FReep mail me if you want on/off the list.
Posted on 01/18/2010 9:27:13 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
“As expected, Coakley wins the Senate seat by more than 10%.” That would have paraphrased the lead paragraph of most Wednesday post-election news stories about the Massachusetts Senate election to permanently replace Ted Kennedy. Boring.
Why not make it fun, a close race, a man-bites-dog story? Not a problem when you have fraudulent Rasmussen polling to stir the pot, and the usual collection of idiot news anchors and political commentators.
This is a good test of my thinking. Am I looking at politics and thinking about this election rationally, or am I just being an optimist, hoping that voters are still sensible people who won’t elect candidates from the Beavis and Batsh*t wing of the Republican Party? Okay, I’m going to take a deep breath, and say this: Coakley wins by 10%. The third party candidate gets 3%. Massachusetts is a Democratic state.
Really, no one who works in politics can predict an individual election with any degree of confidence, not an election where both candidates have wide recognition and have run credible campaigns, meaning they’ve reached most voters several times. I base this on a simple premise: anyone who actually could consistently predict these elections would be making their living betting on them, would be rich, and we wouldn’t be hearing from them on websites or on the news.
You can only know what usually happens, what is most likely to be true, what would be a practically unprecedented result. Don’t go searching through the evidence for secret portents or unique local factors. If you do, you’ll be a very smart person who ends up saying some very silly things.
For instance, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com said 2 weeks ago that Scott Brown’s chance of winning was about 5%. Then, after another one of those completely bogus Rasmussen polls of “likely voters” he tweeted that Scotty had a 15-25% chance of winning. But wait, the Boston Globe poll then said Coakley was going to be okay, and he changed his mind again.
I think it’s quite likely that Nate Silver’s reputation (deserved or not) as a Brainiac has caused some very dishonest pollsters to try and figure out how to affect his opinion. If they can get Nate to say the race is a toss-up it helps get resources for Scott Brown, and gives him more tv coverage, gets people to the polls.
Logically, you need some pretty firm evidence to outweigh the recent voting history of the Massachusetts electorate. Both Senators and all 10 House members are Democrats. And the governor, and both houses of the legislature. So Coakley, the Democrat, is heavily favored to win to begin with. In 2006 she was elected statewide to Attorney General, and got more votes than Ted Kennedy, who was at the top of the ballot.
What’s the evidence against? Automated internet polling done of supposedly likely voters by provably biased organizations, namely Rasmussen, ARG, and the laughable Pajamas Media poll that has Scott Brown up by 15%. Follow the reasoning behind getting the morons in the media to believe Scott is winning: since Coakley was heavily favored, there must be a movement to the right in the country, people are really sick of Democrats, and so on and so forth.
How dishonest are they, actually? If you can figure this out, then you can figure out what the numbers really should be.
ARG has Brown up by 3%, but they have him winning 20% of Democrats and Coakley winning 1% of Republicans. Brown also wins younger voters. None of this matches election results previously in Massachusetts or anywhere else in the United States. It’s very easy to skew polls of likely voters. Likely voters, obviously, should be people who almost always vote. It’s easy to figure out who these people are; you just get the list from the state. (Numerous companies make a good living selling software and data on voters.) ARG calls people and asks them if they’re definitely going to vote. This method is notoriously inaccurate, particularly in special elections, which people consider less important when election day actually rolls around. When they’re mad-as-hell tea-bag types on the phone with a polling firm, they just know they’re going to vote. Anyway, you get the point.
Rasmussen had Coakley up by 2% on January 11th. In the Rasmussen voting universe, likely voters in Massachusetts give Obama a 57% approval rating, which is 10% more than they give him in the Rasmussen national polling. DailyKos polling has Obama’s approval broken down by region. His net Northeast approval is in the high 70s. Massachusetts being an extremely Blue state, this means the Rasmussen likely voter screen (and they won’t disclose their methodology, by the way) is off by 10% or 20%. If they actually do the polling; that is, if they don’t just pull the numbers out of their asses in order to drive the news cycle. I’m just saying.
One final thing about the polling. Research 2000, the DailyKos pollers, have Coakley up by 8%. Coakley’s internal polling numbers have been ‘leaked’ to the media on a daily basis. Supposedly they say it’s a toss-up, and that she might lose. Yes, depending on who shows up at the polls. Who can get turnout up for a Democrat in Massachusetts? Can you spell O-B-A-M-A? Now guess who went to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. Because it’s a toss-up, you know.
(VIDEO AT LINK)
We will see.
Acorns and obama visited. They have plans.
dont blow this off .. the fix is in and we need to understand the dems will do anything to make this go away.. anything..
FReep mail me if you want on/off the list.
Not blowing it off. See post 4.
It can’t even be close or the democrats will steal it or tie it up endlessly with challenges
This one is in the hands of middle class people who have been so apathetic they didn’t vote in the past
Do NOT relax. They will not go down without a fight and they will use every tactic they can to win.
....except the liberal Research 2000/daily Kos poll that came out today shows the race tied. Even they showedan 8 point surge for Brown in a very short period of time. Bottom line, this guy is an idiot.
Is that Acorn on his head?
Never mind, now I see the acorn ping
OK, lets see...Rasmussen is a hopelessly biased hack polling outfit...and DailyKos is objective...
Doug Kahn
There’s only one appropriate response to something as mutton-headed as this: “Mr. Kahn, what you’ve just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no points, and may G-d have mercy on your soul.”
Doug who?
I kind of afree with him and I’ll tell you why.There are 116,000 voters on the voters rolls that are dead. And another 500,000 that no longer live where they are registered.
Call me nuts but I think the GOP will have as much intrest in Scott losing as the Dems. I think the GOP will let Obamacare pass as it is. GOP has their hands clean of the Bill and they always have an issue going forward to hammer the dems.
Scott Browns loss benifits the GOP’s hackarama just as much as the dems in the long run....just sayin.
GOTV, hope your right, Pray your right. This would be real change.
Scratch entry 16, Patrick Kennedy disease struck me for a moment.
Help in the MA Senate Election with an ALL EXPENSES PAID trip!
Please help out in this historic election!
Massachusetts voters - please take cameras and record every act of treachery you see. That ugly criminal machine is going into high gear, the individual can save America. That's you and me.
UPDATE: WAYS TO MINIMIZE VOTE COUNTING MANIPULATION IN MASSACHUSETTS TOMORROW (hat tip Carmen)
This is from Black Box Voting (Beverly Harris) and demonstrates how complicated our "efficient" electronic voting system is, with all the possible variations and permutations. This is a state of affairs that is highly susceptible to various kinds of fraud and manipulation. For those with the mind for details and the motivation, Beverly Harris spells out what citizens can do to try to expose and, thereby, minimize various instances of fraud and trickery.
Here you'll find the straight scoop along with suggestions for effective actions everyone can take, whether you live in Massachusetts or not, to watchdog the controversial Tuesday Massachusetts senate election.
Massachusetts results will roll in from over 400 municipalities (they don't administer elections by county like most states); I've been poking around, and I think we'll might be able to get the full set of incoming results, municipality by municipality, through this Web page:
http://www3.whdh.com/elections/MA100119/summary
Remember that these will be media results, not governmental results, but they should be collected and compared with the governmental results.
Yes, the machines are Diebold/Premier, and are hackable*; yes, the machines were programmed by a firm with a member of its key management team afflicted with a criminal record and a history of driving around the state with replacement memory cards and voting machines in his trunk. And yes, this election is vehemently political, with the winner possibly holding a key vote on the controversial healthcare bill.
(* Did an update eliminate hackability?) Well, there's no point in taking anyone's word on anything; whatever is on the machines was put there by LHS Associates, the firm that programs all the machines.
NOTHING IS REALLY DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS MASSACHUSETTS ELECTION
Except for the unusually high octane senate race, this election is no different than any other Massachusetts elections over the past 10 years. They've had tamper-friendly machines and a thuggish, centralized voting machine programming firm for many years now, the same situation that afflicts New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut.
When I say "thuggish" I refer not only to the narcotics trafficking conviction of LHS Associates' key management team member/voting machine support guy Ken Hajjar (photocopy of record here:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/LHS/hajjar.png ), but to the sometimes profane and very blustery and pushy interactions many of us have had with these characters. Here's YouTube video showing LHS President John Silvestro interrupting a New Hampshire legislative hearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs
Now, when I say there is never basis for 'trust', what I mean is this: Public elections are the method by which we choose our representatives. Some say we have chosen to trust, because we empower our representatives to make decisions for us, and that is somewhat true. But the process of CHOOSING our representatives can never be ceded entirely to insiders, whether they work for the government or not. The public must retain the right to see and authenticate every essential step of the choosing process; if any key step is concealed from the public, the election ceases to be public, and an inadvertent transfer of power (from the public to a handful of insiders) takes place.
WHAT EVERYONE CAN DO TO HELP WITH PUBLIC AUTHENTICATION
"Poll watching" is a good and important thing to do, but it does very little to protect results. Let's assume that the political parties and various members of the public will get out there and poll watch, to make sure that registered voters can vote and no non-legitimate votes get into the pool. Nowadays, with computerized counting and absentee voting, two key steps are removed from public right to see and authenticate: Computerized counting removes public right to see and authenticate the count. After the fact audits do not replace or restore this. One of the "essential steps" is the original count, and no "after the fact" procedure -- especially one which takes place after ballots are transported -- can replace public right to see and authenticate the original count.
(1)
(2) Absentee voting removes public right to see who actually casts each vote.
So what can we do? I say that citizens both in and outside of Massachusetts can help protect the election, because we can all help pinpoint municipalities that merit special vigilance.
THE SEA IS VAST AND EACH CITIZEN'S BOAT IS SMALL
Massachusetts has over 400 election jurisdictions. We can help Massachusetts residents pick locations to watch -- and "watch" does NOT mean just during the live election. Election Night and the days following the election are perhaps even more important!
Those of us who live outside Massachusetts can help locate possible problem areas. How? By Googling around to see where there were anomalies, allegations, election complaints, or irregularities in the past. Tune into local races, like past mayor, sheriff or town council elections. Flag locations of interest by e-mailing them to crew@blackboxvoting.org or posting information in the Massachusetts section of our Web site.
EXAMPLE: ACUSHNET - April 16, 2008: "As questions swirl around the shredding of absentee ballot envelopes just two days after the April 7 town election..."
Yep. Let's put Acushnet on the Watch List. I'd also add Methuen, where LHS Associates is located (and where a family member of an LHS guy was working for the city); and Lawrence. Please share your nominations for Massachusetts Watch List municipalities!
- - - - - - -
QUICK PRIMER: UNIQUE ASPECTS OF MASSACHUSETTS ELECTIONS
1. They don't run elections by counties, but instead by municipalities. Massachusetts municipalities can be found on the Black Box Voting .ORG Web site in the Massachusetts section, here's the link:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/149/149.html,http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/149/149.html
This is an interactive site where you can help archive information you find within each municipality and for the state as a whole.
2. Massachusetts uses computerized voting machines (mostly the Diebold/Premier Accuvote scanners, with a few antiquated ES&S Optech scanners scattered around), they have a "paper trail" but do not allow the public to watch the counting of the paper ballots, and the state imposes restrictions on candidates seeking recounts which can block ability to recount if margins exceed a certain threshold.
3. Massachusetts does not have Wild West-style vote by mail, and places at least some restrictions on absentee voting, such as the requirement to request an absentee ballot. That said, in this election they've been pushing pretty hard for in-person requests and in-person absentee voting. That is somewhat troubling.
4. By and large, Massachusetts election officials don't use the Diebold/Premier "GEMS" central tabulator. LHS Associates DOES use it, to prepare the memory cards, and LHS sometimes lets certain election officials also have it and shows them how to make their own memory cards.
RECONCILING BALLOTS, POLL BOOKS, EARLY/FINAL COUNTS, AND POLL TAPES
This is the method used by Richard Hayes Phillips and Paddy Shaffer to spot impossible numbers in Ohio in the 2004 general election, and this simple kind of audit is still one of the best ways to spot problems!
1. The number of people who sign in to the poll book should match the number of votes cast. Sometimes it can be off by one or two, but in that case, you will always have one or two FEWER votes than the number of people who signed in. Any number off by more than one or two, or any time there are more votes than voters, you've got an anomaly (in the first case) or an impossible number (if more votes than voters). Such discrepancies merit a loud shout.
2. The results should not show a large variance from initial results to final results (which are certified several days after the election), at least, not without an explanation and documents to back it up.
3. The numbers on the poll tapes should: (a) have correct date and times; (b) match the initial results -- sometimes you have to add poll tape plus absentee plus machine-unreadable ballots; (c) should be signed by poll workers (d) should have header and footer information intact and (e) should have signed, time-stamped "zero results" attached. Any discrepancies need to be red-flagged.
4. The number of ballots delivered, used, unused, and spoiled should appear on a polling place reconciliation form signed by poll workers, and the numbers need to add up. Any location that fails to account for its blank (unused) ballots needs to be red-flagged.
MOST AMERICANS DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THE BIG RISKS ARE WITH VOTE BY MAIL
Picture this: Suppose you have people dumping REAL voters into the voter registration list, without their knowledge. This is possible by insiders, in states with Internet voter registration, and by outsiders, by copying names out of phone books or just finding lists of addresses. Some of these people will be duplicates and are weeded out. But after dups are removed, what will remain is a whole bunch of REAL names on the list for people who rarely vote (thus were not registered) and are unaware that they are even registered. This is the real risk for Internet registration, and for the so-called "voter registration modernization" which heads us toward dumping everyone on the rolls based on driver's licenses etc., and for the kinds of violations publicized with ACORN.
When you combine voter list stuffing with vote by mail, you open up a huge vector for fraud: Insiders casting votes in the name of real people who are
registered voters but unlikely to vote.
In other words, the risk for large, wholesale vote-by-mail fraud is not with some dead guys, nor is it with the non-matching signatures. The real risks are with the signatures that DO match and the voters who are REAL, but don't vote and who may not even know they are registered. As for faking the sig match: This is a surprisingly trivial process.
MASSACHUSETTS PUSH FOR ABSENTEE WALK-INS:
Now, when you start pushing people to come in personally to apply and drop off absentee ballots, you also add risks for an insider operation for counterfeit absentee voting, by eliminating post office records. You also don't have to deal with the tricky little detail of where to mail a bunch of unasked-for ballots. Absentee applications can magically appear (a bunch of people "dropped them off") and voted absentee ballots for the matching names can sprout like mushrooms (people "dropped them off", you know).
Absentee voting already has a rich and proven history of fraud, just ask any Appalachian state, and is being ramped up in Massachusetts for this election. And it's a bit troubling.
WHAT TO DO:
Here's one strategy that can be used to detect counterfeit absentee-dumping:
Because it requires an insider, there will be considerable variation among the over-400 municipalities as to whether insider absentee fraud is doable. So by comparing the percentage of absentee votes between municipalities, it should be possible to pick out locations with higher-than-normal absentee
participation.
VOTING MACHINE FORENSICS
For more detailed examination of voting machine and tabulator functionality, here are some of the diagnostic reports available by request. These are all
considered non-proprietary and fall under public records laws.
POLLING PLACE VOTING MACHINE AUDIT TAPES: Each polling place voting machine can print an audit tape. Typically they just print the results tape, but there are two additional options: The AccuVote machines can also print a
"long tape" which shows results in more detail, including blank ballots; and they can print an "Audit Tape", which shows important information like when the machine was turned off or on, whether someone pushed an override button, and so forth.
CENTRAL TABULATOR AUDIT LOGS: Most Massachusetts locations don't use the central machine that adds up multiple polling place results, but some jurisdictions, like Boston and Cambridge, may use the GEMS central tabulator. If so, GET THE AUDIT LOG. Get it in electronic form. This will show many different events, all of them important. This central tabulator runs on Windows, so also request an electronic copy of the Windows Event Log, the Windows System Log, and the Windows Administrative log. GEMS runs over 80 different kinds of diagnostic reports; here are links to examples:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit-report-samples.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples1.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-sample2.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples3.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples4.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples5.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples6.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples7.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples8.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples9.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples10.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples11.pdf
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/report-samples12.pdf
One of the most useful reports is in sample 8, which shows whether duplicate memory cards were created. The example here shows one precinct that had an extra memory card (ballot box) created, but in Putnam County Florida after the 2004 election, every precinct had 2-3 memory cards (ballot boxes). This
is important information for tracking chain of custody.
TOOL KITS
For more information, such as how to request public records, or details on looking at audit logs or automating collection of preliminary results, go to our Tool Kit page: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.html -- both the 2008 and the earlier Tool Kit contain many valuable suggestions.
The most interesting information will come out in the days and weeks following the election. Happy hunting, and you can use this link to share information:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80813.html
WE NEED AND APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT FOR 2010 ACTIONS:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
or mail to:
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St Suite K PMB 547
Renton WA 98057
This message was sent by: Black Box Voting, Inc., 330 SW 43rd St Suite K -
PMB 547, Renton, WA 98057
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.