Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 8-3-05: San Diego backs down on charg... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 1:37 pm: | 
|
The DA's office knew there was going to be a bunch of supporters coming for the 1:30 p.m. arraignment hearing, wearing orange. At around 10 a.m. they made the decision to drop the charges and told people to go away.
Local activists in San Diego were busy on the phones trying to call off the dogs, but people in orange nevertheless wandered around for a while in clumps. Chaotic, perhaps, but it also sent a message the local community was watching.
However: the prosecutors are reserving the right to re-file the charges. But by violating our civil right to election observation and records access, they appear to have been covering up at least two legal violations on their part:
* They hooked the GEMS server up to the internet through a "firewall" - but firewall (actually "router") security has come under serious fire of it's own of late. Cisco systems has an 80% market share in routers (which if configured for one-way data flow become firewalls) and has suffered from a shocking pattern of security problems rather similar to Diebold's.
They use proprietary software inside, outside "hackers" in their case got ahold of their source code (twice) and whistleblowers have come forward pointing out gross flaws. Like I said, Diebold all over again. And it's a real good bet the "firewall" is a Cisco box - we'll confirm that for sure in short order.
More below, in Jim's own words. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Right. Jim here using the Admin password for the moment.
The funny part yesterday was that the DA's office and courthouse knew there was going to be a bunch of supporters coming in orange. So by around 10:00am they had made the decision to drop charges and were telling people to go away. Local activists in San Diego were busy on the phones getting a "call off the dogs"  message out, with mixed success...people in orange were wandering around for a while in clumps, it was a little bit chaotic BUT it also sent a message the local community was watching this case so despite the weirdness it was worth it and a BIG thank you to all who came even if I didn't manage to meet you.
Problem: the prosecutors are reserving the right to re-file the charges. This is almost certainly an attempt to intimidate me into not suing them, or rather not filing the claim form for damages which in California is a necessary prelude to suing a local government in state court.
Does anybody think I'll be intimidated easily?
Right, didn't think so :D.
So. Next step is the claim form. Damages will include violation of the civil right to observe elections, violation of the civil right to public records access and false arrest, at a minimum. There's some others we're looking into.
But here's what's interesting so far: by violating our civil right to election observation and records access, they appear to have been covering up at least two legal violations on their part:
* They hooked the GEMS server up to the internet(!) through a "firewall" - but firewall (actually "router") security has come under serious fire of it's own of late. Cisco systems has an 80% market share in routers (which if configured for one-way data flow become firewalls) and has suffered from a shocking pattern of security problems rather similar to Diebold's. They use proprietary software inside, outside "hackers" in their case got ahold of their source code (twice) and whistleblowers have come forward pointing out gross flaws. Like I said, Diebold all over again. And it's a real good bet the "firewall" is a Cisco box - we'll confirm that for sure in short order.
More on Cisco:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,68328,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,68365,00.html
http://news.com.com/Cisco+warns+customers+of+site+breach/2100-7349_3-5816809.htm l?tag=nl
(As an aside, Cisco's corporate ethics have come under fire as they are the chief supplier of the "Great Firewall of China" used to suppress dissent in the world's largest dictatorship, and track dissenters for the purpose of targeting them for brutality and abuse.)
In any case, the rules (more on that in a sec) say "don't hook GEMS to external networks".
* The rules also say "everybody should log in as themselves rather than share usernames". But in the usual Diebold in-the-field-reality fashion as opposed to what's proper and legal, everybody functioned as one user (probably "admin") as a check of the audit log will show if they don't "Baxterize it" (hey Bev, where's the Baxter video at?).
As to the rules: to run an electronic election in California, you need to have a certified machine and certified PROCEDURES. Diebold wrote the procedures manual but then had it approved by the California Secretary of State's office. In true Dieboldesque fashion, the manual looks good but then they just do whatever "feels good" out in the field. The manual is at:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/procedures_items_5c.pdf
Check out sections 7.4.4 and 7.4.5 on individualized logins and 7.4.7 on networking.
This isn't all: indivdualized logins are also a feature of the FEC requirements (both 1990 and 2002).
The point here is that not only did these guys violate public oversight rules, they did so in a way that would cover up clear violations of certification and hence California election code.
Are we having fun yet? |
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 128
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 1:30 pm: |
|
And if you notice, there is not a date in the location where it says the procedures are effective. I've been going on about this for months.
Additionally, there are several instances where it can be shown that precinct workers did not follow the election codes.
Word of note; these systems are 'certified' to the 1990 FEC standards which does allow a connection to the net. Yeah,really.
And I still haven't heard back from Bruce McDannold at the SS office as towards the uncertainties raised by the SS's news announcemnt yesterday. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 7:52 pm: |
|
To be fair there SORTA is a date, in that the procedures are connected to specific versions of accompanying product.
In other words, if you know when version 1.19.43.543.whocares shipped, and you know the procedures are for that version...
Esp. since the version of product CANNOT be used without a procedures manual (under California rules). |
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 130
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
I had hoped someone would also think that way about the association BUT i wasn't sure and no one had 'stepped up to the plate' with an opinion.
But this is something I haven't come across:
"Esp. since the version of product CANNOT be used without a procedures manual (under California rules)."
Please point to the EC that covers this. Thanks. |
jimmarch
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: jimmarch
Post Number: 11
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 8:32 pm: |
|
I should note that the last post above was by me, not Bev...I was doing some admin stuff, didn't change logins. My bad, we don't usually do that.
Anyhow.
The situation with the procedures manual is complicated. It is mainly required by the SecState's personal authority; one could make an argument that before the passage of SB1376 last year the SecState's office didn't have comprehensive authority in the area but he definately does now.
Systems can't be used unless certified. The Secretary of State's office has always linked certification to the proper use of the procedures manual. That's why it's the "Voting Systems and Procedures Panel".
Each certification for a product is always conditional on use of the filed procedures. In some cases where certification is requested by a vendor, the system doesn't change but the vendor requests approval for altered procedures.
We'll get into it in more detail later but for now, believe it, violation of the procedures is a problem. |
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 132
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Thanks,Jim. AND that is what I told the 'parallel election' people down here when going over the grounds for a recount. Add to that the irregularities at the precincts observed and there is more than enough 'ammo' to force the Grand jury to refer the case to Doumanis for a 'public recount'. But they didn't want to go that route. |
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 133
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 8:43 pm: |
|
Oh, keep forgetting to ask: which DA's office called for the charges to be dropped? City or County? |
jimmarch
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: jimmarch
Post Number: 12
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 9:49 pm: |
|
All the Ex-Lax in the world couldn't solve that county's electoral irregularities.
-----
It was the city DA, which is WEIRD because it was the county elections people and county sheriff's office involved. |
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 134
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Thanks, Jim. That is what I was telling people down here. It was the City because the City Charter allows for an election to be 'outsourced', the ROV is within the City limits, and it was a City 'only' election(the referendum on the 'cross' was strictly a city thing). I suspect the Sheriff's were there as such is part of the Sheriff's 'duties' and the ROV is a County function. Ask Kathleen to forward on to you the email I sent her after investigating who Mikel Haas 'is'. It's time for the roto-rooter man. |
dickinoxy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: dickinoxy
Post Number: 1
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, August 5, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
When I read the report on the events in San Diego, I sent a copy to my brother, who lives in San Diego. He worked on an election board in that election, and this is his response:
Doesn't surprise me. When we used the Diebold system I had one (of eight)
voting machines that failed to run an initial tape. No problem, I simply
rolled it off line and we did the election with seven. Then when I ran the
final tape one of them failed to produce one. I noted this and asked them
to report to me whether the tape had failed, but the votes had been counted
or if the votes from that machine had been lost. When I heard nothing I
called the registrar's office and repeated my question--twice. No response.
Then in the mayoral election last November, while refusing to count over
5,000 votes for Donna Frye because although people had written in her name
but had failed to darken the bubble to the left of the space where they had
expressed their obvious intentions, they had county employees darken the
bubbles for a number of Dick Murphy voters who had voted with a check or an
X rather than fill in the bubble.
When I got a request to state my availability for last month's mayoral
primary--to replace Murphy who had resigned in disgrace--I told them I could
not work for an organization that had committed the crimes I have cited
above. I got no response to that either. Donna Frye got 43% of the primary
vote, but could not put away her two chief Republican rivals. Here's hoping
she can find enough votes to come out the winner in November.
It is a vexing world we live in, brother. |
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 136
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, August 5, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
Thank you for the posting Dickinoxy. Question: Is your brother willing to swear under oath to these occurrences? |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 6
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
San Diego citizens did a "parallel election", and found that the GOP candidate got 4% more votes than in their "parallel election", on DIEBOLD machines.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Citizens_Request_Recount_IN_SAN_DIEGO_MAYO_0818.ht ml
This is REAL TIME, not statistics from past elections. This should be immediately followed up on!!! We have to jump on this REAL TIME situation!!! |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 7
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
The San Diego citizens have proven that DIEBOLD gave the GOP candidate 4% more votes! Just a day or 2 ago! Does anyone realize how HUGE this story is???
I am putting my faith in blackboxvoting.org to IMMEDIATELY send people out there, and get this into the mainstream media! This is one of the biggest stories of our time! |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 8
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:08 am: |
|
There is a coverup in the mainstream media, if this isn't the top story. But that's another issue, the mainstream media. Right now, blackboxvoting.org must jump on this issue and drop the "past election" issues, althought they are important, too.
And, the San Diego citizens have given us the idea of doing this "parallel voting" on a nation scale for the 2006 elections, to prove once and for all, the fraud on electronic voting machines and optical scanners.
Can we start a movement to "parallel" every election in 2006? |
Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
We have been looking at the stats, which are a relatively small sample. I am definitely NOT a stats person, but passed them along to someone who is much better at it than most.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say that it is an across the board 4 percent shift, because from the numbers I saw, the shift varied up and down from 0 to 17 percent, and there were only -- what -- eleven -- of the 700 locations represented.
Not knocking it in or out at this point, but it still needs to be further developed.
- Bev |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 9
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:09 am: |
|
But, what are the statistical odds, that all irregularities reported from ALL elections favor one party?
red = answers from BBV. The touch-screen vote flips are particularly interesting in this regard, as they do all seem to trend one way.
My father was a scientist, as I've often mentioned. I come from a large family, and we all gathered at the dinner table every night. My mother's family was also filled with scientific-method-types. I mention this because it explains how I was taught to think. I'm not just trying to be cantankerous. We could not get away with such logic as "all the statistics favor Republicans" at the dinner table in my family, and here's why:
You must acknowledge other possible explanations, and rule them out. The 2004 election was unique in that it had 40,000 observers on the ground, and a computerized, funded, and well organized anomaly reporting system, "EIRS", Election Incident Reporting System. Here's the problem: The 40,000 people, organized through the wonderful "Election Protection," were drawn almost exclusively from one party. The incident reporting system was promoted by people who were primarily anti-Bush. The observers, reporters, and data, therefore, is partisan.
That being said, it is truly difficult to explain the anecdotal reports. One would certainly expect that, after seeing umpty-zillion reports from left-leaning voters about votes flipping to Bush when they tried to vote for Kerry, at least a few right-leaning voters would check in with "hey, that happened to me too, but I was trying to vote for Bush and got Kerry." That hasn't happened. We know that hasn't happened because we've got FOIA requests for the trouble reports, and no such counter-reports seem to have been filed anywhere.
Therefore, these Nov. 2004 touch-screen flips -- even though they had a bias in their original reporting, seem skewed even taking that into consideration.
I read it's hundreds of millions to one! Did you ever read all those statistical essays by college professors? It's close to 100% favoring the GOP, in all irregularities. Agreed? You probably know better than I do. And again, we have in San Diego, an anomily on electronic voting machines favoring the GOP. Everytime. I'm probably preaching to the choir telling you about this.
Here we may differ a bit. I live in King County, Washington. Now, if you want to see the reverse trend, it seems to be in Washington. In fact, the Republicans in Washington state appear to be very eager for audited voting, and it is the Republicans who are suspicious around here. I believe that there are some locations where the anomalies favor the group in power. It is true that the anomalies in San Diego favor the Republicans, but San Diego had the partisan bias in data collection -- it was Donna Frye supporters who were spearheading the parallel testing, and the data clearly shows that Donna Frye districts had better participation in the parallel testing. (For the record, I adore Donna Frye.)
If these machines are so widespread throughout the country, and they don't pass basic vote security rules and laws, how did they become so widespread? Any idea?
Oh yeah. Bribes, favors, back-room deals. But if you are trying to say the machines were put in by the Republicans, think again. Ohio procurement is unraveling, and it seems to be whoever will accept the check, regardless of political party.
And, what are your thoughts of having "parallel elections" throughout the country for the 2006 elections, to prove beyond a doubt they are being corrupted?
Fantastic idea.
One last thing: What are your thoughts on California rigorously testing DIEBOLD machines, and finding a 20% error rate, and then banning them?
My thoughts are why the hell didn't they ban them the first, second and third times the machines failed testing, and why didn't they ban them when Diebold lied about certification, patches, and every other thing under the sun. California has left the door open for Diebold to come waltzing back in again for recertification. It stinks to high heaven.
How many things like this, until something's done about it?
As many as it takes. They are counting on us losing our resolve. We must keep the ranks growing.
Sorry, but this is very maddenning, that it's obvious these machines are not secure, and are being hacked into, and nothing is done about it. We don't have a democracy in this country.
Yup.
Thanks beforehand for your answer, and I really appreciate what you are doing.
Thanks so much. Those sentiments mean a great deal to us. Not a day goes by that I don't consider quitting. After a year and a half of working for free, at least now I get a modest salary, which I am fully aware is a lot better than most of you courageous citizens. But the constant attacks on our organization are exhausting, and I often just want to pass the torch. It makes a difference when we hear that someone actually appreciates this work.
I send out your articles to local election officials where I live, and they appreciate it, but act like they had no idea of this! Which is scarey! They said, "What? Wow, thanks for these printouts!" Jeez, shouldn't they be up on these things? Maybe that's how it's happening in the first place, a combination of crooks & idiots!
What you are doing is called "Be the Media", a campaign in election reform that we started pushing immediately after the Nov. 2004 election. It is working. Just today, I found three mainstream news articles describing the Harri Hursti exploits. I know for a fact that at least two of them were needled into being by activists (Bruce Sims, of San Diego, helped immensely with the San Diego Trib article coming into being, and Tom Ryan, of Arizona, did a stellar job of educating the reporter for the Tucson Citizen.)
Election officials are learning. Kathleen does a lot of work with elections officials, who are starting to call our office more and more often. Another who works with election officials is John Gideon, of Voters Unite. But we can't do it without citizens like you, who pave the way, arouse their curiosity and get them listening.
Judy Alter is doing terrific work. By the way, Black Box Voting is considering funding for the recount, if Haas will ever commit to a price.
Keep it up. It's going to take a lot of us to bring on the changes.
Do stop in to the Online Think Tank here, as we will be discussing some real, quick turnaround solutions.
-- Bev |
Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 1441
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:53 am: |
|
I'm going to answer you in-thread, above, because it keeps things tidier.
|
Catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 530
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 2:28 am: |
|
Bev,
Thanks for posting your lengthy response above re: EIRS and potential for skewed results. Which is not to say they are not meaningful, as you point out--just that the "skew" needs to be acknowledged and taken into account in a discussion of these results, statistical or otherwise.
For the record, at Voters Unite (?) or elsewhere I was sure I saw a few (3 or 4 max) reports in Nevada (or possibly New Mexico) of votes flipping from Bush to Kerry. I'm not sure if these reports were made to EIRS or one of the other fault-recording groups.
Can someone else confirm this?
Whatever it was, it was very small (negligible in comparison to the proportion of DREs flipping towards Bush). |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
This is turning out to be a great thread!
I'd like to point out that, although you say left-leaners are doing most of the data collecting so it may seem skewed, keep in mind that the "right-leaners" are not doing it, because they are the ones benefitting the most form it. It is actually LOGICAL that the ones hurt the most by this, the "left-leaners", would be the activists. We shouldn't dismiss their findings because they're "left-leaners". In fact, that's irrelevant if they're left-leaners, it's the data that counts.
(BlackBoxVoting.org): Partisanship in the data collection is relevant, particularly when so much of the data is anecdotal (i.e., stories relayed by voters).
So my question is: Since you say most of the fraud voting data is collected by left-leaners, have you found that it is accurate and not biased anyway? Or have you found that it is biased? What exactly are your findings of this data you've seen by left-leaners?
(BlackBoxVoting.org): Since there is not an equivalent body of data, or even an equivalent sampling of data, collected by right-leaning partisans, we don't really have enough information to examine bias. As a general rule, however, the scientific method tries to eliminate such inherent bias when designing the test method.
Question #2 is: Do you think there is vote fraud going on with electronic voting machines and optical scanners? And does it seem to favor one party for the most part?
(BlackBoxVoting.org): Yes. Reports would indicate that the touch-screens seem to favor Republicans, but they are, so-far, anecdotal and were collected by partisan groups. The optical scans, especially Diebold optical scans, are vigorously defended by Democrats even after they learn the the architecture seems to be designed for undetectable, quick, cheap, easy election manipulation. All systems, especially when combined with weak procedures and secrecy, encourage exploiting them. It is inconceivable that some are not, therefore, exploited. What we still don't know is how extensive this is. Bear in mind that the earliest and most likely manipulators will be local officials, especially county supervisors/commissioners, sheriffs, and even election supervisors, who are also elected in many areas.
Thus, local power structure and corruption plays a large role, and the national parties -- Republican or Democrat -- would be most likely to manipulate by doing pre-work through a patchwork of local sellouts. These will sometimes break out into party lines, but also into "highest bidder" and "most efficient exploiting organization" categories.
It might sound onerous to rig an election given such a patchwork, but remember, party machines and political consultants have years of experience creating effective organized strategies built on a hodge-podge of localized demographics. They know who is naughty and nice long before the election. |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 11
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:02 am: |
|
Bev, Can I cut/paste this post somewhere else? Would you mind? |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
What it all boils down to is this: You're NOT going to see a bunch of right-wingers doing parallel voting!!! They like what's going on!
(BlackBoxVoting.org): Not in Washington State, they don't.
Why aren't they? Aren't they interested in secure, accurate voting? In fact, the GOP is thwarting vote reform. Try following the battles Rep. Conyers faces with this!
(BlackBoxVoting.org): I think where we may not be having a meeting of the minds is how you define the GOP. Do you mean the national party? National candidates or their operatives? State candidates? Local candidates? On the national level, both Democrats and Republicans have been blocking effective election reform. Republicans, probably more so, but few Democrats are helping with this either. On the state level, Democrats are often the ones pushing the worst systems through (ie. Cathy Cox, Georgia; Linda Lamone, Maryland); On the local level -- and Black Box Voting does a lot of field work on the local level -- I can tell you it's a free-for-all and is generally controlled by developers, transportation and utility interests, and all manner of profiteers. Local, however, begets state politics and state politics influences national. Thus, it is effective to clean up the local situations.
I am for secure voting, and if I feel an election was proper, I would have no problem with a GOP candidate being elected, if that's what the people wanted. But I have no faith in our system, and there's a growing number of Americans who have lost faith in our voting system.
There's zeolates who think the ends justify the means, so they think it's OK if their candidate gets in by crooked means, because they feel their agenda is being advanced, so fraud is OK. These people are scarey.
I'm not like that. My favorite team is the Eagles. But if God himself came down and said he could make the Eagles win the Super Bowl, I'd say "NO, I want them to win fair and square. I want them to win with honesty and talent, and if they won because you assured it, it would be a hollow victory, and I'd feel as though they didn't win anyway." But that's just me.
If the GOP won an election and I had faith in our voting system, I would not be on this site right now! But people are losing faith in our democracy. I've never felt this way before, but it's obvious voting is getting more and more crooked!
Jim March, a Republican on our Board of Directors, said almost exactly the same thing when we first became acquainted. He said even though his candidate had won, if the machines don't count accurately we'll lose the republic within 20 years, probably less. Jack Maples, one of the earliest helpers in this issue, also a Republican, was even more definitive -- If citizens don't have a feeling of TRUST, regardless of whether the system is or is not working properly, we will lose our republic.
I think you would be surprised at how many Republican citizens share the commitment to clean voting. However, party politics and regular citizens are not at all the same thing!
I have the resolve never to give up, it's too important. |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:18 am: |
|
Sorry if I'm doing too many posts....
(BlackBoxVoting.org): Post as many as you like, this is important.
But, in that election in Ohio where Schmidt supposedly beat Hackett, it was the usual breakdown of machines at the end of a close race, and then when they came up, there were thousands of votes for Schmidt and, you guessed it, a 51%-49% GOP victory.
Has there been any data proving an increase in GOP 51%-49% (or 52-48, you know what I mean), since the proliferation of electronic voting machines and optical scanners? That would be an interesting study.
(BlackBoxVoting.org): There is clear evidence that both parties have been affected by machines flipping races. At one time, I went looking for evidence that it was primarily Republican races that were flipped. I accumulated all the anomalies (this was in 2002) and put them into a table.
It quickly became apparent that it is not possible to format the problem that way. For example, in a primary race, where a conservative Republican runs against a liberal Republican, one would need to find a way to identify the leanings of the candidates and factor that in. (When I was able to do that, which was hardly ever, it turned out that the liberal-leaning Republicans lost to the conservative-leaning Republicans. However, this was so cumbersome that I didn't have time to have a look at enough information to form conclusions at all).
To my chagrin -- because I was certainly looking at things in a partisan way during my first two months on this issue -- the reports did not conform with my theory. I found elections getting flipped on both sides. You can see some of the newspaper reports on these flipped elections in Chapter 2 of Black Box Voting: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBV_chapter-2.pdf
Bush vs. Kerry: Exit polls showed Kerry won by 5 million popular votes, but the final count: 51%-48% GOP victory. See a pattern? Is this a pattern? Can you do a study of this?
BlackBoxVoting.org: We've seen a lot of studies, and they seem to indicate a bias towards Bush, and we've seen occasional rebuttal work that seemed effective. We're not statisticians and cannot really form an opinion on these studies. Bruce O'Dell seems pretty unbiased, and we will be interested in following his new Web site. It's very hard for those of us who haven't done the learning curve on advanced statistical methods to evaluate the stats. As we know from the medical field, statistics often turn the opposite direction after more study and time (and a whole bunch of people get cancer after enriching pharmaceutical companies).
Because we are not going to spout detailed opinions on stats we are not qualified to evaluate, we have been focusing on evidence. For example, what the poll tapes and audit records show. What is found inside the computers and memory cards.
I really think there will not be any one-stop-shopping when looking for either evidence or solutions. All of us, as citizens, must become involved in collecting evidence, and we should choose fields where our own skill sets allow us to feel confident about the method (in other words, we've got to stop just blindly believing someone said the truth just because we "trust" them or they have a Ph.D or they are a really good speaker.)
The parallel testing work done in San Diego was a good example of how citizens can gather important data without being experts in a particular field.
And what is the increase of GOP victories in relation to the advent of electronic voting machines and optical scanners? Notice the GOP controls the House, Senate, executive?
(BlackBoxVoting.org): And there's something more interesting yet: If you can manipulate the system, you control the primaries.
What I find most interesting of all is the opposite direction the demographics and the elected politicians are taking. In a country that is gaining more and more citizens of color, with large population bases, even dominant population bases that would tend to vote one way, elections are going exactly the opposite way.
Not to be cantankerous, but we must also identify other explanations. The popular one is that not enough voters from growing ethnic groups are voting. Well, with corporate control and purging of the voting rolls and tabulation, who can ever know?
Another explanation is this: As our country is composed more dominantly of people of color, there may be an opposing reaction. A silent and non-politically correct explanation may be that fear and protect-our-turf reactions may be taking place among the traditional white voting population. Will they admit it? Probably not.
But the driving force behind some voting patterns may be racial fears that no one will admit in exit polls. To many white suburbanites, this sounds far-fetched. Race -- and fear of growing ethnicity -- plays a powerful underlying role in our country, like it or not. But there is probably more going on.
Another thing I look at is this: Admittedly, I'm not a statistician, but the margin of error in polling seems to range between 3-5 percent. That means 6-10 percent when you take it both ways. The sudden interest in unauditable voting would imply that the amount of tampering needed is getting above 10 percent, perhaps to the 15-20 percent level in some places. If that's the case, you really need the damn thing to be unauditable. That growing need to fudge would correlate with the growing discrepancy in ethnic demographics. |
Ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 245
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Mapleboard, welcome to the forums. I'm in San Diego and you should be aware of some things associated with the Raw Story article.
First and foremost, consider that the 'parallel voting' project only recieved about 50% of the possible voter response per precinct.
Second, consider who would be the voters most likely to participate in such a 'parallel election' monitoring in view of your post regarding 'left or right leaners'.
Third, consider what the effect will be on public opinion regarding election reform activists if this recount(and it will only be a partial unless the organization has some confirmation of inaccuracy of count for the 11 precincts that will be the inital one's recounted) does NOT result in showing a significant discrepancy.
The election code in California states that anything less than a full recount is invalid.
Fourth, consider the effect that will happen on a legislative basis if this recount doesn't get this group what they are looking for; the bar for recounts is already high and the Soubrious case is still undecided; the probability that legislation will be introduced to change the recount 'rules' to address 'frivolous' recount requests is high and that will set the 'bar' higher for those seeking recounts in future elections.
5. I saw the 'Z' factor statistical analysis used; what the Raw Story article said about the voting on the proposition on the ballot was inaccurate from a 'Z' factor analysis perspective.
6. The initial 'statistician' used by the group made the statement in his report that the sample size was too small to draw any definitive conclusion the the methodolgy associated with the gathering of data was good.
7. The statement that hooking the GEMS central tabulator to the internet causes the election to be illegal is inaccurate; malconduct by election officers is only an issue if such malconduct can be shown to alter the election results; for that ,you would need access to the internal parts of the machine and other than the audit log to ascertain such; that is what the Soubrious case is all about.
It's good that citizens are taking action regarding the AccuVote-OS machines used in San Diego BUT it has been known since BBV worked with Ion Sancho in Leon County Florida that such machines are not 'trustworthy',meaning that they can be manipulated without trace.
 |
Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 1442
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Golly, a person goes out to breakfast and look what happens. I'm still working my way through the thoughtful discussion here, but for starters, yes, you can repost items from Black Box Voting IF you keep everything in context.
We believe that broad propagation of ideas and discussions helps, and is necessary to inform and motivate the citizenry.
If you would, please, when you repost anything during the next two weeks, include this (if you have space, both paragraphs):
You are invited: plan to attend the new Online Think Tank at http://www.blackboxvoting.org to brainstorm and initiate new actions for election reform. Just show up at the site any time between Aug. 27 and Sept 5 and you will be guided into the Think Tank.
The name of it is "Think Outside the Black Box." Topics will focus on rapid-deployment low tech solutions, youth, free-thinking politics, and minority-led empowerment tactics. |
Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Bruce -- Great insights. Do your brain cells ever get really, really tired? |
Ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 251
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Yes, yesterday was a 'shutdown' day; thank goodness for the SCI-FI channel at night. |
Catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 539
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
In case anyone has missed them, Bev has extensive comments within some of the above posts. (If you checked earlier, you might not have seen these comments within Mapleboard's postings.) |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 14
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
In response to Ubetchaiam:
I thought 50% response was way better than exit polls. In fact, a 50% response to a parallel election is massively high, isn't it? When they quote exit polls, for example the presidential election, I'm sure it's nowhere near 50%. I think you're implying that 50% is bad, and I'm saying it's an unbelievably HIGH sample.
True or not?
2nd: Those San Diego citizens claim that more of their respondents to their parallel election were conservatives, or right leaners. So, the claim that mostly "left-leaners" were the sample is out the window.
Third: If there's a recount and it backs the final count results, and doesn't back the "parallel election", that doesn't mean the official recount was on the "up and up"...we saw that in Ohio's recount. And, am I mistaken about this? Electronic machines aren't recountable? How many of those machines in San Diego are recountable?
Fourth: What do you mean by "get this group what they're looking for"? I don't think they're "looking for" anything...except vote fraud. You're implying that they are looking to gain against the GOP. Why do you think that?
Fifth: The "Z" factor analysis. I can't even comment on that, I have no idea what it is. But I do know this: Raw Story thinks they're accurate, and you don't. According to Bev, we shouldn't believe either of you, unless we know what we're talking about and something is proven.
Sixth: Again, I'm thinking 50% turnout for their parallel vote is way better than normal, and you're saying it's too small of a sample. What is the % in the exit polls for the 2004 presidential election? I'm going to take an educated guess, and say nowhere near 50%
Seventh: I'd like to hear Bev's response to your #7 point. Raw Story is saying it's illegal, and you're saying it's not. Bev??? Answer please???
I'd like to state something for everyone reading this. I am for fair elections. I may vote mostly Democratic, but I want the Democrat to win legitimately. And I don't feel confident with a lot of these GOP victories. And there's a growing number of Americans who feel this way. There's been vote fraud throughout the 200+ years of American history, and it's not "OK" to look the other way if it's your party making out. Because, as history shows, it vote fraud will swing the other way sooner or later, and then you will be a hypocrite if you scream about it when it swings the other way.
We should ALL feel confident in our voting system, and I think it's proven (by Bev) beyond a doubt, that there's something funny going on with these electronic voting machines and optical scanners.
Bev, you say you've seen what appears to be fraud on both sides. What is the % you've seen favoring the GOP vs. the Dems? Do you have any statistics like that?
Youbetchaiam: How do you explain the exit polls saying that Kerry won the popular vote, but Bush won the final count, in 2004? Are you of the school of thought that they were wrong for the first time in history, and should've been dismissed by the media like they were?
And what are your thoughts on that exit polls are so highly respected around the world, that when the Ukraine exit polls showed a different winner than the final count, they had a re-vote and our media covered that 24x7, but went out of their way NOT to cover our own American exit polls showing a huge difference to the final count? Funny, again, that the exit polls winner in the Ukraine was not "Bush's guy", so therefore they were "legit" exit polls.
Let's not be so quick to discredit these San Diego citizens who are doing exactly what Bev says we should all be doing: becoming voter activists. The more, the better! |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Let me state this about exit polls. They were always highly regarded, until they started pointing out that there may have been vote fraud, and all of a sudden for the first time in history, we're de-legitimizing exit polls. Exit polls are read people asking other real people questions, no machines involved. Suddenly, when we can be using them to out vote fraud, they're not legitimate for the first time in history! That's fishy too!
Apparently, in the Ukraine, they still believe exit polls are legitimate, like they in fact are. |
Mapleboard
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mapleboard
Post Number: 16
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf
That's the PDF, if anyone wants to read it, of US Count Votes' study of the 2004 Kerry-Bush exit poll discrepancies. Read the entire thing, but in their "Summary", they state that Edison/Mitofsky's response to the exit polls saying Kerry won by 3%, but the final count Bush won by 2.5%, holds no water. Their reason, which was that more conservatives were polled, is debunked, and US Count Votes put forward more recent data that Bush supporters may have been over-represented, not under-represented. And their response does not address the alternative reason of vote fraud at all. They just drop all other possible explanations, except that more Kerry backers responded, which is not supported by any data. It's interesting reading, and not very long. Everyone should read it. |
Ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 268
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Ok Mapleboard, to answer that which you posed:
1. I've no idea of what is 'high or low' when it comes to 'parallel election' participation; I'm simply working from a statistical basis.
2."Those San Diego citizens claim that more of their respondents to their parallel election were conservatives, or right leaners"; seen any proof?
3.The only 'official recount' is one where ALL the votes are recounted; what is going on in SD is that 'CAPE' is requesting that the 11 precincts involved in their 'parallel election' (of 791) and some others be counted first and then,based on those results, they will make a decision whether to ask for a full recount. As an aside, I provided them the Elections Code whereby they could have had a full recount that was paid for out of city funds but they chose not to go that route.
4. I don't 'imply' anything and do my best to say what I mean and mean what I say. The group is looking for evidence of mis-tallying of votes by the AccuVote-OS central tabulator running GEMS. If you have read BBV's report on the machines in Leon County, you realize that such can be manipulated without trace. Never said anything about Republican's.
5. I know the writer of the Raw Story article personally and have dialogued with her about the inaccuracies in the article. Yes, always question, good practice. From an email sent to me by the 'group'(names 'xxx'd' out for privacy):
Findings – as reported verbally by xxxx xxxxx during foncon July 31, 2005 at 5 p.m.
Used standard simple Z test
Per retired math and statistics professor at CSU Northridge, there are confounding factors. The PE is not really a random sample. It is a convenience sample – but still within the kind of valid research model. The findings are still statistically valid. Could be that the people who chose not to participate in the PE could be anti-Frye? Not likely, since non-Frye voters, e.g. Francis gets almost the same votes throughout our entire precincts.
On the other hand, that is their tough luck. By refusing to participate, they made it look more like the machines were rigged. – again, per retired math and statistics professor at CSU Northridge.
How were the precinct locations selected?
3 selected by xxxx xxx – scouted with directions from xxxxx xxxxxx – locations where voters only go in and out one location. – selected the north locations
2 others selected by Bxxxx xxx – had a list of 20 different sites all over the city. Bxxxx xxx and xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx studied the maps in the core San Diego area from maps only.
6.See number two.
7.No, Raw Story is printing a story that quotes Jim March as saying the election was illegal. Here are the Election Codes applicable:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=elec&codebody=malconduc t&hits=20
There is a difference between 'illegal election' and 'illegal votes'.
Lastly regarding explaining exit polls and Ohio,Florida,etc.: there are several authors who have written on the this subject, including Rep. Conyers. You seem to cast me in a light as defending the election results of 2004 and nothing could be more inaccurate.
There's an old saying of believe half of what your read and less of what you hear; it's good advice. |
|
|
