Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 12-30-07: New problems identified wit... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7300
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 4 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 6:02 pm: | 
|
This affects every one of you in the 49 states that are "not Iowa" because what happens in Iowa will play a major role in which presidential candidates you get to vote for.
Please distribute this to every single person you know in Iowa. Black Box Voting does not have many Iowa members, and needs your help to get this information where it needs to go.
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH THE IOWA CAUCUSES - AND WHAT EVERY IOWAN CAN DO
Black Box Voting needs live IOWA CITIZEN REPORTS on Jan. 3. Note that the Iowa caucuses must allow observers and must allow both video and photography, as long as you do not disrupt the proceedings. You do not need to be a member of the party to observe or videotape (but you must be registered for that party if you want to participate in the caucus).
In some locations, there will be a Republican caucus AND a Democratic caucus in the same building, giving observers the opportunity to capture evidence in both parties' caucuses.
Below is an update on election integrity problems with both Republican and Democratic caucuses, in addition to info on how to find your local caucuses.
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS PROBLEMS AND ISSUES:
The Republicans are running such an opaque dog and pony show that, unless they correct procedural issues, citizens nationwide should demand that Iowa lose its "first in the nation" status. Here are the issues for Republican caucuses:
1) Black Box Voting has received unofficial reports that political operatives have urged citizens NOT to ask too many questions and NOT to take photos or video of precinct caucus results, warning them that only "conspiracy theorists" would want to independently confirm the announced results.
It is your DUTY as a citizen to oversee your governmental processes. Because Iowa caucus procedures lack basic checks and balances, such as posting the precinct caucus results at the precinct caucus location for the public to examine, it is actually very important for members of the public to take video and photographs and share them.
WHAT TO DO: If you see or hear anyone ridiculing, name calling, or implying that citizen oversight actions will cause "blowback" on their candidate, please REPORT THIS to Black Box Voting, via e-mail or online, live-time forum reports in the IOWA FORUMS section at Black Box Voting.
2) The Iowa Republicans have NOT publicly agreed to promptly release precinct results for the Jan. 3 caucus. Instead, we are seeing bait and switch tactics, as they emphasize to caucus participants that the counting will be done in public at the precinct. While they keep your eye focused on the front end, a switch can take place at the back end. When they release a total result to the media without releasing the individual precinct results at the same time, there is no way at all for citizens to confirm that their precinct results added up to the announced total.
Please CONTACT both the Iowa Republican Party and the Iowa Secretary of State to tell them you expect to see those precinct results published at the SAME time they announce the statewide total. Iowa Republican Party: (515) 282-8105 Iowa Secretary of State: 515-281-0145 515-281-7142 (Fax) sos@sos.state.ia.us
(But aren't caucuses "owned" by the parties and not the Secretary of State? It's like this: If Iowa wants to position itself as the first in the nation for caucuses, perhaps the ONLY possible influx of mass tourist dollars in January in Iowa, they need to run transparent caucuses with proper checks and balances. If they don't citizens nationwide should recommend dropping the Iowa First in the Nation concept).
3) One thing the Republican Party of Iowa has done RIGHT is making caucus locations transparent. All you have to do is go to http://www.iowagop.org and click the map to find every Republican caucus location in a county. Not so for the Democrats, who are making it harder to get a complete listing!
4) We have received conflicting reports as to the procedures at the Republican caucus. A spokesman for the Republican Party of Iowa told Black Box Voting that the votes would be written on paper and counted in front of candidate representatives and observers, then signed off on by precinct captains or whoever they've got in charge. WHAT TO DO: If that's the case, get a photo of the signed results and e-mail it to Black Box Voting - or upload it directly to the IOWA FORUM section of this Web site.
Another report says the vote will be by a show of hands, then the winner announced. In that case, it will be important to come equipped with a video camera to capture the show of hands!
In either case, at the end it all goes into a black hole. Party officials dial a result into a cell phone, which goes we don't know where, following a telecommunications routing that is unspecified, and is totalled up in a central tabulation program made by a vendor no one knows the name of, programmed by we don't know who, and voila! The result is announced.
Understand something simple here: Entering data into a cell phone, from whence it is automatically tabulated and then announced, is just a cell phone-initiated form of central tabulation. It's computerized, someone wrote the program, we have no way of knowing whether that program accurately tabulates or not.
And the county convention delegates don't act as a valid check and balance, because candidates have dropped out by then (the conventions aren't until more than a month after Super Tuesday, which itself is more than a month after the Iowa caucus.) The delegates are changed at the county convention to reflect the new candidate selections.
WHAT TO DO: Get video and photos. Anecdotes don't do diddly. Report to Black Box Voting any efforts to tell citizens they are "conspiracy theorists" or "hurting their candidate" if they take photos and/or video.
IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAUCUSES - ISSUES AND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS:
1) The overcomplexified, overcomputerized:
Again, we see the Amazing Randi in action -- look here, don't look there. Your attention will be drawn to the transparent "count the warm bodies" procedure at the precinct, with no explanation of exactly how the results were arrived at on the other end, after they go into a computerized central tabulation black hole.
Here, in part due to pressure from Black Box Voting, the Iowa Democratic Party says it is at least making an attempt to publicly and promptly release the precinct results. But then comes the overcomputerized, unexplained, overcomplexified process that is front-loaded with reasons it might not happen.
The concept here is simple: THE PUBLIC needs to be able to see the precinct results before they leave the precinct and after they are accumulated into the total. The precinct results BEFORE should match the precinct numbers AFTER, and all of these should match the final total.
WHAT TO DO: Encourage your local county Democratic Party to add the simple step of posting a copy of the signed precinct results at each location.
2) About the results web site: the Democrats are saying there will be a special Web site that precinct totals will be posted on. The catch? They have yet to publicly announce the name of the Web site or even confirm publicly that this will happen. There has been some talk of using a password only for the media and/or caucus attendees to be able to see, which would be inappropriate. The public needs to see.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR IF THE PRECINCT RESULTS ARE POSTED PROMPTLY: Get screen captures of any wandering tallies or changes in figures during the tally process.
IT MIGHT NOT BE PUBLIC: Look for a rationale in the form of "overloading the Web server."
And realize that there is NO REASON to withhold precinct results from the public because you are creating an automated special program that may get overloaded. Let's think about this:
The results can be extracted as a simple spreadsheet and posted as a PDF file that is only about 25 pages long. There is no earthly reason for the simple uploading of precinct results to become a techno-extravaganza, nor to give out special passwords just for the press or for caucus attendees. It needs to be made available to everyone.
3) WE DON'T REALLY KNOW: How this computerized tabulation will occur. Who is the vendor? Who programmed it? Who owns the server?
The Iowa Democratic Party has a bit of a black hole as well, with an automated cell phone-initiated computer tabulation. In 2004, this was handled by a fellow named David Vogelaar and his colleague, Andrew Brown. We don't know if they are the ones writing the program this time, but regardless -- any time data goes through this kind of process, questions arise as to how the program works, whether citizens can check what went in to compare with what came out, and so forth.
WHAT TO DO: Get photos of the results sheets, which are supposed to be signed off on by precinct leaders. E-mail the photos to Black Box Voting. Do not interfere with any of the goings-on. Get video if you can. Upload the video to youtube.com and e-mail a link to Black Box Voting or post it directly in the IOWA FORUM at Black Box Voting.
4) THE LAST CONCERN: This brings us to the last concern regarding the Democratic Party caucus procedures. For both parties, the telecommunications routing of the data enroute from the precincts to the final announced totals is important. Who has access to this along the way?
There is an interesting situation with the Iowa Democratic Party's official caucus site. It is called "iowafirstcaucus.org" -- http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org -- and this is not actually owned by the Democrats, but the site says it is "paid for" by them.
The domain name and the server for iowacaucusfirst.org appear to be owned by The Forbin Project (weird and creepy science fiction name, Google it) -- maybe someone's idea of a joke. The Forbin Project is part of VGM, and the principals of VGM/Forbin seem to be big Republican donors, and very vested in privatized national healthcare providers. What I found interesting was the candidates they have chosen to donate to -- like Randy "Duke" Cunningham of San Diego (why were these Iowa guys supporting him?) and George Voinovich, and another fellow who's under investigation in Iowa named Nussle.
The Iowafirstcaucus server provides the location mapping for the precinct caucus locations. In fact, to find out where to go if you want to observe or participate in Democratic caucuses, go to http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org.
THE ACTUAL OWNERSHIP OF THE SERVER WILL BE IMPORTANT IF: If for some reason the computerized central tabulation and results server is routed through or sitting on
iowafirstcaucus.org, that's a conflict of interest problem, in my book.
AREN'T THESE JUST "UNOFFICIAL RESULTS"?
This argument has actually been used to float the idea that rigging the Iowa caucus results for the media might not actually be an election crime. Hmm.
Look, the results in Iowa officially do one thing: They impact which candidates every American can vote for, through a disproportionate influence on "candidate viability." Because Iowa has the very first presidential preference contest in the nation, Iowa makes or breaks candidate fundraising and the positioning granted them in television coverage.
ONE LAST THING...
As I searched for expenditures on the disclosure forms for the Iowa Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Iowa, I found that these forms are missing from the state Web site. After much searching, which involved locating archived backup copies on another Web site, I did find the 2004 expenditures for the Iowa Democratic Party. Each party is required to file a report of each expenditure each year on Jan. 19. Where are these forms? Why are they not online at the state reporting site where they belong?
Questions we should be looking at include who's paying for all the public facilities used for the caucus. If the parties are not being charged rent, an argument can be made that the caucuses are actually quasi-public events that should be subject to public records requests. If the space is donated, it should appear as an in kind donation. We should be able to see on the expenditure forms who they get their cell phones from, what web sites and internet servers they are using, who's paying the programmers, whether they use any other vendors.
Sure would be nice if the required disclosure forms were -- you know -- disclosed.
*tip of the hat to BBV member John Dean, who has helped look into some of the programming and IP routing issues |
Dennis Roseman
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dennis_roseman
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 10:40 am: |
|
I appreciate all you do on Black Box Voting. This is my first post but my wife is very interested in voting issues and your site in particular and keeps me up with what is going on.
I don't have time to comment on all of your post so I will comment on two items---notification of results and the caucus web site.
There could be a lot of improvement in the procedures---but all of the delegate counts are verifiable in the sense of witnessed by a large number of people and eventually made public.
When the delegate counts are determined, the Caucus Chair is required to announce the results to the entire caucus. These results are then phoned in, usually with the candidate captains right there verifying the data has been entered correctly. These results are later made publically available. In our county, Johnson it is on our auditor's site; here is the 2004 data:
http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/returns/0401cauc.htm
Then there is much left to do with electing delegates, (the slate of delegates needs to be ratified by the entire caucus) central committee members, platform resolutions.
The idea of posting suggested is not practical in most locations. First of all, about 2/3 of the folks leave as soon as the results are announced---often there is no obvious place to post. But since it is publicly announced, it might not be of that much additional value.
But I did check with a high level state Democratic party official on the web site issue for http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org.
Here is the reply.
" The person at Forbin we work with worked for Harkin and IDP in the past. It is an Iowa Web Design Firm. They built the site, we do all the content of it. We completely manage it. "
Dennis Roseman
Iowa City Iowa |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7304
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 11:29 am: |
|
Hi, Dennis, and welcome to Black Box Voting!
Here's the rub:
quote:These results are later made publically available.
Making them available "later" is not transparent. There's a lot of room for inside maneuvering when results are made available "later." Part of good election accounting practice is to release the results as soon as you get them, leaving no time for smoke-filled rooms to adjust them before they are released.
Actually, there is no reason not to post the results. This is commonly done -- even required by law -- in many states. I notice that nearly all of the caucus sites are public locations, like schools. Most of these locations have small windows by the door, and typically the results are taped inside the window. This way, people can wander over there any time during the next 24 hours to photograph the immediately released results.
Yes, Forbin is an Iowa firm, and it not only does web site design, but hosting, routing, and they have a large wireless transmission outfit, don't know what that's all about. The Forbin connection will be important if the data from the cell phone-initiated computer tabulation routes through there.
Thanks for the input. It doesn't actually change the assessment of these problem areas, unfortunately.
Since you'll be right there, it would be very helpful if you or your wife will take a photo of the results at your precinct and email it to us, along with precinct name and location. And, if you do this, please report it if you are criticized or made to feel uncomfortable for your citizen oversight actions. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4231
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 11:34 am: |
|
Hi Dennis,
Welcome to you & your wife.
Thanks for posting this information.
I have a question for you. What if a local, state or national party committee (Dems or Reps) had a candidate that they favored or that they wanted to eliminate?
If the results were not "published" locally in a way that people in other areas could also see them, what would stop state central committee members from announcing a final set of numbers that may or may not reflect the accurate totals of each of the individual precincts?
Here in Ireland at our publicly counted elections, as each local result is determined it is announced formally over a microphone. It is also posted on the wall. All the local media, candidates and political parties can and do access that information.
Later, as votes are accumulated, everyone has access to all the specific local tallies that have been formally announced and posted. All the national newspapers publish sections that include even the most detailed results for every precinct. That means that it would be impossible for a final tally to be announced that was not the correct total of all the individual published results.
It's the immediately posted data that makes this process transparent, avoids anyone altering results from a central location, and guarantees the accuracy of the final tabulation process. Otherwise we have a situation in which people may know their local results are accurate, but have no reason they can or should believe the final totals are accurate.
Quite aside from tampering, one may not know whether the person transmitting the results did so accurately, as honest mistakes can also occur. Everyone needs to have access to all the information on which the final totals are based.
Since the Iowa Dem caucuses are based on people moving around a room, a photographic or video record is the only way to guarantee that there is a tangible record of the accurate local count. This must be posted or published in some formal way so that no alteration is possible after the fact as various precincts are added together.
If you think this is "over the top", please read some of the threads here about rural counties in other places--e.g., Kentucky. There are corrupt locations irrespective of which party has local control. For example,
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/70968.html?1196971034
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/54610.html?1190793288
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/54541.html?1189830999
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/54470.html?1189780728
(By the way, some of the above refer highlight Democratic-Party-controlled areas)
Also have a look at this link, with numerous threads about public officials convicted of corruption, including vote-selling and other election offenses:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/54427/54427.html?1196945489
Of course there are persons of great integrity administering elections in all the parties. Hopefully most areas and officials and party precinct leaders are honest. Our election procedures need to be tight enough that they effectively prevent shenanigans as much as possible, even in areas where there may be those willing to bend the rules in order to win. We need to design procedures on the premise of distrust in order to have secure election systems. Any election official or party leader of integrity should understand and respect the need for such an approach. |
Marian Beddill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 122
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 11:56 am: |
|
Extracting one more "Action Item" from all this background and great discussion, I see great value in a parallel "program" where folks who are NOT in the administrative structure of the Caucusses set up a network - hub-and-spokes - to collect the same Precinct results and post them on a website, in parallel to and independently from the "official" process.
Perhaps you can find someone to coordinate this activity.
Marian
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7305
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 12:19 pm: |
|
A report from Christopher Bollyn naming the vendor the the automated tabulation system is being circulated through the email listserves. He states that the Iowa Democratic Party used a vendor called Voxeo, out of Orlando Florida, to tabulate the Iowa caucus votes in 2004. He goes on to state that the company is now called Elron and has foreign connections, but all info from Bollyn should be independently vetted. He's had some solid information in the past, but also some that's not so solid.
Here's why the missing financial disclosure statements are important
The Iowa Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Iowa are each required to file reports of all expenditures and contributions on Jan. 19, each year for the previous year's financial activity.
The report for 2004 should contain 2003 expenditures which would support or contradict the Bollyn report. That report seemed to be missing when I searched for it on the official state Web site where it is supposed to be.
I have uploaded the reports for the Democratic Party of Iowa that was required to be filed Jan 19 2005 which contains 2004 expenditures and contributions:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/IA/state/2004-IDP-Expenditures.pdf
(844 KB)
http://www.bbvdocs.org/IA/state/2004-IDP-Contributions.pdf
(907 KB)
They do not list Voxeo as an expenditure, nor do they list services or equipment from Voxeo as a contribution, which would be required if services or equipment was loaned or donated for free.
I haven't had a chance to do a detailed review, but didn't see rental expenses, nor in-kind donation disclosures, for the hundreds of schools, city buildings, used for the caucuses. It is possible that these might be found on county-level party expenditures/contributions disclosures.
Please note that I couldn't find ANY reports for the Republican Party of Iowa, and also note that the reports at the FEC.gov site are not necessarily the same as those on the Iowa state site, because those only have to include federally required items, whereas the Iowa state reports have to include all items.
ALL EXPENDITURE REPORTS from years 1999 through 2007 are of interest. They should be online; they aren't.
These reports MUST show both donations (including "in kind" where a service or merchandise of value is loaned or contributed) and expenditures.
We know from public news reports that the cell phone tabulations were done in 2004. We also know from public news reports that a "full time IT person," David Vogelaar, was designing the system for the Iowa Democrats. However, he shows up as having only one month's salary in 2004, and that is at the end of '04, not the beginning as one might expect for Jan. '04 caucus work.
There must be either an expenditure or an in kind donation for the programming work, the telecommunications transmission infrastructure, and the cell phones. Where is it?
That's where the smoking gun will appear, if there is one, and it seems there may be one, because the reports have been so darn hard to get hold of.
Here are excerpts from the Bollyn report - his writing style includes more speculative material than I am comfortable with, so I have extracted the specific cites and attributions here, and I think they do deserve scrutiny to rule them in or out:
quote:
by Christopher Bollyn
VOXEO
In the summer of 2004, I first learned that a foreign and out-of-state company using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology tallied the Iowa caucus results.
The system used to tally the 2004 Iowa caucus results was provided by a company called Voxeo, which was apparently based in Orlando, Florida...
The calls from the nearly 2,000 caucus centers in Iowa went to a Voxeo call center in Atlanta, Georgia...
This information was first provided to me last August by John McCormally, Communications Director for the Iowa Democratic Party in Des Moines, Iowa.
Today I called Voxeo (800) 305-5771 in Orlando and although I didn't go into detail, the receptionist confirmed that Voxeo had conducted the telephone tally of the Iowa Democratic Caucus results.
...McCormally told me that chairmen were selected in all 1,993 precincts and these chairmen called in on touch-tone phones and after giving their PIN number, were able to enter the results from their precinct using the
touch-tone number pad.
...Clearly, if someone wanted to adjust the results, it would be the easiest thing to do to do it through this computer system in Orlando, Florida. The Democrats in Iowa would never be aware of it, regardless of their math skills, unless the paper results were carefully audited in an open and honest manner.
BEV again: The Iowa Democratic Party wrote to me that they are doing the tabulating themselves, but when I asked for the name of the vendor doing the automated cell phone-initiated tabulation, they said it would be released when it is legally required to disclose that.
IF YOU ARE SKILLED WITH INTERNET SEARCHES: I would appreciate it very much if you are able to locate any and all financial disclosure forms for the Iowa Democratic Party, the Republican Party of Iowa, for any relevant years (noting that with the early caucus dates in Jan. we would expect to see 2004 expenses being incurred in 2003). It is also possible that these expenditures or donations may be found with one of the national entities and passed through as a line item at the state level from them. |
Howard Randall Smith
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tidalcreek
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Say it isn't so... Video taping notwithstanding, I gather this claim posted at www.iowavoters.org, Dec 15, 2007, has not been confirmed or elaborated on by anyone yet?
"Iowa’s Democratic Party will take a big step forward in election reporting on January 3, 2008. They will report results from each precinct on a website. Caucus attendees will not have to wonder [BUT THEY SHOULD MAKE A PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD JUST THE SAME] if their results were correctly tallied by some black box at the other end of the phone line used for reporting the winners."
I would love to know that website address as soon as possible, as well as any citizen posts of first hand video/photographic records for purposes of corroborating those results.
(Message edited by tidalcreek on December 31, 2007) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7306
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 12:35 pm: |
|
In Oct 2004 (too late, not the Jan. 04 caucus, really NEED that 2003 expenditure disclosure!) here is a phone expense for the Dems:
10/22/2004 N/A Broadcast Solutions Other Expenditure $12,548.30
13806 Goosefoot Terr
phone program
Rockville, MD 20850
10/28/2004 N/A Landmark Strategies Other Expenditure $40,000.00
6225 Brandon Ave No 305
phone program
113051994 Springfield, VA 22150-2524
Xpedite Other Expenditure $15,000.00
135 S LaSalle Dept 1268
Auto phone calls
119220993 Chicago, IL 60674
As you can see, the whole issue of cell phone results tabulation for the caucuses should be findable for both parties.
Scratch that -- less relevant for Republicans in 2004, did they even have a 2004 caucus? Their other reports from 1999 forward might be more informative. Regardless of their caucus activities in 2004, they still had to file financial reports. |
Howard Randall Smith
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tidalcreek
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 12:46 pm: |
|
The Des Moines Register - YouTube VoterVideo link:
http://youtube.com/iowacaucuses
What does anybody make of this? Good? Cracks? |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4236
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 5:42 pm: |
|
This stuff about the cell phone program, Voxeo, and the hard-to-find expense reports gives me the creeps.
It smells real bad.
So often it's what's missing that is the big clue. (18 minutes on a tape. Budget line items. News reports that don't appear. Memory cards that go missing. Important events that officials under oath cannot remember.) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7308
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Note that the Christopher Bollyn article provides only verbal interviews, and only for one party, and not updated since 2004. It is therefore a lead to follow but not a fact of relevance for Thursday's caucuses.
Kurt Bellman has weighed in privately with questions about the requirements to release ALL info for political parties, vs. just releasing the expenditures related to advocacy. He recommended checking Iowa laws on that, and I have tossed that to someone who's shown an interest in this issue, don't know if he'll take on that little research project.
Next post: the Iowa Democratic Party has released the name of the results Web site. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7309
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 10:54 pm: |
|
(note from BBV admin): this is one-half the equation, and we commend the Iowa Democratic Party for doing this. Note that the Republican Party has remained silent. The other half of the equation is for citizens to get photographs of the results from the precincts and propagate them to multiple web sites if possible, identify precinct locations of course.
Iowa Democratic Party Releases Caucus Details and Public Website
Monday, December 31, 2007
Des Moines - Today the Iowa Democratic Party released details for the upcoming Iowa Caucuses, and information for the public on how they can access Democratic results on caucus night.
The Iowa Democratic Party is proud to announce a public website that will allow anyone to follow the caucus results online on January 3, 2008. The website address is www.iowacaucusresults.com. Results on this website will show on the statewide, county and precinct levels.
The caucuses will be called to order at 6:30pm. Any person signed in or in line to register by 7:00pm will be welcome to participate in the caucus.
Caucus locations can be found at www.iowafirstcaucus.org.
To participate in the Democratic caucus, the attendee must be a registered Democrat in that precinct. If they are not registered as a Democrat or if they are a registered Republican or Independent, they can register as a Democrat of they can change their party affiliation that night.
"The Iowa Democratic Party has been planning for over a year to make the
2008 caucuses a remarkably successful event," said Carrie Giddins, Iowa Democratic Party Communications Director. "The public website is just one more way we are making the events in Iowa accessible to everyone around the country and the world.."
http://www.iowademocrats.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/1124895 |
Howard Randall Smith
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tidalcreek
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Hallelujah. Amen. Step one.
I'm drafting another letter to editor, still needs some fill in:
No more Bush v. Gore.
It is every citizen's right to be served by persons they have elected, yet in recent years extensive evidence has accumulated showing that it may not be so. [George Merritt writes for the Associated Press that "Colorado and other states have found critical flaws in the accuracy and security of their electronic voting machines, forcing officials to scramble to return to the paper ballots they abandoned after the Florida debacle of 2000."] Until electronic voting is both trusted and transparent the people must insist on election ballots that are read, marked, and counted by the citizens, or else our inalienable right to self governance will remain, as it is now, in jeopardy.
###
I have 'stolen' freely from posts on this auspicious website. Hey, it isn't like I'm stealing an election...
(Message edited by tidalcreek on December 31, 2007) |
Marian Beddill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 123
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 11:30 pm: |
|
Hey Howard! Happy New Year !
And let me suggest one edit in that text, because counting votes "only" one way bothers me - never mind who is doing it.
So please say something like: "...ballots that are marked only by the citizens, and read and counted in two ways, each to verify each other...."
Marian
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
Howard Randall Smith
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tidalcreek
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 9:28 am: |
|
Thanks Marian! Draft 2:
It is every citizen's right to be served by persons they have elected, yet in recent years extensive evidence has accumulated to show that it may not be so. Significant defects found with electronic voting machines have forced Colorado and other states to return to the paper ballots they abandoned after the Florida fiasco of 2000. Electronic voting has to be both trusted and transparent. Until then, citizens must have ballots that are marked by only the citizens, and read and tabulated by them, and one other method, each total to verify the other, with citizens controlling the whole process. Otherwise our inalienable right to self governance will remain, as it is now, in jeopardy. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4238
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 9:52 am: |
|
Personally I'd say twice-counted, either by hand plus an additional (different) hand count or by hand plus an additional method. |
Sharon K Foster
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Sharon2971
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 10:55 am: |
|
Is anyone organizing this oversight and tracking where people will be and where people are needed? I may be able to help but have no clue where to go, etc. Any information would be appreciated. |
Howard Randall Smith
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tidalcreek
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 11:20 am: |
|
Draft #5: Trust and Transparency
It is every citizen's right to be served by the persons they elect. But extensive evidence says that our right to vote may have few, if any, meaningful safeguards. Serious problems with electronic voting machines prompted officials in California and other states to beat a hasty retreat to paper ballots that had been abandoned after the 2000 election. New solutions should incorporate voter trust, voter participation and transparency. Until electronic voting systems can deliver, stick with ballots that can be read and marked by human beings. And require that they be twice-counted by hand, in addition to any non-human tabulation. And finally, require that all individual and aggregate results match precisely. Failing that, an additional hand re-count should be triggered. With no less than our inalienable rights to self govern at stake, speed and convenience should take a back seat to correctness and transparency.
(Message edited by tidalcreek on January 1, 2008) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4239
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 11:36 am: |
|
I don't like "plus an additional method" as that would prevent 2 hand counts by different teams--which happens to be an excellent method.
It should also state that the results of both counts must agree precisely, and if not, additional hand recounts will take place until the counts are consistent. (In no situation should a hand count take precedence over multiple hand counts that agree.)
This is an extremely important point, and I hope that others will weigh in.
It's crucial to say what happens when 2 counts don't match--even if the difference is small. (It's possible to throw some elections by having each precinct be off by only 1 or 2 votes!) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4240
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 11:40 am: |
|
maybe you could say "with at least one count being by hand, and with at least one additional count being by a different person/team hand counting, or by another method". (And adding something about what happens if they 2 counts don't match. I'd suggest repeated hand-counts by different teams until there is complete agreement about the results. No machines are to be used in recounts." |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7310
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Regarding more specific strategies, where to go, instructions:
The links to where to find specific caucus locations are in the lead article, but I will shortly be posting a complete list, sorted by location, for every Republican caucus location. Because the Republicans have not committed to releasing precinct results, they force citizens to try and cover 100% of the locations with photographs and video -- an extraordinarily difficult task and not the kind of thing Black Box Voting is equipped for. There are organized efforts afoot, but they were organized around the concept of "reports" not photos and video evidence. And, as we all know after following these situations, reports and even affidavits do not work well.
Strategically, I think it will be helpful to identify the locations where more than one caucus is taking place in the same building. While it will not be possible for a single individual to videotape the actual voting (hand raises or what have you) it may be possible for one or a few individuals to get photographs of every precinct result in the same building.
It is unlikely that all caucuses will conclude at the same time.
That being the case, I am converting the caucus location information to a spreadsheet which can be sorted by town, building, county, to help citizens prioritize which locations to attend.
Should be up within the hour. Then I'll have more information on uploading. Black Box Voting is not staffed for or in a position to track the assignment of volunteers. This is best done by the campaigns.
We are set up to upload photos of results. However, I am recommending that results photos and videos be emailed and uploaded to multiple sites to propagate the information. This way, the most anomalous reports are more likely to be spotted since more eyes will be on the process. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7311
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Was overoptimistic on timeline for getting the full Iowa Republican caucus list out. Lots of colliding phone calls, emails etc. Most buildings will house more than one precinct caucus.
If it was me, I'd head for the buildings with the most caucuses first and take a digital camera, get photos of as many results as possible.
Black Hawk County would be an efficient place to start:
Barclay Twp/Dunkerton Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Bennington Twp Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Big/Spring Creek Twps Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Black Hawk Twp Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Cedar Twp Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Eagle/Orange Twps Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Elk Run Heights Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Evansdale Ward 1 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Evansdale Ward 2 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Evansdale Ward 3 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Evansdale Ward 4 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Lester (Rural Only) Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Lincoln Twp Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Mt Vernon Twp Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Poyner P1/ E Wloo P1 Twps Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Poyner P2/Fox Twps Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W101 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W102 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W103 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W104 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W105 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W106 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W201 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W202 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W203 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W204 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W205 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W206 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W301 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W302 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W303 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W304 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W305 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W306 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W401 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W402 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W403 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W404 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W405 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W406 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W501 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W502 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W503 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W504 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W505 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct W506 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X101 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X102 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X103 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X201 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X202 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X203 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X301 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X302 & Cf Twp Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X303 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X401 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X402 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X403 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X501 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X502 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Precinct X503 Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Union Township Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
Washington Twp Central Middle School 1350 Katoski Drive Waterloo Black Hawk County
|
Howard Randall Smith
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tidalcreek
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Iowa voter rights website. I came across this using Google Alert. Anybody know them or talked with them before?
http://www.iowansforvotingintegrity.org/
(Message edited by tidalcreek on January 1, 2008) |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 532
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 3:03 pm: |
|
It appears that the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Finance Disclosure Board web site (iecdb.iowa.gov) is down for maintenance just now, however some of the information may be available from the web archive.
The January 19th reports in each calendar year are filed under the previous year, so the Jan 19th 2004 reports are filed under 2003.
I'm not clear if these are what you're looking for, but here are the reports for Jan 19 2004 for each of the two State parties. It seems that there is a lot more detail under the individual Counties and candidates.
http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/iecdb.iowa.gov/reports/statewide/2003/Period_Due _Date_19-Jan+following+year/Parties/Iowa+Democratic+Party_9098/State+Central+Com mittee__206__9098__Iowa+Democratic+Party__NA__B_Expenditures.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/iecdb.iowa.gov/reports/statewide/2003/Period_Due _Date_19-Jan+following+year/Parties/Republican_Party_of_Iowa__9161__scanned.pdf
Hope this helps.
HG;) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7314
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 4:54 pm: |
|
The iecdb site, when it was up, ommitted almost all the state party reports. The archive.org site was marking some of them "not indexed."
But these are very helpful, John. And note that the Iowa Democrats show no expenditure for Voxeo, which does not support the Bollyn story - or, perhaps as Kurt Bellman has suggested, there is a loophole on disclosure allowing them to not itemize expenditures that don't pertain to advocacy and campaigning (perhaps making a case that administration of the caucuses is not actually advocacy or campaigning).
John, regarding the designer used for Republican vs. Democrat web site:
Do these two sites appear to be designed by the same firm:
http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org
http://www.iowagop.net |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 533
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Regarding Voxeo .....
Date Disbursed: corrected to 08/05/04
100 E Pine ST #600, Orlando, FL 32801
Purpose: phone service
Amount: $500.00
http://web.archive.org/web/20050523193517/http://iecdb.iowa.gov/misc/income_tax_checkoff/2005+Iowa+Democratic+Party.pdf
see page 4 of 6
HG;)
(Message edited by harmonyguy on January 1, 2008) |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 534
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Since there appears to be additional detail in the income tax checkoffs, here they are:
Dem 2004
http://web.archive.org/web/20060209142436/iecdb.iowa.gov/misc/income_tax_checkof f/2004_Iowa_Democratic_Party.pdf
Dem 2005
http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/iecdb.iowa.gov/misc/income_tax_checkoff/2005+Iow a+Democratic+Party.pdf
Dem 2006
http://web.archive.org/web/20060209142405/iecdb.iowa.gov/misc/income_tax_checkof f/2006_iowa_democratic_party.pdf
Rep 2004
http://web.archive.org/web/20060209142443/iecdb.iowa.gov/misc/income_tax_checkof f/2004_Republican_Party_of_Iowa.pdf
Rep 2005
http://web.archive.org/web/20060209142418/iecdb.iowa.gov/misc/income_tax_checkof f/2005_Republican_Party_of_Iowa.pdf
Rep 2006
http://web.archive.org/web/20060209142453/iecdb.iowa.gov/misc/income_tax_checkof f/2006_republican_party_of_iowa.pdf
While there are also a couple of earlier checkoff sheets, they appear to be summaries of totals without detail. If you really want them, here's the archive page, which may also provide a path to other potentially useful info.
http://web.archive.org/web/*sr_71nr_10/http://iecdb.iowa.gov/*
HG;) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7315
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Okay - so this does confirm a VOXEO connection. I have been looking into the corporate documents for VOXEO but the darn Florida corporations site has been down for servicing and will not come back online until tomorrow.
Those forms are excellent, exactly what we need, and thank goodness for archive.org.
John, great work.
Regarding VOXEO - the one-time $500 figure is too low for the pivotal role it reportedly played in the 2004 caucus. Anyone who is curious about this, recommend looking for additional disbursements. |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 535
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 7:46 pm: |
|
I went and read Bollyn's article and even by his own statements the whole Elron-Voxeo 'ownership' thing doesn't add up.
Quoting from his article, where he is writing about Jonathan Taylor the President and CEO of Voxeo.... (bold emphasis is mine)
"From 1995 to 1997, Jonathan was the founder and President of InterResearch and Development Group (IRdg), Inc."....IRdg was acquired by Elron Electronic Industries (Nasdq: ELRN) subsidiary MediaGate in 1997.
"Jonathan combined his experience in both business operations and technology innovation to found Voxeo in 1999."
IRdg was apparently sold to a subsidiary of Elron, two years before Voxeo was even founded.
I can find no other source anywhere to indicate that there is any ownership connection between Elron and Voxeo.
That having been said, I suppose that it's possible that one of the other 'phone program' or 'auto phone' suppliers may have used Voxeo's technology, but that would be wild speculation on my part.
I tried to find other payments to Voxeo, but have only been able to locate the single one for $500.
HG;) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7318
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 8:14 pm: |
|
That's why the Florida corporation documents will be helpful when the darn site goes back up. They will identify all the players in VOXEO. And to be clear, a single payment of $500 in June 2004 does not corroborate that VOXEO tabulated the Iowa 2004 caucus votes. The amount is way too small and the date is questionable.
But -- it's interesting.
There are internet investigative writers who nose out good information but write it up with corporate or political juxtapositions that don't support the conclusions. The temptation is to dismiss everything, but often they have got information that turns out to be important if documented and approached with more discipline.
The core issue with the VOXEO connection has nothing to do with whether it does or does not have an Israeli connection, but rather, does VOXEO answer the question of "who is the vendor for the cell-phone-initiated automated tabulation service for the caucuses?"
Identifying the vendor is important, and it is equally important to identify the routing of the information going out to the public. A middleman in the process could easily wreak havoc in Iowa, where the presidential selection process is not subject to public records, is not subject to public election administration laws, and is missing some checks and balances -- in the case of the Republican caucuses, missing MOST of the key checks and balances. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7319
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 - 8:33 pm: |
|
I've uploaded a clean, permanent link for each of the documents you uncovered, John, and thanks very much:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/IA/state/2004-Iowa-Democratic-Party.pdf
(123 KB)
http://www.bbvdocs.org/IA/state/2004-Republican-Party-of-Iowa.pdf
(187 KB)
http://www.bbvdocs.org/IA/state/2005-Iowa-Democratic-Party.pdf
(356 KB)
http://www.bbvdocs.org/IA/state/2005-Republican-Party-of-Iowa.pdf
(78.3 KB)
http://www.bbvdocs.org/IA/state/2006-iowa-democratic-party.pdf
(53.5 KB)
http://www.bbvdocs.org/IA/state/2006-republican-party-of-iowa.pdf
(83 KB) |
Dennis Roseman
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dennis_roseman
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 - 5:49 am: |
|
There is a lot to respond to here.
I am precinct captain for one of the candidates, my wife will chair the precinct caucus. There is a lot of work to do in the next (very cold!) day and a half.
I will have to put off looking into some of these issues until after the caucus. Some the problems I have been aware of and have been concerned about. There are additional problems that have not been mentioned here. I don't have the time to discuss some of the details right now.
The photographic records etc are, in most cases not practical.
For those of not in Iowa, let me give you an idea of what is likely to happen in our precinct.
Let me just say, in advance of remarks below, that---yes---we need to improve the reporting system. It is not to be excused nor tolerated. And the process itself has other flaws that are inherent ( lack of absentee participation most notably; then there is lack of privacy; then the problem of physical space; then there is an unevenness of delegate representation from county to county).
The local caucus itself a local meeting of folks in the precinct) is to me a beautiful and inspiring exercise in the democratic process. At the same time it can be chaotic and nerve-wracking.
Our location (the largest available in our precinct is an elementary school gymnasium, and four class rooms. In 2004 we had 444 registered attendees, this time we guess 500.
So we are all crowded together and usually everyone is quite excited.
The counting of each group (it is done several times) would be very difficult to do from a photo.
In a small room you have a room full of people and no location to get them all in. In a large room with several groups, you might not be able to tell from a photo who belongs to which group.
The counting process takes time; very few people are seated and some insist on walking around in spite of being asked not to. Remember there are a lot of friends and neighbors here. Often husbands and wives are in different groups and want to chat, or entertain their child who is suddenly bored.
Frankly, unless it was done by an expert (or better a team) I think it might well be unreliable to only use such recorded information for a caucus count. Not to mention the possible candidate loyalties of the photographer(s).
The counts of each group is generally looked at critically by each of the other groups and expecialy the candidate captains.
Having said all that I will see what I can find out on some of the issues raised (starting on Jan 4th.... well maybe Jan 5th). |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4246
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 - 6:18 am: |
|
Hi Dennis,
Thanks for your observations and suggestions.
It sounds like a video record would be more useful than a still photograph. (Though if anyone were to emphasize the importance of having a tangible record in which each person is visible, surely everyone could arrange themselves in rows, with some seated, as is done for for weddings, etc.? With a video one could also ask the group members to file past the person who is doing the counting?)
Why would anyone just take the word that someone counting heads has done this accurately, if it's more people than each participant can easily count and verify by themselves?
I'm intrigued by your mention of other, not described issues that need to be addressed. Can you give us a hint?
Thanks for posting during such a busy time, and best wishes for a smooth process. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7321
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 - 8:26 am: |
|
Hi, Dennis, and welcome to Black Box Voting.
quote:The local caucus itself a local meeting of folks in the precinct) is to me a beautiful and inspiring exercise in the democratic process.
Agreed! And this kind of process does tend to be messy and chaotic, but also uplifting and healthy.
quote:The counting of each group (it is done several times) would be very difficult to do from a photo.
Correct. Only video can capture the counting phase while it is in progress. I do recommend video in the Republican caucuses especially, for the phase where they do a show of hands. But I also realize that more people can get an $8 disposable camera from the corner drugstore to photograph results than will have good video cameras or the desire to sit there doing that during the caucus. So, given the choice, the photo of the signed results slip is priority one. Video is priority two, probably best done by observers, not participants.
As for the photos: Obviously, it's nice to have a digital camera with the ability to upload photos promptly to web sites, and email them. But lots of people don't have those either. At least, if people get photos of the signed results tapes with a camera of any kind, they will have evidence to back up any discrepancies in reported results from caucus goers vs. reported results from the media.
There will be a live results reporting web site -- libertyradio? I have to go hunt through my emails to get the exact URL. Caucus goers can report results there, but just verbal reports aren't worth the paper they aren't written on.
Even signed affidavits from witnesses are pretty worthless if there is a discrepancy. Photos are what's really needed.
Anyone can upload photos of the signed caucus results in the Iowa forum here at this Web site. Just register, log in and when you post, hit the "upload" button, find the photo on your computer, upload it. |
Leland Lehrman
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Gate44o
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 3, 2008 - 9:46 am: |
|
voxeo $500 expenditure here:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bysgLj6RCaIJ:iecdb.iowa.gov/misc/income_tax _checkoff/2005%2520Iowa%2520Democratic%2520Party.pdf+voxeo+iowa+secretary+of+sta te&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us&client=firefox-a
google voxeo iowa secretary of state
on page 2
Original link is:
iecdb.iowa.gov/misc/income_tax_checkoff/2005%20Iowa%20Democratic%20Party.pdf
but is saying "bad gateway"
$500 payout is listed as June 10, 2004 |
Kathleen Wynne
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kathleen_wynne
Post Number: 330
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 3, 2008 - 10:59 am: |
|
People are being encouraged to take their cameras to the Iowa caucuses:
http://www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/forms/election/campaign.trail.2008.h tml |
Bill Lackemacher
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Billl4
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 4, 2008 - 12:40 am: |
|
First, I'd like to say that I think that the Iowa Caucus system is completely undemocratic and I hate the fact that every four years there's a good chance that the outcome of this undemocratic process by a small percentage of Iowans influences who will be our candidate. Like many of you, I'd love for my CA primary vote to actually count for something.
Not only are you not allowed to "vote" if you have to work at night, go to night school, are out of town or overseas in the military, but bribery is allowed. "Vote for me and I'll shovel your driveway, I'll baby-sit your kids, Come over to our corner and have some free food if you support our candidate." Where does it end? The more money you raise, the more money you can spend bribing people (at the "polling place") to support you. Also, if you happen to be in the same precinct with your boss, your church leaders, your union leaders, etc... there is extreme peer pressure to "vote" with them (they're watching you!). There's a reason why we use secret ballots in our elections.
Sorry for the rant.
I followed the Polk County online tabulation of their 183 precincts very closely this evening. I didn't notice anything unusual in the Total updates, but I did notice a couple of interesting things when I looked at the precinct details.
As we now know, the top 3 candidates pretty much split the vote. Richardson and Biden combined were polling around 10-12% and they ended up with about 3% so it's possible that some of their supporters went over to Obama's side (reports are that Richardson's people may have encouraged it), which would help explain his lead.
As one might imagine, 94% of the precincts in Polk County that had 3 or more delegates split the delegates amongst all 3 candidates. However, there were some precincts that were anomalies.
For example:
Precinct 560 West Des Moines 314, had 9 delegates. Barack got 6, Hillary got 3 and Edwards got none.
Precinct 036 Des Moines 36, had 8 delegates. Barack got 6, Hillary got 2 and Edwards got none.
Precinct 020 Des Moines 20, had 7 delegates. Barack got 5, Hillary got 2 and Edwards none.
& here are a couple from Johnson County
Iowa City 12, had 9 delegates. Barack got 5, Hillary got 4 and Edwards none. (Edwards had 25% in this precinct in 2004)
Iowa City 19, had 7 delegates. Barack got 6, Uncommitted got 1 and Edwards none. (Edwards had 25% in this precinct in 2004)
I'm no Iowa Caucus expert, but it seems odd to me that Edwards could not get any delegates in larger precincts like these. Is it possible that Edwards could not gather 15% of the voters in these larger precincts? Or if he did have the usual 25 - 30%, would the Edwards supporters cross over to the Obama camp? Why? Or is there some other explanation.
I guess I'm trying to fully understand a process that I'd like abolish.
Cheers,
Bill
http://sacramentofordemocracy.org/ |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4259
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 4, 2008 - 2:39 am: |
|
This does seem strange. Maybe some people who were there can chime in.
I agree that there is such a disproportionate potential influence on candidate choice by procedures which are in many ways undemocratic and poorly administered in terms of oversight and potential for inaccuracies. |
Bob Arens
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Martian_bob
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 6:06 am: |
|
Hi Bill, Catherine,
As a second-time Democratic caucus-goer, I can tell you that it is indeed very different from an election by secret ballot. It isn't intended to be that at all. It's what's called a viva voce process, which basically means that everyone gets to see what everyone else is doing. It's definitely not democratic in any sense of the word as I know it.
It's not uncommon to see people from one camp trying to wrangle folks away from another camp for one reason or another. If, say, during the first count the Obama group has twenty more people than they need to hit their next delegate, they might send fifteen people to the Richardson camp if that camp is fifteen short of viability. On the other hand, if they're only a few people away from getting another candidate (as in my precinct, Iowa City 16), the candidate captain will make sure that no one goes anywhere!
Furthermore, the fact that there's two counting steps (one for viability and one for realignment) means that wooing folks from defunct candidates during the realignment phase can be done. It is interesting to note that there will also be folks trying to woo people away from viable candidates. Letting some Clinton supporters know that she voted to categorize the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group got some folks away from her camp. It's little changes like this, going on underneath candidate captains' noses, that can lead to fewer delegates than one might suspect.
Finally, focusing too much on weird results from specific precincts can sometimes be like focusing on the "inconsistencies" with evidence of the moon landing; just because the photos don't show any stars doesn't mean they weren't there. Don't forget that a number of precincts reported no candidates for Clinton, and she was just 1% behind Edwards. Given the Iowa Democratic Party is basically made up of Bill Clinton machinery, this is quite surprising in itself. Heck, there were some precincts where Ron Paul won the Republican caucus! Strange times, indeed... |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7366
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 6:47 am: |
|
Hi, Bob, and welcome to Black Box Voting. Thanks for assisting with clarification of the Democratic party Iowa caucuse processes.
The first rule of thumb when analyzing the numbers that come in, I think, needs to be simply checking the math.
I agree with Bob that focusing too much on what it seems like a candidate should or shouldn't can be a blind alley.
The areas that often do prove fruitful are:
Did more votes show up than voters? (That is not possible to discern in the Iowa Democratic results, because only delegate counts are reported, not number of votes. It would be helpful to require a report for the first count and the realigned final count, not just the delegate number, but the actual warm body count.)
Are any results missing?
Did a number which should have remained the same wander up and down during the night?
Did more votes show up than there are registered voters in that location?
And, most important in the Iowa caucuses: Did the input match the output? In other words, did local precinct results match the precinct results as listed in the final announced total?
The Democrats did a good job of releasing real-time precinct information but did not post the results at the caucus location, a final check and balance that is still needed in Iowa.
The Republicans did not release real time county or precinct results and did not post the results at the caucus location and also did not make the final precinct results public, and as of last night they still had not posted the final results with 100 percent in the total.
In Iowa caucuses, only small tweaks are needed for the precinct level controls, because both parties count in public. But in Iowa, a major problem is still comparing input to output -- does what's at the precinct match what's been announced at state/national levels?
It is simple and cheap to remedy this: Post results at the caucus location and post results in real time, or frequent updates, on state party web site. That way any person who is suspicious can simply wander down to the location where the caucus was held and look at the posted results, and then log on to the web to make sure it matches.
It's an important control process, and it's required by law for elections in many states. It costs nothing and takes hardly any time. All it takes is a piece of tape and using self-carboning paper for the signed results sheet, so one page can be taped up at the precinct for a few hours. Generally the rule is 24 hours.
It really is simple: Just let anyone from the public compare the input to the output. |
Mike LaBonte
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 50
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 12:18 pm: |
|
The Des Moines Register has precinct and county level body counts for the Iowa GOP caucus, still missing 81 precincts. They don't give state level body counts, only percentages. The Iowa GOP page only has that relatively useless Google map, with mouse-over delegate counts. |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 542
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Mike - I uploaded some more amazon datasets over in the Iowa forum.
Don't know if they are of any use to you or not....
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/143/71138.html?1199506115
HG;) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4274
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Here are the ones I uploaded. Times are my time, local, probably 6 hours ahead of Iowa.
Dataset 1 was from 3:12am
Dataset 6 was from 3:23am
I saved these as htm files so I hope they open up. They open up on my computer, anyways. For all I know they might all be identical--I haven't tried to figure them out. |
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 138
Registered: 3-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 6, 2008 - 7:58 am: |
|
Iowa caucus is much like instant runoff voting...
without the privacy!
sorry if I am repeating the obvious. |
Mary L Burke
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Marytnurse
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 6:25 pm: |
|
I know I'm very late to the game, just got very excited about NH; what happened here in Iowa is that ALL the PCs also called their own campaign HQ to report results; thusly, each campaign (actually I assume that more than just the top three did, those were the only ones viable in our precinct) had independent records as well. I think this is a great way to double check results, I even gave actual first and second counts. |
David Luebbers
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: David_luebbers
Post Number: 25
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Catherine .. I just Did a quick analisis of the information you uploaded.
What i did was i Downloaded the First and Last one of your files you had there and compared them against each other in a file comparison program.
My results
There were 25 NEW lines in the last file that were not in the first file. (Things that had been added)
Also there was 1 ocurance where the information was changed .
First file
63,11,0,3,0,3,0,0,6,1,0,0
Last file
63,11,0,2,0,3,0,0,6,2,0,0
If you notice in the first file in this line it shows That the Original 4th number was 3 and the 10th number is 1.
In the last file the 3 has changed to a 2 and the 1 changed to a 2
Now TBH i have no idea WTF these file are for Or exactily what they represent. All i know is what i just told you of the differences between the files you linked to.
I used a program called ExamDiff that is a free download from http://www.download.com/ExamDiff/3000-2248_4-10619470.html?tag=pdp_prod
What is does is exactly what it says.. It takes 2 files and compares them (The text in the files) If there are changes it shows in yellow highlight the change.. If there are additions it shows those in a grayish highlight.
"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: 4354
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 1:46 am: |
|
David,
I have no idea what to do with these files. Hopefully one of people that does will comment.
I would expect there to be new lines added with each new result, assuming (!) that they represent new precinct results coming in. I think elsewhere you commented that some numbers decreased. I hope that someone else can respond to you about that. |
David Luebbers
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: David_luebbers
Post Number: 29
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 4:16 am: |
|
Yes catherine If you look at the numbers in my post right before yours you will see that a 3 in the first file changed to a 2 in the last file i examined.
What this means IF ANYTHING i do not know.
"It doesn't matter who votes. It only matters who counts the ballots." Stalin
|
|
|
Dataset1
