| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7437
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 9 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 10:40 pm: | 
|
The election integrity community is abuzz with news that candidate Dennis Kucinich will ask for a recount in New Hampshire, and Ron Paul fans have been pushing him to recount as well. Careful.
NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION INTEGRITY ADVOCATE NANCY TOBI IS CORRECT:
"We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines."
As Tobi says, "A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove' everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited."
I'll go further than that. The only way a recount makes any sense at all in New Hampshire is AFTER an assessment is made of the chain of custody issues. If the chain of custody isn't intact the recount won't be worth a cup of warm spit.
TOBI:
"This is high stakes.
"You do not walk into a battle ground not knowing where the snipers are, just because you were invited. Strategically, going into something like this where you have NO CONTROL is foolishness.
"And I say this as one of the strongest recount proponents of former times. Things I have come to learn and understand have changed my mind. The recount is someone else's game, not ours.
"In the recount, we have no control, and we have already lost 48 long hours of ballot chain of custody oversight.
"We need citizen control and oversight. This is not going to come from the recount. If the election was rigged...don't you think the riggers would have a backup Plan B for a rigged recount, knowing how easy it is to get a recount in NH?
No. It is time to take control. "
BLACK BOX VOTING:
The following is excerpted from our New Hampshire election protection information published in November 2007:
quote:Knowing that the greatest opportunities for election fraud are with insiders, this tells us something about what to examine first. If you are a person with inside access in New Hampshire, because any candidate can ask to recount any location, if you plan to manipulate the election you'll want to make sure you can achieve ballot substitution, ballot removal, or ballot stuffing. You need a strategy just in case someone asks for a hand count.
WHAT'S THE POINT OF A RECOUNT IF THE CANDIDATE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW...
1) The name of all companies that print ballots for New Hampshire elections.
2) The ballot ordering history for each location, especially those using computerized voting systems and the inventory records for the current contest.
3) The ballot chain of custody plan for each location and for the state of New Hampshire.
IMMEDIATE CONCERNS
- We don't have information on ballot inventory records.
- With ballots and recounts, it's all about blocking ballot substitution. To achieve substitution, you need extra ballots. If you get more ballots, someone might follow the money trail and ask you why you're sitting on 10,000 or so blank ballots. So you need some workarounds.
BALLOT CHAIN OF CUSTODY WAR STORIES
Patriot Richard Hayes Phillips, while writing his brilliant upcoming book "Witness to a Crime," uncovered evidence that an Ohio County took delivery on 10,000 off-the-books ballots in 2004.
Employees for the Diebold ballot printing plant slipped us financials showing that Diebold was printing 25% more ballots than ordered. This could be handy: If a governmental entity doesn't take official delivery on ballots, Plan B can sit at a print house somewhere, on private property and absent from either government bookkeeping or public records.
CONVICTED FELONS
The Diebold ballot printing plant at the time we got records on the overages, was being run by a convicted felon who had spent four years in prison on a narcotics trafficking charge. No, not New Hampshire's voting machine programming exec Ken Hajjar, who cut a plea deal in 1990 for his role in cocaine distribution. This was another convicted felon, John Elder, who ran the Diebold ballot printing plant; he's now an elections consultant.
We have so far been unable to learn whether New Hampshire has convicted felons printing their ballots; we've got a records request in on this. New Hampshire officials like to say "The state prints the ballots" but they sure aren't printed in Secretary of State Bill Gardner's office.
Frank S., one of the new breed of citizens jumping in to take back control of our elections, took the initiative on his own to help today by spending several hours trying to find the ballot printer in NH. It may be that convicted felons print the ballots: Frank turned up evidence that one state-paid printing vendor is NHCI - New Hampshire Correctional Industries, a prison-based printing outfit.
New Hampshire Correctional Industries is a job training program for inmates. After they get out of prison they have a skill! I'm not sure we want a bunch of ex-convicts running around in New Hampshire with ballot printing expertise, so I hope a different ballot printing vendor will show up.
Any candidate seeking a recount needs to know this stuff.
IDENTIFY NARROW SPOTS IN THE PIPELINE
What is the smallest number of people with access, and at what points does centralization of access occur?
WHERE HAVE THE BALLOTS BEEN DURING THE LAST 48 HOURS
If there's going to be a recount of this magnitude, we need to know whether checks and balances have been followed. Let me give you an example of what I mean: In San Mateo County, California, citizen Brent Turner asked for ballot chain of custody records for 2007; a six-week gap in the access logs was revealed in the documents.
SHOULD CANDIDATES RECOUNT NEW HAMPSHIRE?
In concept I love the idea, but as it currently stands, it makes me queasy. They're walking into this blind about the details that make or break the integrity of the process.
WHAT TO DO INSTEAD
Tobi calls for doing a real investigation in order to take corrective action by November. I'm not sure about that. New Hampshire had hearings on the hackable Diebold optical scan machines, and didn't take any action to mitigate the risks.
New Hampshire knew it was running elections on machines that can't be trusted. And today, thanks to the efforts of two more citizen volunteers, I learned that the New Hampshire Secretary of State knew about the narcotics trafficking conviction of Ken Hajjar, yet still authorized LHS to code every memory card in New Hampshire.
Harri Hursti himself testified in New Hampshire in Sept. 2007, urging them to disconnect the wiring allowing reprogramming of the memory card through the modem port. New Hampshire took no action.
New Hampshire didn't take even the half-step actions other states used to beef up voting machine security.
Maybe there are better ways to skin this cat.
THE IDEA OF A RECOUNT STILL INTRIGUES ME BUT...
At this moment I can't think of a way to offset the chain of custody unknowns. The last thing we want is a recount that doesn't answer our questions, or raises new suspicions that aren't answered.
There must be a way. It's been a long day. Let me think on that. |
Gentry Lange
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Gentrylange
Post Number: 40
Registered: 9-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 12:29 am: |
|
Good analyis Bev. Of course Dennis has a history of taking on Diebold, so it's a fight he obviously wants. But you raise several great points about the potential pitfalls.
Looks like the dice have been thrown. |
Trenton Brodie
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Doubledown
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 2:03 am: |
|
Is there any way to request that this be a manual hand recount of ALL the ballots in the state by an independent entity (at least the paper ballots, since you can't count the electronic ones)? Or would it be a 1%-10% sample of the total number of ballots like they typically do in recounts. And who decides where the sample comes from? Agreed that this seems a little premature. Shouldn't they wait until the elections officials give the "OFFICIAL" results in 7-14 days? At least then you have something certified and verifiable to check against instead of just the fact that you think something is fishy and you want them to count again and screw it up even more by leaving something off the tally sheet.
You know the Bushies have a cocaine money past...wouldn't it be funny if Hajjar used to deal with them? Just a thought...
If anything, at least this could stall things a bit and stir the pot while the Clean Elections lawsuit moves forward and the reactions to being served perhaps makes some headlines, but I doubt it. You have to love how they named it...Help America Vote Act. 
Hanging Chads never looked so good!! |
Trenton Brodie
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Doubledown
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 2:15 am: |
|
Let's donate some money so Bev can hire some PR and get on Leno, Letterman, Ellen, or Oprah. Oprah trumps all and seems like she would empathize with Bev as a woman and has a longer segment than others, but tends to favor social issues over politics. Actually, Leno is best bet. Bring Hari Hursti and demonstrate the hack on the show. He at least invited Ron Paul on to talk about getting screwed out of the Faux debate. You're more likely to get coverage on the talk shows, especially with the writers strike, than in the MSM news. I think Tracie Fiss is still the talent booker for the Tonight Show, but you should check on that. We HAVE to take this beyond the internet people...now!
(Message edited by DoubleDown on January 11, 2008) |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1724
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 5:24 am: |
|
All of the stuff I've been reading lately points to the need to start before any perceived problem in order to prevent even having to perceive the problem. Can we start something that is pre-election monitoring just to be sure things are on the up and up? How about a laundry list of stuff (by election platform type) to check going into the citizen's toolkit?
quote:At this moment I can't think of a way to offset the chain of custody unknowns. The last thing we want is a recount that doesn't answer our questions, or raises new suspicions that aren't answered.
I have to disagree with the last part of this, I think one of the things that we want is any bona fide suspicions that the elections officials can't answer. These make our points in many ways better than an answered suspicion. The way Kurt Bellman came to Black Box is that he doesn't believe that an election has been rigged yet, but he believes that one can be from what's been presented here; you see? Unanswered suspicion.
But the problem is, when you're sniffing around something that smells funny, you don't know what the stinky thing is you're going to turn up.
Greg Palast would be a good person to talk to about what the "might-have-happened"s are, Bev. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1725
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 5:30 am: |
|
And if you're really contending with chain of custody issues with an insider, and working against stonewalling, I suspect you're screwed. This is the "playing against the house" issue, again. |
Bob Fleischer
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rjf7r
Post Number: 144
Registered: 9-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 5:47 am: |
|
Fortunately, there are no electronic ballots in NH -- all are paper. It is only the counting that is electronic for most ballots.
The stored ballots are suspect due to chain of custody issues, however, tampering with the stored ballots should be a lot harder than tampering with the electronic counting, since as few people as a single individual could have had the access necessary to tamper with the entire electronic count.
If the recount were a full hand recount of all the ballots, this would involve a lot of tampering. How likely are we to get that? |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4315
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 6:15 am: |
|
quote:If the recount were a full hand recount of all the ballots, this would involve a lot of tampering. How likely are we to get that?
I recently posted a news story here that one little-known candidate, Albert Howard, is going to get a recount of all the Republican ballots. I do not know how knowledgeable he is about chain of custody issues.
I would like to correct your perception that many people would be needed to tamper with enough paper ballots to make a difference. This is incorrect because you assume that large numbers of changed votes would be needed. That's not necessarily so--it depends what your goal is, and it depends on the specific election.
Historically, there are races where changing just 1 or 2 votes per precinct would be enough to change the election outcome. More important--and more relevant to primary elections--if one's goal is to make sure that a certain candidate does not go forward then very few votes might need to be changed to achieve the desired result.
Changing votes could be quick and simple--especially if you wanted to invalidate ballots for a candidate you wanted to eliminate, by adding marks so the ballots would be considered overvotes. Or adding white labels as we saw appear at the Ohio recount.
Tampering doesn't have to be directed at the big, high-visibility races. It can mean minimizing the count of certain candidates to make it unlikely their voices and issues will be heard in public debates.
There has been a difference in how certain candidates in Dem, Rep and Indy parties have been covered by the media. This has a self-perpetuating effect of reducing their media coverage. Relatively small changes to the vote counts can make a big difference in how overall races are framed, and in determining which issues are and are not brought up in public debates or media commentary.
Think about it. If you had a lot of money, and wanted to influence the shape of legislation that would influence your particular industry, what would give you the most "bang for your buck" if you were in the position of encouraging someone to nudge a few votes one way or another?
You might want to eliminate certain candidates as early as possible, so they'd never bring up xxxxxxxxxx issue in public debates. If you could ensure that the big-name candidates of both parties were reasonably on your side, or at least not fatally antagonistic, wouldn't that be ideal? Then you could support both Dems and Reps and be ok whoever wins. |
Bill Cox
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Smilindog2000
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 6:17 am: |
|
Sorry for the newbie post here, but why not just go an unofficially recount a few precincts? With many small precincts of fewer than 1000 people per party showing highly questionable data, can't we just ask everyone there to anonymously recast their votes, and see if it's even close? A door-to-door and calling effort should do the trick. If this vote is fraudulent, people want to know. If we gather results showing that it is valid, they want to know that, too. Either way, it's a valuable service to the country, and after that slashdot article, there are a lot of us who are now quite afraid that our elections are being stolen.
Not only would such an effort provide valuable information to the public, it would also help publicize BlackBoxVoting's role as a volunteer watch-dog group. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4317
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 7:12 am: |
|
One of the problems with recounting just a few precincts is that, depending on the precise circumstances, in some cases ballots can be taken from other precincts and swapped so that the recount matches the original count.
This is also one of the reasons why chain of custody is so very important if you're going to do a recount.
As for going door-to-door to get people to tell you how they voted (presumably with sworn affidavits) this could possibly be useful if you did it in small areas where there were already reports of results not reflecting voters' votes. What actions would come out of it? I have no idea. A lot would depend on NH's state election laws.
It would not accomplish the same thing as
1) having a secure, documented chain of custody of all the original ballots
combined with
2) public hand recount of all the original ballots.
One should take actions that can reveal the most information, help inform officials, candidates and voters, change results if possible (maybe this is not possible depending on whether the state or the parties control primaries in NH), and have an effect on procedures elsewhere in the future.
I don't think publicity for BBV should be a criteria for whether or not certain actions are or aren't taken. It's about the benefit to the public (including the risk of sending out the wrong message) that should determine what happens. |
Greg Bodovsky
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bikerpatriot
Post Number: 74
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 7:29 am: |
|
Well, it seems like requesting that chain of command information yesterday is the 1st thing to do. I suspect Bev did that while sleeping. She can do it all. You go girl! 
If Dennis is going through with this, he's going to need help.
The Election law in NH is:
State or Presidential Primary Recounts
660:7 Application. Any person for whom a vote was cast for any nomination of any party at a state or presidential primary may apply for a recount. The application shall be made in writing to the secretary of state and shall be submitted no later than the Friday after the primary for a recount of all ballots cast for such nomination. Each candidate requesting a recount shall pay the secretary of state fees as provided in RSA 660:2.
660:2 Fees. I. If the difference between the vote cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared elected shall be less than one percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the office to be recounted, the following fees shall apply:
(a) Candidate for president, United States senator or governor, $500.
...
III. If the difference between the vote cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared elected shall be between 2 percent and 3 percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the office to be recounted, the following fees shall apply:
(a) Candidate for president, United States senator or governor, $2,000.
...
V. If the difference between the vote cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared elected shall be greater than 3 percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the office to be recounted, the candidate shall pay the fees as provided in RSA 660:2, III and shall agree in writing with the secretary of state to pay any additional costs of the recount.
If we don't recount, (and try to get it done right, or if it isn't, raise hell about it!) are we gonna look back and say we didn't cuz we didn't want to get trapped? That might explain the queasy feeling!  |
Bob Fleischer
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rjf7r
Post Number: 145
Registered: 9-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 7:37 am: |
|
I understand the points you are making, Catherine, but in this case the tampering has to make the recount more or less match the official results -- it can't simply establish the desired victor, but the desired counts (and if reported by precinct or machine, the counts must match in each case). This is at least a bit more complicated (in terms of the number of physical acts) than one person tampering with the software before the election.
Perhaps I'm belaboring the point, but one of the arguments against electronics in counting the vote is that a software-based system makes tampering easier -- not that it makes tampering possible.
In this case there would have to be a second, paper-based tampering that matched the first computer-based one. You are right, it is not impossible, but it is more work.
What exactly is the chain-of-custody situation in New Hampshire? My only personal reference point is seeing the vote tabulated on identical machines (maintained by the same company, LHS) in elections in the city of Boston. In Boston each machine's ballots are in a separate locked box stored in one room in the basement of city hall. (I don't know how long they stay that way.) Are the ballots in NH stored all in one place, or does the municipality keep them? Are they stored in similar locked boxes?
I certainly don't want to imply that the paper is secure and reasonably beyond tampering. I just question the fear that the situation is beyond hope. (As an Obama bumper sticker somewhat eerily said, "Got Hope?") |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1803
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 7:40 am: |
|
I frankly can't believe what I'm reading here.
Has anyone ascertained what chain-of-custody DOES exist? It would seem to be a starting point before going all crazy here.
What is in place? Are the precinct-counted ballots sealed or not? What kind of seals? Where have they been since Tuesday?
I'm seeing lots of assumed answers and few questions. Shouldn't the questions come first?
I see lots of people here assuming the worst. it could be much better than these assumptions. There are ways of protecting chain-of-custody. My state uses actual good old-fashioned sealing wax to seal envelopes on Election Night that are sealed pending any court order to open them.
I think questions need to be asked before anyone ASSUMES there is no decent chain-of-custody. There might NOT be, granted, but there might be a pretty damned good one, too.
Short of Bev Harris and John Washburn and Brant Lamb sleeping on mattresses stuffed with NH ballots since Tuesday night, what would you accept? If your answer is that you would accept nothing, then you have made yourselves irrelevant.
Why do I say that? Because if you have established groundrules so that you can never have your interests satisfied, then the "powers that be" have EVERY justification to NOT ONLY ignore you, but call you uncharitable names, as well.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on January 11, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7439
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 8:17 am: |
|
Bob,
Here's the problem with everyone's opinions about how hard or how easy it would be to manipulate is this:
We don't have the information, nor do the candidates.
Who would have thought that 81% of the votes in New Hampshire would be on Diebold 1.94w hackable optical scans coded by a single small private outfit with a convicted felon as one of its key people? That's a lot of centralization using an insecure system with a chain of custody that's nothing but a black hole.
The devil is always in the details. I think it's foolish to sit around and guess that a recount will be secure or not secure. The point is, we don't know and though I'm not sharing my specific concerns publicly at this point, I can think of several ways to create a sham recount in New Hampshire, requiring little time and very few people to execute.
What we need now is to get answers to rule out specific scenarios.
That's how we came to find the LHS problem, you know. We thought, "gee, New Hampshire has over a hundred locations using the machines, that seems dispersed and difficult to manipulate on a wholesale basis. Is there any point where just a handful of people would all have access to all those locations' voting systems?"
Turns out it's centralized through LHS and that was bad enough. Then it turns out that one of the executives at LHS has a criminal record and that's worse that we could have expected. Now it turns out that the state of New Hampshire knew, but approved this bizarre arrangement anyway.
It wouldn't be prudent to make assumptions about the ballot chain of custody or the recount safeguards. I have a whole list of questions that need answers.
Without those answers, candidates are walking onto a battlefield for a picnic with no idea at all as to whether there are snipers in the woods. |
Randal Divinski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Randydiv
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:00 am: |
|
From the AP Wire story about the NH recount request:
"Scanlon said his office had received several phone calls since Tuesday, mostly from outside the state, questioning the results. New Hampshire's voting machines are not linked in any way, which Scanlon says reduce the likelihood of tampering with results on a statewide level. Also, the results can be checked against paper ballots."
It seems to me that Black Box Voting is in a good position to challenge this statement. A press release could do two things:
1. Establish that there are in fact several "links" between the machines: a) one company runs them all; and b) they all have the same (insecure) software.
2. Question the assertion that "the results can be checked against paper ballots" IN A MEANFUL WAY. That is, it is an open question, dependent on the integrity of the Chain Of Custody.
This is a "teachable moment" and I hope BBV will weigh in on these points, even if there is a tactical decision to not be directly involved in the recount process itself.
(Message edited by randydiv on January 11, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7440
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:09 am: |
|
Randal,
Thank you very much for publishing that information from Scanlan. I had not published his name prior to this. Among other concerns, and with the help of great New Hampshire citizens, I have been aware for some time that a key person in the New Hampshire government for ballot chain of custody is Dave Scanlan. His past behavior has shown that Dave Scanlon is not a friend to the election integrity community.
The answer you got is disinformation. Scanlan diverted your attention from the real vulnerabilities into an unrelated area, and he knows darn well where the real risks are. The Amazing Randi: "Don't look there, look HERE!" |
Randal Divinski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Randydiv
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:17 am: |
|
I initially (accidentally) posted only Scanlan's remarks above, without noting the context (AP Wire Story) and that I was doing so to illustrate what is being presented to the public as the facts of the case (not that I agreed with them). [Bev's reply was posted before I finished editing my post -- she's everywhere at once.] |
Bob Fleischer
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rjf7r
Post Number: 146
Registered: 9-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:18 am: |
|
The problem is that we are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
I don't believe we will get the reforms everybody in this forum seeks until we can point to solid proof of tampering that made a big difference.
We won't get the solid proof if we don't go looking for evidence of tampering with a big impact.
I don't think we will ever get that information -- and thus ever get real reforms -- without something like a recount showing such tampering.
So at some point we will have to "risk it" with recounts. We already have, and so far have lost the gamble. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7441
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:25 am: |
|
Citizens: Do not wait for Black Box Voting to do everything. Randal's suggestions for media alerts are very good. Don't wait for us. Get involved yourselves. Contact the media and make them aware.
Black Box Voting packs a big punch, but we are just a couple people with a volunteer board of directors, and it is a mistake to think one organization can do all the footwork. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7442
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:31 am: |
|
Bob: IF THE RECOUNT CAN BE EASILY RIGGED IT WILL NOT PROVIDE PROOF OF TAMPERING.
It will then be used to discredit any further questioning of the process.
You say "we won't get the solid proof if we don't go looking." If you publicly "go looking" only in a carefully controlled little box that has already been sanitized, you are guaranteed NOT to get solid proof, but because you did this "looking" very publicly, it will do the opposite of what you intend. |
Randal Divinski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Randydiv
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:43 am: |
|
Why are insecure, easily corruptible, voting systems in place?
1) There are those who deliberately want these systems to take advantage of them.
2) There are those whose status is tied in to the election "brand" -- as long as there is a public perception of integrity, they do not want to mess with that, even if it means looking the other way when actual fraud occurs (perception trumps reality).
3) There is a lot of bureaucratic inertia: the system is full of folks with other responsibilities, non-expert part-timers, and volunteers. Why should they risk their position or make their job much, much more difficult by trying to evaluate (let alone change) the whole system in which they are a tiny cog.
4) Those in charge, with the power to make decisions, who might be in any or all categories of the above, but also have to contend with the fact that an change on the basis of something being "broken" means they have to answer the question of why they implemented it in the first place, and then did nothing for years and years, before finally fixing it.
All these things work together to see that nothing gets done.
However, every recount, regardless of the result, is a pain in the butt for all four categories of folks. In theory, there is a (tipping) point at which it will be LESS work for them to institute a transparent, verifiable voting system than face recounts, recriminations, and reduced credibility every election.
If our collective efforts create a climate in which it becomes arguably less effort for bureaucrats to run elections correctly than to stick with el-hack-tions as usual, things might change. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1731
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:44 am: |
|
quote: There are ways of protecting chain-of-custody. My state uses actual good old-fashioned sealing wax to seal envelopes on Election Night that are sealed pending any court order to open them.
Yeah, Kurt, anybody who wanted to hack an election, I'm sure melting wax, making a seal, all of those would just be insuperable to hackers. /Sarcasm off.
Bev said:
/quote{Black Box Voting packs a big punch, but we are just a couple people with a volunteer board of directors, and it is a mistake to think one organization can do all the footwork.}
Maybe it's time for Black Box voting to think about what kind of organizations it would like to help create/promulgate.
(Message edited by brantl on January 11, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7443
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:47 am: |
|
A Republican candidate by the name of Albert Howard has just filed for a recount in New Hampshire.
Black Box Voting cannot and does not work with campaigns or discuss which candidates are good, bad or indifferent, but we can discuss procedural issues with anyone and certainly that includes candidates who want to know what kinds of public records requests and questions apply to the New Hampshire recount process, from the standpoint of a watchdog organization. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1805
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:01 am: |
|
Yeah Brant,
You're right. Each of hundreds of localities having rigged the machines in a certain way, knowing exactly how many paper votes need to be changed in every town to match what the machines reported, being able to surreptitiously be left alone with a sealed envelope or container long enough to melt seals and reseal them approriately, after having added and removed exactly the right number of ballots in HUNDREDS of towns all across NH is FAR more plausible. Yup, yup, yup.
Even if I accept that one questionable operation, LHS, which did have electronic access to each machine in NH and in some people's minds COULD HAVE put a Hursti-style fix on them all (which is nothing less than libel at this point), for the recount to have been rigged to match that centralized rigging would NOW require that EACH and EVERY Diebold OS town in New Hampshire now has a co-conspirator in it to do LHS's bidding.
Maybe on SOME planet, Brant.
Certainly not on mine.
Your credibility continues to evaporate, Brant, every time you post a message.
I'll let you in on a little secret, Brant. I believe the Warren Commission got the Kennedy Assassination exactly and completely correct, because there is not one atom of evidence refuting one iota of the Warren Commission report.
Skeptics have the burden of proof. It's the way educated people require the world to operate.
Negatives cannot be proven, and we don't require people to do it. If you want to refute the official word, the burden is YOURS to prove it wrong, not for officialdom to prove they are right. The absence of evidence you'd like to have is evidence of nothing.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on January 11, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7444
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:14 am: |
|
Kurt,
Drop personal attacks. I do not have time to moderate you, Brant, or anyone else.
Until the dust settles, anyone getting into personal back-and-forth will be temporarily suspended. Brant, you started it by calling Kurt out. Don't bother to answer this post. Issues only or I push the suspend button until volume is lighter and I have time to moderate every little post. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7445
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:16 am: |
|
This is factually incorrect:
quote:Even if I accept that one questionable operation, LHS, which did have electronic access to each machine in NH and in some people's minds COULD HAVE put a Hursti-style fix on them all (which is nothing less than libel at this point), for the recount to have been rigged to match that centralized rigging would NOW require that EACH and EVERY Diebold OS town in New Hampshire now has a co-conspirator in it to do LHS's bidding.
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1807
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:22 am: |
|
Bev,
Incorrect? How so? Explain. My statement DOES assume a comprehensive "every town" manual recount.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on January 11, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7447
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:30 am: |
|
1. There is no manual recount or even any manual spot check required in New Hampshire
2. The local moderators, from the information I have so far, all have their ballots transported to a central location. They are not involved in chain of custody for recounts except to package up the ballots and stick them in the truck.
What transporation firm is used? Same or different? Who drives the trucks? Who owns the company?
When I say we don't have the answers to assess this, that's exactly what I mean.
Also, you are making assumptions about how a compromise would be effected that I believe are incorrect, and I'm not going to go into the way I think it could be done here on this forum. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1808
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:36 am: |
|
Bev,
Then it's clear we are operating from WILDLY different assumptions of what even the "right at this moment" status quo is.
You are operating on the concept of centralized (Statewide? Countywide?) aggregation of ballots. I am assuming that the original ballots are still with each town clerk. (I can't imagine why anyone would ever build a system where they are NOT still with each electoral jurisdiction, which is "towns" in NH.) When PA did "document" elections, all those ballots remained with the county. They never were aggregated any higher. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7448
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:43 am: |
|
I have established the company that prints the ballots for New Hampshire. I have a confirmation from an employee and am awaiting a call back from Jay Stewart, the president of the company, with additional questions.
The firm is:
Capital Offset Company, Inc.
181 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
I have not been able to locate the corporate ownership or any other information.
Also needed: Information on any component of the ballot transportation chain. Jump in anyone, more hands are needed on deck to learn about this process.
Also, if anyone can grab the detailed procedures for ballot handling and recount processes in New Hampshire and link them in here that would be helpful. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4322
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:49 am: |
|
State laws vary quite a bit. NH does things differently from PA.
We might all be advised to learn something about NH laws and procedures before making assumptions about what is possible or probable there.
Experience can be a great help, but not always. Sometimes thinking like a beginner is more helpful, as it can lead us to think outside the box. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1810
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 11:09 am: |
|
Catherine,
Is not an assumption that ballots have been already centralized equally questionable?
Even if that HAS been done, and I don't think there's any evidence YET that it has, the VERY FIRST question, even if framed in a challenging manner (which I would suggest under those circumstances would be fair), would be "for what possible reason?"
I can think of no useful reason to centrally transport actual ballots beyond the "town" level. Clearly, places like Manchester and Nashua probably have at least a few dozen polling sites. I make that as an aducated guess based on census population and the practicalities of polling place operations.
I can see why all the polling sites in those towns might have centralized their ballots to their City Halls, but I cannot even DREAM UP a reason for higher level aggregation.
But I'll grant one larger point - the more aggregation of ballots that has occurred, the less reason there is to be able to hang one's hat on even a full manual recount. But if these actual ballots are still quite dispersed (close to point of casting), and secured, there is increasingly MORE reason to trust a recount, if manual. A re-run back through the same machines, while it may reveal slight total differences, will accomplish quite little.
The more dispersed they are in custody, the more co-conspirators would be required to "prove" an invalid orignal count, speaking hypothetically.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on January 11, 2008) |
Brian
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brian
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 11:14 am: |
|
New Hampshire Revised Statutes
660:5 Conduct of Recount.
If directed by the secretary of state, the state police shall collect all ballots requested from the town or city clerks having custody of them and shall deliver them to the public facility designated by the secretary of state. At the time and place so appointed, the ballots cast for such office shall be counted by the secretary of state and such assistants as the secretary of state may require. When counting the ballots, the secretary of state or his or her assistants shall visually inspect each ballot. No mechanical, optical, or electronic device shall be used for the counting of ballots. The candidates, their counsel, and assistants shall have the right to inspect the ballots and participate in the recount under such suitable rules as the secretary of state may adopt. If the candidate requesting the recount cannot attend the recount, the candidate shall designate, in writing, to the secretary of state the name of an individual who will attend the recount and who will be authorized to make decisions on the candidate's behalf. Each candidate or his or her counsel or designee shall have the right to protest the counting of or failure to count any ballot. The secretary of state shall thereupon rule on said ballot and shall attach thereto a memorandum stating such ruling and the name of the candidate making the protest. If, at any time during the counting of the ballots, a discrepancy appears in any ballot for any reason, the secretary of state shall suspend the recount until the discrepancy is resolved, at which time the secretary of state shall continue the recount. In no event shall a discrepancy result in a second recount for the same candidate, as provided in RSA 660:3.
Emphasis Added |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1811
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 11:20 am: |
|
This answers a few questions:
1) Prior to a recount order, ballots SHOULD BE in the town clerks' hands. That is as widely dispersed as practical. It also means that no small number of persons could "hide" a faulty original count.
2) All recounts are supposed to be manual.
That sure does add credibility elements to a recount.
The centralized recount has positive and negative aspects to it.
If this type of recount happens, it is CRUCIAL that it be tallied BY PRECINCT, and not be allowed to just run a total. It is ONLY through a precinct by precinct manual recount that recount tallies can be compared with the original tallies. It is not enough for "wholesale" totals to be confirmed. Retail ones need to match as well.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on January 11, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7451
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 11:37 am: |
|
Transported by the state police. That means some of the transportation chain will be okay and some not okay. In areas that have organized crime pockets, as New England does, it is not realistic to assume that state police custody is more secure than the two (or one) officer handling the transportation. It does remove the attack vector of having a single trucking company corrupt the process wholesale, but it isn't a public chain of custody.
I didn't include the hundreds of examples of state policemen who have been indicted/convicted on narcotics trafficking and other felonies in my Moonshine Election series. I found about 50 indicted law enforcement guys for every indicted elections official.
Sheriffs, local police, and state police are a traditional target for protection and bribery in all locations with an organized crime presence. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4324
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 11:47 am: |
|
quote:Transported by the state police.
That's the same big vulnerability in the otherwise excellent Irish election system. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1813
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Bev,
Even more core; why central at all? Why not a manual count in each town?
I can answer one part of my own question. Central manual recounts eliminate all possible Bush v. Gore problems. One recounting authority eliminates all those "equal protection" issues. But while it deals those out, it is not the ONLY way to do that. Bush v. Gore only requires uniform standards, not a uniform location. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7452
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Kurt, your assumptions are once again incorrect about whether a large number of persons would be needed to hide a faulty original count.
By my count 97 of New Hampshire's 231 locations could have faulty machine counts, potentially without the knowledge of the local moderators due to centralization of coding through LHS.
I would pare that down somewhat; Wally Fries, of the Town of Danville, reportedly checked the machines with a hand count on election night at the polling place. I'm sure there were other officials that did some sort of spot check, because New Hampshire law does allow this.
But then we have the 12 wards in Manchester, the 9 Wards in Nashua, 10 in Concord, 6 in Dover -- 37 of the 97 machine count locations are consolidated into just four places, and these represent a significant portion of the total vote. There are some other little urban pockets as well.
So then you look not at the total amount of votes, but at the amount of votes in the spread needed to separate whatever candidate you're thinking of from the next. Suppose you need to pull 4000 votes either to or away from one candidate. You're not looking at all of New Hampshire, you're looking at "where can I get 4000 votes and make it look plausible?"
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would not be surprised if changing the outcome could be achieved in any of a number of different combinations of 3-4 places.
That means all you need is:
- cooperative voting machines in those locations
- knowledge of how many ballots you need to substitute to match them up
- a little grease on the palms for a couple of cops in 3-4 places. (That's if the substitution was performed during the transportation phase.)
Other possibilities would be to achieve ballot substitution targeting 3-4 pay to play people in one of the multi-ward cities, or 1-2 people to look the other way at the state location.
The exercise needs to be:
1. figure out how many votes would be needed to alter outcomes for each of the candidates
2. identify the parts in the custody pipeline and then look for the narrowest part of the pipe.
To help spot narrow parts in the pipe, and then have a look at how many locations you'd need for plausibility.
In democracy, a big fat, shallow, transparent pipe with as many people in it at once is what you want. You look for the times in the custody pipeline that don't have a lot of people in there. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7455
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 12:36 pm: |
|
From:
Paul. E. Brodeur, Chief Investigator
Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
The ballots are placed back into the boxes they arrived in. There are seals furnished that the Moderator and/or City or Town Clerk then attaches to the box/s and all necessary election officials sign the seal. The ballots are
then stored at the respective Town or City Clerk vaults for a number of years. If someone files for a recount the ballots are then transported to the Secretary of States Office Vault where the date and time is set for the recount and all parties are notified so they can be present to view the recount.
Paul. E. Brodeur, Chief Investigator
Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
33 Capitol Steet
Concord, NH 03301 |
Maggie Richards
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Magginkat
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Couldn't this whole mess be resolved by demanding paper ballots to be hand counted in each and every precinct in the country with results being fed to local, state & national centers and to all major media outlets, newspapers to compile totals? No electronic machines of any kind.
It seems to me that if we followed that simple procedure it would make it almost impossible for anyone to change the votes as the totals would be furnished to many outlets at the same time.
What say Bev?
Additionally I think that in presidential elections years ballots should contain only presidential & congressional candidates....... no local and state issues of any kind. That would simplify the counting process too. |
Randal Divinski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Randydiv
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 12:53 pm: |
|
The Election Defense Alliance (EDA) is reporting that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when comparing votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:
Optical scan
52.95% Clinton 91,717
47.05% Obama 81,495
Hand-counted
47.05% Clinton 20,889
52.95% Obama 23,509
The percentages appear swapped, a possible indication of a certain type of hack. If these figures are correct, and if they indicate what they would seem to, then a manual recount (under the conditions outlined above) ought to uncover it -- if precinct level tallies are reported.
That is, IF tampering was done via a software hack that flipped the votes for Clinton/Obama, THEN there would be discrepancies in every precinct AND what a manual count would show in that circumstance would be Obama actual (hand counted) votes equalling Clinton reported votes and visa versa.
It seems from the info above, a successful attempt to cover this up would require active collaboration by the Secretary of State of NH. Such a cover up might involve centralizing the ballots in an unsecure way in order to switch and/or mingle ballots, not reporting precinct level counts, and spot counting only (selected counties).}
Source:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bruce_o__080110_obama_clinton_3a_remar.h tm |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:05 pm: |
|
I'm a newbie here so excuse my naivity.
If there is fraud here and an attempt to cover up, it would seem to be an extraordinary task to try to match up the totals on the substituted ballots with the already accepted results.
If there is fraud, then it is unlikely that anybody really knows what the real results are as opposed to the results from the machines.
In order to cover-up you would have to substitute ALL the real ballots with pre-fabricated ballots which will add up to the already accepted totals for each municipality. This would be an extraordinary undertaking involving some fancy calculus. Quite unlikely in my opinion.
However, what is more likely, and hasn't been alluded to, is that there could be an attempt to invalidate the recount. Security breaches, etc... |
Randal Divinski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Randydiv
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Question for any NH voters out there: Were there any candidates on the ballots other than the Presidential candidates?
I ask because, if physical ballot swapping is done after the fact to cover up electronic misreporting, this is almost impossible to do without messing up the counts in other categories.
However, public officials can enable fraud by prohibiting the tallying of the other races while doing the recount. (They did in Ohio in 2004.) They will justify it in terms of mandate, time, and/or expense, and that may even be the motive.
My point is, if there is a way to force a recount of ALL the races in a particular precident, comparing that to the reported results ought to uncover any physical switching of ballots that might have occurred.
(I am assuming that the switchers would not have prolonged, unrestricted access to the original ballots such that they could copy them line-by-line, reversing only the Presidential line.) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4325
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Randal,
quote:if physical ballot swapping is done after the fact to cover up electronic misreporting, this is almost impossible to do without messing up the counts in other categories
This is one of the reasons why one must be particularly diligent with regard to potential fraud at primary elections. As you've pointed out, if there's nothing else on the ballot it's easier to cheat. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1815
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Bev,
I disagree MOST VEHEMENTLY! I'm NOT talking about a recount ONLY for the aggregate totals. If you do ONLY THAT, then I fully agree with your analysis. I'm talking about a precinct by precinct match test, not just the gross totals.
A school child could make a "gross total only" recount come out confirmed. One that tests EACH AND EVERY precinct for a match is hugely more difficult. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1816
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Randal,
This was a two issue election. There were only two offices on the ballot, President and Vice-President, and Vice-President had only unknown people on it - no viable national figures. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4326
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:25 pm: |
|
That's interesting, Kurt.
I haven't seen anyone mention results for Vice-President. Were there several VP candidates for both major parties? Did anyone bother counting their votes? Where are the results? |
Diana Young
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Diana_y
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:25 pm: |
|
I am new to this whole thing, so I'm curious. Assuming there was some type of fraud (and I have no trouble accepting that possibility), realistically, what is the best outcome we could hope for? I ask because everyone's pretty much already weighed in on the negatives. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7457
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Hey Kurt, what's the deal on those vice president races? Dems had two and Reps had one -- is this done in every state? If so, is it the same candidates in every state? |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Would it be a good idea to encourage NH citizens to camp out outside the city clerk offices at night until votes are delivered to the SOS to prevent security breaches?
What can citizens do to prevent security breaches? |
Ben Frank
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Peacecandidates
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:34 pm: |
|
To clarify the chain of custody issue:
The ballots are still in each town now, but they will be transported to a central location for the recount. ?
And according to the DoJ, they are in sealed boxes. Sounds nice, but I still don't trust them.
IMO, we ought to get a citizen vote verification drive going, esp in the small towns.
For instance, in Aug 2007 the Strafford, NH GOP had a straw poll which showed dramatically different results than the primary.
Straw Poll Results
Primary Results by town |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4327
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Maybe if citizens could find out when ballots were going to be transferred they could follow the police cars to make sure they didn't make any strange detours. But that's no real help, I knew.
If anyone wanted to swap ballots and if chain of custody is like it often is (i.e., non-existent) then it could have already happened. Especially if someone suspected someone might ask for a recount. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Bev,
New Hampshire is pretty unusual in including Vice President on their ballot. Most states don't even bother. New Hampshire, in addition to having such an early date, also has about the easiest ballot access laws for President and Veep. It's no big deal to get on the ballot. I think it was put there in hopes that people might some day actually run for VEEP in a serious public way, but it never quite happened.
We will be including a write-in only Vice-Presidential choice on our county straw poll ballot. (Incidentally, we hear that at least McCain is taking our little county straw poll VERY seriously.) We are including VEEP mostly to make people who attend our single-location countywide straw poll (so the average voter will travel 20 miles perhaps, they are not casual people - they are serious) think about what they would like to see our national party look like for the future. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1819
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Catherine,
I think if a state cop thougt he was being tailed for some random reason, he might get all agitated.
If one were to talk with the state cop, and tell him IN ADVANCE that you want to "caravan" with him, because you want to "be part of the history of the event", he may even think it's cool and help you keep up, by waiting if you get separated by a red light. My experience is that cops LOVE IT when they get to do things where their families don't have worry about phone calls in the night. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7460
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Bill Glenn - Welcome to Black Box Voting! Likewise for Trenton Brodie, Bill Cox, Randal Divinski, Diana Young, Ben Frank, Maggie Richards and Brian London.
quote:(Bill) it would seem to be an extraordinary task to try to match up the totals on the substituted ballots with the already accepted results.
That's a good point, but not an insurmountable one. One simple method of attack is to flip the ballot definition file so that Candidate A records as Candidate B and vice versa. There are only two races - pres and vice pres - and no one pays any attention to the vice pres, I am not even sure it's legal to recount it while you are doing a pres recount, and last I checked, the detail results weren't even posted for the vice pres. Translation - that vice pres race is irrelevant.
Well, if all you did is an ID flip in a limited number of locations, you already know what you have to do with the ballots. Grab the set with votes for the two affected candidates, swap in the other set.
Maggie: Yes, in the locations in New Hampshire where hand counts were done, it would take a whole different kind of fraud, and one that's much easier to spot.
Randal: Yes, I saw those remarkable stats come in yesterday in a private list I'm involved with. They are not impossible - the analysts indicate that it may be in the range of 1000:1 chance. And I haven't wrapped my head around the type of mechanism that would produce them. But yes, remarkably weird. Kind of like the three candidates in a row in Scurry County TX that got 18,181 votes each. Mathmatically possible, but weird.
KURT: My guess is we're talking past each other on whatever you disagree most vehemently on, because I couldn't track back to what I said that you said...anyway, I think we're in sync that the recount has to break down to town and ward level or there's no point in doing it. (In NH there are towns and wards, but they don't call them precincts).
DIANA - The best outcome we can hope for is to remove the concept of counting votes in secret from elections, along with getting chain of custody back into the public eye.
BILL: As to whether it's a good idea to have citizens camp out in front waiting for ballots - personally, I prefer the method used by the great patriots in Riverside, California, where they followed the ballot transport vehicle in a truck toting a video camera. Apparently the vehicle wanted to do something it didn't want them to see, because it sped up to over 100 miles an hour and eventually eluded them.
While it's true they couldn't see what was going on in that vehicle, it made for great video and provided valuable public education. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7461
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Okay - THANKS Kurt! Moving up the priority list then, and I have a reason for asking this:
Can we find out whether there are V.P. candidates on the Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts ballots?
What that extraneous race does, electronically, is set up what is basically an unmonitored electronic vote bin, as well as potential for triggers and markers.
It is particularly interesting in light of the fact that I now have a document submitted to the New Hampshire attorney general alleging that in February 1999 on the Dan Pierce radio show, during a heated argument over a particular ballot initiative, Ken Hajjar -- according to this AG complaint -- threatened to rig the ballots. The complaint says he used the word "ballots" (not the word "election).
I'll be posting that document later today. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1820
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Another suggestion to ask about, Bev.
Are any of those states running a bifurcated primary also, like NH (President on the different date than the downballot races), as opposed to a unified primary with other offices included?
I'll stipulate in advance that if all those other states use bifurcation BUT include VEEP, that opens up some strange possibilities vis-a-vis this vendor. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1821
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Another thought.
I am scouring my memory and I THINK I remember a Republican Convention where a Vice-President got all delegate votes except a few from New Hampshire. Perhaps they were by law "committed" to the NH primary Veep winner.
Just a vague memory rumbling around and running into a state with a Veep primary. |
Howard Randall Smith
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tidalcreek
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Kurt, Bev, you are my heroes. My head is spinning.
Randy
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1823
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Bev deserves that accolade. I do not. I'm an amateur in this field compared to Bev. My expertise, frequently contrarian here, comes from four years service on the "Dark Side", as seen from here.
But I think my viewpoint, while often "off the reservation" here, has some value.
My key point of dissent is that if election integrity folks knew election administration folks as well as I do, the MAIN focus here would be error detection and mitigation, not fraud, at least on THEIR part. Vendors? I'm less charitable to them. The so-called "testing authorities"? Please. Don't make me choke. The good news is there, however. The testing regime used to be non-existant. It now exists, but is just getting its legs under it now. If it continues to improve in a straight line manner, it maybe worth something someday soon.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on January 11, 2008) |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 3:34 pm: |
|
According to what I know about the candidates, and the sudden reversal of fortune that occurred in the pre-election polls leading up to the NH primary, it would seem likely that a decision of this magnitude (to rig the vote) would have been made in the final days before the NH primary.
If fraud was involved, my intuition tells me that there hasn't been efficient planning for a cover-up.
Also, it is quite likely that the perpetrators were not expecting any candidates to call for a recount since primary votes usually go uncontested. When was the last time a Presidential primary vote was contested?
If I were a scammer, I would only risk scamming in elections using the paperless touch-screen machines, UNLESS the stakes were extremely high. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Just noticed that the anomaly on the Republican side is worse than the anomaly on the Dem side.
http://checkthevotes.com/index.php?party=REPUBLICANS
If fraud occurred on both sides, then it doesn't appear that the "flip the ballot definition file so that Candidate A records as Candidate B and vice versa" strategy would have been used on the Repub side (unless it happened in only a portion of the towns) McCain won on the Republican side even though he lost a lot a ground on the machine count vs. hand count.
However, the Republican pre-election polls and election-day results match up much better than Democrats.
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4330
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 5:01 pm: |
|
IF there was manipulation anywhere (and that's an IF), who says it needed to be similar for both parties, and for similar reasons, using similar techniques? |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7464
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 5:07 pm: |
|
I notice that the data on the link you provided was the unofficial results. The official results were not quite the same and in some cases (Greenville) dramatically different.
The only time the politico numbers should be used right now is for comparison of the media numbers with the official numbers. All other analyses need to use the figures from the secretary of state site. |
Larry Woodfill
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Woodrose
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Bev
Randal: Yes, I saw those remarkable stats come in yesterday in a private list I'm involved with. They are not impossible - the analysts indicate that it may be in the range of 1000:1 chance. And I haven't wrapped my head around the type of mechanism that would produce them. But yes, remarkably weird. Kind of like the three candidates in a row in Scurry County TX that got 18,181 votes each. Mathmatically possible, but weird.
Am I missing something here.
You flip every 20th electronic vote and get this result: Take 5% from Obama and give it to Clinton which accounts for the exact 10% difference between the electronic and hand counts.
For those that would think that the culperts would see in advance that this might present a problem it has been my experience that long detailed planning will often overlook a very simple detail, which could wreck the entire plan. One could overlook the fact that on that large a sample that the results from hand counts and electronic counting could easily turn out exactly the same.
If the above were true I would suspect a very high level of corruption to protect against a possible recount, rather than massive ballot manipulation. |
Harold Bara
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harold
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 5:37 pm: |
|
It seems to me you would almost need a worldwide database with pictures, fingerprints, dna or retnal scan. You could have exit polls then and receipt numbers totaled by each campaign. Would that work? Is there any reliable system? |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 6:04 pm: |
|
<quote>Bev Harris wrote:
Last I checked, the detail results weren't even posted for the vice pres. Translation - that vice pres race is irrelevant</quote>
They are posted now. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4335
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Larry,
quote:it has been my experience that long detailed planning will often overlook a very simple detail, which could wreck the entire plan. One could overlook the fact that on that large a sample that the results from hand counts and electronic counting could easily turn out exactly the same.
That's a good point. Something that Bev & Kathleen Wynne have found is that simple things have often been overlooked, because no one imagined that anyone would ever look (e.g., in dumpsters).
Some of the hack demonstrations and actual evidence (Volusia FL) have shown the kind of carelessness you allude to. (That is, the hack demonstrations showed that carelessness could leave "tracks" on an audit log. So something that might at first seem unimportant could be a very important red flag.) |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 545
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 7:57 pm: |
|
While we're addressing what we do and do not know....
Does anyone know with certainty which Diebold Optical scanners in NH used visible light readers and which used infrared light readers?
If any of the readers were infrared, were the writing utensils provided anything other than one of the following:
-Berol 7700, PN 61 1-1 11 1, Felt pen, black ink, black plastic casing
-Pencil 4mm, PN 61 1-1 115, Pencil, graphite, red wood casing, 4mm OD
-Eberhard Ebony, PN 61 1-1 116, Pencil, graphite, grey wood casing
-Contak 440, PN 61 1-1 117, Pencil, graphite, black wood casing
-Sharpie Power Mark, PN 61 1-1 118, Felt pen, black ink, white plastic casing
Keep in mind that Diebold is very specific that that these are the ONLY acceptable writing utensils for use with a Diebold infrared reader.
Do any NH voters recall the type of writing utensil (pen/pencil) provided for their use in voting?
There's more than one way to rig an election with these scanners.
HG;) |
Timothy A. Balcer
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Knome
Post Number: 2
Registered: 6-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:27 pm: |
|
quote:Randal: Yes, I saw those remarkable stats come in yesterday in a private list I'm involved with. They are not impossible - the analysts indicate that it may be in the range of 1000:1 chance. And I haven't wrapped my head around the type of mechanism that would produce them. But yes, remarkably weird. Kind of like the three candidates in a row in Scurry County TX that got 18,181 votes each. Mathmatically possible, but weird.
Bev: I have to disagree with the analysts estimate of the improbability of this matchup. Now, it would be of that order if the results were the output of dice throws, yes.. but this isn't dice throws. It is not randomness we are talking about, it is chance. Check out Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan" an/or "Fooled by Randomness"
Once you take into account SDIC, the chances of this matchup become EXTREMELY small. And once you factor in the disparate sampling, it gets even smaller. Statisticians are fooled all the time by randomness in cases like this.
The mechanism that could produce these? Simple. If you had a hook into the public reporting apparatus for the votes, you could just tell the algorithm to make the machine counted numbers match the inverse of the hand counted numbers over time. It would be incredibly easy if you controlled the master server that collated those results and reported them, since the hand counted votes would be being entered in batches. If we had a time sequence of reported votes, we could probably see the algorithm taking hold something like 20%+ through the machine vote. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4340
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Can you please explain this a bit more without requiring that I read 2 books? Dummy's Guide, maybe?
What is SDIC? |
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 69
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:46 pm: |
|
Not all differences found between scanner and hand counts would be due to any kind of fraud. Failure to follow instructions is a factor too.
I know for a fact that a small percentage of voters for some reason draw a circle around the outline of the ovals instead of filling them in. The scanners will not record these because they read only a very small patch at the very center of the oval. Some people make check marks, and whether the machine reads it depends on whether the line happens to run through the center.
One saving grace is that the scanner will kick the ballot back out if it sees no marks at all. Hand counters on the other hand should always recognize the true voter intent, and count the circles and checks properly. It is important that the recount rules not require counters to mimic machine behavior.
Although I understand the concern about things that can throw off a recount, I am looking forward to having one more data point on election error rates. If every single precinct machine count is matched I will be surprised. I would not be too surprised if some hand count precincts mismatch, too. |
David Luebbers
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: David_luebbers
Post Number: 15
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:49 pm: |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
SDIC
sensitive dependence on initial conditions
Or otherwise termed Chaos Theory
Edit..
I believe this is what he was referring to as SDIC
It is the only Mathematical reference to SDIC that i am aware of.
(Message edited by david_luebbers on January 11, 2008)
"It doesn't matter who votes. It only matters who counts the ballots." Stalin
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4341
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Thanks David. |
Bill Bowen
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bbowen8
Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:06 pm: |
|
Keith Olbermann ran the Kucinich recount story as the second news story of his show. Unfortunately Keith was the only major media person who would even mention election fraud in the 2004 election.
My hope is, and I would love to hear other's thoughts on this, that because the primaries are spread out over many weeks rather than one day like the presidential election, that another state (like South Carolina next week for example), shows some of the same statistical anomalies between the polls and final results that New Hampshire did. If that happens, I just can't see the media continue to ask the Zogby's and Mitofsky's, "What went wrong with your polling?" I know Olbermann is suspicious of election fraud, and Chris Matthews doesn't seem to be satisfied by any of the explanations of Clinton's victory in NH yet. If another state has these same paper ballot/Deibold discrepencies, I just hope that another talking head other than Olbermann starts talking about fraud honestly. As one pundit put it so well on Chris Matthews' shows the other night, "If the election results differ so greatly from the election polls, why should we trust any of the other polling data?"
Bill |
John Belmonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jbelmonte
Post Number: 4
Registered: 6-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:13 pm: |
|
Here is a simple tool I created to analyze the consistency of hand-to-machine vote ratios. Unlike some other reports which have a fixed notion for what vote ranges constitute small/medium/large towns, you can narrow the comparison to towns with an arbitrary vote range. I've also been looking into whether a simple swap of the Clinton and Obama AccuVote counts makes the ratios fall into place-- you be the judge.
http://neggie.net/vote2008/nh_primary.cgi |
David Luebbers
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: David_luebbers
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 10:24 pm: |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMJB4OCE1fo
^^ Link to the Oberman report on youtube for those of you who are interested in watching it.
"It doesn't matter who votes. It only matters who counts the ballots." Stalin
|
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 71
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 11:31 pm: |
|
That is very cool, John.
One proposal was to call places with more than 1 precinct (wards in NH) urban. I have attached NH ward count data in case you would like to offer a ward count filter.
As a single-precinct town grows, it eventually decides to split its one large precinct into 2 to 4. Typically it stays like that for a good number of years, until local politicians figure out that they can please voters by adding precincts to make voting more convenient. I think it takes an urban mentality to be able to do this with little opposition. Small town mentality is more concerned about the cost of paying more workers to staff more locations, and enjoys the community of all going to the same place. |
Randal Divinski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Randydiv
Post Number: 7
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 12:21 am: |
|
Bill Glenn referenced the anomaly on the Republican side: http://checkthevotes.com/index.php?party=REPUBLICANS
Very interesting. It has the appearance of votes syphoned from Huckaby and McCain to Romney. What is interesting here is the substantial business ties Romney has in MA, where the voting machine company is based. Adds opportunity to motive.
Anyone know if there were specific (uniform) rows on the ballot for particular candidates? That is McCain was always in the 3 position, Romney in the 5 position. Would the same machine count Republican and Democratic ballots? Might it not have been known in advance which machines would be used where?
My point: What if machines rigged to steal votes from McCain and give them to Romney were used in the Democratic primary, and grabbed votes from Obama and gave them to Clinton (inadvertently)? (Possible if their names were in the same relative ballot position as Romney and McCain (or Huckaby) on a comparable Republican ballot. |
Joel Morine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 5:14 am: |
|
John,
That is an extremely intersting tool. Thank you. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4344
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 5:17 am: |
|
Randal,
I believe there should be some kind of bar code on the ballots to prevent this kind of thing from happening. However, things don't always happen the way they're supposed to.
For example, in OH 2004 there were a number of precincts that for some reason did not have the precinct information code on them.
There are indications that the technique of taking advantage of candidate alignment on the ballot has been used in elections run with punch-cards. You can find some of the information about that here.
Thanks for raising the question. It's something that needs to be checked. |
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 72
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 6:56 am: |
|
One machine counts all ballots in each precinct.
A little demographic info: the bigger NH cities are almost all in the south, near the MA border. Slide 3 of this presentation shows what I mean:
http://www.gwpc.org/meetings/meetings_forum/AF07/Proceedings/Sustainable%20Water %20Supplies/Susca,%20Paul.pdf
A significant number of southern NH residents are originally from MA, and many NH people work in MA. Using NH state data I once estimated that about 7% of the NH working population drives into MA each work day.
But the biggest connection between the NH cities that use scanners and MA may be that they are in range of Boston radio and TV stations. In the more rural parts of NH, satellite dishes are ubiquitous. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 7:39 am: |
|
Farhad Manjoo writes:
Elections are greatly decentralized. Across the state on voting machines, Hillary Clinton won by an average of 40.12 percent of the vote, far more than she was projected to win. Her surrogates would have needed to get into a lot of card readers and GEMS machines in order to achieve that count through hacking.
They would have needed helpful confederates in many areas of the state, and those confederates would have had to have been disciplined enough to escape the notice of the many campaign officials and get-out-the-vote volunteers that Clinton's rivals had installed all over.
There is a label for such a far-flung scenario: a conspiracy theory.
http://machinist.salon.com/feature/2008/01/11/new_hampshire_vote/index.html
As i said, I'm a newbie to this whole subject. How does one respond to the above argument? Isn't it possible there is something about these machines we don't know? |
Brian (Cricket) Rakita
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Briancricketrakita
Post Number: 3
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:10 am: |
|
What we need is a recount where the plaintiff gets a court to allow her/him to to get a geek to once over the machines! Any action of malignant code will leave some fingerprint, and this is the only way to catch them. IMO, the only way to get from here to there is with a court order. |
Howard Randall Smith
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tidalcreek
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:42 am: |
|
I like the article (above). The key points for me were, (1) we can do better and we deserve better elections, and (2) elections have to be auditable.
Randy
|
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 73
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:43 am: |
|
I have posted the Farhad Manjoo story to http://newstrust.net. If anyone is thinking of commenting on his blog, you might also want to review it at Newstrust:
http://newstrust.net/webx?14@@.f7ab071
One thing: NewsTrust is about journalism, not political opinions. Like BBV, you have to sign up with your real name too. |
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 74
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:52 am: |
|
Randy, I agree that the Salon article makes some good points. But it demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how NH is different. This is the sentence that jumped out at me:
"Her surrogates would have needed to get into a lot of card readers and GEMS machines in order to achieve that count through hacking." |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 7
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:55 am: |
|
Has anybody looked into whether or not these machines can be put on timers so that they will be programmed to work accurately before the time of the election and after the time of the election, but can do their dirty work during the time of the election. Therefore, testing of these machines will yield accurate results at all times except for the time of the election.
If so, what would be the most clever way to do this? |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 8
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:59 am: |
|
When do the election officials recieve the cards? If the decision to rig a election is made in the final days before the election, would it be possible to program this into the cards in the last few days or week?
(Message edited by Bill_G. on January 12, 2008) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4347
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 9:04 am: |
|
quote:Has anybody looked into whether or not these machines can be put on timers so that they will be programmed to work accurately before the time of the election and after the time of the election, but can do their dirty work during the time of the election. Therefore, testing of these machines will yield accurate results at all times except for the time of the election.
Bill,
Yes, this is a known vulnerability. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 9
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 9:10 am: |
|
This article deals with some of the same points made in the Farhad Manjoo article.
Dave Lindorff writes:
There are, to be sure, alternative quite innocent possible explanations for the discrepancy between the machine and hand votes for Clinton and Obama. All the state's larger towns and cities, like Nashua, Concord and Portsmouth, have gone to voting machines. While there are many small communities that have also opted for machines, it is almost exclusively the smaller towns and villages across the state that have stayed with hand counts-most of them in the more rural northern part of the state. So if Obama did better than Clinton in the small towns, and Clinton did better in the large ones, that could be the answer.
But that explanation flies in the face of logic, historic voting patterns, and most of the post election prognosticating.
If it is true that there was "behind the curtain" racism involved in people saying to pollsters that they were for Obama, while privately voting against him, surely it would be more likely that this would happen in the isolated towns of northern New Hampshire where black people are rarely to be seen. Clinton was also said to have fared better among people with lower incomes-again a demographic that is more prominent in the rural parts of the Granite State. Finally, Obama, in New Hampshire as in Iowa, did better among younger voters, and that is the demographic group that is typically in shorter supply in small towns, where job opportunities are limited. Furthermore, in Iowa, it was in the larger municipalities that Obama fared best, not in the rural towns, so how likely is it that his geographic appeal would be reversed in New Hampshire?
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/011108Lindorff.shtml} |
cindale sue
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Cindale
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 9:54 am: |
|
im a real noob and probably will never post again but i read this::: Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:
Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE ON THE OPTIC MACHINES OBAMA AND HILLARY NAMES WERE SWITCHED , is that a possiblity? |
Richard H Beeson
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rhb
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 9:56 am: |
|
New Hampshire to Recount Ballots in Light of Controversy
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/new-hampshire-t.html |
Timothy A. Balcer
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Knome
Post Number: 3
Registered: 6-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 10:05 am: |
|
SDIC = Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions yes. Sorry for not elucidating!
Chaos theory is the common name for it, the study of chaotic systems. In reality these systems are not chaotic, but are governed by chance instead of randomness. Although the popular notions of these two ideas has always been that they are equivalent, Nassim Taleb makes a convincing argument that they are, in fact, quite different.
A good example of this is the S&L crisis of the 80's. This is the event where Nassim Taleb made his "F&^%k you" money because he saved First Boston's bacon due to his derivatives strategy.
In that crisis, Banks lost almost as much money as they had ever made. The problem was far worse than admitted. In that ONE moment, the previous years of trends analysis, probability spreads, and so on made absolutely no difference.
That is chance.
Randomness is, in general, predictable. You can talk about dice throws and make spreads, etc etc. This usually works.. but only in a normal, unperturbed system.
Once you get to a chaotic system, it only behaves predictably in discrete chunks of time series. Which means that sure, your predictions will work most of the time. But once in awhile they will be wildly, crazily wrong. And those are the events that actually determine where the rubber hits the road.
This situation is screaming that it is a perturbation. We have a generational shift in politics, and the youth vote is turning out in numbers never before seen. We have a black candidate and a woman candidate running for President whom are both Front Runners. We have a culture that is more interconnected than humankind has ever been, and is reacting more in sync than ever before. We have an economic situation that is worse than it has almost ever been, and our standing in the world is pretty darn bad. We've decimated our manufacturing base (which was, up until late last century, the center of our power) and the cost of living has not been higher in terms of real assets.
All of it looks to me like a pivot point, and so my point is that while the results may be looked at in terms of sterile probability theory, I do not believe it would be wise to do so.
If we assume we are in a perturbed state, than this level of correspondence is incredibly unlikely.. more so than the statisticians would state.
To explain it in math would be pretty difficult to do in a forum.. so I'll leave it at anecdotal. I just wanted to get the idea out there for folks to look at and think about.
(Message edited by knome on January 12, 2008) |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 10
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 10:25 am: |
|
Those EDA numbers are quite odd. Has anybody double checked them?
cindale sue wrote:
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE ON THE OPTIC MACHINES OBAMA AND HILLARY NAMES WERE SWITCHED , is that a possiblity?
Even if this was the case, it seems odd that the numbers would match up so well.
Maybe, this kind of simple mix-up would provide some kind of backdoor excuse for LHS Associates if the hand recount demonstrates that Clinton's votes are actually Obama's votes.
Fraud looks a lot a better if it appears to be a simple mistake.
}
(Message edited by Bill_G. on January 12, 2008) |
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 75
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 10:41 am: |
|
I finally read through the CA SoS document Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter., which explains how the Hursti hack is able to escape detection: it is implemented after testing. Harri was handed a card that was tested and ready for the election, and he modified a few bytes here and there on it. Then it was put back into the machine and the election was run.
After the pre-election test deck is run through a machine the vote counters on the card are zeroed and the card is placed in election mode. The Hursti hack takes place after this, changing the vote counters and replacing the AccuBasic zero report program with one that always prints zeroes regardless of the counters.
LHS delivers cards in the "downloaded" state, meaning they are ready for pre-election testing, but not in election mode. The town/city election workers then test the machines, which results in their vote counters being zeroed. Any hacked cards would be unhacked at this point.
If I am correct on all of this, then it truly would take a local person to implement the Hursti hack. |
John Belmonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jbelmonte
Post Number: 5
Registered: 6-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 10:47 am: |
|
I'd suggest not to promote the Salon article by Farhad Manjoo. The article draws an incorrect conclusion based on misleading data on large town votes at checkthevotes.com. Here is what I wrote to the author:
Dear Mr. Manjoo,
A cheif point in your article was based on the "Large Town Machine vs Hand Counts" table at
<http://checkthevotes.com/index.php?party=democrats>, however that table is dubious because all towns with over 1500 votes used Diebold scanners according to my own investigation. I believe that table is erroneously considering a single town to be hand-counted. Assuming that is true, having only 1 hand-count town will statistically
invalidate any conclusions about hand-counting. In other words, your following statement is invalid because hand-count towns are not sufficiently represented in the 3rd table:
"In large areas, Clinton did better in places where votes were counted by hand than where votes were counted by machine"
|
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 11
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 10:56 am: |
|
But couldn't the cards implant something into the counters...so that the counters work differently during the time of the election? |
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 76
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 11:15 am: |
|
The counters are just places in card memory to hold numbers. During the election it is the program in the machine's EPROM that runs the election, updating the counter memory locations on the card as each vote comes through. The programs on the card do nothing at this time.
Only before and after the election is the AccuBasic interpreter activated to run a program on the card. The AccuBasic programs on the card are only used for printing, and are unable to change the counter values.
For the sake of completeness, there is one other obvious attack: if the AccuBasic program on the card can print a fake zero report, then why not a fake election result report? Hopefully the answer is that it has no way to calculate fake vote counts that add up to the correct number of votes cast. The CA SoS document says that AccuBasic is very limited, but I'm not sure if it answers that question. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4349
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 12:36 pm: |
|
On another thread Drew linked to this recent statistical analysis of the NH results as posted by Semmelweis:
http://call-with-current-continuation.blogspot.com/2008/01/statistical-explorati on-of-new.html
The author's conclusion:
quote:Hence voting method explains Hillary Clinton's score accross precincts better than precinct size or I fail Statistics 101.
I have no idea if this analysis is accurate, or if there are other factors that should be considered. The author is not an expert in election statistics. I believe this initial regression is intended to be a starting point for others to comment on or improve. I have no idea of Semmelweis' background or experience. Perhaps others could comment who are proficient in this area. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7472
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Mike,
The little-reported fact is that there are at least four different hacks performed by Hursti, and three other kinds performed by others.
It can be inaccurate to say "such & such can't be done because..." without identifying which exploit you are talking about.
For example, the best known "Hursti Hack" involves stuffing the ballot box with a combination of minus and plus votes, which cancel each other out so as to equal whatever number of voters showed up. That one needs to be done after the L&A test.
When you watch "Hacking Democracy" you see the above hack done with an election featuring one ballot question, "can the election be hacked?"
Hacks that Hursti performed in Leon County that don't necessarily need to be performed after the L&A test include one where he hacks the poll tape only (which would be caught if votes are then uploaded into GEMS) -- but remember, New Hampshire DOES NOT USE GEMS. This hack did not get as much attention because most places use GEMS, and would need to apply that hack and the Hugh Thompson hack together to make it foolproof.
Except New Hampshire, and many locations elsewhere in New England, where the step of uploading into GEMS is skipped, leaving the machines wide open to the other versions of the Hursti Hack.
I would have to look at the videotape of Hursti's testimony to New Hampshire more carefully to make sure I'm precise on this, but I believe another thing Hursti discusses is that there is a clock chip in the memory card itself, and I believe he discusses this in relation to instructing the memory card to misreport only on Election Night, not before.
Also, he discusses the particularly devastating Berkeley hack, which exploits the interpreter on the chip itself.
The issue with LHS is its high level of access. I have now got my hands on one of the LHS agreements with local towns. In it, LHS retains the right to access the machines at any time. LHS has the annual maintenance contract, and the repair contract, and the Election Day technician support contracts. In these contexts there is access to the chip.
That's a whole new ball game. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 12
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Just heard that Kucinich got disinvited this morning from a debate he had already been formally invited to attend (the debate hosted by NBC in Las Vegas). |
Zenophon Abraham
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Zennie62
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Here's my video on this matter and the implications of the recount effort.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbhiBhgm-dA |
David Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Maxx
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Newbie here on all of this.
I would say that Kucinich and Howard are wasting their time and money on a recount as what Bev says there is the possibility of ballot substitution. The election riggers will be forced to do it of course. The only thing I see possible is the investigation into who all the 5700+ "others" are. Substitution of that many names on ballots would be quite the task unless it is just from a few or several choices and who would they be? There would be reports by now that hundred or thousands of New Hampshire voters had planned to vote for a candidates that was not on the tickets. I just can't imagine 5700+ people voted for hundreds or thousands of different choices. Who are they voting for? their husbands or wives? Children? Their priest? minister? or Sunday School teacher? How would the election riggers rig the names on those 5700+ ballots to make it look credible? That is in my opinion is their Achilles heel. Aim your arrows there.
Maxx} |
Gentry Lange
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Gentrylange
Post Number: 41
Registered: 9-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Zenophon Abraham,
I watched your video, and I think your restatement of the situation is either confusing or wrong. It sounds like you are saying that the hand counted districts were "recounts". From my understanding the handcounted districts were actually first count hand counts.... not recounts. |
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 78
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Clock chips
Bev, I really doubt that the memory cards have clock chips. These are standard Epson cards (almost obsolete now), and I can't imagine why they would have anything but memory in them. This document does discuss "Step 4: Adjusting the AV-OS clock to agree with the card's initialization timestamp", but that timestamp would be just a memory location:
http://www.usenix.org/event/evt07/tech/full_papers/kiayias/kiayias_html/
Different hacks
Your excellent reports describe the various hacks:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/6847.html?1121114287
But I still don't see how any of these hacks could be performed before the L&A test and make it through the election with no election workers involved. The CA SoS report did say that AccuBasic had bugs that would allow something like a classic buffer overflow attack. Is that what you have in mind?
GEMS
Boston is the only city in New England that I know of using GEMS, not that I have taken any survey. I'm not in a hurry to advocate more widespread use of GEMS because it all runs on electrons. The irony here is that there would be pressure to use an additional voting system product because we don't trust the first one. But cross-checking GEMS with the paper tape would be a step up, of course. Does Boston check GEMS results against the paper tapes? One can only hope.
Wishful thinking
It's too bad the AV-OS does not have a "raw dump" printing feature that bypasses AccuBasic. Then cards could not be programmed to print other values. The hassle is that the races and choices would be identified by number only - no names. But every result number printed should look familiar.
My ideal scanner would have no memory card at all. The ballots can be designed so that the machine learns everything it needs to know from the paper ballots. An election could be run with no programming at all. |
David Luebbers
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: David_luebbers
Post Number: 22
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 4:26 pm: |
|
"Just heard that Kucinich got disinvited this morning from a debate he had already been formally invited to attend (the debate hosted by NBC in Las Vegas)."
^^ Doesn't surprise me.. They want to shut him up. No other reason to invite someone (Before he made waves) then dis invite him after he made waves.
They tried doing the same thing with Ron Paul.. Well.. Fox News did.
Hey Mike LaBonte .. Just think of this for one second. IF .. IF .. Voter fraud was taking place.. Don't you think that these people are smart enough to do it in a way that would make proving it really hard?
It has been PROVEN that the systems being used to count the votes is wide open to attack.. Nothing has been done about it.
I would much rather be ultra cautious on this then to just write it off as being too hard.. Or not possible.
Let me put it this way, Less then a week or two after the Iphone was released someone had a Hack for it.. (Think it was only a couple days actualy) And at the time people were claiming it was unhackable.
Hackers... Will spend years trying to break into a system or encryption etc just because people say it can not be done. I could cite many many instances where Hackers have broken into supposedly unhackable systems etc...
A good example is
"At a recent ISSA (Information Systems Security Association) meeting in Los Angeles, a team of FBI agents demonstrated current WEP-cracking techniques and broke a 128 bit WEP key in about three minutes. Special Agent Geoff Bickers ran the Powerpoint presentation and explained the attack, while the other agents (who did not want to be named or photographed) did the dirty work of sniffing wireless traffic and breaking the WEP keys."
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/05/1428250&tid=193&tid=172
3 min mate... Took them only 3 min.. That is our Government.. Think about that..
"It doesn't matter who votes. It only matters who counts the ballots." Stalin
|
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 13
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 7:05 pm: |
|
One of the two people who collated those numbers is Bruce O'Dell with the Election Defense Alliance.
quote:Bruce O'Dell is a self-employed information technology consultant with more than twenty five years experience who applies his broad technical expertise to his work as an election integrity activist. His current consulting practice centers on e-Commerce security and the performance and design of very large-scale computer systems for Fortune 100 clients. He recently spent a year as the chief technical architect in a company-wide security project at one of the top twenty public companies in America, led a multiple client projects for compliance with new credit card data security standards, and has designed secure "virtual cash" e-commerce protocols. In 2007 he was invited to testify on computer voting security issues to the Texas and New Hampshire legislatures. He lives just outside Minneapolis, Minnesota, and shares a love of good books with his wife - and her beautiful garden, with their talkative cat.
He wrote this article for Oped News on Jan 10:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bruce_o__080110_obama_clinton_3a_remar.h tm
If these numbers are correct (and I can't believe they are correct) could that indicate fraud at the central tabulator level? Can somebody point to a place where I can learn how the central tabulator works? Is it even possible to manipulate these numbers at a central place without anybody noticing?
Seems ludicrous right?
(Message edited by Bill_G. on January 12, 2008) |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 14
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 7:30 pm: |
|
The numbers above actually check out to .0001% variance. |
Howard Randall Smith
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tidalcreek
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:22 pm: |
|
I hope there is a way to shine a bright light on the chain of custody issue in New Hampshire. I don't know the most effective way, but one idea would be for the issue to arise from within the Kucinich camp, or the Howard camp, by way of showing, unmistakably, how a recount may, or may not be trusted, based on the chain of custody. Unfortunately, I have to say that "timing is everything". Such a development would have to be seen as part and parcel of the recount in order to be picked up and carried in the press.
Randy
|
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 79
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:44 pm: |
|
I think one would want to start with NH laws to learn about chain of custody. But you also might want to take a look at Nancy Tobi's excellent web page:
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2606
You can't beat the "We're Counting the Votes" videos for a look at how hand count elections are handled in NH:
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2648
It gives a detailed look at voting in NH, with an emphasis on hand count. Very interesting.
There are tons of links on the main page, too. Chain of custody for ballots should be the same whether or not machines are used, so maybe some useful information might be found. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 15
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 8:58 pm: |
|
I'm wondering...could anybody here write the code for the central tabulator spreadsheet that would yield the remarkable results above? It would seem that if the central tabulator is tracking the numbers coming in from hand counted municipalities during election day... then it could adjust the numbers coming in from the machine counted municipalities accordingly. |
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 80
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 9:03 pm: |
|
Does it matter if there is no central tabulator? The municipalities and the state just use people and spreadsheets. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 16
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 10:51 pm: |
|
I wonder if the central tabulator could actually feed information to the precinct computers via modem and this could go undetected? The central tabulator would not only be collecting information from the precinct computers but it would also be feeding information to the precinct computers, asking them to adjust their numbers according to a pre-set formula.
If some kind of code was embedded in the central tabulating spreadsheet, it seems conceivable to me that you could demonstrate fraud without even looking at the paper ballots. By looking at the numbers from one precinct to the next you could perhaps uncover some kind of pattern. You could uncover the exact code that they used.
(Message edited by Bill_G. on January 12, 2008) |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Maybe, they will pin the blame on whoever uncovers the code that they used. BEWARE! |
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 81
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 12:03 am: |
|
It is my understanding that almost no one uses the modems in the AV-OS machines. And again, no central tabulator software is used in NH.
A question for those who are truly interested in election integrity: are you a poll worker? It's a good idea to see what elections look like from the inside. Ask all the questions you want during the training sessions. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 18
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 6:01 am: |
|
Mike,
Here is an excerpt from the article posted above.
quote:On the other hand, it is a fact that the specific models of Diebold op-scan and central tabulators currently in use to count votes in New Hampshire have been proven, by multiple public demonstrations, to be wide-open to insider manipulation through a variety of mechanisms. Some exploits involve computer programs, and others, simple proximity to the central tabulator or precinct scanner.
So there is an undeniable possibility that the optical scan vote in New Hampshire could have been manipulated by insiders at the outsourced companies that run the election there, or by anyone with hand-on access to the voting and tabulating machines.
|
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 19
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 10:42 am: |
|
IF the computer vote was rigged using code embedded into the central tabulating spreadsheet, I don't quite understand why it would be so important to make the outcome of the computer counted vote a function of the outcome of the hand counted votes, at least in the way that it is shown above. For example, it would look even more suspicious if Party A won 58.00% of the hand counted votes (between them) and and Party B won 58.00% of the computer counted votes. The spread would be just too great.
It seems to me it would make more sense just to estimate the differential needed to overcome the hand count or at least significantly offset the outcome of the handcount, and then use that number.
Let's say we use 5.5%. If A wins 55.5% of hand counted votes vs. 44.5% for B then A would only win 50.0% of computer counted vote vs. 50.0% for B. If A wins 53% of the hand counted votes and B wins 47%, then A would only win 47.5% of the computer vote vs. 52.5% for B.
If somebody did actually write code to manipulate the numbers on the central tabulating spreadsheet (assuming there is open communication between the central computer and the subordinate precinct computers) is it possible that they messed up the code?
(Message edited by Bill_G. on January 13, 2008) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4357
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 12:00 pm: |
|
There's no reason to make the outcome of a computer-counted vote be a function of the hand-counted vote.
Rather, any discrepancies between the two are red flags in case the reason for the difference is caused by the different counting methodology rather than by voters' preferences. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Lets assume that the computer counted vote can be manipulated by the central tabulator but the hand counted vote can't be manipulated.
Seems to me that any attempt to rig the computer counted vote would want to take into account the result of the hand counted vote. For example, if Party A won the hand counted vote by a landslide, it would look really strange if Party B won the computer counted vote by an equally huge margin.
Don't you think the numbers cited above by the Election Defense Alliance are a clue to what that different counting methodology might be?
There are already red flags and then we add this extraordinary chance event.
(Message edited by Bill_G. on January 13, 2008) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4358
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 1:36 pm: |
|
If they had any sense they'd be more subtle. As we're talking Primaries, there'd be several candidates who could provide a handy supply of votes.
And/or one could do the dirty deed(s) in only carefully selected areas. (E.g., reducing an opponent's winning margin in some polling places will look ok because the "expected" person won). Picking other areas because they'd provide a handy "urban" or "rural" excuse. Or picking just the areas where you have "good buddies" who drive the police cars.
It would be a mistake to expect 1 single explanation or formula. If something untoward occurred involving computer-counted or computer-tabulated results it could have involved a range of strategies and not just one. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 21
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Or it could be a very sloppy hack?
But, yeah, such a simple strategy would not make sense.
I don't see why the computer count should have to be tied to the hand count, especially if there is confidence in the pre-election polling. |
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 82
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Bill, the only "central tabulation computer" in NH is a PC in the SoS office with spreadsheet software. I double-checked with Nancy Tobi. The paper-printed results are actually driven by police to Concord from every town and city in NH. In Concord the numbers are entered manually into a spreadsheet.
So for statewide tallying there is no difference between machine counts and hand counts in NH. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 22
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Catherine Ansbro wrote:
quote:If they had any sense they'd be more subtle. As we're talking Primaries, there'd be several candidates who could provide a handy supply of votes.
True, but the 3rd and 4th candidates in the NH primary finished almost exactly according the pre-election tracking done by Zogby right before the election, but the 1st and 2nd candidates finished very differently.
Tracking right before the election:
Obama: 42%
Clinton: 29%
Edwards: 17%
Richardson: 5%
Final results:
Clinton: 40%
Obama: 37%
Edwards: 17%
Richardson: 5%
(Correction to above numbers)
(Message edited by Bill_G. on January 13, 2008)
(Message edited by Bill_G. on January 13, 2008) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4360
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 4:37 pm: |
|
I thought there were some unusual results in the Republican primary that might have impacted several candidates. |
Hal Guentert
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Antifraud
Post Number: 8
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 4:49 pm: |
|
After reading these posts, there seem to be ways to manipulate the vote all along the way even to the point of just writing in whatever reasonably close numbers you want on a form or spreadsheet. There doesn't seem to be any way to verify these votes and associated ballots any more than to match what bullets came from where and when in both Kennedy assassinations.
I think it is worth going through the recount process to get a better idea of what may have happened, and hopefully what happened to all of the printed ballots. It would seem like the ballot counter should have to initial, thumbprint or somehow ID him/herself as the responsible recorder.
In the case of this nightmare, it would seem that a court would have to find the election invalid since there is no way to audit the votes, and redo the whole thing with a truely auditable system or throw it out completely. In my opinion one eligible voter's vote should be worth as much, and provided as much security, as the next, and this doesn't seem to be the case in New Hampshire.
I am beginning to like the idea of each voter getting a printed receipt. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7482
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 5:41 pm: |
|
I have now learned that LHS came and picked up memory cards on election night. According to one election official, "they're probably already reprogramming them."
This kind of wilful destruction of election records is what caused the judge to require Alameda County, Calif. to run a new election. |
Bill Glenn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bill_g
Post Number: 23
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 5:45 pm: |
|
In the precincts with Opti-scan computers is there a recording of the final tallies before the tallies with their paper receipts are sent by police car to the SOS office in Concord?
Also, is there any means for the local precinct tabulators to have wireless communication with the central tabulator? Maybe, some hidden ports? Sorry, I don't know much about computers.
I'm just trying to figure out a possible reason for the statistical coincidence cited by Bruce 0'Dell.
(Message edited by Bill_G. on January 13, 2008) |
David Luebbers
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: David_luebbers
Post Number: 32
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 7:50 pm: |
|
"I have now learned |
NH City/Town ward counts