2004 Election Theft.com: Main Stream Media

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, General, Main Stream Media on January 28th, 2006

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

2004 Election Theft.com: General

Posted in 2004ElectionTheft.com, General on January 28th, 2006

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.

Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. ”

– Margaret Mead – US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 – 1978)

READ THIS FIRST


2004 ELECTION THEFT: GENERAL LINKS




1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

PLEASE help pass the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 550)

Posted in General, TAKE ACTION! on December 5th, 2005

Rush Holt’s HR 550, the most comprehensive piece of election reform legislation written, now has bi-partisan sponsorship and 159 co-sponsors. Let’s make some more noise for its passage. IT’S THE BEST WE’VE GOT RIGHT NOW!
Combining the call for voter-verified paper audit records with mandated, unannounced, random audit of election results, and linking prohibition of undisclosed software and internet connection with accessibility measures, H.R. 550, if passed, would force the Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia e-voting and vote-counting junkware out of the market.
Please sign Rush Holt’s petition and write to your Rep if he/she is not on the H.R.550 co-sponsor list. Thanks. freedomfries

http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html

Dear Members of the House Administration Committee:

On February 2, 2005, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 550) was reintroduced to the U.S. House of Representatives. Its goal is simple: to set a national standard of security and independent auditability for our electoral process, and restore confidence in the outcomes of elections. H.R. 550 would require all voting systems to produce an actual paper record that voters themselves can inspect in the voting booth to check the accuracy of their votes, and that election officials can use to verify the accuracy of the vote count. Commonly referred to as a "voter-verified paper record," it is the most effective way to ensure an independent audit and provide voter-verified evidence as to the accuracy (or not) of election results.

You have heard from Members of the Maryland Delegation, who circulated a letter to the House in March reporting that "election judges unable to provide substantial confirmation that the vote was, in fact, counted" in certain elections in 2004 in Maryland. You have heard from Members of the Florida Delegation, who circulated a letter to the House in April reporting that more than 1,200 undervotes (voters who entered the voting booth without recording a vote) were recorded in an election in early 2005 in Florida in which there was only a single item on the ballot. You have heard from other Members who circulated letters reporting "more than 10,000 instances where a vote was not counted in three counties during the 2004 general election," on the same make of equipment that also was reported to have malfunctioned in Virginia in 2004. You have heard from the bi-partisan team of Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Tom Davis (R-VA, the Chairman of the Government Reform Committee) repeatedly about election disputes resolved with finality by a hand count of voter-verified paper records; about the Carter-Baker Commission of Federal Election Reform’s recommendation for voter-verified paper records; and about the Government Accountability Office’s September 2005 report confirming the existence of a wide variety of irregularities, malfunctions, and inherent risks in unauditable electronic voting. Since H.R. 550’s predecessor bill was first introduced in May 2003, half the States (see map) have implemented requirements for voter-verified paper records. It is time to make this critical security measure a national standard. It is time to act.
….
http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 550) will:

Mandate a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast in every federal election, nationwide; because the voter verified paper record is the only one verified by the voters themselves, rather than by the machines, it will serve as the vote of record in any case of inconsistency with electronic records;
Protect the accessibility requirements of the Help America Vote Act for voters with disabilities;
Require random, unannounced, hand-count audits of actual election results in every state, and in each county, for every Federal election;
Prohibit the use of undisclosed software and wireless and concealed communications devices and internet connections in voting machines;
Provide Federal funding to pay for implementation of voter-verified paper balloting; and
Require full implementation by 2006

Sign the petition!
http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html

H.R. 550 currently has 159 co-sponsors

*Please feel free to thank the current co-sponsors of H.R.550, or encourage others by writing them.

Rep Abercrombie, Neil – 2/2/2005 Rep Ackerman, Gary L. – 3/2/2005
Rep Allen, Thomas H. – 2/2/2005 Rep Andrews, Robert E. – 11/18/2005
Rep Baird, Brian – 2/2/2005 Rep Baldwin, Tammy – 2/2/2005
Rep Barrow, John – 9/6/2005 Rep Becerra, Xavier – 2/9/2005
Rep Berkley, Shelley – 4/5/2005 Rep Berman, Howard L. – 2/2/2005
Rep Berry, Marion – 3/17/2005 Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. – 2/16/2005
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. – 2/16/2005 Rep Blumenauer, Earl – 2/10/2005
Rep Bono, Mary – 9/28/2005 Rep Boucher, Rick – 4/5/2005
Rep Boyd, Allen – 3/2/2005 Rep Brady, Robert A. – 4/20/2005
Rep Brown, Corrine – 2/16/2005 Rep Brown, Sherrod – 2/9/2005
Rep Butterfield, G. K. – 3/17/2005 Rep Capps, Lois – 2/2/2005
Rep Cardin, Benjamin L. – 9/27/2005 Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. – 6/24/2005
Rep Carnahan, Russ – 9/13/2005 Rep Carson, Julia – 2/16/2005
Rep Case, Ed – 2/2/2005 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy – 2/2/2005
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel – 9/13/2005 Rep Cole, Tom – 2/2/2005
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. – 2/2/2005 Rep Cooper, Jim – 2/2/2005
Rep Crowley, Joseph – 2/16/2005 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. – 2/9/2005
Rep Davis, Danny K. – 3/2/2005 Rep Davis, Jim – 3/2/2005
Rep Davis, Susan A. – 4/20/2005 Rep Davis, Tom – 2/2/2005
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. – 2/2/2005 Rep DeGette, Diana – 3/2/2005
Rep Delahunt, William D. – 2/16/2005 Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. – 3/10/2005
Rep Dicks, Norman D. – 2/2/2005 Rep Dingell, John D. – 3/17/2005
Rep Doggett, Lloyd – 2/16/2005 Rep Doyle, Michael F. – 2/16/2005
Rep Emanuel, Rahm – 2/16/2005 Rep Engel, Eliot L. – 4/5/2005
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. – 2/2/2005 Rep Etheridge, Bob – 2/16/2005
Rep Evans, Lane – 11/18/2005 Rep Farr, Sam – 2/2/2005
Rep Filner, Bob – 2/2/2005 Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G. – 6/24/2005
Rep Ford, Harold E., Jr. – 3/10/2005 Rep Frank, Barney – 2/9/2005
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. – 9/28/2005 Rep Gordon, Bart – 4/5/2005
Rep Green, Gene – 6/24/2005 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. – 2/16/2005
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. – 2/16/2005 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. – 2/2/2005
Rep Higgins, Brian – 2/9/2005 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. – 2/2/2005
Rep Honda, Michael M. – 2/9/2005 Rep Hooley, Darlene – 2/16/2005
Rep Inslee, Jay – 2/16/2005 Rep Israel, Steve – 4/5/2005
Rep Issa, Darrell E. – 9/6/2005 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. – 4/5/2005
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila – 3/2/2005 Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice – 2/16/2005
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs – 2/2/2005 Rep Kanjorski, Paul E. – 5/11/2005
Rep Kaptur, Marcy – 2/2/2005 Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. – 5/26/2005
Rep Kildee, Dale E. – 2/9/2005 Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. – 2/2/2005
Rep Kind, Ron – 2/2/2005 Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. – 2/2/2005
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. – 6/24/2005 Rep Lantos, Tom – 2/2/2005
Rep Larsen, Rick – 2/9/2005 Rep Lee, Barbara – 2/2/2005
Rep Levin, Sander M. – 7/13/2005 Rep Lewis, John – 2/9/2005
Rep Lowey, Nita M. – 3/2/2005 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. – 2/2/2005
Rep Markey, Edward J. – 4/5/2005 Rep Matheson, Jim – 2/9/2005
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn – 2/9/2005 Rep McCollum, Betty – 2/9/2005
Rep McDermott, Jim – 2/2/2005 Rep McGovern, James P. – 2/2/2005
Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. – 2/2/2005 Rep McNulty, Michael R. – 3/2/2005
Rep Meehan, Martin T. – 9/6/2005 Rep Meek, Kendrick B. – 3/2/2005
Rep Menendez, Robert – 9/13/2005 Rep Michaud, Michael H. – 2/9/2005
Rep Miller, Brad – 7/21/2005 Rep Miller, George – 2/9/2005
Rep Mollohan, Alan B. – 2/2/2005 Rep Moore, Dennis – 2/2/2005
Rep Moore, Gwen – 9/6/2005 Rep Moran, James P. – 2/2/2005
Rep Murtha, John P. – 2/16/2005 Rep Nadler, Jerrold – 2/2/2005
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. – 2/9/2005 Rep Neal, Richard E. – 9/13/2005
Rep Oberstar, James L. – 2/2/2005 Rep Obey, David R. – 2/2/2005
Rep Olver, John W. – 2/16/2005 Rep Owens, Major R. – 2/9/2005
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. – 2/9/2005 Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. – 2/2/2005
Rep Pastor, Ed – 2/16/2005 Rep Payne, Donald M. – 2/2/2005
Rep Petri, Thomas E. – 2/9/2005 Rep Price, David E. – 2/2/2005
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II – 2/16/2005 Rep Ramstad, Jim – 9/6/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. – 2/16/2005 Rep Ross, Mike – 2/9/2005
Rep Rothman, Steven R. – 3/2/2005 Rep Ryan, Tim – 2/9/2005
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav – 2/2/2005 Rep Salazar, John T. – 6/24/2005
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. – 2/9/2005 Rep Sanchez, Loretta – 2/2/2005
Rep Sanders, Bernard – 2/9/2005 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. – 2/2/2005
Rep Schiff, Adam B. – 2/2/2005 Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. – 6/24/2005
Rep Scott, Robert C. – 2/2/2005 Rep Serrano, Jose E. – 2/9/2005
Rep Sherman, Brad – 2/2/2005 Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh – 5/5/2005
Rep Smith, Adam – 4/5/2005 Rep Snyder, Vic – 2/16/2005
Rep Solis, Hilda L. – 2/9/2005 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete – 4/5/2005
Rep Stupak, Bart – 3/10/2005 Rep Taylor, Gene – 11/18/2005
Rep Thompson, Mike – 2/16/2005 Rep Tierney, John F. – 2/9/2005
Rep Towns, Edolphus – 2/16/2005 Rep Udall, Mark – 2/9/2005
Rep Udall, Tom – 3/2/2005 Rep Van Hollen, Chris – 2/2/2005
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. – 7/13/2005 Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie – 2/9/2005
Rep Watson, Diane E. – 3/10/2005 Rep Waxman, Henry A. – 2/2/2005
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. – 4/5/2005 Rep Wexler, Robert – 2/2/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. – 2/2/2005 Rep Wu, David – 2/2/2005
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell – 2/9/2005

Posted on Democratic Underground by freedomfries 

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

Citizens Request Recount in San Diego Mayoral Race

Posted in General on August 18th, 2005

Miriam Raftery

"Enron by the Sea" shows strange electoral anomalies – a 4 percent shift – ODDS OF SUCH A DISCREPANCY OCCURRING BY CHANCE ALONE ARE LESS THAN 7/100 OF 1%, STATISTICIANS REVEAL.

San Diego Democratic mayoral candidate, Donna Frye, may have been robbed of her mayoral seat in the July 25 local election as citizens’ audit parallel election vote shows shift of 4 percent, Raw Story has learned.

Frye, who served three years as a council woman in San Diego, California, previously ran as a write-in candidate in November 2004, but was deprived of San Diego’s top seat due to the city’s Registrar of Voters, Sally McPherson, blocking the count of 5,547 ballots on which voters had written Frye’s name, yet failed to also fill in bubbles. The disputed ballots would have given Frye a victory by 3,439 votes.

Enron by the Sea

Republican Dick Murphy assumed the mayoral office as a result of the uncounted ballots, only to resign amid multiple scandals that have engulfed San Diego’s City Council.

His successor, Acting Mayor Michael Zucchet, a Democrat, held office for less than a day before being indicted on charges of conspiracy, extortion and wire fraud related to accepting payments from a Las Vegas strip club operator in exchange for relaxing the City’s "no touch" policy.

The mayoral musical chairs, coupled with the indictments of several city council members on charges of bribery, as well as a city deficit running close to $2 billion, has earned the city the infamous nickname of "Enron by the Sea."

Following Zucchet’s indictment a special election was held on July 25 of this year to name a successor. The official count showed that Frye had captured over 45 percent of the vote – double the amount of any other candidate. San Diego law, however, requires a run-off election between the two top vote-getters if no candidate receives at least 50 percent of the vote. The run-off race is set for November of this year. The election, however, was scheduled to replace Murphy regardless of the outcome of Zucchet’s trial.

Diebold’s Un-Accu-Vote

Now, a nonpartisan citizens’ group that conducted a parallel election has requested a recount of 11 precincts. This time, the issue isn’t unmarked bubbles, but the accuracy of Diebold Accu-Vote optical scan voting machines and the Diebold GEMS central tabulator used to count votes.

The Citizens Audit Parallel Election (CAPE) asked voters exiting polls to vote again and sign a log book attesting to the accuracy of their second vote. Sealed parallel election ballots were counted at KGTV’s studio with a TV camera crew filming the counting process.

Nearly 50 percent of all voters participated in the parallel election, which included five polling places representing 11 precincts. The sample included more conservative than liberal precincts, with participation as high among Republicans as among Democrats. The tandem election results showed what most feel to be startling results.

"There is a shift of four percent of the vote, consistently," Joe Prizzi, (engineer and physicist,) reported at a press conference held by CAPE in front of City Hall. Frye received 50.2 percent of the votes cast in the parallel election – enough for an outright victory if those results reflect the outcome citywide. CAPE also found that the official count added approximately 2 percent to each of Frye’s two Republican opponents, Jerry Sanders and Steve Francis.

In addition, CAPE examined the only other ballot measure, a proposition over a war memorial cross on public land. The proposition’s vote total also appeared to have been padded by 4 percent in the official election tally, which was certified Friday August 19 by San Diego County’s newly appointed Registrar of Voters, Republican Mikel Haas.

Math is non-partisan

A team of statisticians from California State University- Northridge – have analyzed the data from CAPE, concluding that the probability of luck or chance as the cause of the observed four percent deviation is less than one in 1,300 – or .000678.

Activists suspect fraud. "I am troubled by the prospect that we are losing our democracy very quickly. We’ve been voting on machines that were never intended to be tools of democracy," said Brina-Rae Schuchman, media spokesperson for CAPE, noting that Diebold machines utilize "secret software."

CLICK HERE TO SEE CHART

Delivering the election – not just in Ohio

The nation’s first parallel election was conceived by Ellen Brodsky, an election official in Coconut Creek, Florida. Held at a single precinct during a May 2005 special election on a gambling initiative, the Florida parallel election drew a 67 percent participation rate and revealed significant discrepancies, leading to revelations of programming issues with touch-screen voting machines.

San Diego’s far broader parallel election was the brainchild of Judy Alter, an emeritus professor in the department of world arts and culture at UCLA who participated in the New Mexico recount after the 2004 presidential election. In Santa Fe, Alter detected a shift of third-party candidate votes into the Bush/Cheney column.

"That pattern has now been identified in eight states," Alter told Raw Story in an exclusive interview, adding that numerous other indications of electronic fraud have been found. "This is why I’m leading Study California Ballots, because we have to actually count," Added Alter.

CAPE filed a request with the Registrar on August 16 to recount the 11 precincts included in San Diego’s parallel election. The request was filed by Schuchman on behalf of Donna Frye, although the Frye campaign was not consulted.

The San Diego Registrar has seven days to call a meeting of all candidates and other interested parties to devise procedures for the recount. "If any discrepancies are found, California law requires that a citywide recount of all precincts be conducted," Alter said.

Asked about CAPE’s recount request, Registrar Mikel Haas, responded, "They have every right to do this. We’re going to run this by the book." He declined, however, to state how much the partial recount would cost, although noting that cost would depend upon procedures agreed on in the upcoming meeting.

Alter is less confident that Haas will play it by the book, stating that "I believe he is overcharging us." She also believes CAPE should only be assessed $400 ($100 for each of the four election employees) per day. "Now he’s going to charge us $2,500–and he’s telling us that he’s charging us for electricity and the room for the meeting he is going to call, and for all the expenses to staff it," Alter contends.

Citizen Arrested for enacting his rights

CAPE isn’t the only group to accuse Haas of withholding public information. Jim March of Black Box Voting and a Republican maintains that the Registrar refused his request during the election to obtain audit logs, which would show whether records were kept of each user who accessed the Diebold GEMS central tabulator.

In an interview with the East County Californian before the election, Haas stated that he would allow citizens to observe the central tabulator counting votes. But on election night, March found the tabulator screen had been placed eight feet away, behind glass and readable only through binoculars, literally. According to March, an activist who was with him brought binoculars and was able to clearly make out the screen. March’s request to have the screen moved closer was refused, so he entered the secured tabulating room.

March was arrested and charged with a felony count of obstructing an election official. The charge was later dropped. "This was a violation of my civil rights," said March, who plans to sue County election officials for violating his right under California law to observe an election and his right to access public records.

Computer experts hired by Black Box Voting to penetrate voting systems in Leon County, Florida (with permission of an election official) demonstrated the ease of reprogramming Diebold optical scan voting machines and changing votes through the Diebold central tabulator – the same voting systems used in San Diego during the recent election.

Informed of these facts, Haas nonetheless allowed hundreds of San Diego poll workers to keep voting machines at home overnight – including programmable memory cards protected only by seals that could easily be removed with pliers and resealed.

March and other observers contend that San Diego’s central tabulator was hooked up to the Internet on election night. An Internet connection would violate Diebold’s own procedures manual, which states: "The GEMS server should not be connected to any network that has an external Internet connection." State certification required that manual procedures be followed.

"If that manual isn’t followed, it’s an illegal installation," says March. "They ran a completely illegal election."

Caught with tabulater plugged in

Asked by this reporter if the central tabulator was hooked up to the Internet, Haas replied, "Yes. That’s so we can get our results out to the Internet, so people can see. It’s firewall protected."

But after being informed that hooking the tabulator up to the Internet would potentially render the election illegal, Haas backpedaled and said he may have been mistaken about the tabulator’s Internet connection. "I’m not that technical," he noted, then suggested that perhaps the machine was transmitting results to a secondary unit.

Activists plan to monitor the recount, but the potential for problems remain. "We are very worried about tampering," Alter admitted. "That’s why we want the count videotaped."

Those fears evoke comparisons to Clermont County, Ohio, where Raw Story reported that a recount of the 2004 presidential election revealed that stickers were placed over the Kerry/Edwards oval on opti-scan ballots. Those ballots were then fed into machines after the hand recount. Witnesses have stated that beneath the stickers, the Kerry/Edwards oval was selected.

Subtler forms of tampering might include substituting entire batches of ballots, described Alter, who plans to monitor the recount.

Soon, San Diego’s Registrar hopes to eliminate the opti-scan system entirely and retrofit warehoused TSx touchscreen machines with paper trails–if the new Republican Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, opts to recertify the TSx system previously decertified by Democratic Secretary of State Kevin Shelley.

McPherson is lobbying Republican Governor Schwarzenegger to veto SB 370, which would make paper trails the official votes of record. SB 370 has already passed the State Senate and is now about to pass the Assembly. Sources close to the McPherson confirm that he is still lobbying the governor to veto.

Alter, meanwhile, is organizing citizen volunteers to hold parallel elections statewide for the fall special election called by Governor Schwarzenegger.

"I’m not stopping," the election reform advocate concludes. "This is just a moving train."

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified Mr. Prizzi as currently affiliated with an academic institution. Prizzi, an engineer and physicist, is not.

from the raw story 

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

MUST READ: A STATISTICAL MYSTERY; STRANGE DEATH OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

Posted in General on July 21st, 2005

These are two of the best articles I have seen on the subject.

Final Tallies Minus Exit Polls = A Statistical Mystery!
by John Allen Paulos

Professor of mathematics at Temple University and winner of the 2003 American Association for the Advancement of Science award for the promotion of public understanding of science, John Allen Paulos is the author of several best-selling books, including Innumeracy and A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market.

OpEd in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 24, 2004

http://www.math.temple.edu/~paulos/exit.html

Note: The belated "official" response" of January 19, 2005 to the controversy certainly points to a possible explanation, but I can’t say that I’m at all convinced by it. Unfortunately, if people – and the media in particular – couldn’t rouse themselves to demand (the investigation needed for) a truly convincing explanation before the inauguration, they certainly aren’t going to demand one now. Alas …

Why did the exit polls taken on election day in the battleground states differ so starkly from the final tallies in those states? As my crosstown colleague, Steven Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania has demonstrated in his paper, "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," the pattern is unmistakable. In Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, the differences between Bush’s final tallies and his earlier exit poll percentages were, respectively, 6.7%, 6.5%, and 4.9%.

Similarly huge differences between the final tallies and the exit poll percentages occurred in 10 of the 11 battleground states, all of them in Bush’s favor. If the people sampled in the exit polls were a random sample of voters, Freeman’s standard statistical techniques show that these large discrepancies are way, way beyond the margins of error. Suffice it to say that the odds against them occuring by chance in just the three states mentioned above are almost a million to one.

Since exit polls historically have been quite accurate (there is no question about likely voters, for example) and the differences as likely to have been in one candidate’s favor as the other’s, we’re confronted with the question of what caused them. Given the indefensible withholding of the full exit poll data by Edison Media Research, Mitofsky International, the Associated Press and various networks, we can only hazard guesses based on what was available election night. The obvious speculation, alluded to above, is that the exit samples were decidedly non-random.

more…
********************************************

The Strange Death of American Democracy:
Endgame in Ohio
by Michael Keefer

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html

www.globalresearch.ca
24 January 2005

snip

Like the unsavoury Katherine Harris, who was Florida Secretary of State in 2000 and simultaneously state Chair of the Florida Bush-Cheney campaign, Kenneth Blackwell occupied a strategic double position as Co-Chair of the Ohio Bush-Cheney campaign and Secretary of State in what analysts correctly anticipated would be the key swing state of the 2004 election. From this position, a growing body of evidence shows, he was able to oversee a partisan and racist pre-election purging of the electoral rolls,<10> a clearly partisan reduction of the number of voting precincts in counties won by Gore in 2000 (a move that helped suppress the 2004 Democratic turnout),<11> a partisan and racist misallocation of voting machines (which effectively disenfranchised tens of thousands of African-American voters),<12> a partisan and racist system of polling-place challenges (which together with electoral roll purges obliged many scores of thousands of African-Americans to vote with ‘second-class-citizen’ provisional ballots),<13> and a fraudulent pre-programming of touch-screen voting machines that produced a systematic ‘flipping’ of Democratic votes into Bush’s tally or the trash can.<14> In a nation that enforced its own laws, the misallocation of voting machines–a clear violation of the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution–would alone have sufficed to invalidate the Ohio election.

Having overseen one of the more flagrantly corrupt elections in recent American history, Blackwell and his Republican machine proceeded to "take care of the counting"–which involved a partisan and racist dismissal of scores of thousands of African-American ballots as "spoiled,"<15> a flagrantly illegal "lock-down" of the vote-tallying process in Warren County on the transparently false grounds of a supposed terrorist threat,<16> massive electronic vote-tabulation fraud in this and other south-western Ohio counties,<17> and marginally less flagrant but evidently systematic forms of ‘ghost-voting’ and vote theft elsewhere in the state.<18>Blackwell then saw to it (with the active assistance of partisan Republican judges, and the passive assistance of a strangely supine Democratic Party) that no even partial recount–let alone anything resembling a voting-machine or vote-tabulator audit–could get under way prior to the selection of Ohio’s Republican electors to the Electoral College.<19>

He also did his utmost to block public access to election data, ordering the Boards of Election in all eighty-eight Ohio counties to prevent public inspection of poll books until after certification of the vote, which he delayed until December 6th.<20> On December 10th, his Election Administrator, Pat Wolfe, intervened to prevent analysis of poll-book data by ordering, on Blackwell’s authority, a renewed "lock-down" of voting records in Greene County and the entire state. (According to Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV Elections, Sec. 3503.26, such records are to be open to the public; Ohio Revised Code Sec. 3599.42 explicitly declares that any violation of Title XXXV "constitutes a prima facie case of election fraud….")<21>

Bizarrely enough, on the night following the statement to election observers in Greene County that all voter records in the State of Ohio were "locked down" and "not considered public records," the Greene County offices were left unlocked: when the same election observers returned at 10:15 on the morning of Saturday, December 11th, they found the building open, a light on in the office (which had not been on when it was closed on the evening of the 10th), and all of the poll books and voting machines unsecured.<22>

When at last the Green and Libertarian parties’ lawyers were able to obtain a recount, Blackwell presided over one that was fully as corrupt as the election had been. Sample hand recounts were to be carried out in each county, involving randomly-selected precincts constituting at least three percent of the vote; any disagreements between the sample recount and the official tally were supposed to prompt a full county-wide hand recount. According to Green Party observers, however, a substantial proportion of Ohio’s eighty-eight counties broke the law by not selecting their hand-recount precincts randomly.<23> There is evidence, most crucially, that Triad Governmental Systems, the private corporation responsible for servicing the vote-tabulation machines in about half of the state, tampered with selected machines in counties across Ohio immediately before the recount in order to ensure that the sample recount tallies would conform with the official vote tallies.<24> (Triad’s technicians knew which machines to tamper with because, it would appear, Board of Election officials, in open violation of the law, told them which precincts had been pre-selected.)

Despite this widespread tampering, there were discrepancies in at least six counties between the sample hand recounts and the official tallies–and yet the Board of Elections refused to conduct full county-wide hand recounts.<25> As David Swanson writes,"Only one county conducted a full hand recount, which resulted in 6 percent more votes than in the original vote. Those extra votes were evenly split between Kerry and Bush, but–even assuming that one county’s votes have now been properly counted–how do we know where votes in the other 87 counties would fall? Should an extra several percent of them show up, and should they be weighted toward Kerry, the election would not have yet been what the media keeps telling us it is: over.<26>

more…

Posted on Democratic Underground by TruthIsAll

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

With a limp election theft report, Dems prove why they’re unworthy

Posted in General on June 29th, 2005

With a limp election theft report, Dems prove why they’re unworthy
by Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis
June 28, 2005

In an astonishingly limp report on the stolen 2004 election, the Democratic Party has once again proven why it is unworthy to lead this country and incapable of mounting significant resistance to the far-right GOP juggernaut.

The Democrats much-vaunted "investigation" entitled “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio” could well have been conducted by a high school class in elementary polling. It consists almost entirely of post-election phone interviews. It says nothing about the devastating discrepancies between exit polls and the highly improbable and virtually impossible vote total that gave George W. Bush a second term. It makes no case about precinct-by-precinct illegalities including unguarded ballots, election machine tampering, an unexplained bogus Homeland Security alert, the firing of whistle-blowing election board officials, and much more.

In point of fact, as we have outlined in Did George W. Bush Steal America’s 2004 Election? Essential Documents (CICJ Books), any third world election that was as rife with fraud and theft as was Ohio’s this past November would have been summarily thrown out by the United Nations or any other body of international observers.

But as has been so typical of the Democrats’ performance on so many issues, the party’s report appears to have been drafted on the top floor of a high-rise office building staffed with a phone bank. There is no connection at all to the actual Election Day realities on the ground in Ohio, and the researchers appeared unwilling to read the local newspapers and internet reports about what happened in the election they allegedly studied.

In the interviews conducted, the Democratic National Committee Report “Democracy at Risk” still manages to confirm some crucial assertions made by http://freepress.org pre- and post-election. For example, the study finds that the average wait to vote for a black voter in Ohio was nearly an hour, while the average wait for a white voter was less than 15 minutes. Of course, this was widely covered, even by mainstream news media at the time.

Still, the report downplays the wait of African-Americans in Franklin County where the average wait in the inner city wards on the near east side was over 3 hours, and where some waited 7-8 hours. The statisticians accomplished this by using a statewide survey of all African-Americans instead of focusing on the obvious Republican voter suppression tactics in the three major cities of Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati.

The report documents that in the Columbus area “74 percent of voters waited more than 20 minutes to vote” and “There were also proportionally fewer voting machines in Franklin County’s minority neighborhoods than it its predominantly white neighborhoods.” The report fails to note that the Director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, Matt Damschroder, the former Chair of the Franklin County Republican Party held back 76 machines, all the in Democratic city of Columbus and 42 from the primarily African-American wards of the city.

Let’s see. If a white suburbanite in Upper Arlington votes in 21 minutes and an African-American in ward 55 waits, on average, 3 hours and 15 minutes, is the best measurement “more than 20 minutes?”

The obvious corollary is then confirmed: as many as “three percent” of Ohio’s would-be voters LEFT THE POLLING PLACES WITHOUT VOTING because of those long lines. As the report points out, that alone involves enough raw votes to have swung the state for John Kerry. But then, astonishingly, the Democrats assert that those who walked away without voting were equally divided between supporters of Kerry and Bush.

This is statistically highly improbable and is absurd on its face. If black voters went overwhelmingly for Kerry (83%) and whites for Bush, and the wait for black voters was so much longer than for whites, who went home? And who is harmed? Is there a mystery here?

The Free Press canvassed one inner city mostly African-American precinct and found 20% of the voters never voted after standing in line at least one time.

There is much, much more, as would befit the Rove/GOP strategy of "doing everything," i.e., employing a wide range of tactics to steal as many votes as possible through as many different means as they could get away with.

A long, convoluted discussion of electronic voting machines does endorse the need for all of them to produce an auditable paper trail. But the Democrats never follow up on the fact that approximately 15% of the 5,625,631 votes certified as official in this state were cast on electronic voting machines that were manufactured, programmed and operated by companies whose officers and directors are overwhelmingly sympathetic to Bush and the Republicans. That means more than 800,000 votes were counted without any meaningful monitoring in an election that was officially recorded as being won by George W. Bush by about 118,000.

Does it matter to the Democrats, for example, that the Triad Corporation, whose representatives mysteriously jiggered the central tabulating machine in Hocking County before a recount could be conducted, is a corporate partner with the same company that produced the infamous butterfly ballots that helped give Bush Florida in 2000?

There is far too much more to document here short of writing another book, which we are doing, and which we hope to have in print by October.

Suffice it to say: to read this report as Ohioans is to enter a dream state in which the "opposition party" seems content to let elections float by with a wave and a nod. To say the least, this does not bode well for 2008, or for the future of American democracy.


Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis are co-editors, with Steve Rosenfeld, of DID GEORGE W. BUSH STEAL THE 2004 ELECTION: ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS, published by CICJ Books and available from http://freepress.org.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

Introduction: Did George W. Bush steal America’s 2004 election?

Posted in General on June 23rd, 2005

Introduction: Did George W. Bush steal America’s 2004 election?
by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
June 16, 2005

The following text is the Introduction to the 767 page: Did George W. Bush Steal America’s 2004 Election? Essential Documents. You can buy the book here.

This volume of documents is meant to provide you, the reader, with evidence necessary to make up your own mind.

Few debates have aroused more polarized ire. But too often the argument has proceeded without documentation. This volume of crucial source materials, from Ohio and elsewhere, is meant to correct that problem.

Amidst a bitterly contested vote count that resulted in unprecedented action by the Congress of the United States, here are some news accounts that followed this election, which was among the most bitterly contested in all US history:

• Despite repeated pre-election calls from officials across the nation and the world, Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State, who also served as Ohio’s co-chair for the Bush-Cheney campaign, refused to allow non-partisan international and United Nations observers the access they requested to monitor the Ohio vote. While such access is routinely demanded by the U.S. government in third world nations, it was banned in the American heartland.

• A post-election headline from the Akron Beacon Journal cites a critical report by twelve prominent social scientists and statisticians, reporting: "Analysis Points to Election ‘Corruption’: Group Says Chance of Exit Polls Being So Wrong in ’04 Vote is One-in-959,000."

• Citing "Ohio’s Odd Numbers," investigative reporter Christopher Hitchens, a Bush supporter, says in Vanity Fair: "Given what happened in that key state on Election Day 2004, both democracy and common sense cry out for a court-ordered inspection of its new voting machines."

• Paul Krugman of the New York Times writes: "It’s election night, and early returns suggest trouble for the incumbent. Then, mysteriously, the vote count stops and observers from the challenger’s campaign see employees of a voting-machine company, one wearing a badge that identifies him as a county official, typing instructions at computers with access to the vote-tabulating software.

When the count resumes, the incumbent pulls ahead. The challenger demands an investigation. But there are no ballots to recount, and election officials allied with the incumbent refuse to release data that could shed light on whether there was tampering with the electronic records.

This isn’t a paranoid fantasy. It’s a true account of a recent election in Riverside County, California…"

• Hundreds of Ohio African-American voters give sworn testimony that they were harassed, intimidated, deprived of voting machines, given faulty ballots, confronted with malfunctioning machines and hit with a staggering range of other problems that deprived them of votes that were destined for John Kerry, votes that might have tipped the Ohio outcome.

• A team of high-powered researchers discover results in three southern Ohio counties where an obscure African-American candidate for the state Supreme Court somehow outpolls John Kerry, a virtually impossible outcome indicating massive vote fraud costing Kerry thousands of votes.

• Up until 11pm Eastern time on election night, exit polls show John Kerry comfortably leading George Bush in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, giving him a clear victory in the Electoral College, and a projected national margin of some 1.5 million votes. These same exit polls had just served as the basis for overturning an election in Ukraine, and are viewed worldwide as a bedrock of reliability. But after midnight the vote count mysteriously turns, and by morning George W. Bush is declared the victor.

There is far far more…enough, indeed, to result in massive court filings, unprecedented Congressional action and a library full of documents leading to bitter controversy over the 2004 election, especially in Ohio.

In this volume, we have attempted to present many of the most crucial of those documents.

Do they prove that George W. Bush stole the U.S. presidential election of 2004?

Should John Kerry rather than Bush have been certified by the Electoral College on January 6, 2005?

Historians will be debating that for centuries. What follows are some of the core documents they will use in that debate:

The most hotly contested evidence comes most importantly from Ohio, whose 20 electoral votes decided the election. But it also comes from other key swing states—-especially Florida and New Mexico—-where exit polls and other evidence raise questions about the officially certified vote tallies in favor of Bush.

As mentioned, this book presents the most crucial documents indicating how this bitterly contested election was actually decided.

But it is also this book’s purpose to memorialize the successful grassroots campaign by voting rights advocates that forced an historic Congressional challenge on the floors of the U.S. Senate and House. Acting on an 1887 law that grew out of the stolen election of 1876, a concerned constituency called into question before Congress the electoral votes of an entire state for the first time in U.S. history.

Brought forth by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and by Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), the Ohio electoral delegation challenge was the product of a unique grassroots campaign whose work is also documented here. As the New York Times described it, "In many ways, the debate came about because of the relentless efforts of a small group of third-party activists, liberal lawyers, Internet muckrakers and civil rights groups, who have been arguing since Election Day that the Ohio vote was rigged for Mr. Bush."

The research and writing in this book has focussed on Ohio, where we have been collectively reporting on electoral politics for more than three decades.

While the alleged irregularities, frauds and illegalities that transpired here in 2004 have probably generated the most thorough documention of any state, important parallel assertions have arisen in other states around the country, most importantly Florida and New Mexico.

As journalists and researchers with deep roots in Columbus, the state capitol, we warned of serious problems developing in how Ohio’s 2004 balloting was being administered even before the actual votes were cast.

Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell who oversaw the Ohio election, is an outspoken, extremely controversial partisan who also served as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign, a conflict of interest that aroused much anger.

In his dual role, Blackwell seemed to replay the part of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. In 2000 Harris also served as co-chair of the state’s Bush-Cheney campaign while administering the election that first gave them the White House. In both cases, Harris and Blackwell termed the elections "highly successful."

But were these "successes" defined in terms of their public servant roles as Secretaries of State? Or were they defined in terms of their partisan roles as campaign co-chairs for George W. Bush?

In this volume’s first three documents, we reproduce articles published before November 2, 2004. Widely distributed throughout the Internet weeks before the election, they warned that a wide range of abuses stemming from Secretary Blackwell’s office and other sources had already tainted the outcome of the upcoming Ohio vote.

On Election Day, these warnings seemed tragically prophetic. The balloting throughout Ohio was riddled with a staggering array of irregularities, apparent fraud and clear illegalities. Many of the questions focused on electronic voting machines whose lack of official accountability and a reliable paper trail had been in the news since the bitterly contested election of 2000, four years earlier. (Similar questions also arose in Georgia in 2002, where Democratic candidates for Governor and US Senate had substantial leads in the major polls right up to election day, only to lose by substantial margins).

The most widely publicized Ohio problems came as predominantly African-American precincts turned up suspiciously short of voting machines. Inner-city voters waited three hours on average and up to seven hours, according to election officials and to sworn testimony of local residents. Many voters stood in the cold rain to cast their ballots while nearby white Republican suburbs suffered virtually no delays. The wait at liberal Kenyon College, located in Knox County, Ohio, was eleven hours, while voters at a nearby conservative Bible school could vote in five minutes.

To this day no one can definitively tell how many citizens, seeing the long lines, went home or to work or to take care of their children, thus losing their right to vote.

But long waits were hardly the only problems predominantly Democratic voters encountered on Election Day. Selective harassment by partisan poll "inspectors," provisional ballot manipulations, missing registration records, denial of absentee ballots, absentee ballots pre-punched for Bush, faulty computer screens reflecting votes for Bush that were meant for Kerry, apparently deliberate misinformation regarding polling locations, inadequate poll worker training in predominantly Democratic precincts, and much much more threw scores of polling places into serious disarray.

In two heated public post-election hearings, attended by a thousand central Ohioans, several hundred angry voters testified – under oath – on the details of the irregularities that quickly led to the widespread belief that the election had been stolen. Their testimony got virtually no mainstream media coverage. But the verbatim essence of their sworn affidavits appears in this book.

Like the elections of 2000 and 2002, much of the doubt about the election of 2004 continues to center on the counting of votes, especially on electronic voting machines.

About 15% of Ohio’s ballots were cast on computerized devices that left no paper trail. With more than 5.7 million votes cast in a state yielding an official margin for Bush of less than 117,000 votes, a skewed vote count on those machines alone could have made the difference for George W. Bush.

Sworn testimony recorded in public hearings in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Warren cast serious doubt on how those voting machines performed. In Warren, voters pressing Kerry’s name on electronic screens repeatedly saw Bush’s name light up. In predominantly Democratic Lucas County, Diebold Opti-scan machines broke down early in the day and were never fixed, denying thousands – mostly Democrats – their right to vote.

Reports surfacing in other precincts verified that technicians dismantled key electronic machines before a recount could be certified. Election officials in Franklin County (where Columbus is located) reported that 77 of their machines malfunctioned on Election Day, virtually all of them in heavily Democratic precincts. Inner city precincts in Cincinnati and Cleveland had all-too-familiar Florida-style problems with their punch card machines.

To date, there has been no credible, independent audit of these machines, not in Ohio or in any other state. In Ohio, Secretary of State Blackwell issued an order in the weeks following the election that all 2004 election records, paper and electronic, were to be sealed from public access and inspection. As of this book’s publication date, those records remain unobtainable.

The controversy surrounding the voting machines remains extremely fierce in part because major manufacturers such as Diebold, ES&S, Triad, and others are controlled by partisan Republican companies with secret proprietary software. This unfortunate lack of transparency calls all U.S. elections into question.

In a highly publicized controversy, Diebold principle Walden O’Dell, a resident of central Ohio, pledged in a 2003 GOP fundraising letter to deliver Ohio’s electoral votes to George W. Bush, leaving the indelible suspicion that he might do it fraudulently. U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is a principle in another major voting machine company, ES&S, on which many millions of votes were cast in 2004. Hagel was elected and re-elected in balloting that relied on ES&S machines. Such apparent conflicts of interest have left the poisonous impression that America’s right to cast a ballot in secret has been transcended by a private partisan company’s right to count votes in secret.

In fact, the question of electronic voting machines remains the single largest "black hole" in the entire electoral process. Nationwide at least 30% of the votes in 2004 were cast on such "black box" machines, more than enough to have tipped the balance in the popular vote from John Kerry to George W. Bush.

Despite the intense battle over this election and the scrutiny it has received worldwide, it is virtually certain there will never be a clear answer as to how many votes cast on those machines really went to which candidate. The 3.5 million-vote margin claimed by George W. Bush in the 2004 election remains unverifiable and, at best, forever suspect.

In reaction, GOP operatives have put forth three major arguments to defend a Bush victory.

First, they argue that in Ohio and elsewhere, county election boards are bi-partisan, meaning Democrats would have had to accede to any theft of an election. This book provides a verbatim interview from William Anthony, Democratic election board member in Ohio’s Franklin County. Among other things, Anthony confirms that Blackwell had the power to remove any election board member, including Democrats, whose actions displeased him. Anthony and other Ohio election board members confirm that Blackwell in fact made at least one such threat in the lead-up to the 2004 election. And that Blackwell specifically denied central Ohioans access to paper ballots, a decision that might well have affected the overall outcome.

Republicans also argue that exit polls were wrong because Republicans failed to respond to them throughout the country on election day. They also say a late surge of evangelical voters in Florida and elsewhere overwhelmed the polling data, and that social issues prompted tens of thousands of core Democrats to drop their long-standing party loyalties and to vote for George W. Bush where in 2000 they had voted by wide margins for Al Gore.

These assertions remain unsupported by hard data. A number of documents in this book indicate they could not be true. And in large part as a result of these refutations, the movement demanding further scrutiny of the national vote continued to gain momentum in the weeks and months after the election.

Amidst the bitter controversy that was voiced in Ohio’s post-election public hearings, unprecedented national attention began to focus on what may or may not have happened here. In late November, the Reverend Jesse Jackson let it be known he had serious questions about the conduct of the Ohio balloting.

In a series of visits Jackson rallied an African-American community that felt it had been deprived of its vote. A former cohort of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jackson compared the grassroots campaign for voter justice in Ohio to the civil rights marches of the 1950s and 1960s. Terming the campaign here "a bigger deal than Selma," Jackson likened what happened in Ohio 2004 to the deprivation of black voting rights throughout the Jim Crow South dating to the 1890s.

As a grassroots movement grew within the state – and across the nation – to demand a recount, Jackson enlisted the support of Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Tubbs Jones. While a citizens movement demanded to know what Ohio had to hide, Secretary of State Blackwell dragged his feet on the recount. He used a wide range of legal and bureaucratic maneuvers that deprived the public of meaningful scrutiny prior to the convening of the Electoral College, which Blackwell had long since proclaimed would go for Bush.

The grassroots efforts coalesced into two legal actions. On the morning of December 13, at the federal courthouse in Columbus, suits were filed on behalf of candidates from the Green and Libertarian Parties, demanding that the Ohio Electors not be seated until a full investigation of both the balloting and the recount could be conducted. Meanwhile, the convenors of the citizens’ post-election hearings assembled a legal team to file two election challenge lawsuits, Moss v. Bush, and Moss v. Moyer, at Ohio’s Supreme Court.

Rev. Bill Moss, a former member of the Columbus School Board, was the lead plaintiff in the suits, filed against George W. Bush and Thomas Moyer, Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Small donor contributions from across the country financed both actions.

Later that morning, Rep. Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, convened a public forum on voting irregularities in Ohio that was covered by C-SPAN. Conyers had already taken testimony at a hearing in Washington. Now he was joined by Rep. Jones and Congressman Ted Strickland (D-OH), Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), Congressman Jerome Nadler (D-NY) and others at the Columbus City Council Chambers. The hearing had originally been called for the Statehouse, but Republicans there denied the Congressional delegation a room.

Taking additional testimony from Ohioans who were denied their right to vote, Conyers’ City Hall hearing also heard from national election experts. While they testified, Republican Electors cast their ballots around the corner at the statehouse, votes that would, as Blackwell predicted, give the election to George W. Bush.

In the wake of these new hearings, and with growing momentum built by Jackson, Jones, Conyers and others, a truly national movement arose to demand a new look at what had happened on November 2. With an almost total blackout on all coverage from the mainstream media, the vast bulk of the information was spread through www.FreePress.org. The Free Press articles were in turn picked up by www.CommonDreams.org, www.Truthout.org and other democracy-minded internet outlets. Co-authors Fitrakis, Wasserman and Rosenfeld appeared on Air America Radio Shows hosted by Laura Flanders, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, and Marty Kaplan, as well as Pacifica Radio, NPR, independent radio stations and with Amy Goodman on the Democracy Now TV network.

But by and large, the fact that the story spread at all was a tribute to the ability of the Internet to operate independently from the major media, whose scant coverage of what happened in Ohio was almost uniformly hostile to the idea that anything could have gone seriously wrong.

On January 3, 2005, Rev. Jackson hosted a rally in downtown Columbus at which Rep. Jones officially announced that she would formally question the seating of the Ohio Electoral delegation on January 6. The challenge would come through a law passed by Congress in 1887 in response to the Republican theft of the 1876 election.

That year the New York Democratic Samuel Tilden outpolled the Ohio Republican Rutherford B. Hayes by about 250,000 votes. But the Republican Party manipulated the electoral votes in Florida and other states.

After a tense five-month stand-off, a deal was cut and Hayes became president. In exchange, the GOP ended Reconstruction by pulling the last federal troops out of the defeated south, leaving millions of freed slaves to the mercies of Jim Crow segregation and a system designed to deprive them of their right to vote, a Constitutional violation not seriously challenged until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

The 1887 law provided that at the formal request of a Senator and a Representative, the two houses of Congress would debate separately for two hours the legitimacy of seating a specified state’s delegation to the Electoral College.

In 2000, members of the Congressional Black Caucus rose to challenge the Florida delegation. But Vice President Al Gore, who was presiding over the Senate at the time, recognized no senator willing to join them.

As of January 3, 2005, no U.S. senator had stepped forward to join Rep. Jones. The next day a busload of activists left from Columbus for an overnight "freedom ride" to Washington. As they arrived the morning of January 5, the burgeoning "Election Protection" coalition staged a media briefing at the National Press Club, finally generating major global media coverage, including ABC’s Nightline. Throughout that day, and the next, Rev. Jackson, with Fitrakis and others in tow, lobbied the Congress, providing in-depth briefings for key Democratic senators, including the newly installed Democratic leadership and former first lady Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

On January 6, at a morning rally across from the White House, Rev. Jackson announced that Senator Boxer would join Rep. Tubbs Jones in questioning the seating of the Republican delegation from Ohio to the Electoral College.

Boxer’s historic decision was greeted with loud cheers from the Election Protection coalition. In her California re-election campaign, Boxer had been America’s third-leading vote-getter, behind Kerry and Bush. But extremely harsh personal attacks spewed from Rep. Tom DeLay (D-TX) and the Republican leadership in the Congress and in Ohio. Much of the Ohio media, which had ignored the story since election day, jumped in with personal attacks on Rep. Tubbs Jones and the voting rights activists.

As the day progressed, public rallies accompanied the Congressional debate, much of which we have reproduced here. Then the two chambers re-convened, certified the Ohio delegation—and George W. Bush was given a disputed second term.

But the historic controversy over the 2004 election has not ended.

At its core remain unanswered questions surrounding the actions of Secretary of State Blackwell, the fine print of election procedure and vote counting, as well as the still unresolved exit poll controversy and the nature of electronic voting.

Up until 11pm Eastern Standard Time, the major election-day exit polls showed John Kerry winning the national election. But in nine of eleven swing states, including Florida and Ohio, massive, unexplained shifts gave Bush the election.

Nationwide what appeared to be a victory for Kerry by about 1.5 million votes suddenly became a 3.5 million margin for Bush.

As shown in the documents here, the hard realities of such a shift remain unexplained.

In the months after the election, dozens of polling experts and statisticians have scrutinized every corner of the public exit polling data as it stacks up against the official vote counts. The major pollsters and their national media clients still refuse to release the raw data. The consensus, as shown here, is that the reversal of Kerry’s fortunes late on election night was in essence a statistical impossibility, with the odds at roughly 1 in 950,000. According to these experts, John Kerry should have been inaugurated in January, 2005.

These exit poll analyses have been generally ignored but not disputed by the mainstream press. In early 2005, two major pollsters issued statements saying that their initial work was in error, and that they had somehow "under-interviewed" Republican voters, thereby skewing their findings toward the Democrats.

But such denials are simply not credible in the eyes of a broad spectrum of independent experts. As shown in the documents here, nearly all the "errors" in the polling were somehow in Bush’s favor. The odds against the reversals that were shown in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania alone are in the hundreds-of-thousands to one; according to experts such as the University of Illinois’s Ron Baiman, nationwide the odds approach 150 million to one.

Ironically, just prior to the 2004 US election, similar exit polls led to the reversal of a presidential election in Ukraine, where mass demonstrations forced a re-vote. The challenger’s "defeat" in the first voting ran so clearly counter to the exit polls that a second vote was forced, which he won.

The Bush administration supported the revote in the Ukraine. But there was no parallel reversal here.

The drama in Ohio continues. In early 2005, Secretary of State Blackwell issued a fundraising letter congratulating himself for delivering Ohio to George W. Bush. The letter contained an illegal solicitation of corporate money, and was withdrawn as a "mistake."

Blackwell was not indicted. But the letter enhanced the widespread suspicion that Blackwell abused his position as Secretary of State to wrongfully deliver Ohio, and the White House, to George W. Bush.

In January 2005, Blackwell initiated an attempt by Ohio Attorney General James Petro to sanction four attorneys who sued to get to the bottom of what had happened on Election Day, 2004. Bob Fitrakis, Cliff Arnebeck, Susan Truitt and Peter Peckarsky were named as attorneys to be sanctioned at the pleasure of the Ohio Supreme Court, which is dominated by Republicans. Petro’s brief essentially argues that there were no irregularities in the 2004 Ohio election and the Moss v. Bush and Moss v. Moyer filings were "meritless" and "frivolous." Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, who is cited in the second filing, refused to recuse himself, and appointed himself to rule on the Moss v. Bush case against the very lawyers who filed against him in Moss v. Moyer.

Meanwhile, Blackwell escalated his own campaign for Governor of Ohio, to be decided in primary and general elections he would administer as Secretary of State. As the prime candidate of the fundamentalist far-right, Blackwell planned to follow in the footsteps of Florida’s Katherine Harris, who was rewarded with a safe Congressional seat after delivering her state – and the presidency – to Bush in 2000.

As the documents in the final chapter and appendix to this book show, the bitter controversy over the vote count in Ohio has been mirrored in other key states around the US.

The outcome in Florida 2004 remains in many ways as severely challenged as in 2000. Serious questions have erupted in New Mexico, where every precinct that used electronic scanning devices went for Bush, no matter what its demographic make-up or party proclivities. As Kerry noted in a conference call involving Jackson, Fitrakis and Arneback, it was not the Democrat or Republican, Hispanic or Anglo, rich or poor make-up of a precinct that decided the outcome in New Mexico, it was the presence of opti-scan vote counters.

Similar new concerns have since surfaced in Maryland and elsewhere.

Like the production of this book, the "Election Protection" campaign that grew from the Ohio grassroots has been unaided by either the Ohio Democratic Party, the Kerry campaign or any other candidate, or the major media. But it has coalesced into a nationwide movement for meaningful reform. Based in grassroots organizing and independent internet outlets like www.FreePress.org, they may be our only lifeline to any hope for the future of democracy.

The Democratic representatives who stood up on January 6 are pursuing election reform at the federal level. It remains to be seen how that plays out.

But the bitter controversy over Ohio 2004, like that over Florida 2000 and Georgia 2002, rings like a firebell for the future of democracy.

Four decades after the 1965 signing of the National Voting Rights Act, and nearly fourteen decades after 1869 passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing freed slaves the right to vote, millions of Americans and citizens worldwide believe that our electoral process is still vulnerable to manipulation, fraud and theft.

We believe the documents in this book form the most complete record so far of what really happened in Ohio and elsewhere immediately before, during and after the election of 2004. Some have been edited to avoid excessive repetition. All are accompanied by citations meant to guide you to original documents in their entirety, as well as to other sources providing a variety of perspectives.

Many who are discontent with how this election was conducted now argue for federal standards to apply to all future elections. There are a wide range of additional reforms being proposed on all sides of the political spectrum.

But few would disagree with the proposition put forth by Thomas Jefferson that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. And that free elections demand aggressive, informed, relentless protection.

We hope this volume will facilitate informed decisions about how that can be done in the future.

Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman
Columbus, Ohio
May 2005
Buy the book today!

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page

Optical scan machines hacked in Florida

Posted in General on May 30th, 2005

(Is it true that memory cards are used in optical scan machines? I thought they were only for touchscreens and the scan machines use paper ballots. –rf. (note: permission to reprint granted with link)

Tallahassee, FL: "Are we having fun yet?"

This is the message that appeared in the window of a county optical scan machine, startling Leon County Information Systems Officer Thomas James. Visibly shaken, he immediately turned the machine off.

Diebold’s opti-scan (paper ballot) voting system uses a curious memory card design, offering penetration by a lone programmer such that standard canvassing procedures cannot detect election manipulation.

The Diebold optical scan system was used in about 800 jurisdictions in 2004. Among them were several hotbeds of controversy: Volusia County (FL); King County (WA); and the New Hampshire primary election, where machine results differed markedly from hand-counted localities.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/5921.html

New regs: Counting paper ballots forbidden

Most states prohibit elections officials from checking on optical scan tallies by examining the paper ballots. In Washington, Secretary of State Sam Reed declared such spontaneous checkups to be "unauthorized recounts" and prohibited them altogether. New Florida regulations will forbid counting paper ballots, even in recounts, except in highly unusual circumstances. Without paper ballot hand-counts, the hacks demonstrated below show that optical-scan elections can be destroyed in seconds.

A little man living in every ballot box

The Diebold optical scan system uses a dangerous programming methodology, with an executable program living inside the electronic ballot box. This method is the equivalent of having a little man living in the ballot box, holding an eraser and a pencil. With an executable program in the memory card, no Diebold opti-scan ballot box can be considered "empty" at the start of the election.

The Black Box Voting team proved that the Diebold optical scan program, housed on a chip inside the voting machine, places a call to a program living in the removable memory card during the election. The demonstration also showed that the executable program on the memory card (ballot box) can easily be changed, and that checks and balances, required by FEC standards to catch unauthorized changes, were not implemented by Diebold — yet the system was certified anyway.

The Diebold system in Leon County, Florida succumbed to multiple attacks.

Ion Sancho: Truth and Excellence in Elections

Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho and Information Systems Officer Thomas James had already implemented security procedures in Leon County far exceeding the norm in elections management. This testing, done by a team of researchers including Black Box Voting, independent filmmakers, security expert Dr. Herbert Thompson, and special consultant Harri Hursti, was authorized by Mr. Sancho, in an unusual act of openness and courage, to identify any remaining holes in Leon County’s election security.

The results of the memory card hack demonstration will assist elections supervisors throughout the U.S., by emphasizing the critical importance of accounting for each and every memory card and protecting access.

Findings:

Computer expert Harri Hursti gained control over Leon County memory cards, which handle the vote-reporting from the precincts. Dr. Herbert Thompson, a security expert, took control of the Leon County central tabulator by implanting a trojan horse-like script.

Two programmers can become a lone programmer, says Hursti, who has figured out a way to control the entire central tabulator by way of a single memory card swap, and also how to make tampered polling place tapes match tampered central tabulator results. This more complex approach is untested, but based on testing performed May 26, Hursti says he has absolutely no reason to believe it wouldn’t work.

Three memory card tests demonstrated successful manipulation of election results, and showed that 1990 and 2002 FEC-required safeguards are being violated in the Diebold version 1.94 opti-scan system.

Three memory card hacks

1. An altered memory card (electronic ballot box) was substituted for a real one. The optical scan machine performed seamlessly, issuing a report that looked like the real thing. No checksum captured the change in the executable program Diebold designed into the memory card.

2. A second altered memory card was demonstrated, using a program that was shorter than the original. It still worked, showing that there is also no check for the number of bytes in the program.

3. A third altered memory card was demonstrated with the votes themselves changed, showing that the data block (votes) can be altered without triggering any error message.

How to "Roll over the odometer" in Diebold optical scan machines

Testing also showed that integer overflow checks do not exist in this system, making it possible to stuff the ballot box without triggering any error message. This would be like pre-loading minus 100 votes for Tom and plus 100 votes for Rick (-100+100=ZERO) — changing the candidate totals without changing the overall number of votes.

A more precise comparison would be this: The odometer on a car rolls over to zero after 999,999. In the Diebold system tested, the rollover to zero happens at 65,536 votes. By pre-loading 65,511 votes for a candidate, after 25 real votes appear (65,511 plus 25 = 65,536) the report "rolls over" so that the candidate’s total is ZERO.

This manipulation can be balanced out by preloading votes for candidate "A" at 65,511 and candidate "B" at 25 votes — producing an articifial 50-vote spread between the candidates, which will not be obvious after the first 25 votes for candidate "A" roll over to zero. The "negative 25" votes from the odometer rollover counterbalance the "plus 25" votes for the other candidates, making the total number of votes cast at the end of the day exactly equal to the number of voters.

While testing the hack on the Leon County optical scan machine, Hursti was stunned to find that pre-stuffing the ballot box to "roll over the odometer" produced no error message whatsoever.

Simple tweaks to pass L&A test and survive zero tape

Though the additional tweaks were not demonstrated at the Leon County elections office, Hursti believes that the integor overflow hack can easily be covered up on the "zero tape" produced at the beginning of the election. The programming to cover up manipulations during the "logic & accuracy test" is even simpler, since the program allows you to specify on which reports (and, if you like, date and time of day) the manipulation will affect.

The testing demonstrated, using the actual voting system used in a real elections office, that Diebold programmers developed a system that sacrifices security in favor of dangerously flexible programming, violating FEC standards and calling the actions of ITA testing labs and certifiers into question.

In the case of Leon County, inside access was used to achieve the hacks, but there are numerous ways to introduce the hacks without inside access. Outside access methods will be described in the technical report to be released in mid-June.

Security concerns

Putting an executable program into removable memory card "ballot boxes" — and then programming the opti-scan chip to call and invoke whatever program is in the live ballot box during the middle of an election — is a mind-boggling design from a security standpoint. Combining this idiotic design with a program that doesn’t even check to see whether someone has tampered with it constitutes negligence and should result in a product recall.

Counties that purchased the Diebold 1.94 optical scan machines should not pay for any upgraded program; instead, Diebold should be required to recall the faulty program and correct the problem at its own expense.

None of the attacks left any telltale marks, rendering all audits and logs useless, except for hand-counting all the paper ballots.

Is it real? Or is it Memorex?

For example, Election Supervisor Ion Sancho was unable to tell, at first, whether the poll tape printed with manipulated results was the real thing. Only the message at the end of the tape, which read "Is this real? Or is it Memorex?" identified the tape as a tampered version of results.

In another test, Congresswoman Corrine Brown (FL-Dem) was shocked to see the impact of a trojan implanted by Dr. Herbert Thompson. She asked if the program could be manipulated in such a way as to flip every fifth vote.

"No problem," Dr. Thompson replied.

"It IS a problem. It’s a PROBLEM!" exclaimed Brown, whose district includes the troubled Volusia County, along with Duval County — both currently using the Diebold opti-scan system.

This system is also used in Congressman John Conyers’ home district, in contentious King County, Washington, and in Lucas County, Ohio (where six election officials resigned or were suspended after many irregularities were found.)

Diebold optical scans were used in San Diego for its ill-fated mayoral election in Nov. 2004.

– – – – – – – – – – –

Optical scan systems have paper ballots, but election officials are crippled in their ability to hand count these ballots due to restrictive state regulations and budget limitations.

The canvassing (audit) procedure used to certify results from optical scan systems involves comparing the "poll tapes" (cash register-like results receipts) with the printout from the central tabulator. These tests demonstrate that both results can be manipulated easily and quickly.

Minimum requirements to perform this hack:

1. A single specimen memory card from any county using the Diebold 1.94 optical scan series. (These cards were seen scattered on tables in King County, piled in baskets accessible to the public in Georgia, and jumbled on desktops in Volusia county.)

2. A copy of the compiler for the AccuBasic program. (These compilers have been fairly widely distributed by Diebold and its predecessor company, and there are workarounds if no compiler is available.)

3. Modest working language of any one of the higher level computer languages (Pascal, C, Cobol, Basic, Fortran…) along with introductory-level knowledge of assembler or machine language. (Machine language knowledge needed is less than an advanced refrigerator or TV repairmen needs. The optical scan system is much simpler than modern appliances).

The existence of the executable program in the memory card was discernable from a review of the Diebold memos. The test hacks took just a few hours for Black Box Voting consultants to develop.

Nearly 800 jurisdictions conducted a presidential election on this system. This system is so profoundly hackable that an advanced-level TV repairman can manipulate votes on it.

Black Box Voting asked Dr. Thompson and Hursti to examine the central tabulator and the optical scan system after becoming concerned that not enough attention had been paid to optical scans, tabulators and remote access.

Thompson and Hursti each found the vulnerabilities for their respective hacks in less than 24 hours.

"Open for Business"

When it comes to this optical-scan system, as Hursti says, "It’s not that they left the door open. There is no door. This system is ‘open for business.’"

The question now is: How brisk has business been? Based on this new evidence, it is time to sequester and examine the memory cards used with Diebold optical scans in Nov. 2004.

The popularity of tamper-friendly machines that are "open for business" in heavily Democratic areas may explain the lethargy with which Democratic leaders have been approaching voting machine security concerns.

The enthusiasm with which Republicans have endorsed machines with no paper ballots at all indicates that neither party really wants to have intact auditing of elections.

The ease with which a system — which clearly violates dozens of FEC standards going back to 1990 — was certified calls into question the honesty, competence, and personal financial transactions of both testing labs and NASED certifiers.

Revamp and update hand-counted paper ballot technology?

Perhaps it is time to revisit the idea of hand-counted paper ballots, printed by machines for legibility, with color-coded choices for quick, easy, accurate sorting and counting. We should also take another look at bringing counting teams in when the polls close, to relieve tired poll workers.

This report is the "non-techie" version of a longer report, to be made available around mid-June, with more technical information.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT GRANTED AS LONG AS YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO http://www.blackboxvoting.org

Discuss this article here: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/72/5936.html

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

top of page