Daily Kos

Undeniable Proof of Election Fraud

by Bozos Rnot4 Bush

Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:38:10 PM PDT

I'm home for lunch, and don't have a lot of time right now, but after seeing this fine diary by Mr Clue make the big board, I feel the time is right to bring this out in the open...again.

Three little paragraphs, from the cache' of Global Election Systems (GEMS) and Diebold emails that were discovered a couple of years ago, indisputably prove that election fraud did take place.

Now election fraud is not the same thing as election theft - as these paragraphs will reveal, the fact that Global/Diebold knew that some voters' votes were not being counted does not prove election theft.

But what if the particular version of software (1.94W) that had all the problems was used only in certain counties?  Only in Dem strongholds?  Would this proof of fraud then also prove theft?

The first step to prove theft in this case is to find out exactly which counties used version 1.94W, and whether those counties appear to be random or targeted.  I intend to try to find out, and appreciate any and all help from fellow Kossacks.

Without further adieu, here are the three paragraphs...please read them carefully and completely...

"There was one in Montreal.  It doesn't happen a lot, but it happens.  Always has.  The Montreal case was really lame because the poll worker phoned in to election central, and all incidents had to be reported to the two lawyers they had on hand the whole day.  Its pretty tough to convince a voter everything is fine with a "ballot not read" message on the screen.  The lawyers insisted that the ballot box could not be opened to try to retrieve the ballot.  The voter was issued another ballot.  Of course, the lawyers asked me what they were going to do in a recount.  I explained with my usual charm that they would be off by one, at least.

The problem can't be fixed without making a fairly major change to the ballots, namely a wider catch zone.  Even with a 1/2" or 3/4" zone it would be hard to guarantee success, but it would help.  A total solution would probably require hardware changes, especially if we want to keep the existing zones.  It was brought up years ago but a don't ask don't tell policy was adopted instead.  Sometimes this is referred to as the "maybe it was ripped" policy.

One more interesting thing to note:  the AccuVote knows that it has dropped the ballot.  So the question has always been, should we increment the card counter, and should we log the event.  Currently we do neither.  There are two schools here.  One says we should notify the voter, log it, add a dropped ballot counter, send an incident report to the secretary of state, etc etc.  The other is to increment the counter and send the voter on their ignorantly blissful way.  Right now we kind of split the difference.

Internal email and related emails

"Send the voter on their ignorantly blissful way"..."Right now we kind of split the difference"...proof of election fraud...I rest my case.

John

Tags: Election fraud, Diebold, boldface, Global Election Systems (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 43 comments

  •  So is this really proof of fraud? (none / 0)

    Time to go back to work :)

    John

    -4.63/-4.10 Bush is living proof that drugs are bad for you...he's so dumb, he can't even spell Iraq, let alone find it on a map.

    by Bozos Rnot4 Bush on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:38:22 PM PDT

    •  If these incidents... (none / 0)

      ...occur disproportionately to Dem voters, then yes, it's fraud. But good luck proving it in court -- how do you demonstrate which specific ballots were dropped, or that the people whose ballots they were voted for a Dem candidate? About the best you could do would be to demonstrate that faulty machines and ballots are disproportionately located in areas where people tend to vote for Dems -- in other words, poor and minority neighborhoods, where organized efforts by Rethugs to disenfranchise voters are given de facto legitimacy by a legal system that refuses to impose sanctions on people like Jeb Bush who intentionally violate federal election and voting rights law.

      Seven score and five years ago... -7.62, -6.36

      by wiscmass on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 01:59:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  wait though (3.00 / 3)

        occur disproportionately to Dem voters, then yes, it's fraud

        Are they saying that they "send voters on their way", or are they saying that's not what they do "We currently do neither".  

        It seems to me that the problem is what to do when a vote doesn't register.  If you tell the voter, they want a new ballot.  So they vote on that one and the one that didn't read.  If you open the machine later for a recount you'll have more ballots than the counter says you should have.  You can't identify which ballots were read initially, so you have to count them all, meaning that the voter whose first ballot didn't read actually gets to vote twice.  

        Are they debating if it might be better to not tell the voter that they didnt get their ballot read automatically, because it eliminates the chance of a double-vote being cast?  Since the problem only is a problem in close elections - if your vote didn't get counted in a wide margin race it's not a huge problem - isn't it better to make it so that a voter doesn't get two votes?

        That was my read.. I don't see what the diarist saw as proof of fraud.  

        by danheskett on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:13:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The very last sentence shows... (none / 0)

          that they sometimes "send the voter on their ignorantly blissful way."

          The statement "We currently do neither" only refers to logging the event, and incrementing the card counter.

          I agree that this is written rather cleverly, but you cannot ignore the last sentence in the message.

          John

          -4.63/-4.10 Bush is living proof that drugs are bad for you...he's so dumb, he can't even spell Iraq, let alone find it on a map.

          by Bozos Rnot4 Bush on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:29:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sorry but no (2.50 / 2)

            I dont things it clever, I think you are misreading.

            There is a problem, there are two camps to handle it.

            I don't see the "proof" of election fraud.

            On top of that, assuming they did "send them on their way", it's not fraud.

            Imagine a vote in the machine but not counted.   They admit it happens, but not that much.  I have no idea how often.  Let's say the race is not close.  No recount happens.  Is the number of ballots that are not counted statistically significant?  Undervotes are not new, not by a long shot.

            If the race is close the votes are hand counted or re-run and the rejects hand tabulated.  

            So whats the problem?

            by danheskett on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:35:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Dan, you're a troll (none / 0)

          Here you are in this diary - a brand new Kos name, g-mail account, posting over and over as if you are interested in the subject, but in disagreement.

          Meanwhile, all day we've had a diary at the top of the recommended board regarding Diebold - and you haven't made a single comment.

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          One would think that a person appearing to be so interested in election issues and Diebold, such as yourself, would have found the time during his busy Kos posting day to notice and comment in the top diary on the big board.

          But your interest is fake.

          John

          -4.63/-4.10 Bush is living proof that drugs are bad for you...he's so dumb, he can't even spell Iraq, let alone find it on a map.

          by Bozos Rnot4 Bush on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:49:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  its fraud.. (4.00 / 2)

        if a voter doesn't get their vote counted properly and only counted once..

        Has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans..

        Big Time Patriot

        by Big Time Patriot on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:21:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's an error (none / 0)

          Just like incompletely punched chad, or a mark not dark enough on a scanner.  All systems have errors.  It only constitues fraud if there is a systematic attempt to tilt the election one way or the other.

          It seems they were stuck with an unresolvable dilemma, and were't particularly happy with any choices.

          by william shipley on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 04:24:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  WRONG! (none / 0)

            The fact that they sometimes "sent voters on their ignorantly blissful way," proven by the following sentence, is fraud.

            Attempted theft is an attempt to tilt the system one way or another.  Theft is when it is tilted.

            John

            -4.63/-4.10 Bush is living proof that drugs are bad for you...he's so dumb, he can't even spell Iraq, let alone find it on a map.

            by Bozos Rnot4 Bush on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:32:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  listen (3.00 / 3)

              I dont think the email says that.  It's "we could do this" or "we could do that".  The previous portion of the email details that the voter in question got a new ballot that scanned, meaning, they are not sending them on their way, they are showing an error message.

              by danheskett on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:37:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, regardless! (none / 0)

          Thanks for noticing how obvious this all is.

          John

          -4.63/-4.10 Bush is living proof that drugs are bad for you...he's so dumb, he can't even spell Iraq, let alone find it on a map.

          by Bozos Rnot4 Bush on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:30:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong - if they occur disproportionately to Dems.. (none / 0)

        then that is true evidence of election theft, not just election fraud.

        The fact that these people know some votes were dropped, and voters were sometimes sent on their "ignorantly blissful way" (proven by the last sentence in the message) is proof of fraud.

        John

        -4.63/-4.10 Bush is living proof that drugs are bad for you...he's so dumb, he can't even spell Iraq, let alone find it on a map.

        by Bozos Rnot4 Bush on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:23:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wait a minute... (3.00 / 3)

    Isn't the line you quote "Send the voter.." examining possible actions that they currently do not take?

    That was how I read it:

    "So the question has always been, should we increment the card counter, and should we log the event. "

    At the time of the writing they do neither.  No increment, no log.  Okay.  So they do neither.

    Then he goes into the options: you can notify the voter that there was a problem, log it, and file a report for later review.  Or, you could increment the ballot counter and not notify the user at all, I believe in the process, not counting the vote.

    I think, anyways, how I read it is like this:

    A person filled a ballot out, and it was inserted into the reader.  The reader could not read the ballot.  At the time they do not increment the ballot counter - which is what he is saying by the "Currently we do neither" bit.  So the voter gets a message saying ballot was not read.  They get a new ballot and vote.  So now, though, if there is a manual recount, that first ballot is counted as well as the second one, and the ballot counter built into the machine is off by one - meaning you have more ballots in the box than the machines say were read.  That's a big problem.  On top of that the ballots cast do not match the number of people who signed in to vote.  Also a problem.

    The part about the "voter on thier ignorantly blissful way" is not what you think it is, in my view.  The question I think they are debating is "do we notify the user that the ballot wasn't read".  In the case of a recount - if the election is very close - the ballot will be manually counted even if it was not read by the machine.   However, if they are given a second ballot now that voter has voted twice assuming a recount.  If it's not a hand recount they have only voted once.  That's not good at all!  You can't take the original bad ballot out of the machine, that's a can of worms.  So, one school of thought is that you don't tell the voter that their vote didn't register.  If the election isn't close it didn't matter anyways.  If it is close they still get accurately counted by hand.

    It doesn't involve fraud though, since I think they are saying that the "send the voter on their way" isn't what they are currently doing.

    by danheskett on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:10:20 PM PDT

    •  You are incorrect on 2 counts (none / 0)

      From Cathy Cox's presentation to the Georgia legislature in her request to adopt DRE voting.  At the time of this presentation, 53% of all Georgia voters were using Optical Scan electronic voting:
      1.  Although precinct readers can be programmed to reject overvotes so the voter can correct their mistake, counties frequently choose not to employ this capability.

      2.  Central Count scanners are used AFTER the voter has left the ballot.  There is no voter to give a 2nd ballot.  So, in Central Count locations, the voter loses his/her vote.  There is no ability to "correct" an unscanned ballot.

      by vgebert on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 04:25:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I read his comment three times (none / 0)

        And don't see how what you say relates to his comments.  I believe he is analyzing a situation where the voter directly places the card into the system.  The system may, as I understand it, fail to read the card.  Unfortunately at that point the card is 'in the box' and cannot be re-scanned.  I think his analysis is correct:

        In a wide race, it won't matter, in a close race the actual ballot will be counted so you don't want a second one inserted to 'fix' the problem.

        by william shipley on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 04:32:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (2.50 / 2)

          I think it's a case of human error - if the ballot is not read on the first attempt the best course of action is to either fish it out and try again, fish it out and destroy it, or do nothing.  Giving the voter a second ballot can lead to a double vote only in a close race (where it is much more likely to matter.  If you have 100 double votes in a race that comes to 50 votes..)

          by danheskett on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:32:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Please see my reply up above (none / 0)

      The last sentence in the message tells you exactly what they do...I should have made this clearer earlier today.

      John

      -4.63/-4.10 Bush is living proof that drugs are bad for you...he's so dumb, he can't even spell Iraq, let alone find it on a map.

      by Bozos Rnot4 Bush on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:33:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The voter should not be given a second ballot (none / 0)

      in addition to the first simply because a polling site reader has failed to read a ballot correctly.

      The polling site reader should be designed to spit out the unreadable ballot just like a dollar bill changer spits out a unreadable dollar bill.

      The voter should be allowed to exchange a spit out ballot for a new one.

      Failing to get it right locally, a better quality machine or even a human can reread the ballots at a central site. A poll worker should take steps to see that this is done.

      These steps should include posting a sticker on the machine and preparing an official incident report with incident report control number published in the local paper if the ballot can't be processed at the central site.

      The voter should get a copy of the incident report so the voter can check the local newspaper for a control number to see if his ballot was counted.

      Once two ballots are provided, it may become impossible to ensure that one person gets one and only one vote.

      That said, all voting systems should be designed to give voters an itemized receipt just like store cash registers.

      by SingleVoter on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 07:34:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This does not prove fraud. (none / 0)

    What this proves is mechanical problems with the machine, of which there are many.

    Conservatism is Dead!

    by Eternal Hope on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 10:54:32 PM PDT

  •  OK Dan let's hash this out (none / 0)

    You said up above the following:

    "There is no dan@danheskett.com user I know of at Slashdot- I know there are other users with the same name as me, but I have no idea what their screen names are.

    My screen name on Slashdot is danheskett."

    Now for my response:

    At this linkto a comment that you posted at Slashdot as danheskett, which you admit is you, the following appears with your comment:

    Actually, You Don't Get It (TM) (Score: 1)
    by danheskett (dan-at-danheskett-dot-com) on Sunday, April 06 @ 15:45:48 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.danheskett.com

    Yet you state up above "There is no dan@danheskett.com user I know of at Slashdot"

    Therefore, you're a liar.  You owe the Kos community an apology.  Or do you intend to blame your father for the post?

    John

    -4.63/-4.10 Bush is living proof that drugs are bad for you...he's so dumb, he can't even spell Iraq, let alone find it on a map.

    by Bozos Rnot4 Bush on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 08:19:59 PM PDT

Permalink | 43 comments