23 January 2006


State denies Democrats access to election records

January 23, 2006

The Alaska Democratic Party says there are major discrepancies in the numbers from the 2004 election. However, the State Division of Elections has denied access to the public records that would verify the election's accuracy.

They claim the electronic computer file that contains all the final vote tallies is proprietary information belonging to Diebold Election Systems. That company is a contractor for the voting process in Alaska and other states.

Diebold wants the file to remain hidden because it could give away the secret of how their software works, even though that information is available on the internet.

[...] Democrats say that in the 2004 election, many more people voted in House districts than actually live there.

[...] The Alaska Democratic Party has filed for the state to reconsider, and may take further action after that.

Read More >>

21 January 2006

Why Won't The Media Touch This Book?

Mark Crispin Miller - 21 January 2006

An email from Mark Crispin Miller
Regarding his new book Fooled Again

Bush/Cheney stole their re-election in 2004.

They stole it not just in Ohio, but all throughout the USA, from coast to coast.

They stole it not by using any single ploy, but through a stealthy combination of computerized vote theft, bureaucratic monkey business, systematic shortages of viable equipment and old-fashioned dirty tricks, including rampant bullying, disinformation and obstructionism.

Such foul play was not apparent "on both sides" in the 2004 election, but was committed mainly by the Bush Republicans.

The evidence is both abundant and precise--and it's all here in Fooled Again.

[...] Despite its wealth of evidence--meticulously documented in 57 pages of detailed endnotes--and despite the standing of its author (Miller is an NYU professor with a solid global reputation), Fooled Again has been pointedly ignored by the national media.

Read More >>

19 January 2006


Vote-PAD Rocks the Disabled Vote

Wired News - 01.19.06

Touch-screen ballot machines billed as the ideal solution for disabled voters are facing unexpected competition from a newly designed system using inexpensive plastic sleeves and paper.

Called the Voting-on-Paper Assistive Device, or Vote-PAD, the device has won high marks from some advocates for the disabled, and has already been selected for use in California's Yolo County in order to meet federal voting-accessibility requirements.

With Vote-PAD, poll workers fit specially designed sleeves over paper ballots. Audio instructions guide visually impaired voters to bumps on the plastic next to each race. Holes in the sleeve corresponding to ovals on the ballot allow voters to mark the ballot with a pencil or pen without going outside the oval. Afterward, voters can run a specially designed LED wand over the ovals to verify their choices.

"This is a very generic, very simple solution," said Freddie Oakley, Yolo County's registrar of voters. "We don't have to train poll workers to do anything complicated."

[...] Vote-PAD works for both hand-counted ballots and optical-scan paper ballots that pass through an electronic reader. One drawback is that the system is better for small counties than large populations that speak multiple languages.

Read More >>

See Also:

Diebold Hack Hints at Wider Flaws >>

How E-Voting Threatens Democracy >>

Can State Ignore Its E-Vote Law? >>

Paper Trail Urged as E-Voting Fix >>

An Introduction to E-Voting >>
Political Machines

Was the 2004 Election Fixed?

Paul Craig Roberts

[...] The non-partisan US Government Accountability Office (GAO) in response to congressional request investigated a number of complaints regarding the electronic voting machines.

Here are some of the problems noted in the GAO's September 2005 report:

* Some voting machines did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected.

* It was possible to alter the machines so that a ballot cast for one candidate would be recorded for another.

* Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level.

* Access was easily compromised and did not require a widespread conspiracy. A small handful of people is sufficient to steal an election.

Curiously, the media has shown no interest in the GAO report. In my opinion, a free press has proven to be inconsistent with the recently permitted highly concentrated corporate ownership of the US media.

The electronic voting machines leave virtually no paper trail and their use involves private potentially partisan corporations tabulating the votes with proprietary software that is not transparent.

[...] Other reports claim that the under-sampling by pollsters of Democratic voters creates a percentage bias that exaggerates the number of Republican voters by as much as 5 percent, thus providing cover for vote fraud. If hard-to-reach Democratic voters, such as the working poor, are less likely to answer telephones, polls can create the illusion that there are more Republican voters than in fact exist. If the electronic voting machines are then rigged to shift 5 or 6 percent of the vote to the Republican candidate, the result is not at odds with the expected result and can be used as "evidence" to counter the divergence between exit polls and vote tally.

Read More >>

13 January 2006

ES&S Screws Leon County, FL in Last Minute Pull-Out!

Voting Machine Company Betrays Agreement with Election Director Ion Sancho Just Days Prior to Jan 1 HAVA Deadline!

Is ES&S Paying Back for Their Evil Twin Company, Diebold? Are They Afraid of the Same Scrutiny Those Machine Received in Leon County? Another Sunshine State Mystery Unfolds…

BradBlog - 1/13/2006

Are the voting machine vendors now teaming up against an election official who dared reveal the vulnerabilities of their voting machines?

As you'll recall, Ion Sancho, Leon County, Florida's courageous Supervisor of Elections stood up against both the state and Diebold and said that he would never again use Diebold's voting equipment after he allowed for a test which demonstrated their election equipment was easily hackable. The results revealed an electronic optical-scan election on Diebold equipment could be flipped without a trace being left behind.

After dumping Diebold, Sancho made a deal to buy machines instead from Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S) on the promise that they would supply their optical scan machines for use along with the AutoMARK system which prints a countable paper ballot. AutoMARK has an agreement to allow ES&S exclusive marketing rights for their machines.

But a strange thing happened after Sancho's agreement with ES&S and just prior to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) deadline on January 1, 2006. As reported by Susan Pynchon of Florida Fair Elections Coalition, a voice-mail message was left on Sancho's cell-phone on December 29, 2005 by Gary Crump, ES&S Chief Operating Officer. Crump was calling to inform Sancho that the company had decided to deal only with long-time customers due to equipment deadline considerations. Pynchon says that statement is "patently untrue, since ES&S went ahead and contracted with Volusia County, Florida after agreeing to sell to Leon County."

Pynchon goes on to offer some possible reasons for this odd betrayal and what the Leon County Manager had to say about it:


Since the reason given by ES&S for refusing to do business with Sancho is not valid, what could the real reason be? Is it retribution for exposing the vulnerabilities of the Diebold optical scan system. Is it collusion on the part of Diebold and ES&S? Or is ES&S simply afraid that Sancho might authorize similar "tests" on its equipment, exposing vulnerabilities in the ES&S voting system?

When Sancho explained to the Leon County Manager about the events that had transpired, the county manager responded that he is 100% supportive of Sancho's efforts to fight for paper-based verified voting systems, and urged Sancho not to succumb to intimidation by voting system vendors.


So what the hell is going on here? Black Box Voting has still more details in the bizarre on the story, though we're still left wondering what the real skinny is on this one!

Read More >>

10 January 2006

Battlefield Florida

Research in Review Magazine, Florida State Univ.
A Chat with Lance deHaven-Smith

Al Gore really did beat George W. Bush in 2000. Six years on, this is still a problem?

by Julian Pecquet

After spending 36 days in the fall of 2000 in thrall to politicians, pundits and the press, Americans probably thought they knew all about the hanging, dangling and pregnant chads that helped decide the presidential election.

Turns out, those chads only distracted attention from much more grievous breakdowns during the 2000 election.

At least that’s what longtime Florida political observer Lance deHaven-Smith believes. His most recent book, The Battle for Florida (University Press of Florida, 2005), looks at the twilight of democracy in Ancient Greece and draws disturbing parallels with the institutions in Florida and the nation during the 2000 election and up until today.

[...] For this book (his ninth), deHaven-Smith compiled legal documents, statistical analyses and public records, and flavored them with his interpretation of what it all means.

[...] RinR: One of the most interesting points you make in the book is that the focus on undervotes (ballots containing no vote for president)—the hanging, dimpled and otherwise pregnant chads—was misplaced. Instead, you explain that a study by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, which looked at all the ballots that were initially rejected on election night 2000, revealed a surprise: most of these uncounted votes were in fact discarded because they were over-votes, instances of two votes for president on one ballot. What do you think the NORC study tells us about the election?

LdHS: It’s an embarrassing outcome for George Bush because it showed that Gore had gotten more votes. Everybody had thought that the chads were where all the bad ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most decisive were write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore in, and the machine kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called “spoiled ballots.” About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate’s name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there’s not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they’re unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000.

[...] RinR: Throughout The Battle for Florida, you claim the law was bent out of shape to satisfy partisan goals. Does that mean you think some of the actions by Florida’s elected officials merit a legal investigation?

LdHS: Yes, absolutely. To me, I think what this election teaches us is, first of all, we need to strengthen the penalties for election tampering and we need to return to an earlier understanding of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” We’ve gotten to the point today where we’re looking for smoking guns all the time. And the truth is that these officials take an oath of office to uphold the constitution, and that oath is a broad requirement that they enforce the laws with good intentions.

But there wasn’t even a cursory investigation of the events, which points to another legal requirement…that we develop some kind of mechanism to investigate the government. We have the government investigating itself, and inevitably it’s unlikely you’re going to get much investigation.

Read More >>

07 January 2006

Rigged Elections Not Taken Seriously Enough

Buzzflash - January 7, 2006

If election systems vendors are not required both by law and by state election commissioners to place their software source code in escrow, then voters will have no way of knowing whether the software contains malicious, election-rigging code or not.

Imagine this: A Trojan Horse unleashes thousands of illegitimate votes and disappears without a trace, election commissioners bypass laws, uninvestigated computer glitches and easily picked locks in voting systems, no federal oversight holding e-voting vendors accountable—yes folks, elections can be stolen. Since the 2000 Presidential election, problems stemming from the use of electronic voting machines have called into question the foundation of American democracy—the US voting system. At the forefront of concerns are security issues surrounding the use of Direct Recording Electronics [DREs], better known as touch screen computer voting machines, and their lack of a paper trail in the form of an auditable paper ballot.

Widely reported irregularities from voting districts around the US have alarmed many and opened claims of stolen elections. Some even doubt the legitimacy of the outcome of recent US elections. A team of top computer scientists has been working diligently to resolve the many underlying design problems in the e-voting system that leave it open to cheating. Stalled by the federal government, and with doubts about e-voting continuing to spread, these scientists have instead turned to state governments and the National Science Foundation for help.

Read More >>
Lawsuit leveled at electronic voting
Group wants voting machines on ballot


Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - January 07, 2006

State Sen. Jim Ferlo has joined a group of voting rights activists in a lawsuit aimed at forcing Westmoreland County to seek more public input before it purchases a new generation of touch-screen voting machines for the upcoming May primary election.

The lawsuit, filed yesterday, could have statewide implications. It argues that, under the Pennsylvania Constitution, all 67 counties must let voters pick their preferred model of electronic machines through ballot questions.

"This goes to the issue of having fair and accurate elections," said Mr. Ferlo, D-Highland Park, whose district covers a portion of Westmoreland County. "I really think there are serious concerns about this technology."

[...] Mr. Ferlo and his group want all counties to buy machines with paper trails that let voters check their choices. He is a co-sponsor of legislation that would require voting machines to have paper trails. The author of the bill, state Sen Joe Conti, R-Bucks, plans to start holding hearings soon.

Read More >>

06 January 2006

Grab your camera To Protect the Integrity of the Vote
Join "Candid America" project


OpEdNews.com - 01.06.06
by Black Box Voting

Help release these actions into the wild: Please distribute this one
far and wide:

ELECTION 2006: Now is the time to start. Join the Black Box Voting "Candid America" project. Grab your video camera and catch vendors and public officials in the act of being themselves -- the good, the bad and the shameless.

It's a Black Box initiative, but we're setting this one free. It is crucial for
all citizens to re-learn how to act independently of any organization. This is the
best way for true citizen oversight to become a national habit.

There can be NOTHING MORE DAUNTING to any corrupt public official than an autonomous ordinary citizen with all-American ingenuity. Take courage. The truth is you do not need any group, coalition, master plan or agenda. You can do this thing and Black Box Voting will be there with encouragement and guidance if ever you should need it.

HOW TO:

- Start now, and keep it up as often as you can on the road to Election 2006
- Keep your battery charged
- Keep extra blank tapes available

VIDEOS ARE LIKE AN AMERICAN EXPRESS CARD & A BOX OF CHOCOLATES

Don't leave home without it, because you never know what you're gonna get.

THROUGHOUT THE 2006 ELECTION CYCLE, CAPTURE ANY PART OF:

Read More >>

05 January 2006

State scraps new voting machines

Hartford-WTNH, Jan. 4, 2006

There likely will not be a high-tech voting machine in your future this year. After announcing late last year that Connecticut's 3,300 mechanical, lever-style voting machines could no longer be used, the secretary of the state reversed herself. It's all about a big foul-up by companies bidding for Connecticut's business.

[...] "I am stopping the purchasing process for electronic voting equipment in Connecticut," Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz. "The state will use lever voting machines in the 2006 election."

After a much publicized, public testing of modern electronic voting technology late last year, it was determined that none of the high-tech devices met all of the requirements of new state and federal rules. In addition to being user friendly for those with disabilities, voters must be able to see the entire ballot all at once and there must be a voter verifiable paper record of their vote. Not even one of the machines tested qualified.

Read More >>

04 January 2006

Hold on to your lugnuts, ES&S and Sequoia
may risk Hursti-style hack


In an exclusive interview by BBV investigator Jim March with Dr. Douglas Jones, University of Iowa associate professor and a former voting machine examiner for the state of Iowa, it was learned that one of the most widely-used voting machines over the last 15 years may suffer from design flaws broadly similar to Diebold's version 1.94 and 1.96 optical scan system.

Read More >>

via WhatReallyHappened.com

03 January 2006

In 2006, Voting Fraud is the Keystone Issue

Ernest Partridge - The Crisis Papers

The significance of the election fraud issue can not be overstated. The fate of our republic turns on how this issue is dealt with and resolved in the coming year.

On the one hand, the Bush Administration, the Republican party and the Republican Congress, with the continuing connivance of the corporate media and the persistent indifference of the Democratic party,  may successfully resist public demands for electoral reform, and consequently the existing system of unverifiable voting and secret software will remain in place. If so, then the Republicans will surely retain control of the Congress, regardless of the will of the American people.

On the other hand, if, at last, it becomes irrefutably clear to a large portion of the general public that the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were stolen, along with key congressional races in 2002, and if indictments follow and a fair election ensues, then public outrage will result in the Democratic control of at least one, and more likely, both houses of Congress. Still worse will then be in store for those who stole our elections and our democracy, as the congressional Democrats gain the power of subpoena and the threats of perjury and contempt of Congress. The likely outcome will be the disintegration of the Republican conspiracy, and the relegation of that party to minority status for the next generation.

The ballot is the heart of democracy. If one party “owns” the ballot box, it owns the government, for that party is no longer answerable to the will of the people; it rules without the “consent of the governed.” Thus it is no wonder that the Bush regime and the GOP want to keep this issue off the public agenda. We can’t allow them to succeed. It’s as simple as that.

The Busheviks, their Congressional toadies, and their fat-cat sponsors are fully aware of the stakes. Not only do they want to remain in power and keep their ill-gotten booty, many of them want desperately to stay out of the federal slammer. Accordingly, there may virtually nothing that they might not resort to in order to avoid this outcome. Things could get very nasty.

So it all comes down to this: voting fraud is the keystone issue for this year. If the keystone remains intact and in place, the structure will endure, and the United States will continue along the road toward oligarchy and despotism. Remove the keystone, and the structure will collapse, opening the possibility for a restoration of the rule of law and of a government of, by, and for the people.

At this moment the outcome of the struggle for ballot integrity is uncertain and is, in no small part, in the hands of ordinary American citizens, for our political establishment and our corporate media have forsaken us and our republic, while the ostensible “opposition party” is AWOL. It is up to us in our everyday, face-to-face-dealings with our fellow citizens, and through our remaining mode of public communication, the internet, to force the issue into the mainstream media, on to the agenda of a reluctant Democratic Party, and into the criminal courts.

Despite the coordinated and so-far successful effort by the media and the GOP to keep the election fraud issue contained, the pressure under the lid of media and establishment silence is rising, as more and more evidence of stolen elections and of the vulnerability of computerized voting seeps into public awareness. This evidence includes: the report of the Congressional General Accountability Office, the spectacular “hacking” demonstrations in Florida, statistically impossible polling vs. voting discrepancies in the 2005 Ohio election, leaks from whistle blowers within the e-voting industry, and the actual and pending decertification of paperless touch-screen machines in a growing list of counties and states. Add to all this the continuing output of articles and now books by Mark Crispin Miller, by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, by John Conyers and his congressional colleagues, and soon still another book by the statistician, Steven Freeman.

As a consequence of growing public concern, stocks in the e-voting companies have sharply declined and stockholder suits and criminal charges are pending against company officials. Diebold CEO, Walden O’Dell, who foolishly released a letter in which he vowed to deliver Ohio to George Bush, has resigned. All this upheaval suggests that the criminal and civil courts may at last expose the racketeering in the private election industry, succeeding where Congress and the media have failed.

Clearly, this is an issue that refuses to be starved from lack of feeding by the mainstream media. The “keystone” is loose and it is disintegrating.

There is an overwhelming accumulation of statistical, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that paperless, secretly coded voting machines are facilitators of massive fraud that have succeeded in stealing numerous elections, most significantly the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. Because I have discussed this evidence in several essays, and because The Crisis Papers has collected links to hundreds of articles about election fraud and electoral integrity, I will not repeat that evidence here.

There is, however, little direct evidence of fraud, that is to say, evidence obtained through examination of the machines and their software or of controlled experiments with these machines. There is little direct evidence simply because the manufacturers will not allow it, and no courts or government agencies have successfully demanded such scrutiny. This refusal by the e-voting companies brings to mind numerous troubling “how-come” questions which, as long as they remain unanswered, must be added to the weight of evidence of electoral fraud.. Among these questions


MUCH, MUCH More >>