Wrong Winner Chosen Twice by Same Voting Machine - autorank "Scoop"

[autorank]

Thanks once again to the great people at "Scoop" Independent News and DU's own althecat of "Scoop" for once again going where the domestic press won't go. Todays comment. You will want to share the "Scoop" link with your lists and associates. Cheers!!!

Link to article: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0701/S00173.htm

Congress Seats Two Clear “Losers”

Wrong Winner Chosen Twice by Same Voting Machine

Examining Florida 13th and North Carolina 8th
Congressional Districts Leaves Little Doubt

Michael Collins
Part 2 of a SeriesPart 1
Washington, DC.

TheElection Contest filed by Democrat Christine Jennings and her attorney Kendall Coffey creates complications that could blow the electronic voting world to pieces. In the simplest terms, the Jennings Florida 13th Congressional district case requires a review of the Kissell loss in North Carolina’s 8th Congressional district. And that spells disaster for e-voting.

Why? Because both the Florida and North Carolina districts used iVotronics touch screen voting machines. These voting machines produced very similar levels of counting errors. The errors cost both Democrats thousands of votes. Ultimately, both Democratic candidates were denied a victory by less than 400 votes.

While Jennings makes a very strong case for a voided election and new vote in Florida, the case becomes virtually unassailable when reviewing results from North Carolina. At the same time, the North Carolina 8th results, reviewed in the context of the election contest analysis of Florida’s 13th, makes it abundantly clear that the loser, Kissell, should have won in almost any scenario other than voting machine malfunction.

In both districts, the iVotronic touch screen voting machines produced undervote rates at or above 15%. What this means is that supposedly one in seven voters cast ballots but left out a choice for the most important election (an unmarked race on an otherwise marked ballot is called an undervote). The only culprit in both the Florida 13th and North Carolina 8th elections is voting machine malfunction. The facts supporting the case for losers winning don’t allow for much debate in these Florida and North Carolina races. They’re simple and a review leads to conclusions that devastate any trust in electronic voting.

The Florida election contest brief filed in Congress looks at data within the 13th Congressional district and data from other Florida districts. Coffey notes that the undervote rate in Sarasota County is six times the undervote rate in surrounding counties in the same district. How did that happen? These are contiguous counties and part of the same congressional district.

Coffey performs a rhetorical slam dunk by looking at undervotes for the two types of early voting in Sarasota County. Early voting by mail required voters to mark their choices on optical scan paper ballots then mail the ballots to the elections board where they were totaled using optical scan readers. Mail in early voting undervotes were at 2.6%. In person early voters came to central locations and voted on iVotronic touch screens like those used in the general election. Undervotes by that method ran 17.6%. There is no reason for a difference of 15 points other than the one provided by Coffey in the Jennings case: voting machine malfunction by the iVotronics. As a result, 14,000 Sarasota County voters lost their constitutional rights. The election should be voided and a new one held.

Mecklenburg County, NC and the End of Electronic Voting

One might argue that this is an exaggerated claim but review the facts and decide yourself.

Any serious evaluation of the Jennings election contest by Congress leads right to North Carolina’s Mecklenburg County. iVotronic touch screens were used in the Jennings race and three Congressional races in Mecklenburg. That county holds the answers to both the Jennings contest and a resolution of another 2006 travesty, the loss of Democrat Larry Kissell in that North Carolina’s 8th Congressional District.

As a result of voting problems in 2004, North Carolina requires a paper trail for touch screen voting machines. Right now there are paper receipts for each vote cast in these three districts. The test is simple. Total the votes for Congress on paper trail receipts in each Congressional district and compare those totals to the vote totals from the iVotronic touch screens. If paper receipts show more votes for Congress than reported by the touch screens, the variance points clearly to an iVotronic machine error. If Jennings could provide such data, this would add a compelling new level of evidence added to her case.

If the paper trail receipts are available and examined, they represent a smoking gun that validates the Florida case. Even without the paper receipts, there is strong support to argue that the same class of touch screens used in Florida, iVotronics, produced exceptional, no unbelievable rates of undervotes in North Carolina not evident in high visibility races.


iVotronic voting machines were used in Mecklenburg County in 2006. The county contains part of three Congressional Districts. The graph on the left shows very high undervotes in the 8th and 12th. In the 8th, Democrat Kissell lost by 329 votes with an undervote rate close to that in the Jennings race.

A preliminary look at 2006 and 2004 undervote rates shows that the 2006 undervote rate in Mecklenburg County, NC indicates that the iVotronic machines throw away votes. Using the county as a whole, in 2006 the average Congressional undervote rate (for all three races) was 11%. In 2006, the Congressional race was the lead or one of the lead races. In 2004, with vote totals for President as the baseline, the undervote rate in Mecklenburg was 2.6%. Thus, undervotes increased by a factor of four from 2004 to 2006.

By investigating Jennings claims through the use of the highly pertinent and available data from North Carolina, it becomes abundantly clear that Democrat Kissell lost that contest due to machine malfunction – by the very same type of machines used in the Jennings race. Since the undervote rates in these distant and disparate counties were almost the same, the data on Kissell supports Jennings claims.

Below you see the electronic nightmare created by analysis of the North Carolina race. The graph on the left shows 3,199 undervotes (16.6%) in Democrat Kissell’s stronghold in Mecklenburg. On the right, the victory margin district wide for Republican Hayes is shown next to the undervotes for just Mecklenburg where Democrat Kissell won by a two to one margin. The North Carolina 9th and 12th races were blow outs. The 8th was not. In the very area where Kissell was strongest, le lost 3,199 voters, many of whom would have voted for him.


The undervotes in the Mecklenburg portion of the 8th were more than nine times the victory margin for the entire district and they occurred in a voting area that went 68% to 32% for the Democratic Party candidate, Larry Kissell.

Let’s assume a typical rate of undevotes at a generous 3%, or 579 votes, and Kissell’s Mecklenburg share of 68% of the votes counted. The math is easy. Kissell wins. Presume that Kissell’s undervote rate of 16.6% is the final proof (with or without recounting the paper trail voting receipts) of voting machine malfunction in Jennings’ Florida district. It’s easy, Jennings wins. These numbers won’t go away.

We now have two members of Congress seated as a result of elections decided by less than 400 votes. A simple analysis of current and historical data for expected undervotes shows that the double digit undervote rates in each candidate’s stronghold resulted in lost votes; votes that would have lead to a victory by either of the now designated losing candidates. The first shall be last, once again.
Stay tuned.

END

Data Sources:

Mecklenburg County Board of Elections 8th District 11/30/06
http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D8.html
Mecklenburg County Board of Elections 9th District 11/30/06
http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D9.html
Mecklenburg County Board of Elections 12th District 11/30/06
http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D12.html
Screen Shots of Districts 8, 9, 12 Mecklenburg

© Copyright. Please feel free to reproduce and distribute this in any fashion you feel suitable with an attribution to the author, Michael Collins, and the publisher, "Scoop" Independent News, plus a link to the article.

[stellanoir]

1. Offered up the 1st rec a little while ago.

Pre first cup of morning beverage, my eyes played a trick on me and I thought it read. . ." Wrong Winner Chosen Twice by Same Voting Machine - autorank "Scoop"- WINNER

Autorank for pres!!! just as long as he runs solely on the "Oooga Boooga Woooga Smoooga" platform. Okay?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3122897

But seriously can we actually prove it now ? Hope so. Phew.

Kudos

[autorank]

2. It's all there. It not only happened in Florida, it happened in NC the same way!!

Same marin, same undervotes, same MACHINE, same party losing YET again.

Get your coincidence theory working;)

[Land Shark]

3. And yet DREs are ADVERTISED as reducing/eliminating undervotes

[mod mom]

6. in fine print the ad says:

reduces/eliminates votes of your opposing candidate.

[loudsue]

4. I'm in North Carolina, and I'm printing this out to take to the

supervisor of elections. I'm so frikkin' sick & tired of the shennanigans of these vote machine companies that I can't contain myself.

Thanks for a great post, and, as always MANY THANKS & BIG HUGS TO Althecat for Scooping!

:kick::kick::kick:

[autorank]

5. Hi, that's just what you do. Remember the links at the bottom...

I just used their public data...It's all there...

19k votes cast in Mecklenburg 8th, 16k total for both candidates for congress. Therefore, there are 3k undervotes (i'm rounding these). Tell them they can clear it all up by a total recount of the paper trail receipts;) That will happen right away.

Nice seeing you and yes, althecat would gladly accept those ciber hugs, I'm told by an inside source.

[Me.]

7. Who Was Seated In NC?

Did I miss the name? Hoping it's that gnat McHenry, and he gets booted.

[autorank]

24. No, I left it out;) A guy named "Robin"

Robin Hayes. Incumbent, R. He was a real gentleman in the recount saying that provisionals were ballots from a bunch of criminals etc. Charmer indeed.

Robin Hayes, R, 8th District, NC on Democracy:

Robin Hayes’ opposition to counting valid votes goes back at least as far as the 2000 Florida recount for Bush/Gore. A Charlotte Observer story when the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount confirms Hayes’ disregard for the will of voters.

Robin Hayes in 2000: “Hayes has little sympathy for those who cast the disputed ballots the court ordered recounted. Most were punch cards whose presidential votes machines could not read. ‘We vote with the same machines in Cabarrus County that they use in Florida,’ he said. ‘Somebody ought to send the IRS down to these counties, because if they can't punch out a ballot, they sure can't fill out an IRS form.’”
------------------

Quite a guy to sit in "the Peoples' House."

[Patsy Stone]

46. That's a very special guy right there.

:eyes:

[hobbit709]

8. The county in Ohio where my mother lives

The final result showed 1200+ votes registered on the machines(Diebold) than the amount of people that actually came in to vote

[autorank]

25. "We pretend to vote, they pretend to count."

Amazing. Your new Secretary of State and A.G. in Ohio are going to uncover a big bunch of bugs
under the rock of scandal created by the Taft/Petro/Blackwell cabal. It will be a revelation.

Ohio A.G. Candidate, Dem, promises to investigate Ohio 2004 Election Fraud

Cheers

[DemReadingDU]

50. Hopefully, they'll keep their promises to investigate

Ohio had a lot of problems with Blackwell. Glad he's disappeared.

[EFerrari]

9. K&R. Sing it, autorank!

:kick:

[Me.]

17. Ditto

!

[autorank]

26. Is that "Me" or is it Me...

:shrug:

[galloglas]

10. K'n'R ! I really don't now how...

the ER folks in NC, so set on true reform just two years ago, could accept these machines and banish a quest for HCPBs. It is beyond me.

How can one expect to dance a jig, while the Devil does half the fiddling, and expect to walk away Scot free. One must always pay the Devil his due.

What happened to those BraveHearts that two years ago were ready to fight?

Frightened off, I imagine, because some County Clerk says "No! Are you crazy? We're never gonna have HCPBs, ladies. We need to make sure that the right people do the votin'".



Old Cherokee saying: "When you settle for half a loaf from the White Man, he will cut it at the 2/3 rd mark, and keep the larger half for himself. Then he will take the half he promised to you."

[unc70]

18. Got what we could: paper trail, audits, source code access, ...

We got all the election law changes we could get using bi-partisan outrage at being a really bad example in 2004 of every way to lose votes, be unable to recount, ... There was just enough Repub support to counter-balance those Dems in the pocket of Diebold or other interests. Enough grass-roots pressure to get the changes we did. We mostly shut up then about "stolen" elections, exit polls, etc. and concentrated on things like the total loss of ballots in Carteret County, and we responeded quickly and repeatedly to attempts to weaken or defeat these efforts.

What was enacted into NC election law is just barely enough. Check the NC General Statutes.

Notice that NC, unlike FL, requires access to source code, etc. That was enough to drive Diebold out of NC. It might come in very handy in resolving some of these questions. NC also has a provision that could assign to the vendor the cost of recounts and revotes that were needed as the result of failures in the voting and tabulating systems.

[autorank]

28. Your law is very impressive but they've found a "work around."

I read the law as part of my research. It's quite detailed and thoughtful. It looks like you've got mostly optical scans down there, which are not my preference, but they're a whole lot better than touch screens. They have real ballots. The rub is how to get a recount. Your law has a 1% provision, I think, which is better than my state at 0.25% (Jefferson weeps). The recount process has the sample first. I wondered who picks the precincts "randomly." Need to read it again. But you do have those receipts, paper ballot trail.

NOW, here's what the great NC activists can think about. Maybe two things (and it's easier for me to give advice than it is to act, I can assure you;):

1) The 8th and 12th numbers indicate a real "integrity" problem exists - the 16% in the 8th and 10% in the 12th are way out of line...so, that means there needs to be an integrity audit - are those machines really working. In NM, Lowell Finley and Voter Action sued to assure "future right" in elections and won! NM Lawsuit Delves into Voting Machines.

The response to this will be, "Well it's not allowed" etc. etc. The point here is that these numbers are an outrage, they clearly denied Kissell his seat. 3199 undervotes according to the Mecklenburg Co. Board site - winning 68-32% in those areas - reduce that 3199 to 579 (3$ undervote) and Kissell is in like flint. They say, well we can't overturn an election...OK, then lets make sure the future elections work.

2) Maybe Kissels camp or the Democrats can insist that those paper ballots get recounted, entirely, when Congress requests them. No investigation of Jennings can now be conducted without examining Mecklenburg, particularly the 8th. It should be interesting.

Someone suggested, "You can't legislate morality" which mean no Civil Rights laws, it was a code word. Ironically, any system you set up can be gamed.

Even if there had been all touch screens or all hand counted paper ballots, my preference, there would be the recount laws. They get you coming, they get you going;) Definition of a lawyer: someone who stands in between two parties and takes money from both (sorry lawyers, I love you, but you know that this is true).

Keep it up in NC. The principle has been established. I always think it's good to make the point that the only reason we need "election integrity" is to stop election fraud.

Cheers!

PS. Do you know who advised Kissell to concede. That's even worse that the advice Francine Busby got on election night in CA's 50th in the special election - when 40,000 votes were uncounted.

[galloglas]

42. Are you telling me...

that of your Constitutional, Inalienable Rights, that you "got all the election law changes we could", and packed it in?

You got a law passed (which some Tarheels some brag on), and that by "mostly shut(ting) up then about 'stolen' elections, exit polls, etc."??

Then that raises some questions. Didn't you actually have some stolen elections in 2004 ?? And, in 2006, didn't you at least one stolen again ?? So what have you gained ?? They still steal them!!

And, by "responding quickly and repeatedly to attempts to weaken or defeat these efforts.", you must be speaking of attempts by just WHOM ?

If it was bi-partisan, then the "whom" can't be the GOP. And, since "you got all you could", you were dealing with the Powers that Be, so it wasn't them that was the "whom", was it?

So, who you were "responding quickly and repeatedly to" must be other Election Reformers ?? (correct me if I'm wrong) Who else is there?

And, if you did, it seems you deprived those persons (more adamant about being given their freedoms than yourselves) from their own right to "petition their legislature", no?

If so, haven't you just wound up becoming (since you had, at the least, one Congressional seat stolen) "patsies" for the Election Supervisors ?

The Election Supervisors have no need to answer questions for the public, or be held responsible, if they have "reformers" coming in and settling for something that the Election Supervisors know they can get around? Know they can still steal Congressional seats with?

This is like Ireland and the British Crown!

During the Irish uprising, all of England feared a "brewing explosion" on their border. Truth was, and appears may be the case in NC, as Sean O'Casey (the Irish Playwright wrote in The Plow and the Stars) "What are they thinking? All they have to do is to pay the half of us, and they'll go out and shoot the other half".

My God!? Did you shoot down your own associates. The ones who "spoke Truth to power" by saying that there actually were stolen elections in 2004 ??

So what did that get you? Having your honest comrades sacrificed so that you could "got all the election law changes we could" ??

You sold out your honest comrades, those for HCPBS and those for the telling of the Truth so you could "got all the election law changes we could".

I hope you have some comfort, standing (metaphorically) on their graves, and now knowing that what you sold them out for, got you nothing. The EDs sure understand that. Because the EDs only gave you "what you could" get, because it was insufficient to get you Justice, and fair elections. Like taking off your leg shackles to replace them with hand shackles and a tether rope!

And this We mostly shut up then about "stolen" elections, exit polls, etc. and concentrated on things like the total loss of ballots in Carteret County, and we responded quickly and repeatedly to attempts to weaken or defeat these efforts.

Looking at your new stolen elections in 2006, how do you feel? Even better, what do you think?

Think you were right about, "What was enacted into NC election law is just barely enough."

Was it enough to keep the theft of your Congressional seat? Are you {i]really better off now (cause if you are, I guess you've disbanded)?

Or were the comrades, upon whose graves you stand, correct when they said "this is not enough!"

And who had the hubris to decide, for them, that "it is just barely enough?" Whose decision is that to make ??


My greatest fear is that someday, nationally, some of my comrades will stop worrying about "what is Right" and that "we should have our Inalienable Rights", and do for me what they think is "just barely enough." or "got all the election law changes we could".

And, if that day ever comes, I gladly moulder in the cold, cold ground, than to think I sold out my comrades. Even if you NC reformers were right about what was "just barely enough" (and it seems that 2006 proves it isn't), who gives you the right, and the hubris, to eliminate your comrades from the debate.

If that type thinking prevailed during the Civil War, today's black might have freedom only "from 5:00 PM until 7:00 AM, and alternate weekends"!

Right is Right. Wrong is Wrong. I was taught to do the former, not the easier. Was the NC legislation (yes, I have read it) the right thing to do? Or, after having gotten some legislation through, do you now see that as insufficient?

If so, there is a parable about a dog. It was tethered to a peg with ten feet of leash. Thirsty, and with water over 25 feet away, the dog howled till the Master awoke and gave it five more feet of leash.

Still too far away to get the water, the dog howled again, awaking the Master. Angry, the master went out and gave the dog five more feet.

But it was still five feet shy of a drink. It pulled, twisted, and, in general, did every thing he could to reach the water. Finally, exhausted from trying, and understanding it could never reach the water from where he was tied, the dog howled again.

This time the Master came out and said, "You no-good SOB Coonhound!", drew his pistol, and shot the dog dead.


I'm shocked about NC. So I'll be brief with the rest.

Notice that NC, unlike FL, requires access to source code, etc.

So what? As anyone can tell you, a properly executed hack will leave no trace of itself on the source code. So what does that get you ????????

That was enough to drive Diebold out of NC.

And that accomplishes what, exactly?

You drive out the maker of the Cheat-o-Matics in order to be forced to use the (also) HAVA-compliant CheatMasters?? So, what did you gain by that? What good did that do the Electoral Process in NC for 2006?

NC also has a provision that could assign to the vendor the cost of recounts and revotes that were needed as the result of failures in the voting and tabulating systems.

And when you find that the above "could" turns into a "will", and results in a reversal of a stolen race, you give me a call.

There is an old saying, brought by some ancestors from NC and VA, that goes like this: "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas".

From the results in NC in 2006, from looking at the NC legislation, from seeing the "evaporation" (I'll not choose assassination. I wasn't there) of support for HCPBs and measures that would INSURE fair elections, I can only conclude one thing.

That, instead of your bi-partisan group getting "all the election law changes we could get" (as you thought you did), your group only wound up "getting had" (by the Powers that Be). Your group was worked harder than a pair of Oxen.

PS. Leaving Note from Me.

There was a very good, bright person in NC after 2004, much concerned about electoral reform. A good, honest person, I felt.

And, looking for help in NC, this person finally went (somewhat) off the Internet and went to work in NC. And that is good.

But, this person was largely alone at the beginning. Consequently, I have always thought that she may have failed to follow an old maxim: "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". Perhaps she did not know this maxim.

At any rate, this person has changed views much in the past two years, influenced by those close to her, I would imagine (aren't we all?). But whether those close to her were friends or enemies, I have no way to tell.

This I do know. NC had changes in the law and those changes did not help you. And those changes were "all the election law changes we could get", in the opinion of those who led you.

Yet, your electoral process still failed. Consequently, those of you who co-operated with the PtB, and shut out your more insistent comrades, have to decide, having gotten what you wanted (or settled for), if "The legislation got the job done?"

If it doesn't, you should take a leaf from Robert the Bruce, stop failing with the same old tactics, and try it again. The problem is, that takes one hell of a leader.

Because the first thing to do is to admit that the past efforts were a horrible failure, that the tactics were wrong, that the goal was wrong, and that it was wrong to shut out your comrades.

Big people make big mistakes. Really big people own up to them. Really, really big people step back in to the plate and swing again, doing the right thing, the right way.

I hope you have some very big people back in NC. I hope they have the courage to acknowledge mistakes, and correct them. Simply because the nation needs the same from all of its states, if we are to survive as a democracy.

[unc70]

77. Please re-read my post #10, very slowly, and see if you can pass the retest.

I have no idea what triggered your wild, unfocused, wrongheaded, libelous attack on me, on NC, and on the ER activists who worked so hard after 2004 to fix most of the problems. They include many DUers such as David Allen who have credibility here. I claim no credit for this effort beyond being one of many worker bees who were doing whatever they could in the background support them while not distracting from their focus.

If you check my journal, you will see that I am a computer and security expert who wants HCPB and who is old enough that he has experience actually doing it. But because of geography and age, most people have not had that experience and we have not widely retained the details of how to make it all work. It will take time to educate and then convince enough people for that to happen.

What I was trying to say in my post was that, because of the changes after 2004, the situation in NC is much different than in FL and that this could prove very important to the investigations:

1. The DREs are required to produce a VV paper trail. While those could be hacked, such hacking
might be discernable in a criminal investigation.

2. The vendors in NC are now required to provide all source code, controls, etc. used in any
contest for examination by the SBOE and by the state parties (and by the courts, if
necessary). And, while a hack might not be easily detectable from the sources, having them
would certainly make it easier.


My small aside was meant as praise for those who were able to accomplish so much in NC in this first step. They faced down various powerful opponents in the legislature, State Board of Electrions, staff, lobbiests, county BOEs, and vendors. Sadly, too many of these opponents were Democrats. Fortunately there were just barely enough Republicans in NC who shared our outrage and concerns that we were able to forge a bi-partisan effort that focused on 2004 problems so obvious that no one could dispute them. People like Chuck Herrin helped a lot.

If anyone involved had started talking about stolen elections and such, the coalition would have shattered amid cries of "sore loser" and "get over it." No sell out; no settling. "Sometimes you have to enact reforms with the legislature you have." Everyone knows we are just starting and have a lot of work ahead. What was done is not enough, but it may be "barely enough" to expose the source of the problems in NC-08.

The rest of your problem with NC and your friend here are not the result of anything that I or those I mentioned have done. The ER activists in NC have made a big impact already; I am amazed that the
legislation was not hijacked along the way, particularly that last weekend.

The rest of your arguments about NC appear baseless. For example:

"This I do know. NC had changes in the law and those changes did not help you. And those
changes were "all the election law changes we could get", in the opinion of those who led
you."

I believe that the NC changes have and will help which is why I posted anything in the first place. And it was my personal opinion that it was all we could get after seeing how close we came to not getting even it. You might want to consider why you so resent that your friend started to listen to others and then make her own decisions rather than following your wishes.

I often agree with Autorank and our disagreements are generally constructive. If you check my journal, you will see that I have a lot of useful skills and experience beyond my few posts here. I have over 40 years of liberal activism, generally in opposition to the powers that be and quite often effectively.

I don't have the energy for a flame war with you right now, but I am not in the mood to ignore assaults on my character and actions. I have spent much of the past three weeks with doctors, hospice, funerals, grieving, and supporting those with greater grief. While horribly sleep deprived
from other demands, I then spent all night after Bush's speech doing my small part to refocus Congress and the MSM discussion from the "surge" to Bush's threats to Iran. That night, I became more scared than I have been in 45 years and have concentrated on stopping Bush now.

Now that I have clarified and defended my actions and my state, I really don't have the inclination to try to salve your wounded ego. Your friend started listening to others and didn't do it your way. I don't know why or if she was right. I only know that she has moved on and it was not my fault. If you need to discuss this further, please PM me or talk to a counselor.

[galloglas]

85. You got your reply by PM

and, neither in my PM nor post did I have to resort to being a wise-guy, as in "Please re-read my post #10, very slowly, and see if you can pass the retest."

and, contrary to your opinion, it is not libelous.

BTW, what input, in NC, was there from the HCPB advocates?

[unc70]

89. You attacked my honor, reputation, integrity, honesty. I am HCPB

I had waited to respond until I had calmed. I don't know who you think I might be and what you think I might have done, but I am certain that I am not that person.

I am a computer expert who wants HCPB. I have spent considerable time describing how it was and could be done based on my experiences in this. There were a number of these threads the last week of December; I need to combine and reedit several of those to start a new journal entry for reference.

I have repeatedly stated that I am not a significant or known ER activist in NC, nor a member of the commission, nor have I ever tried to discourage anyone from advocating their position on ER. I have briefly met several of them, mostly at things like the public meeting in Chapel Hill with David Price where I first met Allen and Herrin. I have not worked closely with anyone or any group with the exception of one local acquaintance much like me.

Beginning on election night 2004, I dug into all the available precinct data, registration, demographics, etc. looking for problems. I believe with high probability that there was election fraud in NC involving several types of systems. NC had the "red shift" involving roughly 1/16 of the ballots for President and Senator but not in down-ballot state-wide races. This even happened in precincts that are over 80% registered Dem and Black. I know this and more, but I can't prove it. I have posted here about this several times.

I made my own decisions not to use this when I advocated to anyone; there were many obvious problems that were easier to explain and could not be dismissed with my being a sore loser. I watched the progress of the legislation and the alerts of various attempts to skuttle the entire effort, and I then started using what modest access, credibility, resources, and energy as an individual to support the efforts of others. From my own expericences, I am convinced that if they had asked for anything more, particularly HCPB, the bill would have shunted off to a study group or something for another two years. Not until after the final votes had been taken and the court challenges completed could anyone relax.

You have attacked my honor, my personal and professional reputation, honesty, and integrity, and you have alleged actions that you compared to slavery, felony animal abuse, and standing on the graves of the associates I have betrayed. Only the semi-anonymous nature of DU minimizes the impact of your allegations. I have posted now because I would like to preserve my reputation and credibility at DU and with those elsewhere who follow it.

I appologize for my inappropriate, smart-ass putdown that I made much too late in the evening. I can tell from your posts and PM that you think someone has done a great wrong in NC and has betrayed the cause and "settled" or knuckled under to the powers that be or sold out and betrayed their "comrades". I have not heard of anything close to what you allege happening, and I do not know of anyone who was concerned about ER who thinks the job is done; I certainly don't. The current law is a good first step. (BTW to change that "could" to a "would" requires a conviction.)



P.S. I will defer any comments on things Scotish to others, but for a lighter moment check out haggishunt.com

[galloglas]

91. Uhhhh, now that are calm, you might

check on the "journal entries" you keep referring to, telling me to read.

I need to combine and reedit several of those to start a new journal entry for reference.

'Cause you don't have a journal here at DU (that I see).

[unc70]

97. Maybe if you clicked that cute little journal icon after my name, it might appear n/t

Anything else?

[galloglas]

102. (that I see).

Thanks for pointing that out.

And I now stand corrected, because now I see it.

[autorank]

27. The above is HIGHLY recommended reading.

Perfect!!!!!!!!

[msedano]

11. If Recommending this thread were left to iVotronic...

Autorank's incisive post would be somewhere downlist among the dross.

Excellent analysis, Autorank. btw, if a tree falls in a forest and only an iVotronic machine documents it, does it make a sound? Second question, is "wrong winner" an oxymoron? Final question, is iVotronic an oxymoron?

[autorank]

30. A chance at Socratic dialogue

I'm supposed to be able to say, "Yo bro..." but on this day, thinking & remembering is important (Do you remember the 60's;)

Socrates: If a tree falls in a forest and only an iVotronic machine documents it, does it make a sound?
Alcibiades: It depends on who the sound benefits. If it has anything to do with a Democrat, it will be suppressed.

Socrates: Is "wrong winner" an oxymoron?
Alcibiades: Well, in the sense that we're all God's children, we're all winners so there can be no wrong winners, it would seem. But if we're all winners, then in any election when the candidate with less votes wins, (i.e. FL 13, NC 8th, USA 2000, 2004, etc), that winning candidate is "wrong" and truth demands we refer to him as a "Wrong Winner," despite the apparent contradiction. (Alcibiades has sobered up, don't you think.)

Socrates: Is iVotronic an oxymoron?
Alcibiades: Yes...and a conundrum too.

ENJOY!!!!!!

[msedano]

56. dialogic dia

today is el dia for dialog it seems.

Alcibiades: Do you remember the 60s?
Gorgias: Shucks, bro, I invented the 60s.
MVS: Hey, just a second, I was there and I don't remember you.
Gorgias: You were out of it on Akadama. I was there the night you guys taught Dylan to do the dog.
Alcibiades: Seems as if you never left the 60s, the 60s left you.
MVS: let's let the iVotronic decide.
iVotronic: there were no 60s.

[autorank]

75. Which proves my case;)

:rofl:

You can't trust these damn machines.

And whats with Gorgias saying he invented the '60's. I though that was your work?

[texpatriot2004]

12. "Undervotes" are used to steal from the voters; they defy logic.

Further, it seems that this post illustrates how, by using these machines, they replicated the results that they wanted, not the results the voters wanted.

[autorank]

31. Texpatriot2004 - You nailed it - iVotronics are "Republican" dream machines.

Can you believe this? What a bold affront to reasonableness. It's hard to see how the results can be reported and the Board fails to call for a recount. It's an "election integrity" issue, par excellence.

Keep rokken in the belly of the beast. Lets how they're all headed for Paraguay.

:hi:

[texpatriot2004]

80. Intuitively I always knew it, finally the truth comes out. Indeed it is

an "election integrity issue par excellence" - thank you for this post and for your dedication to transparent elections here in the USA.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

13. Kick

[MissWaverly]

14. Let's hope that finally these elections are overturned

and the machines are decertified, it' a mockery of our democracy to have our elections
decided by rigged machines.

[autorank]

32. Thank you "rigged" machines -

- and that means elections become/have been a "rigged game." This is an outrage.

I spoke a town hall meeting with a couple of hundred of people. I was mainly addressing the three legislators (all committee heads, jaded a bit). They were paying attention but I looked out at the audience and they were locked on. The message of stopping fraud, restoring integrity and confidence, and ending the "we pretend to vote, you pretend to count" system. The voters, all of whom use touch screens were fascinated that there are no ballots, there can be no counting that they can observe, and there's nothing to recount. It's a good thing I didn't know how well received the message was. I would have gotten carried away and offended someone. But it worked out.

[MissWaverly]

84. what a supreme irony, the rich elite

who have a 99.9% probability that their vote will be counted, are the very ones who pay
the least taxes, while the middle class and the poor who have zip insurance that their vote
will be counted, pay the most in proportion to their income.

:-)

[drm604]

15. You repeatedly use the word "malfunction".

Strange how these supposed "malfunctions" both took place in Democratic strongholds and both benefited Republicans. Somehow I think "malfunction" may be the wrong word. In fact, IMHO, Occam's Razor says FRAUD.

[autorank]

33. I acknowledge and fully accept your criticism...

It sure looks like fraud to me. I was hopeing to get this one out to a broader audience and stayed
within the parameters of the election contest language, which is "malfunction."

In the "Part 1" link, if you go to the end of that longer article, you'll see this, which is how I see things like this (until they're proved otherwisd):

"Computers do not produce consistent errors by accident. When consistent actions are performed by a computer controlled device, that device is programmed to take those actions. Further investigation may reveal that rather than a malfunction, the undervotes were an intended function of these voting machines. That would be a most interesting outcome if the Florida court puts ES&S in a position to fully reveal its software and methods."

Hmmm....

Your logical approach is refreshing!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

16. K&R Auto... solid OP, thanks n/t

[autorank]

34. Thanks Jefferson, I'm putting this on the back cover;) n/t

[emlev]

19. kick

[greenbriar]

20. I thought they were talking about bush in 2000 and 2004

he has got to be impeached

[truedelphi]

29. K & R'ed Not only becuz it is so

Important, timely and must NOT go ignored - but it is clearly written as well

[autorank]

35. Immediately if not sooner!!!

You''re so right...it's the "same old, same old" ... these are one trick ponies and people are fed up with the trick.

Election fraud 2000 is the "first cause" of all of our current problems.

:hi:

[Patsy Stone]

21. 42nd Rec!

It seems people like this article.

:thumbsup: and thanks. The machines work fine; it's just those darn glitches you have to look out for.

[autorank]

36. Thanks Patsy...the machines were just doing their job, as defined;) n/t

[bleever]

22. Undervotes: "I spent money at the store, but didn't bring anything home."

The strategic theft of America.

Great article, auto!

:thumbsup:

[autorank]

37. "Strategid theft of America" - frighteningly precice word.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: to you.

I can't wait to see how Jerry Brown shakes things up. They have no idea how smart he really is
and, lord, a Jesuit trained lawyer with great experience as Attorney General of our lagest state.
I can't wait! Crooks, pack your bags, there's a new Inquisition in town;

[HCE SuiGeneris]

23. ye olde k&r! n/t

[autorank]

38. Thanks!!! Old or new, it's welcomed to get the word out! n/t

[marions ghost]

39. one thing to point out ...

Mecklenburg County NC is not some rural outpost in the boonies--it contains NC's largest city Charlotte (larger than Atlanta), a commercial and cultural center with recent migrants from all over the country.

Thanks for the informative post.

[autorank]

41. Thank you for making the point about Charlotte/Mecklenburg - banking capitol

It's a growing city full of well educated people who should raise some Hell when this filters down.

it's banner headline magterial "TOUCH SCREENS CREATE IMPOSSIBLE ELECTION" or "HAYES LOST, DO THE MATH"

;)

[Nothing Without Hope]

40. Thanks yeet again, autorank & colleagues - K & R n/t

[autorank]

53. Hi Hope!

Thank you. Good to see you!!!!

[Kurovski]

43. Very stubborn machines.

They have a mind of "their own".

[autorank]

57. Yep, we should call them Kurvoski's but then there would be no problem.

Becasuse they'd be stubborn but honest!

:evilgrin:

[donco]

44. Is there any statuette

of limitations on election fraud?

[autorank]

58. Great question. I don't know. Particular to every state. NC Law penalties below. . Attorney Alert

Maybe we'll get some free legal advise.

There should be none since it's a crime against the state, ergo the people.

SECTION 2 (b) Penalties (Session Las 2005-323, Senate Law 223, North Carolina General Assembly)



This is a screen shot of the penalites in NC. They don't address the statute of lmitations. But there are some serious penalities.

[BeFree]

45. Well, lets face it

The congress screwed up big time when they passed the law to buy all these machines to count our votes. Now those congress critters ain't gonna admit how bad they screwed up - indeed, most members of congress were elected by these machines, so you see what we are up against, eh?

The solution to our problems are not gonna come cleanly, simply, or fast. The solutions will come one at a time, and by virtue of these two elections being corrected, one small step will have taken place.

In the meantime each and every one of us must keep pressure on the election officials in our areas and re-educate them so that they understand that such systems are unacceptable.

And the vast interconnections between all of us, as exemplified here on DU, will make all the difference in the world as we incrementally re-establish our democracy. I am sure hoping you, autorank, can keep us all working together toward our goal. Thanks.

[autorank]

59. Hoisted on their own petard;) Elevated by their complicity. Oh spare me!

You are right. Correcting this pro actively has two impediments: (a) our legislature rarely acts pro actively (other than to authorize a pro-active pre-emptive war) and (b) they drink from the spring
of controversy. As you say, to make a change is to endorse a new approach that solves problems puts them in the position of beneficiaries, after the fact. Oops! That's ok, if Congress or any state legislature passes clean elections laws that work and give us the ability to really believe they are
the elected officials, as opposed to selected, then I'm all about saying, as I like to say,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Then we'll elect some serious people, Democrats of course!

We will prevail, it's just a matter of so meting we have very little of, time.

We'll do it together, with the American people who are:
92% in favor of viewing the vote count,
80% infavor of getting rid of secret agreements with, to borrow a term "Vote Villians,"
60% aware that just one malicious actor can steal an electoin,
and, as of mid August
55% in doubt that the 2004 outcome for president was "fair and square."

Zogby Poll 1018 registered voters, nationwide.

Zogby Poll, Autust 2006
.pdf of data http://tinyurl.com/ydf6ju

Zogby Poll, Autust 2006
Excel file of data http://electionfraudnews.com/ZogbyData/ZogbyIntl.08.16.2006.xls

[BeFree]

69. Maybe we've been missing the boat?

Maybe what we should be calling for is a new election law that calls for HCPB on gold rimmed paper? That way the appropriation for such a bill would be in the mega-billions and what congress critter could pass on that?

Not only would congress jump at the chance to spread around all that gold, the local election officials would be so very happy to be able to get their hands on all that gold.

See, paper ballots are cheap. There's no money to be made with paper ballots. The e-voting stuff, now that was what, almost 4 billion dollars?

[puebloknot]

47. Rocket science not required. This doesn't add up.

It's time for a Boston Tea Party, and we can count the number of e-voting machines dumped in the harbor by using iVotronics touch screen voting machines.

If there is any justice....these two elections should be rescheduled and conducted fairly. I was tempted to say "and legally." What is right and what is legal often get mixed up these days, especially when it comes to elections.

Thanks, autorank, for your dogged persistence. Don't let anyone talk you out of it!

[autorank]

60. puebloknot...You mean we don't need your rocket scientist services;)

Darn. More like degree in common sense. This is based on public data, on the internet(s).
You just look at the #'s and figure, lets see,

A) Candidate A loses by 329 votes

B) 3,199 (16%) of 19,287 the ballots had no mark for candidata A's race (called undervotes).

C) This was in a section of the district where candidate A won 68% to 32%.

D) The undervote rate should have been 3% for this race.

E) What happens to the 329 loss if candidate A has a reasonable rate of thrown out votes.

Paging Mr. Wizxard;)

[FogerRox]

48. YEs, & I love the really cool charts. Kn Damn R

[rumpel]

55. yes - visuals for All!

under 400 votes win in both races....

:think:

[autorank]

66. "Coincidence" is a matter of intention...n/t

[autorank]

61. You can kick my thread anytime. Hey, list your Blog...

Great stuff! :hi:

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. Wow, Auto! The truth is marching on.

[autorank]

62. As Ricky used to say to Lucy,

"Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do." And if anyone has seen these two comic geniuses, they'll
remember the totally perplexed look on Ricky's face every time Lucky pulled one of her totally
strange stunts. More and more, citizens of the United States are feeling like Ricky Ricardo, except
Ricky knew Lucy was a genius and the made out on the deal, handsomely.

We're stuck with this turkey of an election system for a great country. What's with that?

Time to clean house, restore faith in the system, and move on. If we don't, the people who hesitate,
our elected officials, will find themselves in a position of the public saying:

We pretend to vote, you pretend to count.

That is not in the interest of anyone so lets send them a message - fix it! fix it now!

Best regards to you!!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

82. Are you talking about "I love Lucy", Mike? I used to love that,

but I haven't seen it since my teens. I didn't realise that was where, "splaining" came from. I've borrowed it once or twice for use on here, seeing others using it to such droll effect.

How about George and Grace Burns, then? Weren't they a great team, too?

Don't answer here, Mike. I wouldn't want us to digress too much from the theme of your thread.

Best to you and the Empress!

[Ellipsis]

51. A hearty kick! ...and some background on PEBs & EQCs and the voting process

More acronyms. (sigh)


The following is snipped from

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. WELSH, II FORMER CHAIRMAN, CURRENT MEMBER OF THE BOARD ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON THE USE, SECURITY, AND RELIABILITY OF ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS MAY 5, 2004



The PEB... or rogerfox's laundry card?

The iVotronic is activated by a unique personal electronic ballot (PEB) The PEB is the portable data bank which holds the ballot styles for the election. In most cases, the PEB is inserted by the pollworker, the appropriate ballot for the voter is automatically downloaded into the iVotronic. Both the personal electronic ballot (PEB) and the port are designed by ES&S and incorporate proprietary infrared communication.

Qualification Code: (EQC)

The iVotronic system also employs an election specific election qualification code (EQC) that provides system-wide security. During preventative maintenance, a single supervisor terminal electronically generates an election-specific EQC. This EQC is then transferred via the supervisor terminal to all Election Day and early-voting PEBs. Next, these PEBs download the election-specific EQC into terminal memories when individual voter and supervisor terminals are cleared and tested. Thus, in order to activate for voting, the PEB and terminal must contain the same EQC. This EQC ensures that all equipment used in an election has been through the proper preventative maintenance. Most importantly, this EQC system prevents “pirate” PEBs or terminals from being entered into the system.

The iVotronic system also requires verification for voter-activated PEBs. Before the supervisor terminal loads a ballot into a voter PEB, it checks the voter PEB for the unique ballot identification code from the ballot last loaded into the voter PEB. If no previous ballot identification code exists on the PEB, the supervisor terminal loads the ballot normally. Similarly, if the ballot identification data on the voter PEB matches the ballot identification code that is about to be loaded onto the voter PEB, the supervisor terminal loads the ballot


"Ballot image"?

As an extra precaution, ES&S has incorporated into our iVotronic touchscreen devices a unique internal audit system that provides an extremely reliable verification mechanism. This audit system includes two separate audit trails within our redundant memory functions. One audit trail captures all of the “voting events” – that is, the date and time a vote is cast. The other stores a ballot image of every ballot cast.

What do they mean by ballot image anybody know?



About the platform:

LOVE this ...in his own words snipped from the next two paragraphs.

..."this type of proprietary platform is much MORE tamper-proof ...LESS susceptible to hacking or other security breaches."

and

"Human factors must be taken into consideration, as well. As with automobiles, for example, safety does not rely solely on the way the vehicle is built. Safety also depends on the way the car is driven"

The ES&S iVotronic uses a proprietary operating system that is unique and secure, not one that you can “buy off the shelf.” The advantages of this approach are three-fold: first, this type of proprietary operating system is much more efficient and compact because it is built specifically to operate the iVotronic DRE. Second, this type of proprietary platform is much more tamper-proof because, as independent assessments have shown, it is less susceptible to hacking or other security breaches. And, third, this type of operating system is much more secure because it does not support “plug and play” devices or other peripheral equipment which would be compatible with commercially available systems.

Human factors must be taken into consideration, as well. As with automobiles, for example, safety does not rely solely on the way the vehicle is built. Safety also depends on the way the car is driven, the way other drivers operate their vehicles, and on the laws that govern vehicle design and operation. While the way the car is built is very important, it is not the only factor. So, at ES&S, we work very closely with election administrators to train and educate those who carry-out elections about the voting systems and the processes and procedures we have established to maintain theintegrityy of the voting process. It is the combination of the security features built into our systems and the on-site election support services, training, and documentation that ES&S provides to county and state election administrators that results in a secure, reliable, accurate voting solution.


...More stuff about vote process security and collection


Focused Security: Voter terminals will not allow voting until properly opened by the supervisor PEB, a specified number of which are programmed with ballots. These supervisor PEBs are distributed to precinct officials separately from the voter terminals. This process places election security in the hands of the trained precinct officials, instead of solely on those at the equipment storage facility.

Detect Pre-existing Vote Totals: If a supervisor PEB already contains votes, it cannot open a voter terminal in the normal manner. A supervisor PEB normally stores votes at the end of the election, not when the voter terminals are being opened for voting. Therefore, if a supervisor PEB contains votes, that supervisor PEB already has closed at least one voter terminal and holds a copy of that terminal’s vote totals. If this supervisor PEB continues to be used in the current election, these existing vote totals would be reported on the precinct results. To avoid error, the voter terminal always checks the supervisor PEB for pre-existing vote totals. If a supervisor PEB already contains votes, the voter terminal issues a message on its screen alerting the precinct official. The voter terminal then requires entry of a precinctspecific override password before the terminal will open for voting. This requirement assures that the situation will be called to the precinct official’s attention and would allow a precinct official to not use that PEB, if necessary.

Check the Ballot: Voter terminals check the incoming ballot for the same unique ballot qualification code that was programmed into the supervisor PEB, which opened the terminals for voting. If the ballot is not coded for the specified precinct and election, the terminal will not accept it for voting. Instead, the terminal will issue an audible alarm and display a message explaining that the PEB has not been qualified properly and cannot be used in this election until it has been reprogrammed.

That same supervisor PEB closes all voter terminals and collects all votes. Because the supervisor PEB recorded the serial numbers of all opened voter terminals, it requires that all opened voter terminals also be closed. This feature assists precinct officials in ensuring no terminals were inadvertently missed. If a reason for not closing a terminal develops, the precinct official can enter an override password and proceed normally. However, the precinct report still includes the serial numbers of any unclosed voter terminals and lists them as “not closed.”

Closing Date and Time Recorded: Voter terminals include their closing date and time on the master supervisor PEB when closed. The supervisor PEB then reports the closing date and time for each voter terminal directly beneath its corresponding opening date and time on the precinct report. This inclusion allows election officials to audit when each voter terminal at a precinct was opened and closed on Election Day. This data can also be compared to the zero tape, which was produced during the opening process.

In short ...One complex process

[autorank]

63. "Screaming bummer" - amazing and Orwellian to boot!

My question is, who would want to steal their source code. Seriously, what would you get, nothing.

This is strange stuff. Thanks for posting it. I'm looking for Advil right now;)

[Ellipsis]

70. Rough tranlation... a No# 2 pencil would work best.

Bottom line

The more complex the design ... the more likely the it is to break, or the easier it is to make it break.


and on the source code...yeah who cares.

[Swamp Rat]

52. k&r

[autorank]

64. Way out Swamp Rat. We will NEVER forget, ever, what was done to NOLA

refugees and their voting rights:

The Disenfranchisement of Katrina's Survivors

[Swamp Rat]

68. I won't.

That's for sure.

[autorank]

76. He's always got something going, doesn't he;)

Fine picture. Don't we know him from some place?

[GreenTea]

54. Will Dem congress ever do anything about the country's republican owned electronic voting machines?

Republican owned & operated Diebold & ES&S are making a fortune off our tax dollars....and theses same corporations, not us own the machines....Corporations should NOT own our voting machines....FRAUD & CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!

[autorank]

65. Green Tea speaks a powerful truth. Get rid of these Republican vendors.

Now, if not sooner.

Excellent point!

[nicknameless]

67. Great presentation!

It's very troubling that the two losing rethugs have been seated in Congress.
Rethugs would never have stood by while their candidates were cheated out of their wins and their opponents seated.
I hope the contested race hearings are on the "fast track".


(R'ed earlier)

[autorank]

72. nick Thanks and I have an answer on the timing of the Jennings hearing.

An aid to the committee indicated that they were in no rush, it would be "orderly."

It's DC so that might mean, (1) they're about to pounce or (2) they mean it or (3) they mean it until events change. I vote for #3 but I'm hoping for #1. We'll see.

But we can have an influence. Send this to your Representatives and ask them to explain it. I'm doing it. All of of them.

Cheers!!!

[citygal]

71. Okay, this is one big issue

that the Democratic House must take on and fix (meaning, no more electronic voting machines). I still cannot believe Florida is involved, again! After the 2000 debacle, you'd think things would be straightened out, but it just gets worse and worse. I say, back to the voting machines with the curtains and the levers...I cannot remember what they were called.

[autorank]

73. Congress should make this a top priority-Stop Iraq/Iran, restore democracy for the USA!

Lever machines is what they're called. NY State liked their levers and they stalled the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) which envorces all this junk. The EAC said get touch screens by such and such a deadline or we're going to take you to court. The other side, NY A.G. Spitzer probably said (and I'm making this up, it's pure wishful fiction;): "Bring it on Feds, we've got the best lawyers in the world in New York. We'll crush you." I'm sure that Elliot Spitzer didn't say that or anything close but I'll bet he coneyed that meaning. Quite a defiance since NY is run by a Republican Governor but apparently the good citizaens put their feed down hard and say NO! Great event.

Send a copy of the article to your Member of Congress...ask them to explain why losers get seated;) Not "losers' in th pejorative sense, actual losers of elections;)

Cheers!

[autorank]

74. AND Welcome to DU!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[althecat]

78. What a great thread!!!

Hosted by one of DUs true gentlefolk.....

Bigups autorank.

:yourock:

[autorank]

79. Ahoy !!! And the same to you!!!

Great group of people on this thread. One of the best I've seen in a long time.

Cheers :yourock:

[Ellipsis]

81. kick

[reprehensor]

83. Let the good times roll, Collins.

Good stuff.

[Kurovski]

86. One more kick.(nt)

[FogerRox]

87. Kick in the pants

[Kurovski]

88. Ain't That a Kick in the Head...

:P

[Kurovski]

90. Kix

[Ellipsis]

92. head-butt.

:-)

[FogerRox]

93. Head Butt

Crossing Jordan

[Ellipsis]

95. LOL

She is someting

Few are there among men who go across to the further shore; the rest of
mankind only run about on the bank.

Dhammapada

[Kurovski]

94. Butthead

[Ellipsis]

96. Bearhug

[Kurovski]

98. Bear rug.

[FogerRox]

110. bare assed

[Ellipsis]

111. ass man

Cosmo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdCS_admpUk

[Kurovski]

112. Beer chug!

[Ellipsis]

115. Glug! Glug!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464934#464947


In reference to Ohio.

A quote from Botany, post #7

"BTW all the 04 ballots will soon see the light of day. I wonder
what the NY Times will say then about us, "Dead Enders who couldn't
accept the reality that bush won fair and square." then?"


Edited to add this fresh meat:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x465020

[Kurovski]

117. Thug mug.

[EFerrari]

99. What? The same crappy machine failed the same Republican way?

How is that possible? :)

[Kurovski]

100. I'm as baffled as you. it's a mystery for the ages.

What ever can be causing all these problems? Maybe we aren't handing out enough hugs, or buying the world enough cokes, or praying hard enough to the spaghetti monster...:shrug:

:hi:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

103. This Inaccurate Info Hurts Election Integrity Efforts

The Scoop article is wrong. Inaccurate information hurts us all.

And the author was told before he published the article
(by others in the election integrity community) that
he was using incorrect data. He went ahead anyway.

Mecklenburg/NC 08 is not same as Sarasota/NC 13

Sarasota had:

-drastically high undervotes (18,000)
-paperless iVotronics
-no recounts allowed (of paper if you have it)
-candidate has not conceded
-reports of votes being changed

Meck had

-moderate undervotes (6,300 or 4%)
-new iVotronics with VVPAT
-manual recount was ordered for 10 counties (NC 08 Dist)
-candidate had observers, lawyers, NAACP and reporters at recount
-candidate conceded and stopped the recount after 5 counties
-no reports of votes being changed

Several of us already reviewed the NC 08 election weeks ago, looking for a story.
Some reviewed the vote data after the election. I spoke with an observer for the Kissell
campaign, and the reporter who observed the recount in Mecklenburg County.

We did not find any "dirt", and

there was NO "Sarasota-Size" undervote.

The actual problem in Mecklenburg is that:

The county is reporting incorrect turnout figures on the website,
a fact that can be easily seen by examining the precinct data.
available from the County website.
Go here and select the second link from the top on the left side.
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/enrs/main_primary.asp?ED=11xx07xx2006&EL=GENERAL&YR=2006&CR=A

You will see that the numbers of "ballots cast" are grouped together
for vote-by-mail precincts, curbside "precincts", and provisional ballot "precincts".
These groups of ballots cast are then attributed to every contest --
even when they don't apply, so that the total ballots cast is
too high for every contest.

If the Mecklenburg precinct details are correct, the problem is that
the county officials have reported inaccurate numbers on the website,
not that the undervote is excessive.

I am familiar with NC's law since I pushed to get it drafted and introduced,
beginning in March of 2004.

I nominated 2 of the people (David Allen being one) on the committee that drafted the law,
I provided information and testimony regarding electronic voting problems in NC.
I found Computer Experts Justin Moore and Chuck Herrin to testify to the committee.

As imperfect as the law is, it is much better than what many states have.

I am familiar with the election breakdowns in NC going back to 1998, as they are
documented on my website, www.ncvoter.net

As for touchscreens, we lobbied county by county for 100 counties to push for optical scan
and automark, and only 23 counties wanted touchscreens. We set up a network of activists
and regional directors to handle this push. Verified Voting specially re-designed
their action database to use to email the 100 counties' commissioners.

NC has gone from 40 paperless touchscreen counties to 23 VVPAT counties and 77 optical scan.

Accurate information has been an essential ingrediant to our fight -
opponents will take incorrect information (like in the Scoop article)
and use it to discredit everything else that is said.

Tomorrow will mark the third year since I founded the NC Coalitino for Verified Voting.

Our work is not done, but we have accomplished alot.

[Kurovski]

104. Why hasn't the county corrected it if it's wrong?

What is to be expected when official info is listed as such and remains "uncorrected?"

And you say "If the Mecklenburg precinct details are correct, the problem is that the county officials have reported inaccurate numbers on the website, not that the undervote is excessive."

"If"? So there is uncertainty on the matter?

While I'm still praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, here's what autorank says on the subject:

"I’m happy and justified to use their published figures until they open the whole operation up for a forensic examination…of everything. Otherwise, their race by race figures for Turnout stand and the undrevote/difference comes from the chart above. Presenting contradictory evidence is a sign of serious problems. The Board can’t give with the hand of individual reporting showing major differences between vote totals and turnout and take away with the other of cryptic reconciliation that makes no sense. The results are competently produced or they are suspect. And, of course, these are touch screens. For all anybody knows, they’re off in all different directions and there’s no way for us to tell.

If the county changes it’s reporting and numbers on their official report, they I’ll have to write a different article “County Changes Results in NC 8th. Which Numbers Can We Believe? ."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464643&mesg_id=464699

[Ellipsis]

105. What do you mean?

"And the author was told before he published the article
(by others in the election integrity community) that
he was using incorrect data."

Not harping on you... would you mind elaborating?

I didn't see mention of this in your thread when you originally posted this in ER.

[Kurovski]

114. autorank responds to that charge here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464643&mesg_id=464957

[Ellipsis]

116. I read it, thanks.

I have to say, I was disheartened last night and today after the "Punch and cookies." Auto's response gives perspective and makes a difference, ....it still put a pause in the momentum. And while have always enjoyed getting the inside scoop I will do so now with circumspection.


As with *anyone* who works diligently in an attempt to bring change to the current election system I will continue to recommend and champion Michael's work. and give it the hearty K&R as I can.


Darrr!

[EFerrari]

108. Well, happy anniversary, WillYourVoteBCounted.

The infrastructure you helped build may be the most important community service any of us could undertake.

[Kurovski]

109. Yes, congratulations are in order on this day, WillYourVoteBCounted.

A heartfelt Thank you for your many efforts.

And a thank you also goes to sfexpat2000, for reminding me of my manners.

[Crabby Appleton]

113. good work

[Kurovski]

101. Janikowski kicks!

[Rex_Goodheart]

106. Damn, that's poorly written...

I got bored after 2 paragraphs.

How about a little summary of what was to come?

[LaPera]

107. There has to be Dem legislation to rid us of these machines....no matter what the cost....

NOTHING is more important than our vote.

No corporation should own our voting machines that our tax dollars pay for, there needs to be paper receipts that are accurate, audits and exit polls, (which are never wrong).

These republican owned Diebold & ES&S machine (and their bullshit privately owned software must go).

For true & fair elections in that our voice will resonate, ALL our votes must be counted.........accurately!