Game" debate... —TruthIsAll
|The DU "Game" was a debate thread in which the naysayers finally
agreed to provide a quantitative rationale to explain how Bush won the election by 3 million votes.
The Final National Exit Poll "How Voted in 2000" demographic was the focus of the "Game".
The naysayers agreed to this stipulation:
The Final NEP Bush/Gore 43/37% weights were mathematically impossible.
For the game, the assumption was that Bush and Gore voters represented an equal mix of the 2004 electorate (around 39%).
We won The "Game" because the naysayer Bush vote share assumptions required to derive his margin were implausible. Some of the reasons why are explained in the earlier DU threads with links given below. There are many more.
The "Game" thread was the last one in which I posted at DU.
For this reason and also because we won, it will always have a special significance.
Since Kerry won all plausible voter turnout scenarios...
RETURN OF THE CLINCHER: Kerry wins 120 of 120 scenarios
naysayers were forced to provide implausible explanations...
Bush needed 1 of 6 Gore 2000 voters to win by 3 million votes
still they wanted to have it both ways...
Naysayer Hobson's Choice: Final NEP or rBr? Take your pick.
but the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis was debunked...
EXIT POLL RESPONSE OPTIMIZER: KEY RESULTS
and the odds of Bush winning required non-responders were remote...
PROBABILITY ANALYSIS: THE RBR HYPOTHESIS IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
while the Final National Exit Poll Bush/Gore 43/37% voter turnout was a mathematical impossibility...
The Final National Exit Poll is a FRAUD. Here's proof.
and the great majority of EIRS-documented DRE incidents were one-sided in favor of Bush...
Prob (86 of 88 DREs switch Kerry votes to Bush): 1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000
- 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
(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 48.372004 Pre-election Monthly Polls. Kerry led in every month except Jan. & Sept. —TruthIsAll
e-Vote Hacking — Insecurity of Electronic VoteMark-Recording & -Counting Machines
(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)
The Truth About H.R. 811
"...That's OUR money that is being spent on these fraudulent voting systems..."
|( the Princeton Hack here )|
- 02.14.06 Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter —David Wagner, David Jefferson, Matt Bishop —Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB)
|Harri Hursti's attack does work: Mr. Hursti's attack on the AV-OS is definitely real. He was
indeed able to change the election results by doing nothing more than modifying the contents
of a memory card. He needed no passwords, no cryptographic keys, and no access to any
other part of the voting system, including the GEMS election management server. [p 2]|
Memory card attacks are a real threat: We determined that anyone who has access to a memory card of the AV-OS, and can tamper it (i.e. modify its contents), and can have the modified cards used in a voting machine during election, can indeed modify the election results from that machine in a number of ways. The fact that the results are incorrect cannot be detected except by a recount of the original paper ballots. [p 2]
Successful attacks can only be detected by examining the paper ballots: There would be no way to know that any of these attacks occurred; the canvass procedure would not detect any anomalies, and would just produce incorrect results. The only way to detect and correct the problem would be by recount of the original paper ballots
... [p 2]
??.??.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)
|103. Conditions for Approval and Certification
(a) For any voting machine, voting device, vote tabulating device, and any software used for each...the criteria by which the Secretary of State evaluates such machine, procedure, device, modification, or software shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(2) The system shall preserve the secrecy of the ballot;
(3) The system shall be safe from fraud or manipulation;
(4) The system shall be auditable for the purposes of an election recount or contest procedure;
(5) The system shall comply with all appropriate federal and California laws and regulations, and;
(6) The system shall have been certified, if applicable, by means of qualification testing...
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
- 06.27.06 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
|...[It] has been determined that with the flip of a single switch inside, the [TS model] machine can behave in a completely different manner compared to the tested and certified version.
"Diebold has made the testing and certification process practically irrelevant," according to Dechert.
The most serious issue is the ability to choose between "EPROM" and "FLASH" boot configurations...It is clear that this system can ship with live boot profiles in two locations, and switching back and forth could change literally everything regarding how the machine works and counts votes. This could be done before or after the so-called "Logic And Accuracy Tests".
This is not a minor variation from the previously documented attack point on the newer Diebold TSx...[In] the TS, a completely legal and certified set of files can be instantly overridden and illegal uncertified code be made dominant in the system, and then this situation can be reversed leaving the legal code dominant again in a matter of minutes.
- 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
Diebold Accuvote-TS "Touch Screen"
[ DRE - Direct Record Electronic ]
No paper ballots used
No record of voter-intent independent of machine
|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
|"We've demonstrated that malicious code can spread like a virus from one voting machine to another," said Felten in an exclusive interview, "which means that a bad guy who can get access to a few machines — or only one — can infect one machine, which could infect another, stealing a few votes on each in order to steal an entire election."|
- 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
|I am joining VelvetRevolution, VoteTrustUSA and over 100 other electoral reform and voting rights groups in demanding that the standards to be adopted by the Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) be in the public interest and in compliance with the federal Help American Vote Act (“HAVA”). I am very concerned, on the basis of published reports and witness accounts, that members of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) will recommend vendor friendly standards because they are both beholden to and influenced by the manufacturers of the voting machines at the expense of the public interest. If true, this would violate both the charter of the EAC and federal law under HAVA. ...|
- 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
|In an important development in e-voting policy, NIST has issued a report recommending that the next-generation federal voting-machine standards be written to prevent (re-)certification of today's paperless e-voting systems...
The new report is notable for its direct tone and unequivocal recommendation against unverifiable paperless voting systems, and for being a recommendation of NIST itself and not just of the report's individual authors.
[UPDATE (Dec. 2): NIST has now modified the document's text, for example by removing the “NIST recommends...” language in some places and adding a preface saying it is only a discussion draft.]
In other words, NIST recommends that the 2007 standard should be written to exclude DREs...
Years from now, when we look back on the recent DRE fad with what-were-we-thinking hindsight, we'll see this NIST report as a turning point.
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
|Recent news accounts discussing the vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems contained in the report titled "Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC," have raised the question of whether the report's recommendations represent the official position of NIST. This draft report was prepared by staff at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at the request of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) to serve as a point of discussion at its Dec. 4-5, 2006, meeting. Prepared in conjunction with the Security and Transparency Subcommittee (STS) of the TGDC, the report is a discussion draft and does not represent a consensus view or recommendation from either NIST or the TGDC.
The report contains draft recommendations that were presented on Monday, Dec. 4, for consideration by the TGDC. The TGDC may adopt, reject, or modify the recommendations.
During the Dec. 4 & 5 meeting of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, did the committee adopt any resolutions regarding the draft report, "Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC"?
Yes. On Dec. 5, Dr. Ron Rivest (chair of the TGDC transparency & security subcommittee, and professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science) proposed the following draft resolution which passed unanimously.
Resolution # 06-06: Software Independence of Voting Systems
Election officials and vendors have appropriately responded to the growing complexity of voting systems by adding more stringent access controls, encryption, testing, and physical security to election procedures and systems. 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.
To provide auditability and proactively address the increasing difficulty of protecting against all prospective threats, the TGDC directs the Security and Transparency Subcommittee (STS) to write requirements for the next version of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) requiring the next generation of voting systems to be software independent. The TGDC directs the STS and the Human Factors and Privacy Subcommittee (HFP) to draft usability and accessibility requirements to ensure that all voters can verify the independent voting record.
The TGDC further directs STS and Core Requirements and Testing (CRT) Subcommittee to draft requirements to ensure that systems that produce independently verifiable voting records are reliable and provide adequate support for audits.
Several other resolutions, including one on a new class of voting systems and wireless security, also were adopted by the TGDC. The resolutions and other material from the Dec. 4 and 5, 2006, TGDC meeting are available at http://vote.nist.gov/index.htm.
What is the next step regarding this resolution?
The three subcommittees, working with technical experts at NIST, will draft requirements as stated in the resolution. The draft requirements will then be presented to the TGDC which may adopt, modify, or ask the subcommittee to revise the requirements. Once they are adopted by the TGDC, the requirements will become part of the next version of the VVSG that will be presented to the EAC for consideration in July 2007. Following a public comment period, the EAC will issue the voluntary guidelines.
What is the TGDC and what is NIST’s role in the group?
The TGDC is an advisory group to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which produces voluntary voting system guidelines. Both the TGDC and EAC were established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002. NIST serves as a technical adviser to the TGDC.
Why was the draft software independence report done?
It was drafted to help in the development of some of the key guidelines for the next generation of electronic voting machine to ensure that these systems are as reliable, accurate, and secure as possible. The guidelines, known as the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2007 (VVSG 2007), will be issued by the EAC after public comment.
How was the research in the software independence report done and how were conclusions reached?
The researchers’ and subcommittee’s conclusions in the draft report are based on interviews and discussions with election officials, voting system vendors, computer scientists, and other experts in the field, as well as a literature search and the technical expertise of its authors.
What review and approval process is followed for the recommendations in this report? Who is responsible for implementing the recommendations when they are final?
At the Dec. 4-5, 2006, TGDC meeting, the committee discussed the research conclusions and recommendations in the draft software independence report. See above for information on resolutions submitted to the TGDC.
It appears that the recommendations in the draft software independence report—if they were accepted as is—would require independent paper trails or other means of auditing Direct Record Electronic (DRE) voting machines, and decertification of current DREs that do not include independent audit mechanisms. Is that correct?
The TGDC approved a resolution on Dec. 5 that directs two of its subcommittees to draft requirements to ensure that systems that produce independently verifiable voting records are reliable and provide adequate support for audits. (See above for more information on this resolution.) Neither NIST nor the TGDC will make any requirements about certification, and the draft software independence report does not address issues of certification of current voting systems. Certification, decertification, or recertification of DREs is up to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and individual states. Current EAC certification procedures pertain to the VVSG 2005 guidelines. EAC requirements for 2007 certification would likely not take effect for many years. It has been erroneously reported that NIST is recommending decertification of DREs.
If the recommendations in the draft software independence report are adopted, would that mean that some DREs in use now could no longer be used?
No. The draft recommendations do not imply that existing DREs could no longer be used. Decisions concerning decertification of DREs would be determined by the individual states. Issues of certification and decertification of voting systems currently in place are outside the scope of the draft report and the TGDC’s deliberations.
Does the draft software independence report conclude that there is no audit capability whatsoever in DREs?
The draft report says that DREs are auditable but not independently auditable. In other words, the DRE audits itself which is less preferable than an independent audit capability.
Did the draft software independence report conclude that current DREs are highly vulnerable and a single programmer could “rig” an election?
Some statements in the report have been misinterpreted. The draft report includes statements from election officials, voting system vendors, computer scientists and other experts in the field about what is potentially possible in terms of attacks on DREs. However, these statements are not report conclusions.
Additional information is available at: http://vote.nist.gov
Vote-PAD — Non-electronic, Voting-on-Paper Assist Device
- 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
- 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
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”...[ed: emphasis added]
(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.
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.
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).
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
[ed: Excerpts reformatted … Click to view original text][Regarding:]A Rigged Report on U.S. Voting? — Tova Andrea Wang
- the [EAC] is mandated by law to study voter fraud and intimidation
- 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
- 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. ...
- ...The [EAC] chose instead to state that the issue was a matter of considerable debate.
- problems of voter intimidation were still prevalent in a variety of forms...
- ..the [EAC] excluded much of the discussion of voter intimidation.
- questions about the way the Justice Department was handling complaints of fraud and intimidation.
- The [EAC] excised all references to the department that might be construed as critical -- or that Justice officials later took issue with.
- Once these "revisions" to the report were revealed, there was an uproar among voting rights advocates. I was eager to set the record straight...
- ...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,
- 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.
- … 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
- 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.
- Officials at Justice were actively involved in the report throughout the process and even exerted some degree of editorial control over the new report.
- … 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.
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
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: 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
( 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.
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.Greg Palast Uncovers the 'Armed Madhouse' of the Bush Reign of Greed, Fear and Stolen Elections —A BuzzFlash Interview with Greg Palast
- It was called "spoilage"
- that’s everything from hanging chads to paper ballots that have extra marks, and are junked and thrown away — you name it.
- 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.
- This also includes something called "rejected provisional ballots," a whole new gimmick.
- It’s black voters and poor voters. [whose votes are thrown out]
- 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
- 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
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]
- 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  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.
|2004-2006 Election Fraud Analytics: Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ
Updated: Jan. 9, 2008 by TruthIsAll
Election Fraud Analytics is a comprehensive statistical analysis of the 2004 and 2006 elections.
In 2000, Al Gore won by several million more than his recorded 540,000 vote margin. In 2004, John Kerry actually won by 8-10 million votes. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic Tsunami gave them control of Congress, but the landslide was denied; they did much better than the official results indicate. And the True Vote does not include the disenfranchised, the great majority of whom are Democratic minority voters.
Bush had a 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day. The Nov. 1, 2004 Election Model, based on the final state and 18 national pre-election polls, projected Kerry as the 51.8-48.2% winner of the two-party vote. His expected 337 electoral vote was calculated as the average of a 5000 election-trial Monte Carlo simulation. The projection model was confirmed by the state and national exit polls.
Edison-Mitofsky provided four state exit poll measures. Kerry won the first three; Bush won the Final:
WPE is the only unadjusted (“pristine”) measure. It was based on the average discrepancy between the exit poll result and recorded vote for all state precincts which were polled. Measures (2) and (3) are adjusted estimates which incorporate pre-election polls and recorded votes. The final state exit polls were forced to match the recorded votes, therefore implying ZERO election fraud. Why should we believe them? And why bother doing exit polls at all, if they will just assume that the recorded vote count was the True Vote?
Some say that exit polls are not designed to predict the True Vote but to provide a demographic snapshot of the electorate. But if that’s the case, and the recorded vote count is corrupted, then so are the demographics.
Kerry also had a steady 51-48% lead throughout the National Exit Poll timeline: at 4pm (8349 respondents); 7:30pm (11027); 12:22am (13047) — after the polls closed. Of course, Bush won the Final NEP by 51-48% (13660 respondents) which was posted at 2pm the day after the election. The Final NEP was forced to match the Recorded Vote count with impossible weights and implausible vote shares, so why should we believe it?
Excel–based models were developed to calculate the True Vote (T) = Recorded (R) + Uncounted (U) + Switched (S) True Vote. Links to the models are provided in this document. They confirm the massive documented evidence of elections which were compromised by a combination of uncounted and miscounted votes. The essential input for the models include state and national recorded votes, pre-election and exit polls, Census total votes cast and mortality rates. Users can enter their own assumptions and then view a “sensitivity analysis” of resulting state and national vote shares and margins. The scenarios are displayed in numeric tables and charts. Many examples are provided in this document.
The Election Calculator and Interactive Election Simulation models determined that Kerry probably did 1-2% better than the exit polls indicate.
The Election Calculator is an Excel model for analyzing 1988–2004 elections. Users can override the pre-set default assumptions for voter mortality, uncounted vote rates, prior election voter turnout and vote shares of prior and new voters. The base case scenario indicates that Kerry won by nearly 10 million votes with a 53.2-45.4% vote share. Interested readers can download the model, review the base case scenario and then enter their own assumptions. Sensitivity analysis tables provide an instant view of vote shares over a range of input assumption scenarios.
The Interactive 2004 Election Simulation Model (also Excel) enables users to run simulations based on state and national pre-election and exit polls. State exit poll vote shares are based on the user options: 1) WPE, 2) Best GEO and 3) Composite (12:22am). The National Exit Poll data includes the 12:22am update and the 2pm Final. The only pre-election model assumption is Kerry's projected share of Undecided Voters. The only state exit poll inputs are the method (1, 2, or 3) and assumed cluster effect. A Monte Carlo simulation consisting of 200 election trials generates both the projected popular and expected electoral vote. The probability of Kerry winning the election is the percentage of trials in which Kerry received at least 270 EV. Additional model analysis includes National Exit Poll timeline, Gender vote, exit poll response optimizer, Census data and the Ohio exit poll.
In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic Tsunami gained 31 congressional seats. But they actually did much better than that. A regression trend analysis of 120 pre-election Generic polls (all won by the Democrats) projected they would win by 56-42% and gain over 40 seats. The 7pm National Exit Poll update (55 Dem-43% Rep) confirmed the pre-election trend. But the next day, the Final NEP was once again forced to match a corrupted vote count with implausible weights and vote shares. The Democratic margin was cut in half to 52-46%. The fraud resulted in the loss of 10-20 seats.
Part II contains the original "TruthIsAll FAQ" with my responses included. The author of the FAQ, Mark Lindeman, has tried to debunk the work of independent analysts who maintain that pre-election and exit polls are powerful statistical evidence that Kerry won handily and that the 2006 Democratic landslide was denied. Mark has posted on the Democratic Underground as "On the Other Hand", on Daily KOS as "Hudson Valley Mark" and numerous other forums.
The TruthIsAll.pdf contains Nov. 1, 2004 Election Model reports, analysis, graphs, methodology, links. I have posted on Democratic Underground, Progressive Independent, Thom Hartmann, Mark C. Miller, Brad Blog, Buzz Flash, RFK Jr., Huffington Post, Democrats.com, Smirking Chimp...
PART I: ANALYTIC SUMMARY
( To scroll use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus )Dec. 12, 2000 is a day that will live in infamy. Bush needed the help of five right-wing Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop the recount in Florida and enable him to steal the election. There has been an ongoing controversy regarding the 2004 election. State and national pre-election and exit polls pointed to a Kerry victory. Those who claim that Bush won fair and square are relentless in their attempts to thrash polling analyses which suggest that fraud occurred. Since the media will not release tell-tale precinct-level data, analysts must rely on publicly available polling data. And they have determined that the polls provide powerful statistical evidence of fraud. “Voter fraud” has been shown to be a non-existent distraction from the evidence of massive “election fraud”. Voters don't fix elections, corrupt officials do. The corporate media was quick to dismiss the statistical polling analyses and claims of election fraud by “spreadsheet-wielding Internet bloggers” as another left-wing conspiracy theory.
This is what Richard Morin, a Washington Post Staff Writer, wrote on Thursday, November 4, 2004:
An Election Day filled with unexpected twists ended with a familiar question: What went wrong with the network exit polls? … In two previous national elections, the exit polls had behaved badly. Premature calls by the networks in Florida led to a congressional investigation in 2000. Two years later, a computer meltdown resulted in no release of data on Election Day. … Results based on the first few rounds of interviewing are usually only approximations of the final vote. Printouts warn that estimates of each candidate's support are unreliable and not for on-air use. … That is why the early leaks anger Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research, which conducted Tuesday's exit poll with Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool, a consortium of the major television networks and the Associated Press. … After the survey is completed and the votes are counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the actual vote, which in theory improves the accuracy of all the exit poll results, including the breakdown of the vote by age, gender and other characteristics.The media never considered the possibility that the votes may have been miscounted and that the exit polls were essentially correct. They just took it for granted that the vote count was accurate (i.e. the election was fraud-free). After all, isn't that why the exit poll results are always adjusted to match the vote count? Of course, they never did an analysis which would have shown that the adjusted Final NEP weights were impossible and that the adjusted vote shares were implausible. And they would have come to the same conclusion as the spreadsheet-wielding bloggers: the election was stolen.
A dwindling number of naysayers continue to argue that the exhaustive statistical analysis of 2004 pre-election and exit polls by a number of independent researchers does not provide convincing evidence that the election was stolen. Their “case” consists of faith-based theories, factual avoidance, misstatements and misrepresentations. And they cannot reconcile the many statistical anomalies which all point to massive fraud. Some of their “explanations” include the following: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; over 7% of returning Gore voters told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000; pre-election and exit polls are not pure random samples; exit polls are not designed to detect fraud in the United States; early exit poll results overstated Kerry's vote; women voted early and Republicans voted late; Gore voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry. None are supported by factual data and all have been refuted.
Gore won by 3 million more votes than the 540,000 official total
— Florida UN-COUNTED VOTES by countyThe 2000 Election
Voted in 2000 — preliminary, final, adjusted — sensitivity analysis Smoking Gun: The Final National Exit Poll
Impossible/Feasible NEP weights
— Implausible vote shares
— rBr ("reluctant Bush responders" hypothesis)
— defection rates
— false recallThe Democratic Underground "Game" Thread
STATE and NATIONAL PRE-ELECTION POLLS
State polls — National polls — undecided voters —
EV win probabilities — sensitivity analysisThe 2004 Election Model: Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
18 Final Polls — Correlation of monthly polling and Bush approval ratingNational Polling Trend
Average — weighted average — monthly/weekly projections — final Zogby battleground pollsState Polling Trend
PART II: RESPONSE to the TruthIsAll FAQ
It is pretty easy to look around and determine that not many political scientists are expressing agreement with these views. But why not? It could be that political scientists have a status quo bias and/or are afraid to rock the boat by confronting unpleasant truths; perhaps some are even paid by Karl Rove. It could be that political scientists simply haven't looked at the evidence. It could be that political scientists see gaping holes in TIA's arguments. It could be some combination of those factors, and others besides. For what it's worth, I will explain at some length why I don't agree with TIA's views.
These are just a few well-known researchers whose analyses confirm mine: Steve Freeman, Ron Baiman, Kathy Dopp, Greg Palast, RFK Jr., Mark C. Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Michael Keefer, John Conyers, Richard Hayes Phillips, Paul Lehto, etc. At least four have advanced degrees in applied mathematics or systems analysis. I have three degrees in applied mathematics.
It would be useful if you would mention the names of the political scientists or statisticians who disagree with my analysis and believe that Bush won the election fairly in 2004. How do they account for his 3 million vote “mandate”? How do they explain where Bush found 16 million new voters which were added to his 2000 total (net of voter mortality and turnout)? What are their confirming demographics? Do any of the analysts you refer to have degrees in mathematics or statistics? Did their 2004 projections match the exit polls? Or did they match the vote miscount? Have any of them ever written about or considered election fraud in their analysis? Have they analyzed the impact of uncounted votes on election results? What is their track record? Were their projections based on economic or political factors or did they use state and national polling? What was the time period between Election Day and their final projections?
A TruthIsAll (TIA) FAQ (Mark Lindeman)
1.2. How does TIA come up with those 99+% probabilities of a Kerry victory?
Basically, those probabilities (for both state and national polls) assume that all his assumptions (for instance, about how "undecided" voters will vote) are right, and that the only source of uncertainty is random sampling error. I argue below that his assumptions are more wrong than right. They certainly aren't 100% reliable. (TruthIsAll himself suggests that the polls might be biased -- against Kerry, of course.)
Mark says that my assumptions are not “100% reliable” and “are more wrong than right”. What does 100% reliability mean when it comes to assumptions? And how are they more wrong than right? Let's take a close look at some assumptions.
-Does he mean the base case 12:22am NEP vote shares?
The sensitivity analysis provides a range of assumptions: 2000 voter turnout, Kerry's share of returning Gore, Bush, Nader voters and others who did not vote in 2000. Which assumptions does he believe are more wrong than right?
-Does he mean the undecided voter allocation?
I provide a 60-87% undecided voter allocation range (see the Monte Carlo EV sensitivity analysis). The 75% base case matches that of world-class pollsters Zogby and Harris. I trust their combined 70 years of experience a lot more than the Mystery Pollster. What polls did he run? Is Mark implying that MP knows more than Zogby and Harris?
-Does he mean the Margin of Error?
I use pre-election state poll 600- sample MoE (4%).
I use the given national pre-election polls sample-size to compute the MoE.
The state exit poll MoE is adjusted for a user-entered cluster effect.
The 12:22am National Exit Poll (13047 sample) adjusted for a 30% cluster effect yields a 1.12% MoE.
In the notes to the NEP, Edison-Mitofsky claim the MoE is 1.0%.
-Does he mean the annual mortality rate?
I use the published U.S. 0.87% annual rate. It's a fact.
-Does he mean the assumption that only living Gore, Bush or Nader 2000 voters could have voted in 2004?
It’s a fact. Or does he believe in reincarnation?
-Does he mean the random sampling assumption?
I refer once again to Edison-Mitofsky’s notes (link above).
-Does he mean my assertion that the Final NEP “How Voted in 2000” weights (43% Bush / 37% Gore) and corresponding vote shares were drastically changed to match the Bush 51-48% vote?
It’s a fact. The Final NEP has always been matched to the recorded vote.
-Does he mean my assertion that the “How Voted in 2000” weights were mathematically impossible?
It’s a fact. Do the math.
-Does Mark agree that matching to the NEP only makes sense if the election is fraud-free?
Is it his assumption that 2004 was fraud-free? What about 2000, 2002 and 2006?
-Does he mean my assertion that the election was stolen?
In light of the above, is that not a fair conclusion?
… The Pre-Election Polls
The "Rules": Did They Favor Kerry?
3.4. What about exit pollster Warren Mitofsky's reputation for accuracy?
Here is how Mitofsky International's website puts it: "[Mitofsky's] record for accuracy is well known. 'This caution in projecting winners is a Mitofsky trademark, one which has served him well...,' said David W. Moore, the managing editor of the Gallup Poll in his book, The Super Pollsters."
( http://mitofskyinternational.com/company.htm ) In other words, Mitofsky very rarely "called" or predicted the winner incorrectly. (Mitofsky died on September 1, 2006; as of this writing, the page I have cited is still active.)
If Mitofsky's calls were rarely wrong, doesn't this mean that the exit poll data must be highly accurate? No, it doesn't. One reason for Mitofsky's success was that he avoided making calls in close races based on interview data alone. Edison/Mitofsky (the firms that jointly conducted the 2004 exit poll) did not make any incorrect projections in 2004. Perhaps people who believe that the exit polls evince fraud should take Mitofsky's "caution in projecting winners" more seriously.
“Mitofsky's record for accuracy was well-known”. Does this quote refer to the preliminary or the Final exit polls? The Final is always matched to the vote count. We know that 3% of total votes cast in every election are uncounted and heavily Democratic. So from the get-go, matching to the Final vote is incorrect. And what about votes which are switched? So to argue that Mitofsky is accurate is a double-edged sword. His final exit poll accurately projected a fraudulent recorded vote count; and his preliminary exit polls closely matched the TRUE vote. But very few individuals get to see those numbers, since they are "preliminary"; only the final exit polls are listed on the media web sites.
… Describing the Exit Poll Discrepancies
4.5. How can you explain the impossible changes in the national exit poll results after midnight?
First to explain the "problem": The tabulation of the national exit poll at 7:33 pm on election night, based on 11,027 respondents, indicated that Kerry had a 3-point edge. The tabulation was later updated; a version time-stamped 12:22 am (just after midnight) showed 13,047 respondents, and one can infer that Kerry still leads by 3 points. The final tabulation, still available on CNN.com, reports 13,660 respondents and shows Bush ahead by approximately 3 points, as in the official returns.
At times TruthIsAll and others have suggested that these results are "impossible" in the sense that an additional 613 respondents cannot account for the shift from Kerry to Bush. Indeed they cannot. As I explained above, the tabulations are periodically updated in line with the projections -- and, therefore, in line with the official returns. The tabulation would have been updated even if there had been no additional respondents. So the whole idea of "impossible changes" is a red herring.
You are creating the red herring by failing to mention that the FINAL EXIT POLL WAS FORCED TO MATCH THE VOTE COUNT — COME HELL OR HIGH WATER. THE FACT THAT THE "HOW VOTED IN 2000" WEIGHTS WERE MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, AND CORRESPONDING VOTE SHARES NOT PLAUSIBLE, WAS NEVER A CONSIDERATION.
Interested readers should refer to the DU Game thread in which you were finally forced to provide a plausible rationale for the Bush "mandate". Unfortunately, you only succeeded in proving that there was none. Because you had to finally agree that the 43/37 weightings were impossible, you had to force Bush vote shares much higher than they were in Final Exit Poll where they were already inflated to match the votes. So you compounded the fakery by hypothesizing that 14.6% of Gore voters defected to Bush in 2004. The 12:22am National Exit Poll said that 8% did — a 6.6% discrepancy. The margin of error assuming a 90/10 vote split for 3200 respondents is 1.7%.
[ed: see Exit Polls to access and view "2000 Presidential Vote" data from the 2004 UNADJUSTED 12:22am Preliminary NEP and the "FORCED" 1:25pm Final NEP … for comparison with the implausible 14.63% Gore2000voter-'defection share' hypothesized in the 'Game' to explain how Bush won the election by 3 million votes, after feasible weightings were substituted for the impossible 43/37 forced weightings in the Final NEP ] Explaining the Exit Poll Discrepancies
Comparing 2004 to 2000
STATE EXIT POLLS
State vs. NEP — Gender — Voted2k — True Vote Models
—Interactive Election Simulation State Pre-election Polls vs Exit Polls vs Recorded Vote
Monte Carlo Polling SimulationWPE, GEO, Composite estimates
True Vote Sensitivity analysis based on two factors: Nader 2000 and New voter shareConservative Scenario Analysis *
Exit Poll Margin of Error (MoE) exceeded in 29 states for Bush Regional Analysis
Battleground vs. Red states
Composite (12:22am) vs. WPE-adjusted exit polls Red-shift vs. Swing
— True Vote
— 1250 precincts by partisanship, 5 location-size groups
— states by partisanship
“Edison-Mitofsky summarized the exit poll data for 1250 precincts separated into five partisanship groupings, from ‘strong Bush’ to ‘strong Kerry.’ The optimization model used the Excel ‘Solver’ algorithm and determined that Kerry won the 2-party vote by 52.15–47.85%. This ‘feasible’ solution used the final recorded 2-party vote and the following partisanship constraints: 1) within precinct error (WPE) and 2) response rates. The optimal resulting vote share exactly matched the 12:22am National Exit Poll ‘Voted 2000’ demographic. ...”
Exit Poll Response Optimization
Deviations based on percentage voting machine/method mix
applied to WPE-based Exit Poll discrepanciesState Exit Poll Deviations by Voting Method
* recent update
NATIONAL EXIT POLL
Demographic weights — vote shares — sensitivity analysisTimeline
Effect of changes in demographic vote shares
on Kerry's national vote Sensitivity Analysis
2000/2004 "First-time" and "Other" New Voters
— 16 million recorded Bush voter increase from 2000
TRUE VOTE (T) = Recorded Vote (R) + Uncounted Vote (U) + Switched Vote (S)
True Vote Model "Base Case" assumptions and bases:
1) Kerry vote share: uses 12:22am Prelim NEP share (see Exit Polls for basis)
2) 2000voter turnout in 2004: assumes 95% after mortality factor
3) (U)ncounted Votes: Recorded VoteCount v. US Census (122.3M v 125.7M)
— sensitivity analysis — probabilities — determining (S)witched votes
|ELECTION FRAUD ANALYSIS
Implausible urban and suburban vote shares
—2000-2004 Exit Poll analysis (Voted in 2000; Location-size)The Bush Urban Legend
Correlation with monthly Pre-election polls
— weights and vote shares adjusted to match the recorded voteBush Approval Ratings *
Weights and vote shares were adjusted to match to the recorded voteWhen Decided *
Weights and vote shares were adjusted to match the recorded voteParty ID *
Implausible increase in Bush’s share of women voters from 2000 to 2004The Gender Demographic *
Gore 2000 uncounted votes
Kerry share of Nader and New votersDid Kerry Win More Than 360 Electoral Votes?
True Vote Model
— (U)ncounted and (S)witched votes by state
— electoral vote effect
See True Vote Model above for the establishment of the
Kerry "Base Case" True Vote (T) of 66.10 million votes
Difference in vote share between
TRUE VOTE ANALYSIS: MODELS, COUNTIES, MACHINES
Database filtering for absolute and percent changes by state, county, voting method County Vote Database (2000-2004)
Party registration and recorded vote anomalies
— touch screen vs. optical scanner countiesFlorida *
2000-2004 county-recorded votes by machine type — exit polls
— model calculations — sensitivity analysisOhio *
2000-2004 votes by county — Nader effect
— state exit poll vs. recorded vote — sensitivity analysis New York
2000-2004 county recorded votes by machine type — exit polls — model calculations — sensitivity analysisCalifornia
1988-2004 Oregon vs. National vote shares
— Avg Oregon Democratic 2-party vote (1988-2004)Oregon
HISTORICAL ELECTION ANALYSIS
THE 2006 MID-TERMS
Quantifying the risk — likely fraud contests
— Democratic Tsunami — Generic polls — projections Summary Analysis
Demographics — Linear Regression — NEP Timeline
— probabilitiesGeneric 120-Poll Trend vs. 7:07pm and Final Exit Poll
CBS reported state votes — Wikipedia vote countUncounted and Switched Votes
Allocating undecided voters — Final 10 Polls — probabilitiesGeneric 120-Poll Trend vs. Final 10-Poll Average
ELECTION MODELS (Excel)
THE MATH: PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.