I suspect that Brad Friedman and I are in “furious agreement” over the proposition that, in the world the Internet has made, technology provides opportunities for abusing the electoral process that would make the old bosses of Tammany Hall green with envy.  The position I would like to clarify is that this is a SOCIO-technical problem, rather than a purely technical one.  It is a problem of the social context in which the technology is situated.  If we accept the premise that any technology can always be subverted by a more powerful technology, then the responsibility for detecting anomalies will always reside in the social world of candidates, voters, and election supervisors, rather than the objective world of machines.  The real risk for me is not that the machines can be hacked (or, for that matter, that the hacks can propagate themselves to other machines) but that our reliance on those machines (usually in the interest of efficiency and/or rapidity) is liable to blunt our ability to recognize when, as I put it in an earlier comment, the results don’t “make sense.”

I have mixed feelings over how this was handled.  The negative side is that it is very easy to rewrite history (in a manner not that different from the one Orwell envisaged) in the blogosphere.  The hyperlink Brad cites points to the site where the original post appears, now marked as updated with blocks of text crossed out and a new concluding paragraph stating the changed conclusion.  My misgiving with this is that the time-stamp of the original article remains, meaning that the content of the site can no longer be situated in the discourse of argumentation that developed around this topic.  Worse yet, we have no idea what the Web crawlers that drive search engines will “find” at this site that can be linked to search keywords.  I really feel sorry for future generations of historians, whose analyses often depend on when who said what to whom!

Similarly, I have mixed feelings about flat-out deleting a post, although I am a bit more sympathetic in this case.  Again, there is the Web-crawling problem.  As we all know, the abbreviated content of a Web page can appear on a search result long after that page has been severed from the Web;  so the evil that men write really DOES live after them!  In general I think it is better to keep the record intact and draw upon subsequent posts for apologies and retractions.  However, this is probably a matter of style;  and we all know that there is no manual of style for the blogosphere!

Having said all that, I have to plead guilty to such updating on my own site.  However, I try to keep it to a minimum:  fixing spelling or phrasing errors, adding hyperlinks that I had overlooked, adding another relevant label.  If I need to rethink something I have written in a previous post, I prefer to write a new post for the new thoughts.  If I put in a link to the old post, the Blogger software automatically inserts a link FROM the old post to the new one.  This strikes me as a good way to make the best of a situation that is far from ideal.

The key thing is to compare exit polls with the voting tally.  Since you know math, Mr. Smoliar, you must know that a relatively small exit poll sampling is sufficient to predict the actual voting tally within a small margin of error. 

What makes this so powerful is that you’re asking not “how do you think will vote later?” but, “How did you just vote?”  These exit polls were always dead on until the 2000 vote when they started using these awful secret software machines.  This, when combined with techniques like “caging” was enough to steal the alst two presidential elections outright.

I am at least a bit more informed than you seem to think, due in part to having several highly informed acquaintances actively involved in trying to assess the extent of this mess and recommend the best clean-up strategies.  I both know and appreciate the Princeton study, and I was not trying to challenge it.  When I said, “there is probably little to be gained by remotely hacking into your personal voting machine,” I was taking a rhetorical-strategic point of view.  What I was trying to say is that, for all the ways one can go in and jimmy the numbers coming out of these machines, the REAL trick is to jimmy-up numbers that not only come out in your favor but are likely to APPEAR CONVINCING.  This is more a sociological question, which, as I recall, was beyond the scope of the Princeton study.

These days I pick up some “pocket money” to support my writing by tutoring math.  I believe the most important thing to teach, regardless of the particular topic, is, “Do the results make sense?”  Most of us are so intimidated by numbers that we never bother to ask this question, let alone know how to answer it.  (I am that way with experimental psychology results.  I can never do any better than look for outliers!)  My point to Louise was that, if you want to deliver numbers (albeit deceptive ones) that “make sense,” you have to manipulate at a higher level than individual voting machines.  When those machines leave no traces, you can do this all you please without worrying about anyone checking your results.

P. S.  I have a tutoring gig on January 17, so I am probably not going to be able to schlep myself to Oakland.  Best of luck promoting the documentary.  The more we can do to promote public awareness, the better.

Talk about being in a rush!  For what it is worth, I have a life “off the screen,” where I engage in the healthier practice of writing about music and musicians, rather than politics and politicians!  Now that the San Francisco Symphony has resumed their season, that will also have an impact on my blog posts!

Meanwhile, I HAVE approved your (well written) comment.  It is now there for all the world to see:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/01/rush-to-judgment-internet-style.html

I have not yet replied to it on my own blog, but I would be interested in the warrant(s) for your refuting Moseley’s conclusion.  Before I wrote my “cherry-picking” comment yesterday, I tried to “review the bidding” as it appeared on Brad Blog (thanks for compiling the index, by the way);  and it seemed as if Moseley had dropped off of the surface of your earth.  Just to make sure, I did a search of “Moseley” that only gave me the post that started all of this.  Over on The Contrarian, Moseley’s “last word” seems to have been last Thursday (“ancient history” in “Internet time”), where he was weighing his words as judiciously as ever:  “I’ll say it again as I have in previous posts, but I do not explicitly accept the claims of voter fraud. I think there are other possible conclusions to this anomaly, but you must not dismiss any conclusions as delusional or unwarranted. It is our civic duty to seek the truth and make certain that everybody’s vote has been accounted for. That is the best we can do in a democracy such as ours and one could not ask for anything more from an ambitious citizenry.”

Our one point of agreement is that a recount is in order.  However, if the “facts” I invoked in laying down my own gauntlet have, indeed, been retracted, then I suspect were would all like a citation (or hyperlink) for the retraction.  This is now going too fast for rationality, which is why I continue to write in praise of “slow journalism!”

Ron Paul would be the one to profit by this “recount”, personally I would like former president Carter to certify each states primary.

It would go a long way in restoring my faith in the ablility to catch person(s) attempting to steal election(s) in the U.S.

Personally, I think the show comes off a lot better on the radio!

I’m sorry;  but I am more than a little worried about an unhealthy level of cherry-picking here.  When I last left our heroes [SIC], Ben Mosely, over at The Contrarian, was Brad’s (as in the Blog) new best friend for what seemed to be a winning combination of scrupulous use of mathematics and judicious use of language.  However, after Brad put out the post that started this whole thread, Ben went back to his mathematics and concluded that the data indicated “little evidence of fraud (at least on the Democratic side).”

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080110_clintons_diebold_bump/#125643

Did Ben’s follow-up analysis make it to The Brad Blog?  What do you think?  Apparently, Brad only likes analyses that come to the conclusions he wants.  This leaves Ben to continue his own reasoning on his own Web site, letting the chips of others’ faulty reasoning fall where they may:

http://benmoseley.blogspot.com/2008/01/response-to-national-review-claims.html

Having said all that, I support Kucinich’s request, as does Ben:

http://benmoseley.blogspot.com/2008/01/kucinich-calls-for-recount-of-diebold.html

He will apparently have to pay for it, but it appears that he has supporters who will assist him with these expenses.  I just worry that, if Ben’s position is ultimately validated, there will STILL be those (whose indignation may be fueled by The Brad Blog and Velvet Revolution) who will insist that our polling places are concealing Weapons of Mass Destruction!

Fortunately, I have a modest proposal that may get us out of this impasse.  This is that we have a panel of international observers at each primary.  (We seem happy enough to foist this solution on other countries.)  Perhaps we can even begin with the New Hampshire recount.  Does anyone know if Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Vladimir Putin are available? 

Just when you thought your vote mattered:

Dennis Kucinich Asks for Recount in New Hampshire Primary due to Unusual Anomalies in the Results

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/

VelvetRevolution Offers $100,000 Reward for Evidence of Election Fraud in New Hampshire Primary
VelvetRevolution.us

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 — Last night, Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich formally requested a hand-recount of the votes in New Hampshire. He sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday’s election because of “unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.”

He added, “Ever since the 2000 election—and even before—the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn’t about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It’s about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.” Kucinich wrote, “This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process.”

“New Hampshire is in the unique position to address—and, if so determined, rectify—these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation,” Kucinich wrote in his letter. “Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process,” said Kucinich.

VelvetRevolution.us (“VR”), The Brad Blog and Progressive Democrats of America have been working together to gather and report as much information as possible on the problems associated with the NH primary. VR requested an official investigation and yesterday posted a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person or persons who caused a manipulation of the Diebold machines used in the New Hampshire primary election sufficient to flip the Obama/Clinton race, or information that results in an official change of the first place winner of that Democrat race. Kucinich reviewed the material and decided that democracy is best served by a recount.

We believe that such a recount will help restore faith in our elections, and that it will deter any planned fraud in the future. In fact, our position at VR is that all votes should be cast on ballots and all ballots should be counted and audited and, in close elections, there should be an automatic hand recount with independent observers.

VelvetRevolution.us is a non-profit organization dedicated to clean government and honest elections.

It appears that even more strange anomalies have been found late tonight as noted on The Brad Blog:

Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95% Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05% Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least.

SOURCE VelvetRevolution.us

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/

RdV, I was watching the percentages too.  I was on CNN.com and would get the results every couple of minutes.  I watched until more that 2/3 of the results were in. 

What I noticed is that Edwards never changed from 17%?  How could that be?  Never 16, never 18, always 17.  I saw some fluctuations with Hillary and Obama.  Hillary ranged from 37 at the beginning to 40 and settled at 39.  Obama went as low as 34 one time and stayed mostly at 36 and 37.

Its the one about Edwards that worries me.  It hardly seems possible.

January 9, 2008 at 11:16:19

January 9, 2008 at 11:16:19 New

New Hampshire Election Fraud

by Ron Corvus

http://www.opednews.com

Tell A Friend

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it….............I knew it HAD to be election fraud…......let the election season fraud begin.
New Hampshire Election Fraud: Hillary LOST the paper ballot count but WON the optical scan ballot count. Obama WON the paper ballot count but LOST the optical scan ballot count.

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results—Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results—Total Republican Votes: 236,378 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.075%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.483%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.109%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.221%
Machine vs Hand:
Romney: 7.592% (17,946 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,991 votes)
I knew there was something a bit fishy about Hillary winning New Hampshire.
First of all, today, all the polls indicated a double-digit lead for Obama.
Obama internal polls had him winning by 14 points. Hillary’s camp had him winning by 11 points.
Even the Hillary camp conceded virtual defeat early on.
Even Hillary believed she had lost before the polls closed. I can’t recall a primary where a candidate had a double-digit lead the day of the election, but finished several points behind. Even the exit polling showed no sign of a Hillary win. The exit polls showed about even. Exit polls have a history of accurate projections.
Despite this, Hillary maintained about a three point difference the entire evening.
AP called it for Hillary with only 61% reporting. CNN still refused to call if for Hillary, as they explained and demonstrated on an electronic map how several key precincts had not come in yet. But that didn’t stop NBC calling it for Hillary.
With 94% reporting, those key precincts STILL showed zero per cent reporting. NONE of the TV pundits could explain the differences.
Here’s one pundit’s excuse: “Maybe it has to do with the voting curtain in New Hampshire (private voting) whereas Iowa was public voting.”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_corv_080109_new_hampshire_electi.htm

You are correct, thinking never has been a required course in our education system. One of those mom and pop should teach it things.

“... there is probably little to be gained by remotely hacking into your personal voting machine, particularly in order to change your vote before your eyes.  That would be too obvious.”

Perhaps that’s why it has been totally ignored whenever someone has stepped forward and said, my vote just changed. Because a lot of people have. And those people have been dismissed with an explanation of some sort or other, usually followed by a visit from the “fixer guy” provided by the manufacturer.

The folks who run the polls are made to feel stupid. The folks who are trying to get the right name up on the screen are made to feel stupid. The fixer guy pretends to fix, or shows up with a new machine and the charade goes on. Because as you mentioned, most people don’t notice. Or if they do, they think THEY did something wrong. And since most folks would rather eat fried bum-holes than admit they don’t understand this machine, often as not they say nothing.

But enough have stepped up. Enough have not been given a reasonable explanation. Enough have quit in frustration and repeated their experience to investigative journalists to indicate ... there probably is remote access programmed into some if not all of the machines! Even so, it’s not necessary to remotely change a vote in front of the voter. It can quite handily be done during the tally process.

I’m not talking about hacking.

Technically this would not be unauthorized use, to circumvent or bypass the security mechanisms the manufacturer tells the consumer are built into the system. And technically the manufacturer would not be lying, because in creating the product, the focus would be on security to protect the remote management from being detected. Even when a security mechanism to protect the vote appears obvious to the buyer. And to that end they appear to have been very successful.

I’m talking about remotely controlling.

By the way, thanks for explaining “remote management of technology.”

It is. It does work. And I’m quite sure it’s designed that way. When a National retail grocer puts this system in place to make sure their end of day receipts match up, you can bet it works!

I cant think of a better way to control the outcome of the vote ... can you?

And creating the program that would make this possible should be relatively easy. And of course it would be part and parcel of the service provided by the manufacturer of the machines. Although the “users” would have no knowledge of it. And finding staff to be there providing the remote “service” should be equally easy. And this very probably would be an example of outsourcing. And since we have all had at least one experience in our lives of meeting a completely dishonest person with absolutely no conscience, this should be pretty easy to believe.

And, that’s a lot of ands. The layered effect.

Dazzle the dumb with gizmos and blinkers and underneath all that glitz lies an efficiently run system of alter and control. As long as we the people continue to believe the best way to vote is through computer technology, I guess we deserve to be snookered. I’m not talking about the interface on the outside, but what’s going on beyond the screen and far, far away that we cant see, have no control over and pretend isn’t real because we don’t understand it.

Upon watching the returns roll in, it struck me that the percentages stayed unnaturally uniform for the duration.

  That should rouse anyone’s suspiciaon.

  Just saying it wouldn’t come as a surprise to me whereas others find the possibility unthinkable. I guess they still hold the notion of our democracy sacredly uncorruptible—and that is dangerously naive.

Louise, what you experienced is sometimes called “remote management of technology.”  I was involved with a project that installed and tested such a system.  It is one of the means by which so much of what any business does these days is actually run by outsourcing.  It has some obvious advantages (such as the fact that your grocery store does not have to hire a technology support person);  but it also reveals the good, the bad, and the ugly of just what can be done remotely through the Internet.

Having said all that, there is probably little to be gained by remotely hacking into your personal voting machine, particularly in order to change your vote before your eyes.  That would be too obvious (although a corollary to your comment about thinking is that we often fail to pay attention to the obvious).  My guess is that there are any number of strategies kicking around for hacking into the higher-level machines that compile and deliver the results from all the lower-level ones.  In the absence of any “hard data” that can be traced, all you have to do is deliver results that look plausible (which means conforming to some statistical metrics) and turn out in your favor.  All this is probably at about the same level of difficulty as hacking into a Department of Defense computer, which is to say it is within the realm of possibility.

As to your other point, was thinking EVER fashionable?  I would think that it was already on the skids when Socrates was given the death penalty.  Even that “Enlightenment” label was more self-serving propaganda than a fashionable acceptance of the intellect.  H. G. Wells was the one who tried to extrapolate the trend.  His conclusion was that we would end up like the Eloi of his TIME MACHINE, who no longer had any need for thought!

From what I understand these voting machines automatically tally the vote and then delete the information so as to keep everything “anonymous”.  Is that correct?

Also, if the voting machines are so reliable and trustworthy why can’t we have a printed receipt of our own vote.  Who would it hurt if we had a receipt…...hmmmm…..

One day during the last general election, when I was going through check-out with my groceries. Something went wrong with the screen on the register. The numbers didn’t jibe.

The clerk typed a number into the register, explained it would be a second or two, then her phone rang. She picked it up, said something, answered a couple of questions, entered a few digits, the screen changed, and the proper numbers appeared.

“What just happened?” I asked. “A glitch.” she responded. Turns out the number she had typed into the register was a code to alert someone, somewhere.

That “someone” was able to view her screen plus whatever had happened and correct it remotely. And very quickly the screen changed before my eyes. So quickly that I doubt most people who have had this experience even know anything out of the ordinary has occurred.

Now what the “glitch” was, I don’t know. And how it was almost instantly identified and corrected by someone else is beyond my understanding. And even the clerk didn’t have any idea where the someone who fixed it was, or how they did it. “It happens,” she said. “Not all the time, but enough to make me chuckle when I hear someone complain because their vote changed on the screen in front of their eyes and someone else say’s that’s impossible ... couldn’t happen. It could. Happens here all the time.”

I asked her if this was in store. “No, I don’t know where it comes from ... could be anywhere.”

Of course this remote “change” came to correct an error in the computer, for the purpose of protecting profit.

But is it beyond the realm of possibility to think that a change could come “remotely” to change a name, or the totals for the purpose of political gain? I don’t think so.

And seems to me that’s the one thing nobody wants to talk about, or accept as possible.

That’s why we should return to a paper ballet. Not a punch card, but a paper ballet. Filled out by hand and counted by hand. With the totals delivered by hand to a central location where they would all be totaled by hand! Even allowing for human failure, the results would be closer to accurate than anything we are seeing today. And very easily verified!

Of course the media would scream, because they’d have to wait and see. But it might be a good thing to wait and see. Candidates would back off pouring their millions into the first two go-arounds, because while the counts were being totaled they would have to keep on keepen on. The excessive hype would diminish some, and good candidates might stay in for the long haul.

The media would have to fill the gap with actually covering other news, and the early caucus or primary would refocus on what they should be all about. Their voters in their States.

At least that’s the way it worked when I was a poll worker ... back when we were all smart enough to know allowing anything involving the vote to be remotely controlled or removed from our control until we were finished, was inviting disaster. And very, very illegal! Those votes were guarded. The last thing in the world we would have done is give them away ... allow them to be removed from our control, to an unseen, unidentifiable entity.

Seems somewhere along the way it started to become fashionable to stop thinking.

Not to say that their aren’t other ways of cheating. And not to say it hasn’t happened. Just not on a nation-wide scale like it smells to be these days.

One other positive would be poll workers would be there out of a sense of patriotic duty, because the demands on them would be far more significant. And a level of trust we have seen rapidly disappear might be restored. Boy, wouldn’t that be nice?

Well yeh ... this ia definately a “laugh out loud” observation!

The republicans? Class?

What planet have you been on since 2000?

The republicans would rather have a trained Ape on a chain in the White House than a non-republican!

What, we’re on the third general election using these hackable voting machines and little has been done to fix them with an auditable paper trail. 

Those persons who knowingly manipulate voting machines should be tried for treason and sentenced accordingly.  It is one of the reasons we are stuck with the government we have today.

What about the exit polls?

Albert Howard, would-be presidential contender from Ann Arbor, said today he has discussed a recount of the Republican vote in Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire with the secretary of state’s office, and plans to fly to New Hampshire by the end of the day Friday to pay the required fee and start the recount.

Howard, one of 42 so-called minor candidates in the primary, received 44 votes in the primary, according to the official tally. But at one point during the night’s vote counting, Howard said his tally was over 170 votes, making him wonder what happened.

Howard said today that he discussed his recount request with William Gardner, the secretary of state. Howard must pay a $2,000 fee to start the recount process, but the costs could be much higher, he said. He must pay all the associated costs, which includes police who would go with the ballot counters to each county. “I’ve got backers who will pay the costs,” Howard said.

Gardner was not immediately available today. A secretary said Howard must pay the fee and make his formal request tomorrow by 5 p.m. to trigger the recount. The recount would be of every candidate on the Republican ballot, not just the votes cast for Howard, she said.

Howard, a chauffeur for Checker Sedan and father of eight, paid $1,000 to be on the New Hampshire ballot as a Republican presidential candidate. He is not on the ballot in any other states, most of which, like Michigan, require petitions signed by several thousand voters to get a candidate’s name on the ballot.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080110/NEWS06/80110061

WILL RON PAUL AUTHORIZE AN AUDIT OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY?

Brentwood - Diebold location - had the Dem results, but no Republican results as of 11:53 pm (polls closed at 7)

Chesterfield - Hand count location - no results as of 11:00 pm

Derry - Diebold location - no results in as of 11:42 pm

Fremont - Diebold location - no results in as of 11:48 pm

Greenfield - Hand count location - no results in as of 11:52 pm

Hampton - Diebold location - results in on time, but I flagged this because every Dem candidate had a result divisible by 5 and for Republicans, Huckabee 217, McCain 1217, Romney 1217, it just looked weird. So much for my statistical capabilities.

Hollis - Diebold location - results not in as of 11:54 pm

New Ipswich - Diebold location - results not in as of 10:52 pm

Newton - Diebold location - results not in as of 10:58 pm

Pelham - Diebold location - results not in as of 10:56 pm

Temple - Hand count location - results not in as of 11:26 pm

Winchester - Diebold location - results not in as of 10:46 pm

McCain was declared the winner by several networks 17 MINUTES after the polls closed. Same thing I wrote about in my last column. With a few precincts “reporting” or “projected,” it’s all over - even before the bulk of ballots are “counted” by the machines. What a farce.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd335.htm

Israeli defense firm that tallies the Iowa caucus

Posted January 1st, 2008 by Give Me Freedom

“ELRON - VOXEO: The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies the Iowa Caucus

Date: Monday, 31 December 2007, 8:10 a.m.

ELRON ELECTRONICS:
The Israeli Defense Company
That Tallies the Iowa Caucus

By Christopher Bollyn

The Iowa caucus is only a few days away and the nation’s attention will be directed to the results, which signify the beginning of the U.S. presidential race. But does anyone watch who tallies the results of the Iowa caucus?

The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don’t expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American “democratic” election process.

VOXEO

In the summer of 2004, I first learned that a foreign and out-of-state company using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology tallied the Iowa caucus results.

The system used to tally the 2004 Iowa caucus results was provided by a company called Voxeo, which was apparently based in Orlando, Florida. (Yellow flag goes up in the mind of those familiar with Orlando and electronic vote fraud history. See Bollyn article on Wang below.)

The calls from the nearly 2,000 caucus centers in Iowa went to a Voxeo call center in Atlanta, Georgia.

On January 31, 2005, I wrote to Michelle Bauer, Iowa’s Secretary of State with some questions about the use of Voxeo, a foreign company located in Florida, to tally the results of the Iowa caucus:

Subject: How was the Iowa Caucus Tallied?

Dear Sirs,

When I visited the headquarters of the Democratic Party in Des Moines last summer, I learned that the tally of the Iowa caucus had been “out-sourced” to a company in Atlanta, Georgia.

What this means is that the tallying of the Iowa caucus results was done over the telephone, using the touch-tone buttons, to enter the results from each caucus location.

I am interested in how this was done, and why. Why did the Democratic Party allow the crucial tally of the caucus results to be done by a company in Atlanta? Don’t they trust their own math skills?

Can any of you provide any information about this matter?

Kind regards,

Christopher Bollyn

A person named Mike Milligan wrote back on behalf of Secretary of State Bauer:

Mike Milligan wrote:”

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/19098

Election fraud is a bit like electronic mail spam.  As soon as you have a preventative measure in place, you basically invite the invention of means to subvert it.  (Back when he was at Yahoo!, Udi Manber used to compare spam protection to an arms race!)  Election fraud is as old as the electoral process;  and the two will probably continue to grow hand-in-hand (or hand-against-hand)!

The technology question is independent of the fraud question.  The computer science department at the University of Toronto used to teach that the first step in building any computer-based system is to design (and, presumably, test) the human interface.  Unfortunately, this is not a generally accepted practice;  and, as they say, you cannot throw a cat anywhere without hitting a least one example of a poorly-designed interface.

What is required is a major change in engineering methodology.  However, when you are under a tight deadline, no one seems to think that you should review your methods before taking your first steps.  My guess is that every voting machine project has been under such a tight deadline, usually so tight as to be unrealistic.  That means that any corner that CAN be cut WILL be cut;  and human interfaces are traditionally viewed as “cuttable corners.”  On my own turf an equally frustrating example has been the way in which the Main Branch of the San Francisco Public Library has installed equipment to automate the process of returning books.

It is all enough to make you want to throw your wooden shoe at the machine!

There is an excellent article which brings together the history of Diebold’s machines and the unlikely wins of republican candidates in various races.  Some excerpts:

“As we witness the ‘unprecedented’, ‘unexplainable’, ‘extraordinary’, and while it is rarely pointed out in main stream media, ‘impossible’ discrepancies between polling results and the official tallies produced by New Hampshire’s Diebold paper ballot optical scanners, I wish to remind those who may not have been paying as much attention in past years, of the pattern we are witnessing. Zogby predicted a 42-29 sweep for Obama over Hillary. Zogby’s polling was right-on for the other races. What could possibly account for such an unbelievable discrepancy?
We have no idea what happened in NH because most of the paper ballots in NH are counted on optical scanners, in secret by Diebold! We do know that where Hillary’s ballots were hand counted, she lost, but where Deibold counted, she won,” http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_corv_080109_new_hampshire_electi.htm.”

“The 2004 election saw a massive effort to disenfranchise the more vulnerable Democrats in key states and the usual dirty tricks were employed with a particular ferocity, but electronic voting machines have made disenfranchisement possible on a whole other level. In October, 2005 the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), known for its general incorruptibility, released its report confirming that concerns of electronic voting unreliability, previously dismissed as “conspiracy theories”, were legitimate and “have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes”. The GAO’s findings made it clear that there is a lack of transparency and accountability in electronic voting systems and underscored the urgency to address the inadequacy, insecurity and unreliability of these machines.”

“Exit polls funded by six major news organizations showed Kerry comfortably leading Bush in Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada as late as 12:20 am on Wednesday morning. These same exit polls, seen worldwide as so reliable that they’re used to ensure against fraud, had just been used to overturn the Ukranian election and have until 2000 been a bedrock of reliability in the US (significant, inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and official tallies only started showing up in the U.S. in 2000 and only in Florida). And yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in the vote count mysteriously turns and the election is called for Bush. The odds on one state switching the next morning from Kerry to Bush “are about one in one hundred.”

“– Not only Senator Hagel’s ES&S;, but all electronic voting is done by Republican-controlled machines. Diebold and Sequoia are both owned by prominent Republican Party donors and a smaller company, Triad, also a Republican contributor, was responsible for counting half of Ohio’s 88 counties in 2004 and was found in the Conyers report to have been involved in fraudulent activity).”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_andi_nov_080110_alarms_should_go_off.htm

A portion of Slashdot’s article:
“The final results showed Ron Paul with 0 votes in Sutton. The next day a Ron Paul supporter came forward claiming that both she and several of her family members had voted for Ron Paul in Sutton. Black Box Voting reports that after being asked about the discrepancy Sutton officials decided that Ron Paul actually received 31 votes in Sutton, but they were left off of the tally sheet due to ‘human error.’”

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/08/01/10/1635225.shtml

There is no way these things are a “COINCIDENCE”.

Amy had a guest on today’s show [Thursday, 1/10/08] explaining the “discrepancy” in Tuesdays election. Leaving the question open, is it deliberate, the result of stupid senior citizens who don’t understand machines, or machines which aren’t any good?

I’m not blaming the Senior Citizens, because lets face it ... a huge hunk of bloggers fall in that class. The machines are in most cases riddled with problems, which begs the question, how come the States keep buying them? Which in turn begs the question, has anybody checked to see if the faulty machines are located primarily in Red States?

But, the bottom line is, when obvious “lost” votes, or miscounted votes turn up this early in the campaign, you can bet the problems waiting ahead will be mind-boggling.

I personally do not think Hillary’s campaign altered the totals. Nor did McCain’s group. This goes much deeper. Or perhaps is much more shallow, depending on your point of view.

I believe that “cheating” is the accepted way of doing things for a lot of republican operatives who have been around for quite a while now. [Where did all those young men who showed up in NH to campaign for McCain come from anyway?]

When one method works well, they replicate it where-ever they can. [Caging for example] Where a method has been clearly discovered they re-group. Is it because they don’t like Obama? Or Hillary? No, it’s because they fear losing absolute control!
And who they are controlled by, and why that is, you should all know by now.

The losers are not likely to challenge, because the requirements to do so are costly and time consuming. And in the case of the machines, almost impossible to prove because while there may be a paper trail of totals, most times the raw data fed into the totals is gone!

I have said before, and I’ll say it again. Whoever the democrat candidate turns out to be, I will work hard and long to support them, like I did when Kerry was the candidate. Whether I accept quietly the final outcome, if it is as questionable as it was when Kerry caved remains to be seen.

Seems to me, the people who should be leading the call for a thorough investigation, or at the very least demand a paper record of individual precinct tallies before they are sent off for the final “magic machine” total, are the front-runners in the democrat field. That’s the only way they’ll be able to distance themselves from any charges of fraud! Because sooner or later, the fraud will become so evident and so overwhelming, even mainstreammedia will be forced to look at it! Although they probably still wont say anything. Fear of foot in mouth disease. Or, they’ve already spent the money ...
And we mustn’t forget that other time-honored repub method. Confusion and fear. Fear and confusion. We may see a different winner in every primary! Now that would be confusing huh?

In the world of “practical truth” (or, to be more Kantian, “practical reason”), we do not always perform an action for the sake of its direct intended result.  Sometimes an action serves no purpose other than the symbolic one of “going on record;”  but that is still a valid reason for performing it.  Pelosi had the power to convene a House subcommittee to determine whether or not there actually were viable articles of impeachment;  but she chose to take that “off the table” from Day One.  Better to have the results of such a subcommittee on the record than to worry about whether or not its recommendations would get voted down by the Senate.

A similar act that might not involve anything more than going of the record would be supporting a third-party candidate who is more desirable than the Democratic and Republican alternatives.  The only effect of such an act might be to bestow legitimacy of the third-party option.  However, if that added strength to third parties the next time around, that would not necessarily be a disappointing consequence.

I share your concern about Amy Goodman’s program “Democracy Now!” seeming to have fallen off a cliff lately. 

I thought it was strange when she had Harvey Wasserman on recently to discuss his books about the theft of the 2004 election in Ohio and the new Democrat Secretary of State’s report there confirming that there were huge irregularities in that election amounting to a stolen election.

Amy commented that Wasserman and his coauthor Bob Fritakis were “laughed at” in 2005 when they tried to report the story.  What Amy left out was that she just laughed too and refused to cover the story adequately.  I am personally acquainted with Bob Fritakis and was in communication with him at that time and I remember how much he disagreed with the editorial policy at Democracy Now! just after the ‘04 election when she refused to cover the story.

The facts about the attacks on 9/11/2001 are another huge story that Amy Goodman refuses to report accurately.  She should have Richard Gage on.  She should have some reporters looking into why no military personnel were disciplined for the collapse of our air defenses that day.

Who ordered the destruction of the evidence at the crime scene? to mention just a few stories related to 9/11/2001 she should cover.

The facts of 9/11/2001 are so central to the narrative of our time that once you accept the lie of the official story it will eventually inevitably destroy your organization’s ability to understand and report the news accurately.

Richard Gage, by the way, is an architect who designs reinforced steel buildings and who has put together an overwhelming body of evidence that effectively proves, in a calm, scientific manner, that the three skyscrapers that collapsed in NYC on 9/11/2001 could not possibly have exhibited the behavior they did as a result of aircraft impact, fire and gravity.

When Amy turns her back on the truth, her program will eventually lose its credibility in much the way PBS’s “News Hour” has over the years.  Like Paracelsus said above, she appears to be morphing into Cokie Roberts, who is not much like the journalist she was 30 years ago when she was one of my favorites back in the days of Public Radio.

I work as a polling place technician here in Inyo County, California, managing the Sequoia brand voting machines we purchased with our HAVA funds.

Or at least I did for a few elections.  These machines have been decertified by our new Democrat Attorney General, Debra Bowen.  I was amazed to read the number and severity of security vulnerabilities of the machines we had been using when Secretary Bowen published her report.  If you have an interest in the security of our voting process, you should have a look at the report on the Sequoia machines here:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/sequoia_102507.pdf

It wasn’t just that make, all the machines were decertified in California, and you can read a similar analysis of the other brands at the California Secretary of State’s web site if you are interested.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm

The extent of security flaws is overwhelming. 

We will be using paper, mark sense type ballots in our next election in February.  Our tabulation system is also made by Sequoia.  I do not know if Secretary Bowen has also done a study of their reliability, but I was relieved to learn when I called our County Clerk and Recorder just now that we do not use the Diebold machines.

Much as we may enjoy fulminating over fraud, we should probably check up a follow up “at the source,” which I just reported at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/01/rush-to-judgment-internet-style.html

xypher,

You would vote for one of the Republicans who all appear like they’re running for dictator rather than Hillary?

The practical truth is that we do not have the vote to impeach Bush and Cheney. There is more cause to impeach both than ever before in our history, but not the vote from partisan-bound Republicans.

I do not approve of the equivocating by Hillary, especially on the war, but she is better than any Republican running.

Repuplicans want to run against Hillary because their worst candidate has a much better chance of winning with her on the opposing side. The same would hold true for Obama. America is still stuck too far in the 1950s to elect a woman or an African American president. And this is after you remove Hillary’ SHREW personality.

I’ve voted a straight democratic ticket since I began voting since I was 18. I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. Partly because of Hillary and mostly because Ms. Pelosi kowtowing to the Banana Republican’s Kangaroo-Court appointed Dictator-in-Chief…Election-Fraud George.

No use laying down that now cliched quote from Uncle Joe Stalin about who counts the votes.

What i find interesting is that suspicion of vote rigging (not a new practice by any means) has come out so early.  I think that it indicates the general distrust in America.  This election cycle may be a bumpy ride.

Pre Election polls put Obama ahead by 8.3%
USA Today Exit Polls predict Obama win
Guardian Exit Polls predict Obama win
By MachineClinton: 39.595&#xOb;ama: 36.386%
By HandObama: 38.785l;inton: 34.703%
Vote Fraud Confirmed in Sutton, New Hampshire
One man programs 81% of New Hampshire voting machines
http://news.google.com/news?hl=e…aud& btnG=Search

In spite of Congress’ reluctance to do anything about voting machine which have serious hacking potential and no way to validate your vote, the problem is still here.

There is a great deal of suspicion, if not overwhelming evidence that Rove forces at least partly swayed the Ohio vote with voting machine hacking and/or tricks.

I’m tired of the evidence and the problem being ignored. Members of Congress can rob the voters with pork-barrel spending and allow outright thievery in losing over $10 billion of our money.

Where is their attention on important issues like preserving the integrity of our voting?

I just listened to her Wednesday show. She had this cheesy grin on her face about the polls and pundits being wrong. I think someday she will transmorgify Cokie Roberts at the rate she is going. Then there will liberals who will be raining abuse upon my head for being so unkind and and unfair.