The 2012 SC GOP Primary

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Start New Thread

Author Message   Larry Melton Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Stopthefraud Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2012 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 3 (A keeper?) Posted on Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - 9:54 pm:        USA: Have any of the experts here seen this and is there anything to it? Considering all of the information that is available that proves not only the potential for fraud but that it has in fact been done using these machines, are the powers that be still brazen enough to still be defrauding us this way? https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2MzYy00ZGJhLWI1MmYtMWU2ZGU1OWZkZjhk/edit?pli=1 I am in Ohio and in light of all of the documented problems so far during the current presidential primary season this really concerns me. The votes in my county are counted electronically. We fill in the ovals on the ballot and then feed the ballot into a machine. I plan to go to the board of elections later this week and find out all I can about the make/model of the machines that we have to feed our ballots into as well as how everything is tallied at the BOE on election night. I would also want to see any/all printouts from all of the machines in the county and from the computer/machine that tallies all of the votes for the county. I have no reason to suspect fraud in my county but I do know which Presidential candidate seems to have a lot of support versus the others who seem to have very mediocre support. I'd like to know if the numbers add up. I am unemployed/looking for work so a FOIA request that may result in paying to get the information is out of the question. Any comments and advise are welcomed.   Bev Harris Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 11580 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 1 (A keeper?) Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 - 8:54 am:        Hi Larry, I am very familiar with that study. I haven't been "sold" on the fact that he's come up with the tampering algorithm, but have replicated the study myself and his numbers are correct. The question I've had is whether the variation among precincts and among counties would dampen the conclusions. However, in the limited time I have, I've continued to poke around at this. I think it is especially interesting since South Carolina has two areas of centralization, either one of which could install an algorithm: the uniform voting machine programming with same make and model statewide, and the uniform results reporting middleman for all counties, SOE Software. So I've started working on this from a different angle, comparing elections unlikely to be tampered with -- noncontroversial ones -- and other controversial elections, to get a broader set of graphs. What is especially interesting about the South Carolina data is that it doesn't flatten out for certain candidates. It should pretty much always flatten out as more votes flow into the system, if there are enough votes in the sample. This is in the "more work needs to be done" category but the way he has structured this problem is one of the most intriguing analyses I've seen.   F. George Choquette Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ronrules Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2012 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Thursday, March 8, 2012 - 7:04 am:        In response to Larry's comment: "I plan to go to the board of elections later this week and find out all I can about the make/model of the machines that we have to feed our ballots into as well as how everything is tallied at the BOE on election night. I would also want to see any/all printouts from all of the machines in the county and from the computer/machine that tallies all of the votes for the county. " I would add to this: 1) Precinct machine(s) serial number, Software version, Software checksum. 2) Central tabulator at the county level Machine/Software version, checksum or exact file size. 3) Testing reports of various machines. See if the test was conducted with the machine date/time set to expected election count date/time. (I suspect that the algorithm stays hidden and has no effect and "wakes up" on election night based on date/time. 4) Ensure that all paper ballots are safe and sealed with restricted access. 5) Ask if any of the software above was "upgraded" SINCE the elections. This could be if someone needs to cover their tracks. BTW, it's not just SC. We've confirmed the problem in NH, IA, VA, NV, FL thus far.   Kurt Bellman Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Realkurtb Post Number: 84 Registered: 6-2011 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Thursday, March 8, 2012 - 7:33 am:        General question regarding optical scan: I know ballots are fed into scanners all during voting. What I do NOT know is what is being done with those scans as they progress all day. There seem to be two possibilities: 1) The "during the day" scan is merely checking for overvotes and/or undervotes to warn the voter, in compliance with HAVA. The actual count is not being done then, but only during a batch scan at end-of-day. 2) The DRE equivalency. The scan actually performs all the tallies in real time all day, and the end-of-day process merely prints out the totals. Does anyone know if both methods are being used in different places and which where? I'll quickly add here that during-voting totals should be a completely forbidden thing, as they are most places already. Interim results should ALWAYS be embargoed, preferably with technology. People cheat procedural rules, so procedure should never be enough.   Mike LaBonte Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Mike_labonte Post Number: 612 Registered: 12-2005 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Thursday, March 8, 2012 - 1:45 pm:        Most ballot scanners are the mark sense type, which are only capable of recording vote marks immediately. There is no image scan to retain. Other machines actually scan images, but as a software/hardware guy I'm going to guess they also interpret the images immediately. To not do so is to take a chance on losing the image data before interpreting it. Much better to do it right away and keep the redundant data.   Kurt Bellman Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Realkurtb Post Number: 85 Registered: 6-2011 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, March 12, 2012 - 12:00 pm:        Okay, Mike, that's what I thought. But there are several opscan machines that can be set to "prescan" only, for HAVA-compliance overvote and undervote detection. I wasn't sure if anywhere is using them in that mode. I can see that such a treatment would be fully warranted in the case of provisional ballots, which should enjoy pre-scanning at the polls, but legally don't even become ballots until the affidavit is evaluated for counting later. By my reading, denying a provisional a prescan would at least seem to violate the spirit of HAVA, when the normal ballots are also opscan. "Arbitrary and disparate."   Larry Melton Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Stopthefraud Post Number: 2 Registered: 3-2012 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 - 2:38 pm:        I just came across these which are on the same topic of vote flipping but concerning other states. 1. Evidence of Algorithm Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections Layman's Executive Summary https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/view?pli=1&sle=true 2. Significant Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in the 2012 GOP Primary https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit?pli=1

Add Your Message Here Post: -Color- Black Red Green Blue Yellow Purple Orange Cyan Gray White -Font- Arial Courier Symbol Times Verdana -Size- Smallest (-2) Small (-1) Normal Large (+1) Largest (+2) Username: Posting Information: This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here. Password: Options: Enable HTML code in message Automatically activate URLs in message Action:

The public must be able to see and authenticate these four essential steps for an election to be public, democratic, and valid: (1) Who can vote (voter list); (2) Who did vote (3) The original count; (4) Chain of custody.