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: 
...
|
| 3-20-08: Is ballot alteration possibl... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7751
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 6 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 9:22 am: | 
|
The video below provides bits of the backstory for our discovery of a potentially devastating method of rigging MAIL IN VOTES, AUDITS and RECOUNTS. Black Box Voting is currently doing proof of concept testing on our "Theory of a crime" and will release details next week on how it's done, so that preventive measures can be put in before November. We'll see how the ballots and the special "optical scan marking pens" being sold by vendors actually perform in our tests. Any information you can provide on the specific paper stock and especially, the paper coatings used by ballot printers will be much appreciated right now.
Information leading up to this discovery came from a frame-by-frame analysis of video, including these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txoLlfrBENk (pay close attention to the last segment)
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOESAfrPSKI
We believe it is possible to undetectably alter thousands of paper ballots, using a technique known as "check washing." This would require applicator bottles (for ballot alteration in a vehicle during transport), paper towels, and in central ballot storage locations, for large quantities, cans of odorless paint thinner, denatured alcohol, or acetone. Our upcoming tests will show if our theory is correct, whether it can be done in a van, how many ballots can be done per hour, whether the special "AccuVote marking pens" sold by LHS Associates and Diebold (Premier) are easier to "wash" for remarking.
These two "ELECTION REALITY TV" videos above are prequels; video of our demo will be released next week. Maybe our theory of a crime won't work. We'll see.
The new video, linked above, shows top-level New Hampshire state officials lying about chain of custody matters. In one particularly bizarre incident, they attempt to hide the fact that ballots are sitting right there in an area of the warehouse (at 5:20 pm) that they have emphasized is "closed" at 4:30 pm. When a citizen catches them on video in the "closed" area, they simply deny that the ballot boxes are ballot boxes!
Earlier, they had staged a bit of public theatre in which they made it a point that "Hoppy" of the Butch and Hoppy ballot transport team, will have trouble going back to get his bag because the area is "closed" at 4:30. But after dark at 5:20, a Connecticut citizen named Walter Reddy caught top state officials and Hoppy on film in the very area that was supposed to be "closed", and the next night at 6:54 pm, a Florida citizen named Jeannie Dean caught them again.
Apparently the state officials did not realize the ballot boxes (empty and otherwise) had been caught on video, and after saying "those are not ballots" they hurriedly turned out the lights! Imagining state-level public officials standing there in the dark would be comical if it didn't represent the rape of our democratic republic.
The boxes identified as "NOT ballots" are later identified, on camera, as Rockingham County ballot boxes, by the same state official who claimed no ballots were present when these boxes were videotaped the night before. Of course, we knew they were ballot boxes, because we followed the ballot pickup van during Rockingham County pickups!
So what did they do? Open it up and deal with ballot intake and chain of custody in a properly public and transparent fashion?
Nope. The next night, New Hampshire state officials engaged the services of a police dog to obstruct citizens from looking in the window -- aROOH-ROOH-ROOH! (Nice doggy.)
Sarasota citizen Jeannie Dean, teeth chattering in the frigid New Hampshire night, zoomed in with a camera and boosted the sound on her video and once again, caught 'em in the act of secretive ballot delivery in the dark, wandering around in areas already proclaimed "closed after 4:30 pm."
"They" included New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan, New Hampshire Archives Director Frank Mevers, Archives Records Manager Brian Burford, and of course, "Butch and Hoppy" -- Armand "Butch" Dubois and Peter "Hoppy" Falzone.
A public records request by Black Box Voting for documents pertaining to the assignment of the K-9 unit has elicited "There are no records."* We asked for phone bills, New Hampshire officials have said it will take 90 days to find them. We have asked for checks, credit card receipts, etc. for cleaning supplies, paint thinner, smocks, latex gloves, etc. They say it will take 90 days to find them. (Or find which ones to purge? Guys: We have your stuff on video.)
*UPDATE: Within a few hours of posting the video showing the K-9 unit, a New Hampshire Dept. of Safety official who had previously responded that there are no records called to tell me there might be records and she needs 28 days to find them.
Much of what I've just told you relates to next week's proof of concept testing. What you will see in THESE videos is the backstory that helped us figure out the mechanics of how a massive ballot-tampering operation could be accomplished with just a few key people.
This project, funded and produced by BLACK BOX VOTING, used the concept of a rolling cavalry of experienced citizen voting rights leaders. We collaborated on video targets and shared our videotape. Using combined evidence captured by several different citizens were we able to piece together how the New Hampshire primary could have been stolen.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND VOTE SUBSTITUTION
Along with voter eligibility fraud tactics and computer tampering, these will be "all the marbles" this November for mail-in votes (Oregon, Washington: nearly 100 percent; California, Arizona: approx 50 percent; Ohio, New Mexico, approx 30 percent.) Chain of custody and vote substitution can defeat any manual spot-check and, as we saw in New Hampshire, can nuke the validity of any recount.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO SECURE ELECTIONS?
YES. Citizen controls! "Get it right on Election Night." This is not about "bipartisan" observers who are political party operatives and hacks. This is about CITIZEN CONTROLS. Because the instruments of government that we have created, and our votes -- our method of exercising control over the government that we have created -- belong to US, not "them" -- not the government, not political parties. US. U.S. We the People.
AND NOW, ABOUT THOSE COMPUTERS...
Following another investigation, requiring months of diligence and plenty of computer and public records experience, JIM MARCH, JOHN BRAKEY, MICHAEL SHELBY: Maricopa County Arizona have produced an in-depth citizen evaluation: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/73271.html
The article above provides the overview for a number of issues discovered in the largest location in Arizona, the most systemic -- national in scope -- being their discovery of an illicit component in the Sequoia voting system. Pay special attention to Appendix A in the full report: http://www.bbvdocs.org/sequoia/Maricopa-County-Elections-Report.pdf
* * * * *
And as for the many locations that still use paperless DREs or fail to audit chain of custody and procedural safeguards, as they say in New York, "fahgeddaboudit." There is no reason whatsoever to trust those elections.
YOUR DONATIONS ARE NEEDED NOW MORE THAN EVER TO FUND TRAVEL AND EXPENSES TO WATCHDOG 2008:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html or mail to:
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA 98057
Black Box Voting is supported entirely by individual citizen donations.
* * * * * |
John Howard
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harmonyguy
Post Number: 571
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 8:38 pm: |
|
From the AccuVote ballot specifications"
"The allowable background colors are listed in section 11, Ballot Background Color Selections. They are defined by the PANTONE@ Color Management System (PMS). The selections provided are taken from the PANTONE@ Color Selector 1000 I Uncoated book. Please refer to this table when specifying background colors."
If I'm not mistaken, if the colors specified are from the Uncoated reference, by implication the paper stock used must be uncoated, since the color will appear different when printed on coated stock.
One of the objectives of using coated paper stock, is to alter the reflective nature of the finished printed piece. This is how a gloss finish is often achieved, by using a gloss coated stock. Of course when the paper is shinier, the ability of the ink (or in many cases the toner) to stick to the paper, is reduced. This will manifest itself with more flaking-off of the ink, especially when the papers are folded or creased - such as with mail-in ballots. In the case of using coated stocks with ballots, altering the reflective nature of the printed piece could easily affect the accuracy of the ballot count, since the ballot scanner relies on the reflectivity of the printed piece in order to differentiate between a voted and an unvoted oval.
While I'll keep looking, I've yet to find any specific reference to the use of coated or uncoated stock for Accuvote ballot printing.
Having said that, as you know, I'm still of the opinion that optiscan ballot altering on a massive scale is VERY possible, and virtually undetectable other than through a hand recount.
HG;) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 453
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 3:48 am: |
|
GREAT research topic, Bev, and once again highly useful input from John Howard. It reminds me of the chads and the paper research involved in Dan Rather's report.
Focusing only on computer gambits and not recognizing that good old fashioned fraud has taken place for years and involved....pens and paper would be missing the opportunity to view the voting system precisely as a SYSTEM involving pens, paper, and voting machines with light readers and scanning calibration abilities.
I am wondering if ballot specs sent to printers and possibly available on state Dept of Admin Services websites would be a way to get a survey of the paper being specified.
I don't know if reflectiveness or coatedness can be ruled out or not -- yes, you're right about potential to affect vote, but if surface is reflective and ink somehow makes it nonreflective, couldn't it act to make the mark MORE readable? I know nothing about paper and haven't tested various surfaces, but add as food for thought.
This pantone color variation is important, too. You might consider sending the allowable colors info to Bev, John, by extension the nonallowable colors might be interesting to test.
Mike LaBonte has earlier commented that paper specs are very involved and detailed, and involve things like thickness, opacity, and reflectivity.
UPDATE 3/21/08 8:46 am EDT: Mike LaBonte says he was not the person who commented. I will try to locate the message and quote directly. Apologies, Mike. It is a bad idea to say these things from memory.
(continued as originally) Ergo, a blue pen on a yellow ballot with improper opacity -- do we get a blue mark? Long shot - probably not - but does suggest an amusing way to spend a Saturday afternoon called "fun with markers and paper stock".
The Rather report suggested that the punch card quality control people interviewed were really, really familiar with paper quality characteristics. A good printer might provide a useful tutorial on how paper takes ink.
I have previously tried to find industry association discussions of paper characteristics, for this is a fascinating topic, but so far have not done so.
Another source of info that might be a little bit different in focus due to technology would be Kinkos, at least in terms of what happens when color is printed on various types of copiable stock.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 21, 2008) |
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 232
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 4:20 am: |
|
quote:Mike LaBonte has earlier commented that paper specs are very involved and detailed, and involve things like thickness, opacity, and reflectivity.
Minor correction: it wasn't me who commented on paper ballot specs. |
Jenny L. Hurley
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bolivar
Post Number: 60
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 5:09 am: |
|
Considering the fact that in Harris County, TX, while a Democratic and a Republican representative was watching, the computer person at the County got into the Hart eSlate - It had to be the tabulator - and in 15 - 20 minutes had added votes to the election record - CONSIDERING THIS - Should not these TABULATORS be under CONSTANT VIDEO at all times?
Thanks. That is one thing I hope to request in Fort Bend County, TX. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 454
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 5:12 am: |
|
Suggestion for Bev's experimentation: Number your tests and make notes as to how little/much you are using in the way of solvent.
Also try some ballots that you mark and then go over the marks so as to damage the stock surface.
I recently did an audit that had a very tiny number of ballots that I originally thought were blanks, but upon examination, I saw very faint, even coloring of the full circle.
When a pen is running out of ink, often there are impressions on the paper in my experience and there is unevenness as you try to eke more ink out of the pen.
I seriously doubt that ballot would have been readable, because the machines are calibrated not only to the percentage of darkness within a "target area", but also to HOW dark something is. You want to read pen marks, but not read dirty fingerprints as pen marks. Ergo, a super light but evenly shaded oval should have been rejected as a blank ballot.
A Doug Jones type inquiry where you throw everything you can at your solvents -- paper color, paper surface, absorbency, variety of pens, etc.
Another issue is: Let's suppose you are going to pay people for voting a particular way.
Do you use permanent pen to pre-mark that ballot?
You're going to have an ethical decision to make on how much of this you reveal, Bev.
What you're talking about could go beyond insider to criminal insider or criminal enterprise penetrating the system with help (deliberate or through human failings like carelessness, inattention, etc.) of insider.
That brings us to : how are our election laws enforced? If through an enforcement agency, can they escalate to other investigative body if something like ballot washing is occurring?
It's one thing to cite someone for campaigning within the 75 foot limit around the polls.
It's quite another to conduct an investigation that involves forensic analysis.
Who's looking out for our ballots when the rubber meets the road? this will vary from state to state, but we MUST find out. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7755
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 5:38 am: |
|
ES&S requires ballot printers to use paper they provide. Thanks to Bill B., here are their ballot specs:
Ballot Paper
Use only ES&S ballot code or digital stock. This paper is specially manufactured for ES&S and it is already cut to size. This is not part of a regular commercially available line of paper.
This is not Cougar. The actual designation for this stock is OPT or ES&S Opaque
ES&S will not be responsible for the performance of the ballot if a substitute paper is used without specific approval from ES&S. ES&S code or digital stock meets all the specifications for the ES&S Models 100, DS200 and 650 scanners. ES&S code stock is already printed with timing and code tracks. However all paper stock should be inspected before printing. Bleed cut lines should be visible on all four sides of the ballot. If there is any question please call us.
Paper Stock: ES&S certified custom manufactured 80 lb. Weyerhaeuser/Domtar
Ballot Opaque White / ES&S
Grain Direction On Finished Ballot: Long
Basis Weight: 80 # text weight (36.2874 kg)
Thickness: 0.0061 in. (0.015494 cm)
Smoothness: 130 sheffields
Moisture: 5.5 percent
Opacity: 97.0
Brightness: 96
PPI: 338
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7756
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 5:46 am: |
|
We need specimens of absentee ballots for all vendors. Only unused ballots for elections that have already passed, thank you. Please e-mail me privately if you obtain any.
By the way, as I understand it, checks are now printed on, or at least available on, stock that is treated to react to the solvent to leave a visible mark if someone tries it.
This line of inquiry should lead us fairly quickly to recommendations both for the best writing implements and the paper treatment needed to expose ballot washing. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4800
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 5:47 am: |
|
The paper spec does not say anything about coatings. Therefore I would assume it should not be coated--but that's an assumption.
If ESS ballot code or digital stock were purchased, uncoated, could a coating be added later if one wanted to change the paper's properties? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 458
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 6:11 am: |
|
Catherine,
Don't know the answer. Sounds arduous if there were many ballots.
Another possibility in NE is simply that each town orders ballots and they are always looking for ways to cut costs. If the spec says one thing and their printer thinks they can do another, they'll try it, I'm guessing.
So you could end up with different specs through cost cutting efforts. If a printer were interested in helping fix election, he could lower the cost on the paper that would enable the ballot washing. (I like printers. Nothing personal. Just considering gambits).
An issue with adding coatings is whether or not the ballots are intended to be read. As someone commented, reflectivity may affect readability of the ballot one way or the other. |
Leta Licata
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leta
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 6:12 am: |
|
I don't know if the machines use "thermal printing" or not, but if they do the process for thermal printing is different than for laser or inkjet printing.
Just thought I would throw that out there in case it makes a difference. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7759
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 7:35 am: |
|
Okay, found it!
On the last night I was there, after videotaping records in the secretary of state's office, as the office was closing and everyone going home, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner approached me and we had a lengthy conversation. (Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan was doing his typical "handler" function of standing two feet away listening to everything Gardner said, but on this occasion he did not interrupt or steer, at least, not as much as usual.)
May I just say that Gardner continues to be somewhat extraordinary, as public officials go, in that he STILL advocates and walks the walk for public access to all parts of the process, and even after the YouTube video which made him look pretty awful, he unfailingly treated me with genuine courtesy and warmth.
So, in our long conversation, one of the first things Gardner said was that there can be unintended consequences. This is something that has troubled me, too, because clearly Scanlan, whose behavior shows he is no fan of citizen controls and open government processes, may be taking the reins from Gardner at some point in the not too distant future, and instead of cleaning up New Hampshire's failed checks and balances, I'm concerned that Scanlan will eliminate hand counting and roll back transparency. So yes, this is a worry.
But in our long conversation, I told Gardner that I believe New Hampshire is still the "gold standard" if it actually follows its checks and balances, which it did not this time. He made a surprising comment.
Gardner, a history buff who loves to tell stories of past political history situations, told me that he believes Maine may be better even than New Hampshire. Maine has tightened up chain of custody considerably, after a ballot tampering incident.
Gardner told me that a Maine Speaker of the House was involved in a ballot tampering scandal. The ballot-tampering was discovered when someone smelled smoke and, upon investigating its source, discovered one of the perps smoking a cigarette while in the ballot vault. Something like that.
A fascinating story, but I didn't want to relate it until I corroborated it with details. The details reveal that an aide to the Maine Speaker of the House and a legislative aide pleaded guilty to ballot tampering, which happened with CARDBOARD BALLOT BOXES SECURED WITH TAPE DURING A RECOUNT (sound familiar?)
New Hampshire, including Gardner, actually have no excuse for chain of custody negligence at this point. That is, unless Gardner had requested funds and proper storage and was formally denied these protective measures by the legislature, something we should look into.
HERE ARE THE DETAILS ON THE MAINE SITUATION
Bangor Daily News - Nov. 17, 1994, by Glenn Adams
Maine tightens security for ballot recounts
AUGUSTA -- The security couldn't be tighter if they were counting $100 bills.
Beyond a locked, alarm-rigged door in the super-secure Maine State Police Crime Lab, election workers opened padlocks to shiny metal ballot boxes as recounts in contested legislative races got under way Wednesday.
The Senate race being reviewed was the first under tightened security that is an outgrowth of Maine's ballot-box stuffing scandal during recounts nearly two years ago.
"The whole process seems to be going much better," said Deputy Secretary of State Gary Cooper, who is overseeing the recount. Candidates or their representatives, lawyers and five counters from each party were present.
Cooper said the recount in the race between Republican Willis A. Lord and Democrat Gregory A. Drew for the western York County district seat is expected to last at least two days.
New procedures aimed at preventing fraud were mandated in 1993 by the Legislature, which was anxious to restore public confidence in the process in the wake of what became known as "ballot- gate."
The new rules closely followed recommendations of a special panel of municipal election officials, civic groups, lawyers and law- makers.
Ballots used to be stored in cardboard containers that were sealed with tape, making them an easy target for anyone who wanted to tamper with them or add ballots.
Now, ballots in all Maine communities are stored in uniform metal containers, which are padlocked and then secured with specially numbered seals. The containers alone cost the state about $60,000, said Secretary of State G. William Diamond.
In all races in which the contestants finish within 1 percent of each other, state troopers take custody of the ballots and deliver them to Augusta in the likelihood a recount will be requested.
Recounts have been requested in two Senate races and eight House races so far, but three additional House elections are expected to be reviewed as well.
The recounts are considered politically crucial because they could affect legislative majorities. The Senate is split 17-17 between Democrats and Republicans, with one independent. In the House, Democrats have a razor-thin 77-74 edge.
Under the new rules, recounts must be held and ballots must be stored in a more secure location than the State Office Building, where they were held in the past. The crime lab, which has alarms, automatic door locks and is housed next to state police headquarters, was chosen.
The state also discourages recounts that may be for other than legitimate purposes. If the election totals are within 2 percent or more, the candidate making the request is charged $500, said Diamond.
And to avoid rehandling of the ballots, there are no more ballot inspections in state races.
Penalties have been increased for a wide range of criminal charges that can result from violating ballot security or tampering with ballots.
Kenneth Allen, former executive assistant to the House speaker, served 17 days in jail, was fined $2,000 and was required to perform 1,500 hours of public service after pleading guilty in 1993 to two counts each of burglary and ballot tampering.
An accomplice, legislative clerk Michael T. Flood, also pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the case.
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7760
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 7:42 am: |
|
And on the above story:
I have additional questions -- because in a way, this story demonstrates how corrupt our political system really is.
1) What happened to the Speaker of the House?
2) Why only 17 days in jail and a modest fine?
Edited to add details: Speaker of the House was John Martin, who claimed he knew nothing about what his aides were doing, yet another report shows he knew several of the details before news of the break-in became public. And his aide did not pay his fine and did not complete the terms of his sentence.
Penalties were increased in Maine. What about New Hampshire? What about the other states? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 460
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 7:54 am: |
|
Well, the requested funds and denied thing I think would be ludicrous, given the amount of money the state makes from primaries.
Way back when I posted a link from the SOS website offering funding for properly boxing and even getting computer software to update your vital records functions. The source of the funding was said to be the fees collected from issuing copies of vital records, as I recall.
They had at least a million dollars for this project, and towns could apply for funding. Ballot boxes, anyone? They may not be defined as vital records, but I wonder if anyone was turned down who may have asked. Not worth researching, but all I'm saying is that they rightly recognized that vital records -- hardly on the tips of the tongues of every NH citizen - were worthy of proper preservation, and they showed a photo of a "before" picture for messy storage (these pix probably submitted to get funding, to be fair. Like the photos for miracle diets and beauty makeovers, "before" photos are a subject in and of themselves).
So -- 1) the baseline for sophisticated knowledge about voting is there and 2) the baseline for appreciation of proper archiving is there.
Given the baseline, why are ballots treated this way?
UPDATE: Just thought I'd add this in to one mesg. Maine: public confidence builder/patina of security - state troopers, state crime lab (all same chain of command for pickup/custody?), single keys on ballot boxes - who controls keys? What quality of lock - easily replicable?
CT is having internal affairs issues/corruption in our state police, so not sure if this is truly a good solution or only looks good if you don't look closely. Would agree the potential for being more secure is there, and would also say like in NH it all boils down to the bottleneck of who holds the access/keys. The public can't exactly poke around the state crime lab.
I am a fan of consulting criminal justice lit for info on chain of custody/evidence preservation, but any cop will tell you about stuff disappearing from the evidence room at some point, so the whole framework has to be examined neutrally and skeptically, so that it's pluses and minuses are understood.
Water finds its own level. Fraud seems to work the same way. Taking ballots out of the towns out of fear of ballot vulnerability also takes them away from the people who probably have the most interest in preserving them properly - double edged sword.
Any system will work great until it doesn't, as those who are unscrupulous kick the tires, get their friends hired, and think through the system carefully to see where it does and doesn't have vulnerabilities.
thanks very much for the story, Bev.
Maine is the the state that has the law that Gardner should ask the leg. to pass:
It's illegal to use a peelable ballot seal!
EDITED to add Maine law text: maybe the peelable part is a little bit of a stretch, but it does say "must".
§699. Sealing of ballot container
When a container is required to be sealed, it shall be done so that the seal on the container must be broken before its contents can be examined. [1985, c. 161, § 6 (new).]
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/21-a/title21-Asec699.html
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 21, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 21, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 464
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Ballot specs surfing - a very helpful document for insights into how ballots are spec'd, printed, and how overruns are controlled in this particular case (scroll down through document for the overruns - they take possession and pay if used):
http://www.co.shawnee.ks.us/purchasing/Bids/037-06.pdf
BALLOT PRINTING CERTIFICATION Diebold Election Systems, 1611 Wilmeth Rd, McKinney, TX 75069, manufacturer of the Accu-Vote ES2000, qualifies or certifies printers prior to the printing of Accu-Vote ballots. Printers will be required to acquire the Ballot Specifications Documentation ($65.00) and a Film Positive Ballot Template Set ($500.00). Diebold’s testing and evaluation services are performed in their McKinney, TX corporate facility and billed at the rate of $125.00 per hour. These prices are subject to change by Diebold.
2.6 REGISTRATION The Accu-Vote optical scan ballot requires very accurate registration of voting positions, timing marks, diagnostic marks and front to back registration.
2.7 TIME FRAME Due to statutory restrictions,
CHARGE FOR PAPER For purposes of this bid, this includes the following:
a. Paper Stock:
i. Must be first quality, mill brand that is sold by a franchised distributor of Wausau or International Paper mills.
Seconds from a converter are unacceptable.
ii. 90 lb. Index is the minimum required. 110 lb. Index is the maximum required.
iii. The stock composition must be of chemical wood fiber.
iv. The grain must be parallel to the length of the ballot (long grain).
v. The maximum allowable curl of the stock measured from a flat surface is 0.05.”
b. Paper Color: All ballots will be printed on white paper stock.
c. Ballot
|
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 25
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 2:36 pm: |
|
It gets better than that. Why bother to change them when you can make your own?
Here are the specs read down for paper type etc.
http://ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/finance/purchasing/online_bids/asse ts_2006/rfp6255.pdf
Here are the ballots (Just remove the word sample)
http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/clerk_register/elections/Jan08DemBallot.pdf
http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/clerk_register/elections/Jan08RepBallot.pdf |
David Pickett
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Djpickett
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 7:18 pm: |
|
Wouldn't be easier to use the extra ballots they always have on hand, premark them before the election, then substitute using the cut box method described previously? Just dispose of the real ballots in some convenient furnace? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 465
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Cut box method? |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 26
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 8:41 pm: |
|
BTW I have a friend that used to operate a small printing company. Believe me when I tell you that while those specs for paper ballot sound real technical to someone unfamiliar with the printing industry, I can sum it up by saying, there is nothing to it. Having the $500 set of films just saves time etching the plates that go into the offset printer, but its very common for people to come in and ask a printer to reproduce a job for them that they no longer have the source files for. Reverse engineering a paper ballot wouldn't take but a couple hours tops. Oh and one more bonus, even if you had something just a wee bit off... its a hand, not machine, recount.
P.S. it might be real interesting to find out what company(s) produce the next set of ballots for your local election and do a bit of dumpster diving. Knowing the printing business Id be willing to bet you would find hundreds perhaps thousands of extras out there. Those industrial presses can make hundreds of thousands of copies an hour so its not uncommon to run off several thousand perfectly good "test" copies while the press operator is checking equipment calibration in anticipation of the "production" run.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 21, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7761
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 9:27 pm: |
|
David,
Yes, but they didn't have generic ballots. Each ballot was marked with its town (not county, town). They had a high turnout and ran out of extra ballots, pressed some of the unused absentee ballots into service, ran out of those, xeroxed more ... certainly this would be the method of choice, but they also knew (Google Paddy Shaffer) that sooner or later someone might come looking for the uncast ballots, and the observers were asking to have them fanned out, shown to them, every 2 minutes it seemed. Often they refused, but lots of counters showed observers the uncast ballots anyway. They absolutely refused to count the uncast ballots.
But, bottom line, they didn't have enough uncast ballots and also it was being demanded of them that they account for the uncast ballots (although they never did). |
Del Argenti
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 135
Registered: 1-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 3:59 am: |
|
So there has never been an "accounting" for all blank paper ballots which were "printed," those consisting of extra ballots (absentee ballots) and xeroxed ballots which were unused and not needed, and which were considered uncast?
Is there an accounting for paper ballots which were considered uncast because they were "voided" at the precinct and voters obtained a second or third paper ballot due to the first (second) containing potential 'errors?" |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7763
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 6:53 am: |
|
Del: Deleted your post. Both here and at YouTube, I remove posts that could be construed to advocate violence. While yours was not advocacy per se, your observations could be interpreted as such by those who wish to investigate activists instead of election law violations by public officials. |
Del Argenti
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 137
Registered: 1-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 6:56 am: |
|
Right Bev. Questioning the real-life potential of use of flammable material in election tampering methods just can't be accomplished here, right. |
Jenny L. Hurley
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bolivar
Post Number: 61
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 9:02 am: |
|
I have not had the time to follow this link very much. So, this may have been addressed before.
But, Dan Rather had a video on HDNET months ago where he had people in Florida say that - I think it was in 2000 - in certain areas of FL - they changed the supplier of the paper and shorted the paper because they said the atmosphere would make it swell. I don't have time to try to find the video - I guess it was about six months ago.
thanks. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 28
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 9:32 am: |
|
Jenny here is the transcript of that show. http://www.hd.net/transcript.html?air_master_id=A4755 |
Jenny L. Hurley
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bolivar
Post Number: 62
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 10:24 am: |
|
Thanks Jon.
Jenny |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 466
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 10:28 am: |
|
A couple of things: we still don't know if Bev has received any ballot reconciliation info. I'd be interested in examining e.g. the audit trail for blank ballots, particularly what was shipped and received, the requests for additional ballots on election day and their ship/receive paperwork, and the ballots cast/leftover blanks/total photocopied ballots versus overall reconciliation of ballots sent/received by that town or jurisdiction. Also of interest would be the comparison of the time the order came in, was delivered on election day, with particular focus on long delays as they will tend to cause photocopies to be used and may then create an end-of-evening group of blank ballots that will be packed in with the cast ballots and sealed, so to speak.
However, ballot washing has distinct advantages over ballot switching in that the acquisition of large numbers of ballots is not needed to switch large numbers of votes. A complicating factor is that some towns may use types of pens that don't wash, in which case the unused ballots might have to be pressed into service. All ballot washing may not occur neatly, and spoiled oops ballots may occur. OOPs ballots and the original ballots that are being removed and substituted must be destroyed or discarded. The easiest way to do so is to overvote them, place a blank folded ballot on top of stack, refold and enclose in box with ballots. If ballots are not received or opened publicly, the opportunity to switch might occur. Old ballots of the same color from previous elections, if in stock, might be pressed into service to "pad" the "unused ballots" but this is risky.
In order to employ this method of discarding ballots, the ballots must reliably be unexamined in the counting room. They could be switched later if an accounting were required.
The above is a description of how a ballot washing operation might account for and handle certain types of ballots. NH law does not specify whether recounted ballots are stored in archives or returned to towns. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7764
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 10:34 am: |
|
Del, the post that I deleted had other implications, which will not be topics here. Discussion of the ballot tampering techniques per se is fine. |
Tom D'Ambrosio
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mugsy
Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 10:43 am: |
|
I've mentioned before but I don't think anyone picked up on it:
YOU DON'T NEED TO "WIPE/WASH" THE MARKED BALLOTS.
Those "security labels" they affix across the tops of the ballot boxes, whether they can be easily removed or not is irrelevant.
THEY ARE USING CARDBOARD BOXES, FOR CRISSAKES! Sealed with ordinary packing tape. What's to prevent someone from simply slitting them open from the bottom, emptying the contents, and swapping out the ballots with ones you marked yourself???
Wiping ballots and then filling them out takes TIME. Unless there is some sort of "tracking info" on each ballot that prevents them from being replaced, there is absolutely no need spend hours erasing and filling them back out again.
(Message edited by Mugsy on March 22, 2008)
-*- Mugsy -*-
|
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 29
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 11:05 am: |
|
Thats what Im saying Tom. And even if the ballots were numbered you would have to have someone there with a heck of a good memory to notice two duplicate ballot numbers in a pile of 10,000 or so.
If anyone is familiar with algebra and understands how one calculates out the combining of two batches with different concentration to yield a new batch with a new desired concentration... messing with the votes isn't very hard at all.
And by the way a portable printers scale is accurate enough that you could grab a handful of ballots, weigh them and know how many you had on the scale without even counting them.
So really to rig a paper recount all you would have to know is by what percentage the machine count had been tampered with, the official reporting of the vote count on the SOS website. A quick meeting in a secret location with someone that can provided you with a few boxes of ballots of a different vote concentration (BTW this means a mix with all the candidates names so its not obvious that by some strange coincidence 200 ballots in a row are marked for candidate X). Someone would of course have to do the math in advance so you knew how many original votes need to be replaced with new concentration of votes you have in your box. Weigh original votes to determine number in pile. Weigh out same amount of your "special" votes and swap. The hand recount is going to produce pretty close numbers and of course since the original votes aren't perfectly mixed its safe to assume you would get discrepancies like candidates picking up and loosing votes... even an extra vote or two not originally counted or perhaps a missing vote or two if your scale wasn't perfect or there was a misreporting of the total votes cast in the first place.
Just some food for thought.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 22, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7765
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 11:40 am: |
|
Tom,
You may need to wash the ballots if you don't have enough uncast ballots.
There was intense citizen scrutiny on the uncast ballots, and the town clerks had marked the number of those on the outside of the box. So, even though New Hampshire officials refused to count the uncast ballots, many of the counters took the uncast ballots and fanned through them out to show observers there were no marks on them. There were several counting teams. Risky to try to police them or force them not to do that.
Thus, it would be problematic to depend on using the uncast ballots. However, New Hampshire's refusal to do reconciliation is a red flag that ballot substitution could have taken place.
But add this to the mix. Very quickly they ascertained who we all were, and Paddy Shaffer in particular would have been a concern to them for any ballot substitution scheme. Shaffer assisted Richard Hayes Phillips doing groundbreaking work in Ohio examining all the ballots, cast and uncast, from the 2004 presidential election. Shaffer and Phillips stalked those ballots for two years, pouncing when the 22-month retention period expired and demanding to see both cast and uncast. And now, here Paddy Shaffer was in New Hampshire asking the same kinds of questions and doing the same kinds of public records requests.
If one were to substitute in uncast ballots, you still have the problem of what to do with the original ballots, especially knowing that someone as tenacious as Paddy Shaffer has already made two trips to New Hampshire looking into this very issue. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7766
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 11:53 am: |
|
quote:What's to prevent someone from simply slitting them open from the bottom, emptying the contents, and swapping out the ballots with ones you marked yourself
You have to have your own supply of blank ballots. The timing marks on the ballots bleed right out to the edge (actually, that's something I may want to take a closer look at). Most color laser printers will not print closer than 1/8" to the edge, at least, as far as I know.
HOWEVER: Interesting previously unrevealed point - The machine count ballots all had a colored banner header across the top, light blue for Dems, pink for Rep. Some of the Republican ballots had discrepancies in the shade of pink.
Now, the large offset printing houses like Capital Offset, which printed the NH ballots, use a computer-generated color mixer that is quite precise. It isn't like the old days when you get different "batches" of ink. The computer uses digital values in the image file and the color is going to be precise and consistent across batches. Has to be. Clients will shit a brick if the color is "off" on some parts of the print run.
But the color was clearly "off" on some batches of Republican ballots.
There was a reason that we asked for public records on all purchases of printers etc. We saw boxes for new printers in the hall at the archives building. Trying to simulate a color with an office color printer WILL give you variances. One point of interest will be to look at any new printers purchased and see the specs with regard to how close they can print those black timing marks to the edge of the paper.
Another point of interest will be to examing the video to see if any ballots have indented timing marks.
Lotta work, isn't it, if they didn't tamper with anything? But this is exactly the kind of problem that arises when chain of custody is broken, as it clearly was in New Hampshire. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 31
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 12:21 pm: |
|
So what are you saying here? Ballots were washed? Ballots were substituted? Do you think the election was rigged or just blundered? Where is the video of the ballots your talking about?
The difference between a ballot produced on a laser printer and an offset press is very obvious if you know what your looking at. Beyond just the fact you mentioned (a laser printer isnt always able to reproduce certain color shades that offset presses can)
The only thing that seems very clear is that the state of NH failed in a lot of ways to put the burden of proof of a fair election on itself.
BTW You cant print true edge to edge on an offset printer either... They trim the sheets to spec after the job is done. Well I guess it is possible if you want ink all over your drums and a huge quantity of ink spraying all over the equipment and ceiling when the press is running full speed  Lots of models of laser printers will print pretty darn close to the edge of a sheet. Heres just one example out there to consider.
http://www.office.xerox.com/printers/color-printers/phaser-780/spec-enus.html
Prints within .2 in. (5 mm) of top, bottom, left, and right edges on all papers (on Tabloid Plus bottom margin is 1 in. or 25mm).
Something to look into.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 22, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 467
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Bev Harris said: If one were to substitute in uncast ballots, you still have the problem of what to do with the original ballots, especially knowing that someone as tenacious as Paddy Shaffer has already made two trips to New Hampshire looking into this very issue.
***
I think massive washing is quite plausible. It has implications for vote conversion to/from straight party voting (PA's rules on how to count them -- see rules 9 through 11 as I recall), and the importance of no tissues in vote sorters' hands on election night (no pens is more obvious).
A quick look at a scanned Manchester sample ballot shows the ward number, meaning even when the candidates were identical statewide in the primary race, each ward had a unique ballot. That means if mass substitutions were necessary in many towns, multiple limited setups and runs of ballots would be needed to print ballots, plus the involvement of another person with specific skills -- a person who surely would be the subject of any investigation -- would have to be involved. For that reason, I reject the print more ballots hypothesis. Also requires a high level of skill and increases those aware of the operation.
Single race ballots are easier to switch out whole ballots than multi race ballots, because the underballot races' matching up is a problem (all that marking to be done). In multi race ballots, I would think ballot washing is preferable. I am pondering whether there are ways overvotes can become sources of new ballots. I don't think so in NH, and anyway, the total overvotes is an unreliable source of ballots. How NH spoils its ballots would be interesting to know. I am guessing they do a good job of it.
Do the same people deliver blank ballots to towns as picks up cast ballots? What checks and balances would an auditor insist on for this to occur? Who inventories the blank ballots at the state level? What does NH's RFP state should be done with the printer's test ballots and overruns? Inhouse printer or contracted out?
What is the significance on that NH form showing whether or not a special pen is needed for the machines? What form was that, by the way? Wonder if the pens used on infrared light reader type scanners are different in respect of solvents than the ones used on the visible light readers?
re: photocopying. On DFNH.org, an observer posted her experiences and mentioned a ballot thickness difference when observing the Democratic recount in its opening days. I followed up with her, she said she thought it likely that varying paper stocks were used for ballot printing. Someone else may have practical knowledge of how refined the thickness spec is and how often paper stocks are substituted when a particular stock is specified. One of our more technically oriented members said that machine calibration is based onthe specific ballot thickness. How much play can be involved, is not something I've heard discussed.
I am not altogether thrilled with placing unsealed blank ballots on election night with the also unsealed (in an envelope,e.g.) cast ballots when sealed on election night, as procedural guidelines I think call for in NH. It acts to create a source of ballots for changing. If ballots hypothetically were washed and smeared or somehow didn't wash right, there exist "spares". The discards can then be folded and sandwiched between blank as long as officials don't open the packets. No disposal issues like massive out and out switching -- federal election and 22 months' retention -- which brings us to a distinct advantage of recycled boxes.
NH is frugal. With a 22 month retention period on federal race ballots, tying up SOS-specified containers for elections could make elections a little more expensive. If towns used expensive containers for ballots, they'd want the containers back . There are two types of ballot retention, or so I am told: under seal, and just boxed storage. I see no reason to store ballots not under seal, but it appears such a distinction may exist..If that is true, then at the end of the sealed period, if you want those snazzy ballot containers back, the ballots must be re-boxed. What is the procedure-- are ballots put into another kind of container for post-challenge period retention? Recycled boxes make it unnecessary to do that pesky task of switching the boxes.
It makes ballots packed in recycled boxes on election night, recounted, and stored again in recycled boxes the electoral equivalent of putting radioactive waste in a mountain in Nevada. Untouched. No way does anyone have a reason to open those boxes.
As to needing more blank ballots, a possible source that might not be in the ballot reconciliation would be printer overruns, if the RFP doesn't specify they should be counted -- or data on how posession is taken of overruns -- might provide more insights on sources of blank ballots.
Photocopiers have a record of the things copied on them, don't they? Where is it stored? I thought you could go back and audit what was copied...anyone know?
Because it was reported numerous times in the news that towns were photocopying ballots on election night due to shortages, that would have been a good time to go to Kinko's with a hard luck story and make a few more ballots - or do it at an inside facility. Once everyone else has left, if your election night delivery duties are not over and you have to be around, I guess there's at least time to set up for potential ballot needs. If I were to show up at your polling place with loose ballots, say "that's all we have left", would that harried moderator or clerk do any research to find out if it were true? Do they know the total ordered by the state? How carefully are amounts noted with election day ballot deliveries? Are they counted while the delivery person waits?
LHS makes a timing mark template -- clear -- to place over ballots and determine if they're properly set up. There is no reason the use has to be limited to legitimate printers' QC.
In terms of the behavior of the timing marks, has anyone tried to feed a photocopied ballot (timing marks front/back) through an opscanner? Does it reject ballots with timing marks not bled to the edge? I think Xerox makes a color copier/printer that will bleed to the edges and it makes scary good replicas of signatures. I have copied signed letters and then been confused as to which was the original. I would NOT want anything but total control on who made what on a machine soaccurate and nuanced.
Scanner behavior vis a vis edgemarks matters only in that hand cast ballots should have been totalled separately in the original count and if the scanners can't read the edge marks if they're not bled, the hand count tally might be off -- it's a question to consider during a recount, observing and counting the off-edgemark ballots and ignoring the candidate count! just look for hand count reconciliation figure...
An amusing idea is the helpfulness of a properly programmed op scan to assist in getting the paper ballot count right. A hand counter seeing ballots arranged as if hand counted would notice. Also critical is how the ballots taken out of the box were divided up. Were they divided up in a way that would tend to minimize awareness of long runs of a particular ballot? If I divide a box (rather than having one team count one box), the impact would be lower. However, sort and stack would definitely be out. What about using a scanner in test mode -- would it show your running totals or just the currently cast ballot?
ALL of this points up the criticality of timely comparative data, and a reason for citizen to think through the wisdom of having recounts that are legally specified as "cast ballots only".
Serially producing facts about how an election was conducted over a period of time is NOT the same as "cards on the table up front".
The former may be an honest effort by humans whose election administration has never called for the requests being made of it. casting no asperstions, just thinkign skeptically, the act of repeatedly either refusing without explanation to show blank ballots or producing information only serially -- not all at once -- risks being seen as providing a patina of cooperation or compliance, but is somewhat like pulling a coin out of an audience member's ear.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 22, 2008) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7767
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 1:17 pm: |
|
quote:So what are you saying here? Ballots were washed? Ballots were substituted? Do you think the election was rigged or just blundered?
The working statement should be "We disclaim any opinion on the accuracy of the recount results."
Specific chain of custody breakdowns enabled either ballot substitution or ballot washing.
quote: Where is the video of the ballots your talking about?
Several of us have video that shows the color irregularities, part of the ballot counting anomalies collection, which isn't published yet.
quote:The difference between a ballot produced on a laser printer and an offset press is very obvious if you know what your looking at.
So what are the differences, in addition to color qualities?
quote:The only thing that seems very clear is that the state of NH failed in a lot of ways to put the burden of proof of a fair election on itself.
Not everything has been made public yet. There are active public records requests out, a pending hearing before the Ballot Law Commission, and other considerations. But there's more so far than just that. The State of New Hampshire has been caught in material lies, both on their denial that there are any records pertaining to the police dog assignment (within 2 hours of the YouTube video I received a call saying they are now going to look for some and that statement may have been in error), and regarding the bogus "can't go back there after 4:30" bit. And who was the woman Jeannie Dean's video caught laughing waaay back there inside the archives building around 7 p.m. on Jan. 24?
I still haven't gotten the keycard logs.
quote:BTW You cant print true edge to edge on an offset printer either... They trim the sheets to spec after the job is done.
True. But the ballot size appeared to be 8 1/2 by 14, which means that to get the timing marks to bleed off the edge, you'd need to print on slightly larger paper and trim them. Commercial printing houses do that all the time. Office printers need to be able to accept larger paper sizes, and there needs to be a way to trim the paper precisely, two extra factors when printing in house. Doable but extra time and complications.
quote: Lots of models of laser printers will print pretty darn close to the edge of a sheet.
We need to take a look at that, agreed. By the way, printing extras for the hand count ballots looks to be a piece of cake, since those seemed to be regular paper, pastel pink or pastel blue.
You know, even with the full force of law enforcement resources, which enable examination of bank records, warrants, etc., it generally takes more than 8 weeks to complete an investigation. We have not completed our evaluation of New Hampshire, and it's not because we aren't working our butts off.
Has anybody noticed that the citizenry is totally outgunned when trying to exercise meaningful oversight on elections? Especially when chain of custody breaks, as it did in New Hampshire, that opens up a LOT of new areas where inquiries need to be made.
On our massive budgets. With our huge staffs. We persevere.
 |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7768
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 1:22 pm: |
|
quote: go to Kinko's with a hard luck story and make a few more ballots
Well heck, you don't need a hard luck story. I happen to have gotten some TIF files for Diebold ballots in the haul I found on their FTP site a while back. We took them into Kinkos and had ballots printed for the tests we're doing. No one asked any questions.
Christine, that was a killer post, by the way. Having different town names (and wards) printed on the ballots significantly reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the opportunity for straight ballot substitution tactics.
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 468
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Thanks, Bev. You didn't see the outtakes!! Very very helpful to puzzle this through and think it out. I think it's worth pursuing the RFP for printing the ballots and identifying any procedures on overruns/test ballots. In the link above, they're returned uncounted to the requesting government body. And then??? Also, from the incompatible duties point of view, who delivers those blank ballots? And who collects those cast ballots? I'd look at that before printing. As noted, I accept it's possible but don't favor this idea -- printing involves another specialist, another level of skill and logistical pickup/turnaround time/drying/odor type questions imho. Delivery of printers is a bit sobering, though.
Possibley helpful is the inventory of photocopier types in archives and finding out how copying is controlled (do you need a code? insert a card? Not controlled? Are there operators who do the color work?)
The edge marks don't have to function -- photocopied ballots for a town just have to not be in the inventory for the town in the quantities observed. If they won't function and they are short and are not in the hand count seciton of the town's returns, that's interesting. Copied ballots would have to be two sided, don't forget, to create timing marks on both sides.
Ballot washing is low tech, allows for limited number of people involved, does requre a way to keep count of where you are (any tally sheets?). Sadly, it also requires knowing the real results versus publicly announced results.
Without a hack or substantive misrepresentation of election night count, there is NO plausiable reason for ballot washing here that I can think of.
THIS JUST IN- Can't I stop THINKING ABOUT THIS??? I HAVE WORK TO DO!!!
Look at the linked RFP above from a town someplace else. As pointed out in a post above, the ballots are mocked up. Who mocks up the towns' ballots -- the town or the state?
If the state orders the ballots, the ballot mockups (whatever you call them ) are already prepared and in possession of the state. A printer that enables you to pull them up and produce them involves no setup work then, right?
An online ballot mockup sent to the laser or inhouse (offset??) printer?
|
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 2:18 pm: |
|
"If the state orders the ballots, the ballot mockups (whatever you call them ) are already prepared and in possession of the state. A printer that enables you to pull them up and produce them involves no setup work then, right?"
BINGO!!!
Ive been trying to hammer that point in now for a while. Check the RFP the printer is provided with the layout in most instances. The list of candidates and the order in which they appear on the ballot isnt decided by the printer. So YES if you could obtain that file you have everything you need to make you own set of blank ballots.
Id be willing to bet that if you emailed a city clerk as Joe Blows printing interested in submitting a bid for printing ballots you could ask for the exact ballot layout and they would send it to you via email.
People counterfeit money in their basement with off the shelf equipment and thats a heck of a lot harder to do that printing a 2 color ballot on 100lb stock.
Maybe I just know too much about the printing industry, but its so much easier than you might like to think to cook up your own set of swappable ballots.
BTW have a look here http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/bfs/612592509.html
Thats a 2 color offset press that would fit in your garage and would be more than capable of producing ballots that only an expert could distinguish. $2000.00, couple hundred bucks worth of paper you can buy right off the internet, the proper layout (which isnt a mystery to anyone that knows how to run such a press) and wa-la as many blank ballots as you could fit in the back of a green Jeep. I have NO doubt that washing a ballot is possible, I guess if I were involved in such a thing Id take the easier route and make fresh ones. All it would take is someone noticing a poorly washed ballot and your busted. My method would be almost impossible to detect.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 22, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 34
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 2:52 pm: |
|
"We have not completed our evaluation of New Hampshire, and it's not because we aren't working our butts off."
Bev I dont doubt that for a second and I applaud all that your doing. I'm just tossing a bit of info out there to add to the collective knowledge base |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 471
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 3:39 pm: |
|
The list of candidates and the order in which they appear on the ballot isnt decided by the printer. So YES if you could obtain that file you have everything you need to make you own set of blank ballots.
Jon Evans, I absolutely love it when someone stops by to share specific info about a field that sheds light on the issue from a new perspective -- thanks!
My method would be almost impossible to detect -- Method of payment?
See how this strikes you -- something different about this year's primary in NH than in the past. Ballot order. I've read that in the past, ballot order was randomized to prevent the supposed advantage/disadvantages of certain ballot positioning. The idea is that if Joe Schmoe is #1 in Manchester but #4 in Concord, it all comes out in the, er... wash.
But this year, for I believe no explained reason, there was no randomizing of ballot order from town to town.
Does it make a difference in printing? Potential ease/difficulty of ballot sorting/counting /washing logistics? Who decided, when, and for what stated reason?
What is the impact of having town names on every little entity, compared to just one name on the whole ballot?
QUESTION for Bev: who prepares the ballot RFP/specs for printing - town clerk? SOS employee? To whom are they sent and copied? Do they all go to the same printer/s? Is a security procedure in the RFP to the printer? If ballot mockup sent internally, does anything prevent their being forwarded, viewed on a departmentally shared computer or accessed on a group server location?)
I await the judgment on whether it is easier to print and fill out ballots than ballot wash. It's not only what is "easier," it is what is easier given the skillsets of those who have the necessarily "ballot access," to ironically flip a term's meaning, without getting a symphony orchestra involved.
I think it remains to be seen. It is possible that someone would use printing only 1) if there was no access to uninventoried blanks, either because person had no key card access to the ballots/couldn't get at the overruns, or they just didn't exist, or 2)person ran out of blanks enclosed with the ballots in the sealed election documents and still had to change more votes.
Is there a voting machine owned by the state for "voter education and school children's training"? Just thinking about whether any counting would be necessary.
Tom D'A's point about ballot washing versus bottom of boxes is, of course possible. As someone who has prepared her share of documents for production, I'd take ballot washing anyday. Time per ballot to print, mark, destroy original, etc. is much higher than washing a ballot, imho.
There is no reason, however, to assume it's an either/or proposition. Small numbers of ballots in small towns are easier to ballot wash than redo ballots, no? I don't think you can rule out the logistical difficulties of disposing of the ballots. they MIGHT be able to be falsely labeled and put into the archives for scheduled destruction as -- just like they said to Walter Reddy -- "these are documents. We are an archive and we store documents." Can ballots be entered into the computer without someone examining them, identifying contents, labeling, etc? How would that work? Recycle boxes of documents marked for destruction?
Some states have laws forbidding looking at sealed ballots at time of destruction. Can somebody think what the logic is for that? I can only come up with "let sleeping dogs lie."
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 22, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 22, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 35
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 4:11 pm: |
|
"I've read that in the past, ballot order was randomized to prevent the supposed advantage/disadvantages of certain ballot positioning. The idea is that if Joe Schmoe is #1 in Manchester but #4 in Concord, it all comes out in the, er... wash."
That strikes me as VERY suspicious. If I were a candidate on a ballot I'd use the same cover story, that being along the lines of I want to "prevent the supposed advantage/disadvantages of certain ballot positioning" but what I'd really be thinking is I don't trust that the counting machines aren't rigged, therefore I want my name in different spots in different locations. Just in case position #2 on the ballot has that "Scanner Flu". Would you sit down at a real money poker table and play a hand if the dealer refused to shuffle the cards before the deal? I hope not!
Yes having different ballots in different towns would make it harder. Besides the extra time in printing a bunch of versions of the ballots you also have to be sure that your "stuff man" doesn't mess up and put the wrong towns in the wrong boxes.
One other thing to consider is just how few machines you would actually have to rig to throw and election one way or the other. These elections are won and lost by thousands, not millions of votes. A few thousand ballots aren't that many boxes. Ever stop to think that the switched out ballots could be hidden right in plain sight? I mean your sitting in a document archive. Who's to say the swapped out ballots aren't just sitting in a box on the other side of the warehouse marked "Town Meeting"? You really have no idea when your dealing with torn cardboard boxes and post-it note "seals".
One crooked card programmer, a remote barn with a press, find yourself a "stuff man" and your set. I realize it seems there would have to be a heck of a lot of people involved, but I'm trying to make the argument that just a small handful of people could rig an election with such sloppy procedures in place.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 22, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 472
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 5:50 pm: |
|
One other thing to consider is just how few machines you would actually have to rig to throw and election one way or the other.
Should we make a single hypothesis that the point is to throw the election? Anytime a machine is rigged, unless you know the actual, custody-controlled ballots, it's hard to know what happened and why.
The questions might be: Who wins? Who loses? By how much? With the votes from whom? e.g. sub-hypothesis: the point might have been not so much changing who won, but changing the amount by which the losers didn't win. NH is rhetorically used to build a narrative about who has a chance to win, and when citizens have barely had a chance to start voting, the candidates are dropping like flies, purportedly "because of Iowa/NH." Therefore, someone who is strong but not a winner in NH may get contributors to help him/her continue, someone who barely wins may lose support, and someone who is caused to make a bare showing can help make the case that the nation isn't ready for their ideas, doesn't like their age/sex/religion, etc. the ballots provide fodder for the narrative, far more than the value of a small states delegates. IMHO, anyhow. This is to broaden the definition/offer other considerations re: "adjust the totals". Not attached to any of it -- food for thought.
These elections are won and lost by thousands, not millions of votes. A few thousand ballots aren't that many boxes.
Don't forget, the individual towns' results are in and each towns ballots are counted as an integrated whole. It's not just about switching ballots -- the right ballots would have to be switched. I have seen a case where counts involved aggregate numbers, but this is not one of them. It's the sum of many individual parts.
Ever stop to think that the switched out ballots could be hidden right in plain sight?
Yes. See above.
I mean your sitting in a document archive. Who's to say the swapped out ballots aren't just sitting in a box on the other side of the warehouse marked "Town Meeting"?
Indeed.
One crooked card programmer, a remote barn with a press, find yourself a "stuff man" and your set. I realize it seems there would have to be a heck of a lot of people involved, but I'm trying to make the argument that just a small handful of people could rig an election with such sloppy procedures in place.
A ballot washing operation requires no barn, though the archives are somewhat barnlike. A programmer or at very least a requires a "machine tape" result printout that alleges what the total of ballots and matches the voter turnout. (food for thought but problematic in this particular application of that idea). The printout must look authentic and be signed by local officials, if officials are unaware of any "adjustments".
I think programming is more reliable, because social engineering would be needed to switch out "tapes".
There may or may not be a programmer involved. For an election to be rigged statewide on the machines, sure seems like a programmer would be involved. For an election result to be rigged in a few towns, a programmer could be involved, but an alternative would be to find out what supervisory functions and capabioities were specified in NH's voting machines, and whether the individual towns have different specs or there is a statewide spec. Towns make the decision to go with voting machines at different times, so could different towns e.g. have different supervisory functions and capabilities that would provide local control? NH has an SOS who I think is not computer literate in terms of his own usage, according to other posts here (people print his email for him, etc.). Is this something he has delegated to others? Is it possible that "for good or for gambit" is in the eye of the advanced function beholder?
Small towns don't always have dedicated storage for voting machines. It may be lock and key access. Other supplies and equipment might be in the same room. In situations like that, someone who used to work for a voting machine company but now does some other job that requires visiting these storage spaces may gain sufficient access.
People usually think about rigging an election, but what about rigging the opportunity to rig the election? For people familiar with the tech end of things, who would have enough access to cause a certain problem to occur in response e.g. to running a test deck? Would that be resident on firmware or memory card? Would GEMS be necessary to put it in place?
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 22, 2008) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4810
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 4:31 am: |
|
Re: your question, is the point to throw an election?
As you point out, the point in NH is likely to be, at least in part, to shape the national narrative about various candidates (or, as I've said elsewhere, to reduce the likelihood of some candidates' voices being heard effectively).
Additionally, in the recent NH recount--AS WITH THE PREVIOUS NH RECOUNT--there may also be the purpose of creating a narrative about the accuracy of certain counting methods or equipment. This would ensure its continued takeup or ongoing use in NH and elsewhere. (Ironic if this was the case, since hand counts were more accurate--but I don't think that message has reached John Q Public. But it may be enough to say "we did a recount and none of the winners changed and the only errors were human errors, not the fault of the machines".)
Maybe also there was the third-level goal of continuing the narrative of "NH government and administration are upstanding and trustworthy and don't you DARE ask questions".
IOW, it may not be only about the strategic positioning of candidates, though that is the most obvious goal.
I wish there were a do-gooder somewhere in the NH SoS office who would drop us some hints about what was going on and why. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 474
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Catherine, I think your points are completely on the money. The use of the possibilities at this time is just a caveat not to get painted into a corner about what exactly modifying the results of an election might look like. Thie third level one is oddly the most difficult to rig. Why? BECAUSE -- you don't know the right answer toward which you are fixing votes and must run them all through again to find out what you are/might be dealing with. If e.g. the machines tended to produce bad results and you didn't want the results questioned, you'd have to have a way to get the ballot count and adjust it so the machines looked good and/or hand counting looked bad.
You could easily fix votes to make hand counting look bad imho. NOT easy to take machine counts and fix without rerunning and being sure your number is accurate.
That is my reason for tentatively ruling out the third level hypothesis at this time. The only one under which I can see you could justify mass ballot washing is in a fixed election with known or highly well estimated outcome from the fix. Totally open to others' ideas; that's my take at present.
A couple of other quick points before I do other things: the subject of mismatched ballots (red on GOP ballots not the same.)
First, I wondered if it could occur due to colorblindness, but then realized not. The attached link below shows a neat graphic showing how a color blind person could misperceive actual ballot colors. HOWEVER, that only means if asked to verbally describe the color, they'd get it wrong -- they would still I think perceive that the two colors didn't match, but not be able to correctly describe the color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#Classification_of_color_deficiencie s
Other sources of technical "color blindness" and their impacts:
1. the reason LHS specifies particular pantone colors is probably related to the light reader and preventing readable graphics from appearing in areas of the ballot where they may be interpreted as votes. Therefore, if the two colors of GOP ballots (top part) are identifiable by their pantone color number, the question is: 1) were they presented as machine cast ballots, and 2) if so, would two ballots, each color matched to the two GOP colors, scan properly or not? If not - but they were supposedly machine cast -- then unless the light reader is different on the town's scanner and they could get a different result, it would tend not to confirm the assertion that "these are machine cast ballots". You might have to back into the conclusion of hand vs. machine cast by counting the anomalously colored ballots and any obviously hand counted ballots (are they sealed separately??? or loose with cast ballots?), but it could be a useful detail down the line.
Other forms of color blindness - incorrectly calibrated screen on a computer for setting up ballot printing. (Help me out here, printing experts!) That is, I try to visually match a ballot in hand with the screen, and I'm using a program that doesn't let me select pantone colors. the screen looks like the shade of red/pink on the ballot, but the printed ballot doesn't. Don't have time or ability to fix it? Don't have enough gradation of color to match it?
Finally, innocent explanations for color mismatches please? Running out of a particular ink? Early/late in a run? Printer not calibrated well? TEST BALLOTS REJECTED BY PRINTER BUT SENT TO SOS PER RFP REQUIREMENTS, then pressed into service either legitimately because town ran out of ballots/high voter turnout, or because fixers ran out of ballots?
DOCUMENT RETENTION: Suggest someone clarify the NH statutes for time ballots must remain under seal for local/state/federal elections, and make a little table to show when they will be coming out of seal. What is procedure for retention? What is retained by towns; what is forwarded to state archives and when? What is the law regarding destruction of the ballots (e.g. does the town have to view before okaying destruction, is it forbidden from viewing etc.?)
then go back through last 2 years or so of elections and figure out sealed retention, transfer to archives, and total retention dates. This just would be interesting to know in terms of stuff not yet out of seal but out of seal very soon -- or stuff just out of seal.
Let's take the case that Archives employees were telling the truth and the boxes that came in were NOT 2/5 election ballots, but archives docs. If that is the case, then how did the same boxes show up for election documents?
IF THEY WERE ARCHIVES DOCUMENTS, what is the intake procedure? the document delivery logs for that day should prove/disprove what was delivered. Further, if archives documents, who does the intake on them, when and how? Those documents should show a similar number of boxes as "intake" on the next day or so, no?
Has anyone checked to see what is actually in those boxes for intake on the day after delivery?
Just a thought as to whether ballots might be stored in differently marked boxes.
I don't know enough about how the archives inventory/audit procedure works. A good area to research and understand.
The condition in which ballots are stored by the state (they otherwise hugely emphasize using acid free paper for multi-decade storage and are very aware of proper materials for archiving) -- who is incharge of entering new docs, pulling docs up for destruction and reviewing? What is method of destruction? e.g. outside supplier who handles? Who is involved in this process - is anything delivered to said supplier or pickup? is their a log of what was destroyed or taken for destruction?
Given the power of excellent quality color copiers to produce signature images brilliantly, a package of peelable avery labels that can run through a laser printer or copier PLUS a previous label could be used to create a new label. Take the old signatures, copy onto a document, trim edges and take copy/paste onto a printed out label text mockup so you get a label with new dates, old signatures -- and you can make a new label. It is a labor intensive process and requires someone adept at office work imho to do many of these with any facility.
So, to be clear, I make no assertions any of this stuff occurred. The means of using old labels available in a document archives to produce new ones theoretically could exist in a buliding where access to old labels, new label stock, a quality color copier existed, and would require someone adept at mocking up/using the copier adjustments to get a clean, flawless copy in the right orientation on the label stock.
Back to the archived documents. When you make the table/cheat sheet of what documents might be due either to be sent to archives or released for destruction, it does raise the question that a skeptical au dience member would consider re; a magician -- as to exactly what type of document you were witnessing coming into the archives, and what you were witnessing being counted after a period of being out of your sight. Were you definitely witnessing 2/5 election docs? Was any of it ballots from past elections due to be archived? Just thinking how extra boxes come to be floating around with old labels on them.
Old boxes of ballots coming out of retention periods may match the colors of new ballots-- could they have any use?
Would there ever be a test run of paper ballots JUST to get the top strip color right? The color interacts with the ballot color. Such test docs might be used to then print ballots on another machine.
What is the value of creating this ballot washing hypothetical scenario, I have to ask? Real people have real jobs and even the hypothetical discussion of possible wrongdoing has an impact.
So I have to go back and rethink what I've written to make sure that -- separate and apart from any real, imagined, proven or unproven gambit or wrongdoing, the take home lesson for ALL states and locations running election is:
"It's 10 PM. Do you know where your ballots are?"
In other words, CHECK YOUR ELECTION ADMINISTRATION. What are specific areas that need to be examined? This exercise is like a hypothetical election administration red team exercise -- more should be done to kick the tires not just on fancy computer hacking gambits, but run of the mill opportunities created to support ballot switching as a result of such hacking possibilities.
You can fix the election, but if you can't fix the ballots, the fix can be detected. More focus on securing the ballots, people????
Less use of broom closets? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 476
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Answering my own question below, but first -- anybody working in an archive who is reading this hypothetical, what are your procedures that would prevent such a hypothesis from occurring? Do you see areas to tighten up? Although it's easy to conclude that these issues pertain to statewide or countywide central counts, think again: how many small towns with limited storage may store some or all of these items in the same storage, or using same access key: blank ballots in same area with machines, cast ballots, retained ballots and even pens?
If old ballots about to be destroyed match color of newly discarded/spoiled replacement ballots. they could be sandwiched into box of to-be-discarded old ballots. Too many ballots in box now? Possible solution: Old ballots could be put in recycled box with old label of ballots about to be destroyed, and later placed in an area where they will be "discovered not to have been destroyed".
Ballots/documents up for destruction are no longer "hot". No one is looking for them, challenging them, public is unaware of them and if a mistake is made as to what is in the box, it's unclear to me if it will be seen as an issue or a strange but easily dismissed occurrence.
The recycled boxes with multiple labels in which ballots arrived may also help create helpful chaos/confusion. "You grabbed the wrong boxes, idiot!" (No, I did not.)
If a person in a document archiving center wanted to dispose of evidence of ballot washing or switching, what conditions would be necessary in order to exchange spoiled washed ballots or discarded original-but-replaced ballots for previously cast ballots/races in same town?
1. Ballot colors would have to match
2. Review of documents in boxes prior to disposal would have to be cursory, or engineerable such that ballots deep in the box would not be reviewed - just top paperwork and top few ballots
3. Helpful if there is already a certain amount of mistakes/"background noise" that will be translated as "what did those idiots do this time? Sheesh"
4. When docs out of sealed retention, penalties for problems probably much less
5. Yet another reason for using peelable "seals".
6. Person who wants to dispose of ballots must know retention/destruction schedule, have access to items to be destroyed (moving boxes in warehouse; transporting to destruction facility; doing actual destroying; or possibly someone who can input document records or content of boxes, schedule for destruction, or input that they have been destroyed.
When ballots are transported to archives for recount and documentation taken out of boxes, are there envelopes of spoiled ballots? Is any documentation replaced in ballot boxes or is it kept separate? Could a recount-level spoiled ballot destruction procedure leave loopholes that could allow inclusion of other ballots without detection?
What could be changed about procedures to make this impossible to do?
Example: Look at ballot handling assignments -- who orders, receives, transports/delivers, handles movement of old ballots in archives, schedules for destruction, pulls boxes to be destroyed? Are meaningful dual controls in place (double signatures)? Are there sub-areas of archives that prevent access to ballots that are out of seal during recounts? Are e.g. copiers/printers in lockdown or highly controlled use from election through end of challenge period? Are they controlled by passwords or key cards? When blank ballots are shipped, are receiving slips checked carefully to make sure they tally? How are overruns and test ballots handled? Who handles them? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 479
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 4:15 am: |
|
Wow. Apparently because of the need to be able to detect people who use copiers to counterfeit money, it is now possible to identify the sources of photocopies.
Photocopied ballots could be checked against the reported place of copying. Location of copying/type of copier should be noted in the election day documentation when running out of ballots has occurred? That would help prevent subsequent substitution of photocopied ballots.
Listen to this quick video to discover exactly how it is possible to find out where a copy was made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTGHV6ZvH64
Color matching and the problems with color matching are also discussed as relates to counterfeiting money. If the ballot colors used are Pantone colors used only on ballots, then a mismatch would be explainable (I doubt this is the case, but is food for regulatory thought).
This further link describes the forensic ability to compare photocopies to determine if they have a common source, or to identify the source of a particular photocopy.
http://www.dps.state.ms.us/dps/dps.nsf/divpages/cl2qd?OpenDocument
As a practical matter, probably a judge would have to order such a comparison, as the access to ballots to make such a comparison would not occur due to laws about unsealing ballots and the inability of an observer to touch a ballot in a recount. (HOWEVER, if, armed with a magnifying glass, an observer were to be able to identify characteristic marks, he/she might be able to challenge a ballot's authenticity. Now THAT would be a new wrinkle on challenging votes/ballots.)
While we're at it, remember those official "seals" on the boxes of ballots that no one wanted activists to touch or try to peel? And remember how some people criticized Bev Harris for not pushing down harder on the label she tested to see if it would stick?
We can clarify that there exist labels that -- if Bev were to have pushed down harder on them - would stick well, but equally would peel off well.
Here is an example of ONE product described this way that is manufactured by Avery:
http://www.shoplet.com/office/db/g21103.html
Would you have any doubt in your mind what you were ordering if you read this description of the product?
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 24, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 24, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 24, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 24, 2008) |
Del Argenti
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 138
Registered: 1-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 7:23 am: |
|
Bev. I was attempting to comment on aspects of your initial post.
We believe it is possible to undetectably alter thousands of paper ballots, using a technique known as "check washing." This would require applicator bottles (for ballot alteration in a vehicle during transport), paper towels, and in central ballot storage locations, for large quantities, cans of odorless paint thinner, denatured alcohol, or acetone. Our upcoming tests will show if our theory is correct, whether it can be done in a van, how many ballots can be done per hour, whether the special "AccuVote marking pens" sold by LHS Associates and Diebold (Premier) are easier to "wash" for remarking...
Maybe our theory of a crime won't work. We'll see. (Bev Harris)
Now one can "theorize" all one wants, but during the theorizing life and limb and bodily harm are not risked. Meanwhile, during a real-life re-enactment, the real potential exists for damage to such.
Maybe my post was in a 'mocking' style. Should such a methodology to tamper with and alter a national election occur in real-life and 'something go terribly wrong,' I proposed speculatively that a cover-up on the part of conspirators would result. Meanwhile, I suggested in the post it's doubtful an expose of an altered election (using the washing methodology) would ever occur precisely because a planned cover-up would successfully cover and not expose the reason for the word we cannot use here.
It seems to me that other methods for ballot tampering are worth more of our collective time than the 'check washing.'
Those include simply allowing the names of deceased persons to remain on voter registration rolls, and other inherent enticements to election and vote fraud, such as same-day voter registration.
I fail to see how a full fledged test of the initial theory of `check-washing' can in actuality take place in any enclosed space - that being a mock 'transport van,' complete with the materials you yourself note would be utilized.
But I await this week's (or whenever's) report of BBV developments.
(Message edited by truthnet on March 24, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 482
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 8:23 am: |
|
Those include simply allowing the names of deceased persons to remain on voter registration rolls, and other inherent enticements to election and vote fraud, such as same-day voter registration.
Del, I hope you will pursue your idea as it is an important area, and one person working on donations can only accomplish so much, so fast. If poll lists from NH are FOIAable, why not pick a town, get a list, and start googling vital information stats to see e.g. if you come up with voters who live in MA as well as resort communities in NH, or death notices of people nonetheless on the voter rolls?
If one wishes to have "record turnout" with which to stuff the ballot box, step one is to have dead people vote (or vacation home owners who like having NH for the tax status it provides), isn't it? Perfectly valid point.
Lack of discussion of point doesn't equal dismissal of it. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2134
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 7:35 am: |
|
Christine,
Depending on state law, it is possible to have people on the rolls who "everyone knows has died", or "everyone knows has moved away" and there is still no legal way to get that voter's name removed from the rolls.
Even when a family member is involved, such as an ex-spouse, the voter's name cannot be removed.
My own example is exactly that. I was divorced fairly recently. My ex-wife has moved to Alabama. She remains on the voter rolls in the precinct where we used to live, here in PA.
Until and unless she re-registers in Alabama, which she has not done (we are still in frequent contact and still good friends), she cannot be removed from the rolls in Pennsylvania. Only after she goes 5 years without voting here will she get a "5-Year, No Contact" mailing from the registrar's office, at which time they will get the notice returned as undeliverable, and she will then go on "Inactive" status. She will then remain on the rolls for two more federal elections, after which she can then be purged.
Now imagine the case if she had died out of state. There is no hope she could ever re-register, and get notified by Alabama to Pennsylvania. And there is no interstate notification of deaths to registrars' offices.
There is so much "dead wood", some of it alomost literal, in voter rolls.
And all of it was caused by the NVRA of 1993, the federal Motor Voter law.
When she re-registers in Alabama, as she plans to do soon, the county in Alabama will notify their SoS office that she is an out-of-state transfer, who will notify Pennsylvania, who will notify my county. That is IF she puts on her registration form that she was previously registered in PA. If she does not, her name could be on our rolls for almost 9 years.
Unintended consequences of virtuous sounding laws.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 491
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 10:49 am: |
|
Coming back to the case of NH, I believe there is no income tax there. Thus, if possible to work in Boston, have a "weekend home" in MA, and a principle address in NH, there could be a lot of people voting in NH at addresses that by the NH laws would NOT be primary residences -- but someone has to challenge those voters, don't they?
Is the challenge the only remedy to this fact? It is indeed a labor intensive remedy.
Wonder if "motor voter" could do notices to SOS's of drivers' license changes? If so, is the problem that the 5 years of no contact is the ONLY means to trigger an inquiry by the SOS?
I have received mailings to confirm my address on several occasions from our ROVs, and I have been regularly voting so am not a 5 year no contact type of person. PA and CT apparently don't have identical laws. I wonder if any state is innovating in how to keep the roles updated? Vital statistics should be referring info to SOS, shouldn't it?
It is striking how each individual area related to election administration has its own set of considerations, standards, and issues to examine in order to have a clue as to how that particular subject area works. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2136
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 11:25 am: |
|
Christine,
No, you're half right. Intra-state driver's license changes ARE reported to registrars and lead to nearly automatic voter registration changes. Inter-state license changes are typically not.
In addition to these techniques, states also typically use the postal service's "Change of Address" system to update registrations. Again, that is limited to intrastate changes, usually.
The NVRA of 1993 helped get people re-registered a great deal when moving intrastate. Interstate changes are still a mess.
That's why there are so many duplicates across state lines. The new statewide registration systems are cleaning up intrastate duplicates. One sticking problem is marriage changes of name.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 492
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 11:43 am: |
|
One sticking problem is marriage changes of name.
Didn't someone also mention how the problem is intensified when the person is from a country or culture where the naming traditions are not understood in the USA? For example "last name, first name" as the way the name is written, or Hispanic naming which is different, I think for mother/father/child in same family.
What is your proposal, Kurt, for fixing the mess?
Sounds like NH probably had a built-in fudge factor for ballot box stuffing -perhaps totally legal FF - that would be expensive to vet name by name, but easy to commit the sin of commission -- voting at your summer place, not your home where you never bothered to register. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2137
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 1:09 pm: |
|
All correct, Christine.
There are no easy answers. I know that the legislators in my state would absolutely love to go back to the old rules where everyone who didn't vote for 2 years got automatically purged.
In fact, it is still in Pennsylvania law that each year the Secretary of the Commonwealth must certify to the legislature that the prohibitions on such purges are still in federal law. If he doesn't certify that fact, the biennial purge automatically gets reinstituted in PA.
That's how much contempt the PA legislature holds that section of the NVRA in, not to unduly dangle a preposition.
The technique that counties are supposed to use to detect "change of last name" dupes is to do a "first name and DOB match" occasionally. If addresses duplicate in that report, you can find some of thise dupes. If they move at the same time they re-register with a name change, you're theoretically supposed to check signatures for a plausible match.
Somehow that never seems to get to the top of the priority pile.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Karen Nelson
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kankan
Post Number: 8
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 2:02 pm: |
|
I gave up on reading all the posts, so please ignore if redundant or if irrevelant:
For the identifying laser printer "ballots" vs commerically printed ballots, I would imagine any good printer or detailed oriented graphic designer could tell you what to look for in differences, but I believe I have heard graphic designers say laser printers have gotten good enough that its now hard to distinguish real commercial printing from a laser print(with a naked eye at least)....
But to my main point: many color printers have a secret code of dots that print on all prints. To those who know the code, it tells them the date and time of print and SERIAL NUMBER of laser printer. The US Secret Service apparently struck some deal with printer manufacturers to get this code in the prints, apparently to stop counterfeiting but I am sure FBI and the like, would like to be able to track documents for all kinds of investigations.
see link
www.eff.org/press/archives/2005/10/16
The point is, if laser printed "ballots" are suspected, this code might be used by investigators to identify the exact printer used.
However, since this code was "outed" in 2005 by EFF, there may be some new code in printers made in 2006 forward, still, fed investigators would know about it. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 494
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Thanks, Karen, that had been suggested but the precise mechanism had not. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 42
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 5:42 pm: |
|
You could easily identify laser printed copies with a 10x printers loupe.
Offset printing uses ink applied to the paper with a metal plate. Laser printing is a colored toner fused (melted) into the paper. Think of it as the difference between painting a wall red and wallpapering it red. From a distance its hard to tell, but up close its pretty obvious. I am curious about the color differences reported on some of the ballots. If the difference was in the paper color, that's not really all that unusual (also not unusual for different lots of 100lb paper to seem thicker or thiner as some reported) but if the color difference is in the actual printing, well thats a bit odd. There are reasonable explanations, but its difficult to assess without actual samples to look at.
P.S. I once read that some agency? in the US Government looks at all color printing devices and forces the manufactures to make adjustments to how they print certain colors of green. Reason is obvious. Ill have to look into that again. It might yield more clues about tracing a print back to its source.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 25, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 497
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Jon, sounds like a 10x printers loupe should now be standard equipment for recounts! (grin).
What is the process for color adjustment on colored paper and the interaction btwn ink and paper? Does it require test copies to get it right? Any chance the discrepancy could originate from the use of ballots originating from test copies?
The ability to produce a full range of pantone colors would seem pretty high end for printers. How about for copiers/laser printers? Does anyone offer the ability to reproduce colors with that level of specificity? On e.g. a laser printer using Power Point, I have a limit as to how much color sophistication I can produce.
FWIW. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2139
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 5:55 am: |
|
Wait, I'm confused. In my county, all of our legitimate paper ballots (absentee and provisional) were actually printed on a Postscript laser printer.
We used no commercial offset printers.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 43
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 7:21 am: |
|
Its interesting that if you pull a dollar bill out of your wallet you'll discover that the Treasury Department has gone to extreme lengths to make sure that you cant reproduce their paper. Yet the paper that can put you in a position to spend the Treasury Department's paper has almost no security features what so ever.
Thats defiantly something that should be looked into in this day and age of high speed, low cost and easily obtainable printing equipment.
infrared ink... micro printing... watermarked paper... Just a few of the many simple and inexpensive measures that could be used to make it more difficult for would be ballot box stuffers.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 26, 2008) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2141
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 8:21 am: |
|
Any idea what paper ballot elections would cost if we would used Crane & Co. paper stock and Dept. of the Treasury conterfeit protection methods?
We might find DRE service contracts downright affordable.
There's a huge difference between currency and ballots. Currency printing can and does take as long as it needs to take. Ballot printing deadlines are sometimes measured in single digits of days. Ballots are sometimes changed by judicial action 8 days before an election is held. [Pennsylvania Primary, May 2001 - a statewide candidate was thrown off the ballot by the Supreme Court 8 days before the primary.] Another example, Pennsylvania 2004 General Election - Nader disqualified less than three weeks before the election. (Actually, darn close to two weeks.)
How do you turn around ballots soon enough with all these currency-style requirements?
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 502
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 9:28 am: |
|
What about microprinting? Is it necessarily expensive?
http://www.printegra.com/microPrint.aspx
It could be part of ballot examination first when ballots were received from printer, and then in an audit or recount. While the microprinting would disappear on legitimately copied ballots (where permissible due to running out of ballots), wouldn't many copiers already have some kind of similar unique signature that they embed into the copied document?
On moderator's return paperwork, write the serial number of the copier used to make the ballots and tell its location. Corroboration would be possible as to source of ballots.
Looking further on the same website, I see that they have a security feature called "bleach brownstain" and also "solvent eradicator reaction". Not sure if that is to remove evidence of solvent use (what is long term effect of solvent on the paper? Does it degrade it or change color in any way?)
Therefore, I would suggest to Bev as a second step in the experiments she is doing, the possibility of finding out a chemical that would create a reaction when solvent is present in the paper, and would not create one when absent?
I may have misunderstood the phrase, which you can see at link below in lower right hand corner.
http://www.printegra.com/securityPapers.aspx
Of course none of this has any use if basic security of ballots is lax. The security paper of ballots has to be a fraud detectable type of paper or ballot printing technique that is nested into the storage/control/inventory/chain of custody stipulations/practices.
Identifying gambits does no good if ballots and machines are stored in a broom closet or general access storage area.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 26, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 26, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 44
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 5 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 10:12 am: |
|
"Any idea what paper ballot elections would cost if we would used Crane & Co. paper stock and Dept. of the Treasury conterfeit protection methods?"
Hey Kurt, I wasn't suggesting those methods, nor do I want to take a guess at what it would cost. Lets just assume more expensive than most people would be willing to pay.
I used the money example to illustrate one extreme of the spectrum. What I was suggesting are low cost methods to at least prevent someone from going to the local laundry mat copier or their own personal laser printer.
Now I do realize ballots are typically numbered with a detachable matching number that is stored separately for auditing purposes. Im just wondering if anyone actually matches up every single tab with every single ballot in a recount. Somehow I doubt that very seriously. So the numbering idea really doesn't prove the ballots being recounted are the same ballots, at best if someone counts all the tabs and compares it to the number of recounted ballots you can say you have the same number of ballots in the recount as the number of ballots that were originally cast. You cant say for certain the recounted ballots are the original ballots without matching up the tabs. Yup that would be labor intensive wouldn't it?
My point really isn't what type of printing you use to make a ballot, its the fact that there really isn't anything in place that makes it EASY to determine if a ballot is even genuine. All important documents have some way of determining if they are genuine. Your signature is the most common.
I understand that cost/time can be determining factors but really if you look into it, you can get 10k sheets of anti-copy custom watermarked paper cheaper than 10k sheets of perforated paper. Keep that paper under lock and key and feel free to use a laser printer if you like. In cases where commercial printing companies are used the cost to add a state seal printed with "invisible ink" to each ballot is basically nothing. These of course are just a couple of ideas, and they may have flaws... but really there are more measures in place on a $10 DVD to make sure you cant open and copy it than you will find on ballots and ballot boxes.
Food for thought.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 26, 2008) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2142
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 10:49 am: |
|
Jon,
It may be worse than you think. When it comes to absentee and provisional ballots, those serial numbered tabs are typically not used.
However, when it comes to precinct cast ballots, there should really never be a shortage, should there? Okay, I'm thinking closed primary states. You know the absolute maximum number of voters of each party that can show up at a precinct. You simply make a 105% or 110% ballot printing requirement, to allow for spoilage. There are never any reasons for additional ballots. Of course, some states seemingly couldn't deal with a system where you can't walk into your precinct and declare you want a particular ballot, out of the clear blue. You also can't have Election Day registration.
I'm sorry, maybe I've been steeped in PA's political culture too long, but these open primary systems just bug me to death. Have the damned fortitude to register with a party and stick with the party you're registered in! If you don't like it, re-register! And be responsible enough to have registered in advance. I'm ALSO sorry, but this idea that you can wake up on Election Day, never having registered, and say "Oh, gee, think I'll go vote" just also makes me nuts. I ALSO am a huge believer in the ABSENCE of early voting, other than excuse-required absentees.
But back to the point. If you build a system where there is never any need to print additional ballots, and all regular in-precinct ballots have serial numbers, you use secure boxes, and you don't transport ballots from a whole damned state to a central location with a 'Butch & Hoppy show', why would there ever be a question about whether a ballot is legit?
You see, the problems you end up with are predetermined by the choices you make in building an Election Code. No choices are free.
My state incentivizes making a party choice, doesn't make voting some kumbayah-esque exercise in "making statements" and we get a different set of political problems than places like NH.
We treat voting as binary choices, not analog "preference stating", we have standards for what constitutes a legal vote that are completely objective, with no subjectivity, our idea of "early voting" is getting to the polls at 7:02AM on Election Day, and we make it hard to get on a November ballot. All those choices have their own unique cultural implications.
All in all, taken as a whole, I'll take our set of warts any day.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 505
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 1:01 pm: |
|
I'm ALSO sorry, but this idea that you can wake up on Election Day, never having registered, and say "Oh, gee, think I'll go vote" just also makes me nuts.
Kurt, I did poll standing for a candidate in 06 and it was like being a human punching bag. The icy stares I got -- incredible. Seems like that morning there had been some robocalls made, and registered voters rose up like zombies to vote as the robocalls fired them up to vote.
It was like a glint in their eyes. I guess I don't sound real objective about this, do I (grin)?
My point is, I actually agree with you about same day registration -- I think it's October Surprise writ large. In Mexico, I think it's a 24 or 48 hour "cooling off period" of no advertising allowed before people vote. I think it has merit.
In my state, with the questions I have developed about how we do things, it is interesting to see groups that come in with a pre-determined one size fits all national agenda -- groups that MAY not have done their homework on the on-the-ground conditions in the state.
If someone were to push same-day registration in our state without knowing e.g. that the whole system froze up on the day-before registrations in the primary (and is widely believed to be outdated and poorly designed), I would simply have to say, "You have got to be kidding me."
I don't want to buy too far into "it's logistically impossible" because that limping mode can also be code for a lack of commitment to make changes (or desire not to make them).
However, if bringing about change has the characteristic of being a dialogue, it would be an abrupt change of subject to go from "we can't get people registered the day before the election" to "thesystem is going to completely meltdown when we push for same day registration."
How many indies/unaffiliateds are there in PA vs. D and R, Kurt? How does that compare to NH?
It would be interesting to see if it's party a function on the laws of the state how many unaffiliateds there are.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 26, 2008) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2144
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Since PA law heavily incentivizes being an R or a D, we have only about 12-15% I's, non-partisans, and other 3rd parties combined. I'm sure NH incentivizes being independent and probably gets a majority that way.
People will behave in whatever way maximizes their options. In NH, that is being independent. In PA, that is being an R or D.
The absolute numbers will soon be posted. We have seen a recent downturn in "others" going into the April 22 primary. If you stay independent or third party, you can't vote at all on April 22. This happens every time we get a hot primary, like the Specter-Twomey Senate one in 2004.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on March 26, 2008)
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Marian Beddill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 141
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 4:32 pm: |
|
And then there's Washington State. This might also be true in others, but in WA, voters do not register their party affiliation with their voter-registration.
Their preference does show up from time to time, as when there is a primary and voters must pick one ballot for their preferred party ("that day".) It is recorded as a temporary preference, but wiped after the primary is all done.
Also, as voters appear and sign-in at party Caucusses, that info is registered by each party for themselves, but does not enter the State's records.
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 507
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Marian, thanks - I did not know that about Washington. Based on my reading, I believe Texas uses that type of approach, as well.
The NH situation, where you can change back to your old party before you leave the polling place, must make ballot ordering a challenge, as Kurt points out. They do have a procedure for initially photocopied ballots used unless it's 10 or less, in which case the intials would be too likely to function to identify the voter.
So - legitimately photocopied ballots seen in the counting would have identifying marks put on by the towns UNLESS there were a very small number of them. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 46
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 8:32 pm: |
|
“Okay, I'm thinking closed primary states. You know the absolute maximum number of voters of each party that can show up at a precinct. You simply make a 105% or 110% ballot printing requirement, to allow for spoilage.”
I have to agree with you on this point and a few others you made. Open primaries make it pretty hard to rub a crystal ball and project the total number of ballots needed in any precinct. The fact that they have separate ballots (here in MI anyhow) is just flat out stupid. If people want open primaries, which I’m not necessarily opposed to, well then, how about printing a SINGLE ballot with both the Dem, Rep and Independent candidates? This multi ballot thing is a waste of money and I’m sure an administrative nightmare. I also agree 100% that same day voter registration is ridiculous, an open door for fraud and loads of other issues.
To me all of these things are just liberal B.S. thinking. If you want the right to vote, then realize that "right" comes with responsibility. People understand that if they go to the store and forget their wallet they can’t make a purchase. Yet for some reason when they go to their polling place and realize they forgot to register to vote they have a fit and act like their “rights” have been trampled.
Yep Kurt I think you and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to these rants. You’ve got my vote.
“If you build a system where there is never any need to print additional ballots, and all regular in-precinct ballots have serial numbers, you use secure boxes, and you don't transport ballots from a whole damned state to a central location with a 'Butch & Hoppy show', why would there ever be a question about whether a ballot is legit?”
I love this ideal world Kurt, the problem is this ideal world doesn’t exist and probably never will. To me this all comes down to the difference between having TRUST and having FAITH. I have a lot of FAITH that the vast majority of the people involved in elections are good, descent and honest people. The kind of people that believe in the system and do their very best to keep things as honest as possible. My personal reality tells me that FAITH involves no facts therefore a system I can TRUST is the only system I can believe in. Why not use tamper resistant ballots? At the very least it would be one more step to lead me to believe that I could TRUST ballots aren’t being counterfeited or altered?
(No longer addressing you personally Kurt) but the world doesn’t have any faith in you or I, but the world is willing to TRUST us if we demonstrate that we are trustworthy. Think about that for a second... seriously. The utility boxes on the side of my home have seals on them. Why? Not because the utility companies have singled me out as a potentially dishonest customer, but when they take a meter reading and see the seals haven’t been broken it gives them a reason to TRUST that I haven’t messed around with the meters. When I buy something at my local store, the receipt isn’t printed on plain white paper; it is marked with the store logo etc. Why? Because if I need to return something and hand them the receipt they can TRUST that the receipt I’m presenting wasn’t printed on my own register. When I sit down at a blackjack table and the dealer opens a sealed deck of cards they don’t expect me to have FAITH that their playing with a full unmarked deck. The dealer will always fan out and allow all playing to visually inspect the deck before it is shuffled and dealt. This simple measure gives me a reason to TRUST the dealer. I could obviously go on and on with examples but I think all reading this will get the point.
“You see, the problems you end up with are predetermined by the choices you make in building an Election Code. No choices are free.”
Once again I couldn’t agree with you more Kurt, but proposed "Election Code" should be weighed and considered less on faith and more on the proposals ability to demonstrate it's qualities as TRUSTWORTHY!!!!
Some personal thoughts that I believe all election legislation should have to be tested against. (Any and all comments are openly welcome)
1) Is the voting environment secure using this proposal?
2) Can we monitor and prevent fraud?
3) If there is fraud can we manage the impact?
4) Does this proposal create an environment that includes or excludes voters?
5) Will voters continue to be informed and engaged under this proposal?
As always food for thought.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 26, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 509
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 3:42 am: |
|
Like the faith versus trust analogy. It's a great way to talk about having secure elections.
Voter registration and voter disenfranchisement we don't talk about much here. I'm not so interested in seeing same day dismissed by broadbrushing it as belonging to a particular political philosophy. Enfranchisement is not liberal or conservative -- it is basic to our form of government.
Because the voter registration system at present, whether by design or not, is in a number of states in a relatively big mess, without a clear plan for implementing same day that takes the mess into account and resolves it a far as the new registrations go, this particular method of enfranchisement is not going to fly in those states at the moment.
It's not an area that I'm able to focused on right now (one thing at a time), but it does deserve good and careful thinking. Also to ponder: attrition from our system of government by not registering/voting. How do you fix that in a meaningful way? (THIS JUST IN: While looking for NH's exact registration language, came across a Pew report saying that CT has same-day presidential balloting -- you go to the clerk's office and register. Hmm, will have to look into this - new one on me.)
Getting back to NH, Here is what the statutes say about registering in NH (I'm posting this with the issue of Massachusetts residents with second homes trying to vote in NH)
654:1 Voter; Office Holder.
I. Every inhabitant of the state, having a single domicile for voting purposes, being a citizen of the United States, of the age provided for in Article 11 of Part First of the Constitution of New Hampshire, shall have a right at any meeting or election, to vote in the town, ward, or unincorporated place in which he or she is domiciled. An inhabitant's domicile for voting purposes is that one place where a person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government. A person has the right to change domicile at any time, however a mere intention to change domicile in the future does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile before the person actually moves. A person's claim of domicile for voting purposes shall not be conclusive of the person's residence for any other legal purpose.
II. Any elected or appointed official for whom one of the qualifications for his or her position is eligibility to be a voter in the area represented or served shall be considered to have resigned if the official moves his or her domicile so that he or she can no longer qualify to be a voter in the area represented or served. Any vacancy so created shall be filled as prescribed by law.
654:2 Temporary Absence. A domicile for voting purposes acquired by any person in any town shall not be interrupted or lost by a temporary absence therefrom with the intention of returning thereto as his or her domicile. Domicile for the purpose of voting as defined in RSA 654:1, once existing, continues to exist until another such domicile is gained. Domicile for purposes of voting is a question of fact and intention. A voter can have only one domicile for these purposes. No person shall be deemed to have lost a domicile by reason of his or her presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of the United States or of the high seas; nor while a teacher in or student of any seminary of learning; nor while confined in any public prison or other penal institution; nor while a patient or confined for any reason in any nursing, convalescent home or hospital, old folks or old age home, or like institution or private facility.
The quick take on same day registration in New Hampshire: "Must complete an election day affidavit, and may be asked to show proof of age, citizenship, and/or current address, depending on requirements of local election officials." I would add: you can change parties after you voted, before you leave the polling place. If you are registered unaffiliated when you walk into the polls, you can change parties, vote, and change back - then leave the polls. Section 654, NH statutes.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 27, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 27, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 27, 2008) |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2036
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 3:56 am: |
|
Aren't there still problems in whether a vote is "legit"? We have provisional ballots because we're concerned that a "legit" vote isn't being allowed to be counted, although, schizophrenically, no significant actions seem to be taken after a provisional ballot is voted to see them actually counted.
I think Jon's got a winner on the one ballot primary, doesn't everyone else. Have an open primary everywhere. You should be able to make your selections on an office-by-office basis. One vote for one candidate from any party for each office.
What happens if someone puts in 50 ballots with valid numbering that are copies of the valid numbers of ballots that are already in the box?You then have no idea as to which ones are valid, do you? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 510
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 4:24 am: |
|
I am mindful of the fact that we're moving away from the thread topic, and people looking to find out what's happening in NH may get discouraged. Does it make sense to move parts of this conversation to another thread? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2145
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 5:42 am: |
|
Brant,
One problem, aside from the "good idea" nature of it. It has legal problems due to Democratic Party of California v. Jones unless you also eliminate the "each party gets to nominate a candidate for the final election" aspect.
Blanket open primaries are fine as long as the final candidates aren't candidates of a party, per se. Top two (or three or whatever) is fine as long as they're not candidates of the parties.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Jenny L. Hurley
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bolivar
Post Number: 64
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 5:50 am: |
|
http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxcringely/archives/2008/03/smoking_guns_an.htm l?source=rss
This is one man's information about the eSlate and the Sequoia voting machines.
thanks |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 511
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 7:04 am: |
|
OK, guess not. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2146
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 7:49 am: |
|
Christine,
By all means, move it (when site managers find this).
Back to NH.
I guess I don't get something. Bev, are you seriously suggesting that you think "ballot washing" or whatever you're calling it, actually happened, or are we speaking hypothetically here?
I mean, are we serious here? Are you aware of the magnitude of what is being suggested here?
Let's get back to looking at the big picture for just a minute, can we?
NH looked shady, because the actual counts didn't square with the late polls, even though the exit polling, contrary to what Chris Matthews said, never did show anything but "tight as a gnat's doorway". And the pollsters are now publishing academic papers about how they screwed NH up.
NH resurrected the Clinton campaign, for a bit, but she's looking like toast again. She'll win PA, sure, but she's toast nationally.
Are we seriously suggesting that the SoS of NH is in on some deep dark conspiracy to steal NH for Clinton?
I guess if you want to go there, fine. But it's not getting the plausibility threshold for me.
Okay, if we're being proactive here in noticing that "ballot washing" is possible and noodling on ways to close that loophole, then great. If that's what's going on here, I support it. But I guess I'm not clear on what exactly we're discussing here.
/gets down off of soapbox and walks away, not all that unlike Pee Wee Herman in the too tight grey suit
(Message edited by formerelecdir on March 27, 2008)
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 513
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 8:50 am: |
|
In my state, permanent pens were used and ruined the ballots (bled through and contaminated page 2 of the ballot). Why? They were concerned about "rain" on the ballots; I translate that as an incomplete statement -- I tend to think the concern was "rainmakers".
the logistical nightmare is not just the wiping of the ballots, but the remarking of the ballots (any drying time needed?), and not just the remarking of the ballots, but the 1) counting 2)creating random appearance of the ballots after counting.
to do this, you could use a scanner set in test mode that tells you how each ballot is read, you could use a hand calculator, you could use a tally sheet. If the latter, then i wonder if -- given a particular set of ballots from a town -- the differences in the ballots would start to appear at the point where one or the other of the candidates had "maxed out" on the number of votes they were decided to be getting. After that point, ballots must change. If that's the case, then it may be a very limited horizon within a town's ballots where you would look for these problems -- the other ballots would merely have been counted to a certain point.
Would counting occur frontwards or backwards? Would you start with the actual -- not reported -- total and count backwards, erasing as you go?
How you get the right count is the part of such a hypothetical operation that seems like a real pain to me.
The physical act of ballot washing is potentially the easiest part, compared to reconciling what you're washing and getting the numbers right. |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 48
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 9:03 am: |
|
I guess I don't get something. Bev, are you seriously suggesting that you think "ballot washing" or whatever you're calling it, actually happened, or are we speaking hypothetically here?
I asked that same question and here was the response I got from Bev. Seems reasonable to me?
“The working statement should be "We disclaim any opinion on the accuracy of the recount results." Specific chain of custody breakdowns enabled either ballot substitution or ballot washing.”
NH looked shady, because the actual counts didn't square with the late polls, even though the exit polling, contrary to what Chris Matthews said, never did show anything but "tight as a gnat's doorway"
Don’t forget all the other red flags. i.e. counties expected to favor Obama posting their returns unusually late. Reports of bussed in voters. High ranking State Officials caught on camera lying (or as Clinton has recently put it) “misspeaking”. Butch and Hoppy tooling around the countryside without handlers. Unexplained meeting with unknown green Jeep. Open ballot boxes, post it note style "seals". The list of things is really long.
Kurt, have you seen this video yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwovSqXWKQ8
Around 8:30 you’re asked to guess what “Butch” is putting in his car. Now if I could keep a straight face I’d like to propose that what Butch has is probably a piece of crash wreckage from Area 51.
/jumps back off soapbox and runs before someone throws tomatoes.
PS Christine - "getting the numbers right" is the easy part as far as Im concerned. Ill start a new thread with my theory at some point. Ive alluded several times that it might be easier than you think.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 27, 2008) |
Del Argenti
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 144
Registered: 1-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 9:38 am: |
|
Kurt,
Original post Bev Harris snippet
We believe it is possible to undetectably alter thousands of paper ballots, using a technique known as "check washing." This would require applicator bottles (for ballot alteration in a vehicle during transport), paper towels, and in central ballot storage locations, for large quantities, cans of odorless paint thinner, denatured alcohol, or acetone. Our upcoming tests will show if our theory is correct, whether it can be done in a van, how many ballots can be done per hour, whether the special "AccuVote marking pens" sold by LHS Associates and Diebold (Premier) are easier to "wash" for remarking.
These two "ELECTION REALITY TV" videos above are prequels; video of our demo will be released next week. Maybe our theory of a crime won't work. We'll see. (Bev Harris)
My impression from reading the initial post is that the ballot washing (and the techniques to carry out ballot washing) is entitled Theory of a crime, and the theory will soon be tested in 'reality.'
I don't agree with the way you've worded "if we're being proactive here in noticing that "ballot washing" is possible...
I disagree that 'ballot washing' has been noticed as possible - though one can theorize such - one can't 'notice' such since noticing rests on such actually having been accomplished by the outcome of the 'theory of a crime' test.
Without the test showing the reality of ballot washing, IMO we're back to only the theoretical.
As to your question
Are we seriously suggesting that the SoS of NH is in on some deep dark conspiracy to steal NH for Clinton?
My impression from the initial post including links to Election Reality TV Butch & Hoppy: The Lies Take Hold video and watching makes me say yes - the BBV Forum boards 'we' are seriously suggesting that the SoS of NH is in on some deep dark conspiracy to steal NH for (I've removed any candidate's name and leave a blank).
Part of the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txoLlfrBENk
shows movement around the boxes with approach by the cameraman who asks Is this is the Archive Building? The following frames have printed on the screen: empty ballot box, empty ballot boxes.
That implies paper ballots were removed from the boxes. And that implies the ballots were removed for a fraudulent purpose.
Ergo, the theory of a crime of ballot washing specifically applies to those empty ballot boxes.
PS the next video footage shows inside the transport van - a roll of paper towels is pointed out in the back of the van and a question is posed: could there be anything you coud do with the paper towels ... what was in that ziplock bag...
(Message edited by truthnet on March 27, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 514
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 9:45 am: |
|
wholesale ballot substitution through bottom of box, right? Why bother -just go through the top when the post it seal is actually easier to peel off than the transparent tape on box bottoms?
The considerations are:
1. How many people do you want to design into your system?
2. How many skills do you need?
3. What is your plan for dealing with evidence: a) printers, supplies, purchasing method, witnesses of above, b) discarded ballots (in CT, we use LI Sound, apparently - so inconvenient when they wash up on the beach a few days later, but a real argument for water soluble ink!)
4. What are the time windows in which this must occur and what are the logistics? e.g. if you meet a green jeep and can't pick up some new ballots in a "recycled box" from driver, then can you have driver drop off ballots at next pickup point or perhaps take into Concord before you get back there?
So, there are various means of designing a plausible ballot manipulation/replacement approach -- what will determine which one is designed depends on the opportunities available, the talents available, the constraints.
e.g if someone is watching my trip mileage or following me, I can't drive out of my way to do something that calls attention to yet another location or activity - someone must meet me.
How much money, time and equipment is needed for the methods considered? How much skill/cooperation? |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 49
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 10:04 am: |
|
Excellent questions Christine. No matter what theory is put forth those questions at a minimum need to be addressed. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 515
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 10:20 am: |
|
To paraphrase D Rumsfeld, "We fix the election with the crew/conditions/time we have, not the crew/conditions/time we wish we had." Both things, and perhaps other things, could have been done, depending on circumstances.
The bottom line is (you're going to get sick of sayings and quotes in a minute), when you have lemons, you make lemonade. There's a Plan A, and there's a Plan B, and maybe a Plan C, and then D is "punt!". It might be interesting to try to map out constraints -- e.g. dates on which ballot caravaning took place (Kurt's word for following the ballots from pickup to dropoff) had one type of constraint. Maybe another would have been Albert Howard's request that ballots not have sleepovers, and that they be counted when they arrived. A comparison of routes/time needed for travel, versus known departure/arrival times -- were they pretty close to accurate, or not? Not accurate might be "stopped for lunch - cut me a break" or something else. Given that counting staff were being paid and sitting doing nothing, and this was not unusual apparently, what exactly accounts for the inability to accurately schedule ballot pickup?
The people on the ground would know better what of their activities or other activities (homeland security exercises, snowstorms) could have constituted constraints.
Lots of ballots to switch/little time. Lots of time/lots of ballots. Time but no printer. Little time/being caravaned, so can't stop for chemicals. And so on.
Then there's the possibility that not all ballots had changes made, and that certain towns were targeted/others not. OR that some towns had minimal changes, and others had very big differences. Technique used may have depended upon the nature of the challenge for that day, that town, that level of observation/activity, and so on.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 27, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 516
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 10:21 am: |
|
deleted
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 27, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 51
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Backpedaling to the original hypothesis....
What observations were made to suggest that "Butch and Hoppy" may have been running a rolling ballot washing lab in the back of a van. I hope it wasn't just that a few paper towels were spotted in their messy cargo van.
The entire "orderless" acetone theory isn't much different from a "regular" acetone theory. Acetone is wicked stuff and orderless is a pretty deceptive marketing word. I guess "orderless" somehow implies this chemical wont burn your eyeballs out.
Any of the ladies out there splashing flower scented nail polish remover all over themselves because it smells nice? LOL I doubt it. The main ingredient in nail polish remover is usually acetone.
I'm defiantly curious how this experiment turns out, but I do hope everyone involved is extremely carefully... particularly if they plan on pouring out large quantities of acetone in the back of a van.
DANGER! EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE LIQUID AND VAPOR. VAPOR MAY CAUSE FLASH
FIRE. HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND
RESPIRATORY TRACT. AFFECTS CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM.
Keep away from heat, sparks and flame.
Keep container closed.
Use only with adequate ventilation.
Wash thoroughly after handling.
Avoid breathing vapor.
Avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing.
Aspiration hazard. If swallowed, vomiting may occur spontaneously, but DO NOT INDUCE.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 27, 2008) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2147
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 1:24 pm: |
|
A breathy hypothesis based on not being able to eyeball Butch & Hoppy 24/7 may be someone's idea of investigative rigor.
I'd not go that far.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 517
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Wait a minute, did Bev ever say acetone or did people assume acetone? (Will have to go back and look). At any rate, I was looking at art supplies and came on an example of something -- I don't know what -- that is supposed to be good for chemically sensitive artists:
http://www.madisonartshop.com/paint-thinner.html
So, is it possible there are other products to consider before dismissing this idea because the only one you know about is acetone? just a thought. I have never tried this linked product -- but thought a quick search for other materials might be instructive. there were others -- this sounded least toxic.
What about using a ventilated area like a picnic shelter in winter? Brr, cold, not fun -- wouldn't do that for long. Certain types of work done indoors require OSHA-approved ventilation. Would an archives facility need such ventilation for any kind of document restoration, or binding, or anything like that?
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 27, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 52
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 2:54 pm: |
|
OK I'm busted... Guilty as charged and fully confess that I jumped to a conclusion and went with my personal "Nasty ballot erasing chemical of choice". Acetone...
Bev Harris - "We believe it is possible to undetectably alter thousands of paper ballots, using a technique known as "check washing." This would require applicator bottles (for ballot alteration in a vehicle during transport), paper towels, and in central ballot storage locations, for large quantities, cans of odorless paint thinner, denatured alcohol, or acetone."
Feel free to chose your chemical. They are all rather nasty. One of those Stain Stick deals you spot laundry with might work as well? Ive never tried it to get ink off paper, but Id take and educated guess and say a nasty solvent that evaporates quickly is required. I cant think of a fast evaporating solvent which I would consider safe to be breathing in the back of a 200+ cubic foot van (and thats the empty volume).
http://www.ckfraud.org/washing.html
Using a process known as check washing, mail snatchers erase the ink on a check with chemicals found in common household cleaning products or on the shelves of your local Walmart and then rewrite the checks to themselves, increasing the amount payable by hundreds and even thousands of dollars.
Types of Chemicals Reported Used:
1. Acetone, most widely used, is a highly volatile organic solvent used mainly as a hand-wipe solvent in cleaning applications. It is also a good drying agent for wet parts. But it will erase most inks from a stolen check without any noticeable effect.
2. Benzene,
3. Bleach, used in ever day cleaning in your home. Normally to whiten fibers in clothes washing.
4. Carbon Tetrachloride, most widely used in carpet cleaning,
5. Chloromice "T", a mild form of bleach, used normally in the socking of baby diapers,
6. Fox "IT", used mostly with stamp collectors,
7. Clear Correction Fluids,
8. A high-performance eraser to erase everything from ballpoint pen ink, PPC and Diazo copy ink, to typewriter ribbon ink, drafting ink, and printed matter.
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 27, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 53
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Also
"Would an archives facility need such ventilation for any kind of document restoration, or binding, or anything like that?"
No idea, but Id be willing to bet that people working in an archive building have lots of visitor, buddies and coulleges that work in the printing business ;)
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 27, 2008) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4825
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 2:10 am: |
|
Wow--thanks for that great list, Jon.
I never knew there were "high-performance erasers". |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4826
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 2:12 am: |
|
Wow--thanks for that great list, Jon.
I never knew there were "high-performance erasers".
Has anyone requested copies of purchases of office supplies, cleaning supplies, and sundries by the Archive as well as the SoS office? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 519
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 4:50 am: |
|
The Archive is part of the SOS in the state of NH. It varies from state to state where it is housed - I think in CT it is part of the state library.
Don't know the precise answer to your question, but I did go through the FOIA list and there were some pretty, pretty unusual items on that FOIA list -- to check, if you go into the document with the myriad lists of FOIA'd items and browse them, you'll see what I mean. I confess to having wondered what the heck Bev was getting at!
I think these pens are water soluble. How permanent they are is not clear to me, but we have had ROVs complaining about the pens LHS wants them to buy because they smear/run when in contact with "wet coats from the rain", and the same ROV had a problem with permanent ink bleeding through the ballot (note to ROV: check your paper opacity/thickness spec there, too!).
I mention this because maybe the killer solvents aren't needed with water based pens -- maybe a dry paper towel over the inked spot, with a damp paper towel placed on top of it, might pull up the ink. Doubt it would be perfect, but the problem to solve is to get the ink without getting the paper all bubbly from the moisture, and to avoid having a drying problem. (Hmm, drying.) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4829
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 5:53 am: |
|
Hair-dryer could come in handy. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2148
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 5:53 am: |
|
I used to be quite a philatelist. Carbon tet is quite a nasty carcinogen, IIRC.
It was used back in the 1960's for "watermark detection", in other words to reveal the paper watermark for variety attribution on older postage stamps.
In the late 1960's or 1970's it became known how dangerous it was to be in contact with its vapors. I was under the impression it had been replaced by more benign chemicals. I'm really surprised to hear it might still be used by carpet people.
There is one other solvent I am aware of. It is used in the photography and coin collecting field. It is a concoction made of thiourea and citric acid and water. It has a limited shelf life. It degrades fairly quickly after being mixed. The dry powders have virtually unlimited shelf life.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 526
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 6:06 am: |
|
When I was a kid, I used that stuff for watermark detection. Who knows what it did to me.
I am looking in my mug of pens and pencils to see if I have any felt tips. I'm kind of itching to try some water based solvent removals. Wonder if those biological stain eaters would work?
The trick is the water part. Ripples would really mess up the effect, wouldn't they?
Yes, Catherine, I had that same hair dryer response -- I have owned some that kind of sparked, though -- have you ever seen that problem? What else could be used? I notice they ordered/had installed a dehumidifier -- would the outflow from that give a good, dry, clean airstream, I wonder?
It was for the loading dock area, and the vendor said there would be no charge for it. It's unclear why there would be no charge.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 28, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 530
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 10:55 am: |
|
Coming back to Jon Evans's list of solvents/materials to remove felt tip ink, by searching "felt tip, ink removal" or similar, it does appear that biological laundry agents will pull up felt tip ink. Several blotting methods are given, and ammonia and denatured alcohol can be used. However, one wants a quick, instantly effective technique in order to minimize handling of the ballot. This seems daunting but will wait for Bev to say what her tests show. Some papers contain more cotton or rag than others (they tend to be more expensive, no?) -- the performance of her test ballots may depend very much on the paper stock used.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/how-to-remove-felt-tip-ink-and-indian-ink-stains.h tm
Perhaps the wallpaper suggestions most applicable.
In addition there are some patented techniques explained as useful for removing e.g. highlighter without damaging the underlying ink.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5324131.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5427278.html
Oxalic acid is mentioned (sounds nasty). You could certainly make a whole side-study out of stain removal techniques for nonpermanent ink.
Did anyone observe use of any marking instrument other than felt tips? The choice by towns of what pen to use would be a hurdle for anyone wanting to use the same solvent for all, unless certain solvents prove to be near universal. (like, John, acetone.... )
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 28, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 54
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 11:23 am: |
|
Watch this video... since were just pitching a bunch of ideas around whos to say LHS doesnt supply "Magic" markers. And I mean that literately!
http://www.pitchwell.com/Shop/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=7&idproduct=29
I had a bunch of sets of these as a kid, they were a lot of fun too! I bet their even more fun as a grown up running for office! Id pay big bucks for a custom "White Pen" from LHS!
Seriously, without actual ballots and actual pens how can anyone come up with anything more than a long list of wild guesses? The only thing Im convinced about, so far, is that when there is no chain of custody ANYTHING is possible.
P.S. our ballots instructed us to use a blue or black pen (and yes they had typical Bic pens out to use). I always use my own
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 28, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 531
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 11:49 am: |
|
Bev did put out a request for pens used in elections awhile back - will have to see if she had any success in obtaining them. The specs for the AccuVote-OS contain specific marking instruments that DO work on the machine (more limited if the light reader is infrared, they say -- the newer technology is visible light reader, but it appears NH may have some of both.)
To get the paper spec, either it may be in the machine specs or in the RFP for the printing of the ballots??
I'm hooked - those pens in the video look like lots of fun, and the merry uses are so innocent (grin). When making quilts a few years ago, I came across a purple marking pen (for seam marking) that disappeared after awhile. Hmm - could same sort of pen be used for an election? It gets the ballot read, but then disappears. Does it hold on long enough to be removed from machine and sealed? Then the ballots don't have to be washed at all -- they come "prewashed" like jeans.
Maybe this is magical speculation -- I do not know the mechanism involved in the purple disappearing ink pen or its limitations. It does exist, but the color would have been completely noticeable.
UPDATE: Jon, this is a perfect example of how the particular realm of information/experience of the person feeds right into methods used.
Here is a quote from a quilting site that leads to other types of pens:
MARKING PENS & PENCILS - There are many products on the market for marking your quilt top. My favorite is the blue ink marker that washes out in cold water upon completion. Beware of the disappearing ink markers - your design could be gone before you're done!
Here is a link to what MAY be the blue pen referenced above: http://www.keamasquilts.com/cgi-images/image_display.cgi?account=everything&image=blupen.jpg
By contrast there is the highly permanent pen desribed here: Fade resistant, waterproof, chemical resistant, permanent pigment ink suitable for archival applications. Use them to memorilize your Quilt Lables.
This brings up an important point: Archives need to know how paper behaves, and how marking instruments behave on paper. What is archival quality? What is not?
OK, found that purple disappearing ink pen, and the ink lasts 24-72 hours. Quite feasible except for the purple part of it. Also made in pink and blue, and there is an erasable purple pen too (says not suitable for some surfaces).
Link: http://shop.smithmountainlakequilting.com/product.sc;jsessionid=E958EC628130B3A848A9315CE10B2354.qscstrfrnt03?categoryId=28&productId=497
If you're not just a tad queasy realizing how much may be possible, I say you're not paying attention. Whew, this gives me pause.
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 28, 2008)
(Message edited by ctwatcher on March 28, 2008) |
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 55
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 11:56 am: |
|
LOL who knows... I couldnt help but watch that advertisement without picturing Butch & Hoppy tooling around the countryside with the same "merry jingle" playing in their van!
I bet they all looked so cute sitting together on the floor of the archive building doodling with their "magic" markers!
Toooo funny!
(Message edited by jevans9 on March 28, 2008) |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 532
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Check the mesg, Jon - I updated w/links. Any insights on the disappearing part of the purple pen? |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7782
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Closing off this thread, as it is overlong. New comments can be posted in the latest story, here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/73352.html
And to Del Argenti: You wrote -
quote:I disagree that 'ballot washing' has been noticed as possible - though one can theorize such - one can't 'notice' such since noticing rests on such actually having been accomplished by the outcome of the 'theory of a crime' test.
We have now done those tests. Ballot washing is possible. We are out of the realm of theoretical and into the realm of "this can really happen."
quote:yes - the BBV Forum boards 'we' are seriously suggesting that the SoS of NH is in on some deep dark conspiracy to steal NH
Black Box Voting is not "suggesting" but is SAYING that the New Hampshire Chain of Custody is sufficiently flawed that it is appropriate to disclaim any opinion on the accuracy of the recount.
quote:Part of the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txoLlfrBENk
shows movement around the boxes with approach by the cameraman who asks Is this is the Archive Building? The following frames have printed on the screen: empty ballot box, empty ballot boxes.
This is inaccurate. The video shows the cameraman asking "are those ballots?" and the state officials denying that the ballot boxes just shown on film are ballots. The same boxes are then identified as ballot boxes the next day, by the same state official who denied they were ballots. That's pretty hard to explain. The secretary of state is not present during that scene, but the director of the state archive facility, Frank Mevers, is present.
quote:That implies paper ballots were removed from the boxes. And that implies the ballots were removed for a fraudulent purpose.
No. This shows that state officials are denying that ballots are ballots, are present after hours in an area of the facility that they have announced is supposed to be closed, and that both full and empty ballot boxes are present. Since citizens were denied the opportunity to witness ballot intake, they cannot tell whether the empty boxes are benign or not.
quote:Ergo, the theory of a crime of ballot washing specifically applies to those empty ballot boxes.
Actually, Del, you are building speculation upon speculation and then attributing all YOUR speculations to Black Box Voting. If you continue to do that, you will not be allowed to post here.
You may speculate about procedural issues (but not motivations) but only on your own behalf. You may not build your own speculative case and then attribute it to others.
quote:PS the next video footage shows inside the transport van - a roll of paper towels is pointed out in the back of the van and a question is posed: could there be anything you coud do with the paper towels ... what was in that ziplock bag...
Yep. And now you can see what was in that ziplock bag. |
|
|
