BBV: Numbers don't add up in NH

[maggrwaggr]

A previous thread mentioning candidates was locked, but I'm going out on a limb because this is a very serious issue.

The winning candidate beat a non-winning candidate in New Hampshire by Only 1.5% When Computers Weren’t Doing the Counting

http://www.livejournal.com/users/explodedview /

This is VERY VERY disturbing. I don't care who the candidate is.

[KeepItReal]

1. NH uses Optical Scan and paper...

http://www.electionline.org/interactiveMap.jsp?page=Interactive+Map

[LosinIt]

4. That is a good link, do you know where there is a breakdown by county?

If you had that you could compare the numbers, which may be what the guy who wrote that article did. Anybody know where there is a vote breakdown by county for NH?

[shance]

5. Optical scan - Hello? Totally vulnerable to manipulation.

This election appears more and more to be manipulated and contrived. I dont care WHO YOU SUPPORT. That is irrelevant. Either way, if electronic voting is secure, which it is, Bush will win no matter who our candidate is. That is the reality.

There should be no election until we return to paper ballots PERIOD.

Hopefully this will provide the incentive to address this problem and demand full accountability on electronic voting.

[Dookus]

7. Hello?:

These ARE paper ballots. We use 'em here in California. You mark your choice on the cards, then drop 'em in a locked box. Here in CA, they're then taken to the county seat for machine counting.

[BeFree]

20. Machine counting

BBV refers to the machines counting the votes, whether they are touch screen or optical scan machines, these machines are Black Boxes that your vote disappears into.

[Andy_Stephenson]

25. Optical scans are just as vulnerable to subversion as DRE's

only in a hand recount can the discrepancies be identified. It is all about auditing the results people.

[GregD]

26. Correction...

I am also in CA. In Marin, the ballots are scanned in the precinct, and they use CELL PHONES to transmit the totals from the precinct to the county. That's assuming grandma can connect the cell phone to the scanner and make the damn thing talk to the Windows box. Then the ballots are locked into a bag and taken to the Civic Center - not positive about the process in that case.

But with that said, then it goes into GEMS, and there we go again... Never never land...

[Dookus]

30. I was a poll worker here in Santa Cruz

and we did NOT scan the ballots at the precinct. We brought them to an election office set up in City Hall. I guess different counties do it differently.

[GregD]

33. Brand please?

http://www.calvoter.org/votingtech/directory.html

DFM Mark-a-Vote ???

[Dookus]

34. I honestly don't know...

but that link you give shows DFM. We didn't have a counting machine at the precinct - we just had a locked box to drop the ballots in.

[Dookus]

2. this isn't black-box voting...

the link you provide shows that they're opti-scan ballots with a paper trail.

I also don't see where he's getting his numbers from. He doesn't seem to specify.

[LosinIt]

3. Right, I would like to see a reference for his data

If this is true, this is downright frightening. But what can the Dean campaign do? Can you imagine the media feeding frenzy if they brought suit? It would be worse than the shark attack on Gore after the coup d'etat in Florida/Supreme Court. Dean would be told to "Just get over it". This deserves some attention.

[KeepItReal]

6. If the PC's doing the counting say "blowout" no auto recount done

"Let me note that neither the Diebold nor the ES&S ballots lack a paper trail in this case. These are optical-scan systems, where the voter marks a paper ballot that is subsequently counted by computer. There is, then, the possibility of a recount, but only if the issue is forced, since the election was not considered close enough to mandate an automatic recount"

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. We need to change state election laws regarding recounting votes

In most places a recount is allowed only if there is less than an 1% (?) difference in the vote. The repugs have thus interpreted these recount laws to also mean that YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RECOUNT the vote if the difference is greater than a certain %. IMHO, this is bs and should be challenged in court.

[BeFree]

8. Read it again, for the first time, dookus

He clearly states that the numbers come from the state... board of elections or whatever.

People, some of you still think that because you vote on a piece of paper, everything is Aok. Wrong!!

The problem lies with how a vote is counted. Hand counts are the only way we will get a clean count. The software hidden in the machine count votes is controlled by just a few individuals. It seems that the machines used to count the NH vote are leveraged to a favored candidate.


Some kind of a recount needs to take place. And the source code for the machines need to be examined by independent experts. NOW!

[Dookus]

11. I understand...

I'm not saying it's impossible for something fraudulent to have happened. I'm just saying this is NOT black-box voting.

Nobody's shown that there aren't less sinister explanations for the differences. Were the Diebold machines clustered in certain areas? Used in more affluent areas? There are a lot of possible reasons.

I'm skeptical of fraud for a few reasons, the largest one being that Kerry was already leading strongly in the polls before the election - why steal an election you're already winning? (presuming Kerry is the suspect)

Second, the polls show Kerry is a stronger opponent for Bush than Dean is - so why would they help their strongest opponent (presuming the GOP is the suspect).

[Dookus]

12. Another point

HAND counts are about the worst way to go. Humans make MANY times more errors than computers. We just need to make sure the machines are properly programmed. I suspect New Hampshire has a process for qualifying the machines.

[BeFree]

16. You, Sir, have no proof to back up that statement

Besides the 'Errors' as you call them, are not errors. They are a form of MIHOP. The miscounts come just as written into the code.

If you had read some of the stuff about BBV that has crossed DU over the last year, you would know just how mistaken you are. It's obvious you haven't read up. You would know, for instance, that the machines are not even close to being 'qualified.'

[Dookus]

17. well...

I'm not going to argue with someone who makes such strong pronouncements about black-box voting and doesn't even know what it is.

Enjoy, Sir.

[PretzelWarrior]

9. I think this is a nonissue

they weren't touch screen voters. punch cards are tabulated by computers. fill in the oval ballots are counted by optical scan and tabulated by computers. don't be a technophobe.

the problem we have is with electronic touch screen voting and non verifiable counts. this is not the case with Kerry's win after win after win after win.

Please, in the words of Kerry: Get over it.

[BeFree]

13. You, Sir, could not be more mistaken

This is Black Box Voting. The Black Boxes being the tabulators; Computers with software that only a few people know what's written in the source code.

Read the info on the website and tell me there does not appear to be a BIG difference between the hand counted and computer counted votes!

[Dookus]

14. No...

it is NOT black box voting.

The black box refers to the mysterious electronic ether into which you place your ballot. The ballots from this election are all there, on paper.

There could be many reasons for a difference in the results between diffrent precincts. Fraud is one of the least likely ones.

The source code of a "counting" machine is pretty simple. I'd be very amazed if it wasn't examined by officials in every state that uses them.

[BeFree]

19. If you read up, you'd be amazed

It's obviuos that you know NOTHING about this whole issue. We really don't need false info being spread about this BBV issue.

[Dookus]

21. and it's obvious

that you don't even know the basic terminology used in the debate, so I'm not going to continue.

[GregD]

28. Sorry, I feel you are wrong.

Much has been discovered about GEMS and Diebold over the past several months, an I feel strongly that there is enough here to be AT LEAST curious.

This is not about Dean vs. Kerry, this is about numbers that look really odd.

The BBV issue is NOT all about touchscreen, it includes very legitimate concerns about proprietary software from private vendors, whose software does not get inspected via some sort of careful and reasonable scrutiny as would occur in the case of any other mission-critical software development effort.

GregD
www.VerifiedVoting.org

[Dookus]

31. sigh... whatever

I've spent twenty years as (gasp) a BLACK BOX software quality engineer. It has a specific meaning. Optiscan is NOT black box voting.

[GregD]

32. Fine, and I'll raise your ante with 30 years programming and

full time running www.verifiedvoting.org since June.

I know what I have seen, and what I have learned in this very troubling 8 months. There are very realistic issues to be concerned about, and I have better things to do than to convince you.

Good Night.

[Jose Diablo]

51. Filing the software "cogs" in the counting boxes

is equivalent to filing the cogs in the mechanical balloting booths.

Vote fraud is a old and time honored tradition in America.

You are correct in pointing out even the opti-scan method can be subverted. At least there is a back-up piece of paper though, if anyone cares to contest the result.

[Cleita]

10. I think the only way we are going to resolve this is

to get outside auditors like from another country.

[TruthIsAll]

15. Great post! Looks like fraud to me. Results are skewed.

Must investigate.

NH is the mother of all election fraud scandals.

Remember Bush 1-Dole in the 1988 NH primary? Dole was heavily favored. Bush won.
Much evidence points to fraud then.

I believe fraud won it for GW Bush in 2000.

[LosinIt]

18. OK, Where's Bev???

Maybe she should have some of the journalists who had contacted her, but were interested in a more specific topic than the general "the software has no audit trail", would be interested in investigating this. None of the campaigns can do this without looking like sour grapes.

[Andy_Stephenson]

24. I am on the case.

I have the information from the SOS office. UNCERTIFIED software on the Diebold machines.


1.94t Was never certified. New Hampshire I believe broke FEC rules.

[JohnGideon]

47. NH Was Using Certified Firmware

Their firmware version was 1.92T. The question is on the firmware and not software or hardware. That version is NOT certified by the FEC, however it is certified by the state of NH. NH election laws do not require their voting equipment to be certified by the FEC, therefore they were in compliance with their laws.

[Andy_Stephenson]

48. Ok so New Hampshire

is using software only the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission has approved


"PART Bal 608 APPROVAL OF VOTING DEVICE

Bal 608.01 Approval. Any person desiring to have the ballot law commission approve the use of a voting machine or other device not previously approved may submit a written application for approval to the commission. The request shall include the name of the manufacturer, model number and other information to identify the device. The commission shall approve the request following a public hearing if the commission finds that adequate safeguards have been provided to ensure the integrity of election results and the machine or device complies with these rules and the election laws of the State of New Hampshire."

The point I make...1.92 T has no federal certification. Knowing the truck sized holes in Global/Diebold's systems. To me the results in New Hampshire are suspect. I am not saying anyone cheated, but the possibility was there. The point still remains 1.92 T was not certified. May have been in NH but it has no NASED number. Not that that really means much.

[loudsue]

22. EXACTAMUNDO! And BBV started way before 2000.

Here's a link to a site that should be read by everyone. Voter fraud has been going on for a very long time. The newest machines only take it national, where before, it was more local.

http://votescam.com/frame.html

Read the "Articles"

These folks have been investigating this stuff since the '80's. BBV (www.blackboxvoting.org) has recently taken on the fact that it is now national, and quicker and easier to disenfranchise the entire country, instantly.

Education time!!!! Read it and weap.

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[Rex]

23. Is an exit poll when someone is asked who they voted for?

I forget.

EDIT - I should add, who they voted for as they are leaving the voting station?

[GregD]

27. Here is a link from Creativelcro - worksheet

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=215244

In there is a link to the data: http://www.geocities.com/mrigurl/

[Old and In the Way]

29. Couldn't one compile the voting results by type of system?

Seems that would answer the basic question without doing an actual recount.

[GregD]

35. start here

http://www.geocities.com/mrigurl

[LosinIt]

36. delete

[foo_bar]

42. according to the spreadsheet

Dean won plenty of towns with optiscan (Keene, Canaan, Grafton, Hanover, Lebanon, Lyndborough, Peterborough, Durham), and Kerry won most of the hand counts (and won overall on hand counted ballots). The closest thing to a trend is larger towns (Concord, Manchester, Nashua) going overwhelmingly Kerry, which isn't surprising since their population is weighted towards Massachusetts expatriates. As conspiracy theories go this one needs some evidence besides the Kubler-Ross stage of denial.

[CaptainMidnight]

37. What is at stake here?

Some folks put forth the argument, "Wouldn't Bush rather run against Dean anyway," therefore, "Why rig the machines to favor Kerry?"

You're still making the assumption of "fair" elections and that we have a "choice."

Kerry is Skull & Bones, Council on Foreign Relations, TriLateral Commission, Bilderberg.

Dont' you get it? The "Masters Of The Universe" and the military-industrial-petroleum complex will thusly have "their man" in BOTH Republican and Democratic candidates.

IT'S DONE. Either way, they WIN. Now it's just a matter of who wants it "badder," Kerry or Bush? The "Shadow Government" has accomplished it's goal already; now they'll just let the children fight it out until November.

Don't you get it? The 2004 Election has ALREADY been STOLEN!

Captain Mike

[maggrwaggr]

39. exactly. Just because it doesn't fit into the current "plot"

doesn't mean it's not bad.

I don't care who the numbers are slanted for or against. We're supposed to be living in a country where your vote actually counts, and where we, the people, actually have some say, and we're in danger of losing it

[hang a left]

40. I got it Captain!

[Cocoa]

41. Dean hasn't said anything about the NH results

he must be in on it with Bush and Kerry, right? Why would he let the election be stolen from him? The paper ballots are there for a recount, why not ask for one?

[foo_bar]

43. because Trippi is a neocon mole

I read it in GD Primary. The internet doesn't make you stupid, it just makes it harder to disguise.

[Snow]

44. Guys, this has already been thoroughly hashed

right here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=215244

And I number-crunched the spreadshoot someone posted - here's my findings:

Okay, I took your spreadsheet from the page with the weird graphic & plugged it into my favorite statistical package, STATA v.7. I don't recall which voting district was coded which, so I guess I did a blind analysis. First, it seems all the candidates gathered more votes in type '0' districts than in type '1'. Fair enough, there're more voters in type 0 than type 1. So, the question is, is that difference more pronounced for some candidates than for others? To get at that, everything needs to be on the same scale, so I standardized the count data - that is, transformed them into z scores. When looked at that way, only one candidate, Clark, looks much different from the others, and that's not by much. I included each income indicator in the regression (actually ANCOVA) model to check for that effect, and there was none. The income variables were not associated with the vote counts for any candidate, not were did they change the association of Voting Type with vote counts. So, the difference between type 0 and type 1 districts were the same for each candidate, and those differences were not due to income levels.


 

[brainshrub]

45. Holy poop-on-a-stick!!!

I am afraid. This scares me to the core.

[davsand]

46. Doesn't it concern you all that we are worried about it now?

This is the Primary and we are concerned about the issue of vote integrity. If we are worried now--doesn't it make sense to lay it to rest with a recount requested by ALL the Dems?

This is the ONE way we can feel some small confidence that the General is a fair election with no tampering and nothing illicit going on.

I started another thread in here this morning about the need for us ALL to contact the campaigns and urge them to band together and request a recall...

This is not just about any one candidate--it is about fighting to be sure that our votes count and that they are counted accurately.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1084223

Laura

[blurp]

49. You blame the computers, but maybe it's the people that "goofed"

Don't ignore the other real possibility: the human counters may have made a "mistake".

To me, this is even more scary. Why? Because it makes you question all previous elections before electronic counting. Maybe these systems are finally revealing election corruption that has been going on for years.

Of course the people that have been involved are going to point to the computers and say, "it's not us, it's the computer!"

[BeFree]

50. Hundreds of people all goofed?

What makes you think hundreds of trained, dedicated vote counters could have "goofed"? Your premise would imply almost ALL of the human counters have made grevious errors. Ridiculous!

The BBoxes need only one person to alter thousands of votes. And given that the code is so complex only a few people can read it, there is absolutely no assurance of any goof being discovered.

There is plenty of proof of computers making mistakes. Almost always those mistakes can be traced back to programming errors.

Several high profile examinations of these machines have revealed serious problems with the programmed code. Never has there been an accusation that ALL the humans "goofed", until now.

"Hundreds of humans all goofed, but one person's complicated code is probably perfect"..... Ridiculous!