FReepers Against Voter Fraud

November20, 2002 | sweetliberty

[Mudboy Slim]

How 'bout them 'Skins?!!

FReegards...MUD

[TheLion]

What about them skins?....I haven't heard anything. Here is a good article:


Can we trust the vote count anywhere? In any race? In any election?

By Thomas Penn
Online Journal Contributing Writer

November 14, 2002—Do you think that our voting system could be corrupted? Not in little ways, such as "dead people voting," or people voting twice, but by people behind the scenes not counting our votes or substituting other numbers for the vote count that our selections on election day should mandate. Even worse, could a computer programmer working for a private company adjust the tallies for candidates and propositions in ways which might not be detectable? Although I am only beginning to research this topic, I am already beginning to find answers that are rather unsettling.

I located an article originally published in "Relevance" in November, 1996 (Vol. III, No. V) edited by Philip M. O'Halloran. An editor's note at the beginning of the article states:

"Ed. Note - When we began researching the integrity of the election process, we wanted to believe that the talk of "votescam" was just overblown hype. However, we have discovered that the computer voting system in this country is a veritable can of worms, so open to tampering that if there is no organized election fraud going on, the criminals are falling down on the job."

In a section of that article, entitled "Secret Ballot–Secret Tally - Electronic Voting on Trial," the author(s) goes on to state, "The counting of 70% of our votes goes on inside a literal and figurative black box by a technical process that you have no legal right to inspect. The results from that black box are then counted by local election officials who send their results to the state, where they are later certified as accurate and honest. However, these election officials have no legitimate means of certifying that the results are indeed "accurate" and "honest." In fact, in numerous interviews, we found that no individual at the state, county, city or township level has had any meaningful insight (or even a clear understanding) into the vote counting process at the crucial level of the election computers in each jurisdiction."1

"When the polls close, the voting tallies feed out from the back of the machine on a strip of paper that looks like a cash register receipt. These slips are then sent to the county, the state and the media for further counting. In many heavily-populated areas, the Votomatic Punch cards or optical scan ballots are taken to a central counting site where they are fed into from one to 12 larger computers called tabulators at the rate of up to 1,000 per minute."2

The computers which tabulate the votes cannot be examined by anyone with a direct interest in a fair election. Neither voters, nor poll workers, city clerks, county election supervisors, state elections directors or even federal election officials are permitted to view or examine the "source code," the computer programming instructions (software) that direct the computers in the tabulation of the votes in all of the races.

The "source codes" are deemed proprietary, i.e. a "trade secret," and hence the only people who are allowed to view or examine them are the companies that make the computers and their agents.

But this is not the half of it. Not only are we not able to examine the computer program which "tabulates" our votes. We can't even find out if there are felons or ex-felons working for (or owning or managing) the companies which produce the voting machines, election equipment and software. The major companies which make most of the equipment (and software) involved in the election process are private companies which are not required by law to disclose ownership information. In fact, research indicates that not only are there questions of criminal activity (vote fraud, obstruction of justice) on the part of present or past members of these firms, the ties of these companies to extreme right wing political operatives are becoming more and more apparent.3

Beverly Harris is a courageous and persistent woman who is determined to find answers to these questions. (See Talion.com, 2002 Election) She has catalogued more than 30 instances of serious election irregularities, computer glitches and charges of voter fraud that have occurred in many U.S. jurisdictions and overseas that call into question the integrity and reliability of the voting equipment, especially the vote-counting machines.4

She also attempts to penetrate the maze of companies and shell companies, owners and investors that make up the constellations of organizations that make up, control, own, have agreements with or are subsidiaries of the vote-counting firms. She found that there were four companies in this business, but for all intents and purposes the fourth (Shoup Voting Solutions) has had its personnel and machines merged into the other three:

Election Systems and Software (ES&S), the largest company making vote-counting equipment, was founded by Todd and Bob Urosovitch, and was originally financed largely by the politically active Ahmanson family, a facilitator and financier of many extreme right-wing political causes.

Sequoia Pacific shares technology and software with ES&S under a shared licensing agreement.

Global Election Systems (now part of Diebold) is headed by ES&S co-founder Bob Urosovitch, brother of ES&S's vice president.4

Given all the irregularities that have resulted from voting "snafus," "computer glitches" and other mistakes connected with the electronic vote-counting process, it is amazing that this has not become a scandal of national proportions. It appears that the media have had a hand in diverting the public's attention away from this. The rare times they do report incidents in this arena are usually very local, unless there is an unavoidably newsworthy breakdown such as occurred during the Florida presidential circus in 2000. However, these kinds of snafus and irregularities have been going on for decades, along with other types of shenanigans and voting barriers, such as those experienced by many minorities during that Florida vote, which have had the effect of discouraging many would-be voters and creating cynicism in the minds of many more. What is even more insidious is that any reasonably sophisticated vote fraud in the tabulation equipment and software would not even be noticed, much less investigated and proven.

With all the "improvements," "refinements, and "standardization" as a result of all the election glitches during Florida's vote-counting two years ago, we now have a host of new creative possibilities for those who might wish to commit vote fraud. There is now a plethora of new voting machines which do not leave a paper trail. This means that we do not have any way of re-counting those votes at the source, and no back-up record of how the voters voted at the precinct level.

In addition, we now have modems installed in a goodly number of voting machines. People have observed voting machine company employees re-booting a voting machine by merely dialing a number on a cell phone. Central counting facilities can also "talk" with the precinct voting machines and thus establish intermediate tallies. If outside computers can "talk with machines inside the precincts, they may also influence their electronic signals, and thus potentially alter the vote count totals stored at the machine or the central counter level.

There is a story in the book "Votescam," by James and Kenneth Collier, relating how George H. W. Bush, during the 1988 Presidential Primary season, lost to Bob Dole in the Iowa caucuses and was behind 8 percentage points in the New Hampshire Primary in the week before the voting. He made a telephone call to computer expert and Governor John Sunnunu, and—lo and behold—when the polls closed on primary night the pollsters were dumbfounded. Bush won by 9 percentage points. It has been theorized that anyone knowing the proper phone number, using a machine that can output a precise series of frequencies, could input a new set of counting instructions into the state's vote-counting machines.

VNS

On the next level, we need to consider VNS, the Voter News Service, founded as News Election Service (NES) in 1964. According to James Collier, co-author of Votescam and a 20 year student of computer vote fraud (especially in Florida), this vote projection service monopoly came about as a result of a meeting between representatives of the CIA, the FBI and the powers behind the media, who met in secret and hammered out a deal. If the heads of the major media would acquiesce in the Warren Commission's lame conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone nut" gunman in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, then they would be given a great deal of power in the selection of the winners in future elections. This one organization conducts all the election day exit polling and does all the reporting of the vote-tallying from the major counting centers on election night, and forwards their tabulations to all the major media.5

What if the people who controlled the election night exit polling, projections, and vote tabulations were able to intelligently (and corruptly) collaborate with the vote-counting equipment (and software) manufacturers, which program and adjust the voting equipment? Could Candidate A, who in reality has received 60 percent of the vote over Candidate B, find the numbers reversed when the networks announce that the exit polling and the vote tabulations agree that Candidate B has won out over Candidate A by a 60/40 margin? Could this happen? What recourse would anyone have if it did? What proof could anyone offer to decide the case one way or the other?

I am not saying this has happened, is happening or will happen. I am asking the question: Why couldn't it happen? There is enough conflict of interest, potential for manipulation, lack of disclosure and secrecy involved in the vote-counting process that it leaves me wondering if we can trust the vote tallies and vote totals in any electoral district in the country.

There are a number of partial solutions bruited about for some of the big questions and doubts about the integrity of the electoral process. However, there is only one solution consistently cited by people who have really studied this issue—one solution that eliminates the possibility of vote tampering through proprietary source code software alterations, outside input through modems, and "computer glitches" caused by weather, electrical surges or other factors.6

It involves going back to a simpler era. It is just this. Hand counting all ballots at the precinct level by the election workers under the watchful eyes of the community, and the posting of the results at each precinct station, plus the saving of the individual ballots so that they may be reviewed or re-counted at any time.

This might appear to many as an extreme Luddite solution. But I submit that it has much more going for it than do the insincere and self-serving arguments used by James Baker and the Bush forces during the process of their stealing of Florida's electoral vote and the presidency in 2000. I remember Baker saying something to the effect, "It is un-American to count votes by hand after they have already been counted by machine."

I contend that the forces which would use offensive and irrational arguments such as the one above, who would send their own operatives by bus to Miami-Dade County Election Headquarters asking them to behave like thugs, bullies and "storm troopers" in order to frighten election workers into stopping their vote-count, who would pressure other election workers into counting obviously invalid absentee votes sent from overseas, and who would commit all sorts of other heinous, ugly, unjust and criminal acts just to ensconce their candidate in the White House—would be very happy to have computer programs and polling numbers adjusted to facilitate the "right result" in local, state, and national elections.

I do not believe the situation is hopeless. On the contrary, I really believe the statement of Michael Ruppert, who has been a rock in the efforts to bring out the truth of what really happened on September 11, 2001. He stated, "When you have had the game rigged in your favor for a long time, you tend to get stupid." So let us stay cool, intelligent and observant. Let's go to the polls and vote, hopefully for Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, independents—people of conscience and creativity. At the same time, let us observe very carefully everything we see happening during the election process. Then I request that you write up your observations and send them to http://www.votewatch.us/. We need to document as much of the process as possible.

At some point we need to challenge both the right of these companies to hide the names of their owners and employees, and whether they have conflicts of interest, criminal records, etc, and the right to keep the source codes private and unexamined by election officials, neutral parties and representatives of the voting public. I think that there is an argument that voting is a sacred right and thus the "proprietary" right to view the computer "source code" lies with the public and their "honest representatives," not with the firms which may have economic interests in a dishonest and clever count.



http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Penn111402/penn111402.html

[nicmarlo]

Maine alert:

Democrats Refuse to Count ALL the Votes

[sweetliberty]

For your amusement, here is the Rat answer to voter problems (although it is admittedly a bit scary that they think this is a good idea).

Mandatory Voting: Yes or No?

[nicmarlo]

Here's some further info on that election dispute from Maine GOP site:

Maine GOP>

PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release
November 19, 2002

LES FOSSEL WINNER IN SENATE DISTRICT 16

(AUGUSTA, ME) – A review of the disputed ballots Tuesday evening has shown that Les Fossel has won the Maine Senate District 16 election by at least five votes. Initial recount results proved to be inconclusive when the Democrats frivolously challenged a significant number of ballots that were cast for Mr. Fossel.

Initially Mr. Hall was ahead by nine votes with 165 contested ballots. That number of contested ballots was whittled down to 63 when both sides agreed to count 102 ballots where voter intent was mutually agreed upon, yielding an equal number of votes for both candidates.

Republican re-counters are confident that the remaining 63 ballots, when viewed objectively, yield a 14-vote margin for Mr. Fossel. By subtracting the initial nine-vote margin garnered to Democrat candidate Chris Hall after the first day of the recount, Mr. Fossel is left with a five-vote margin of victory.

Steve Lechner, attorney for Mr. Fossel, said, “It is clear, from everything we’ve seen over the course of the last two days, that Mr. Fossel has won this contest. After all of the votes are counted in this election, Mr. Fossel wins by at least five votes. It is time for Mr. Hall to concede the election.”

“It is time to put this political contest behind us and focus on the common problems and challenges of the people of Lincoln County and the state of Maine,” Mr. Fossel said.

The 63 ballots in question were categorized by re-counters to determine the nature of the objection. The attached spreadsheet details the votes in question.

“If the Democrats are unwilling to concede this election by the reality of the votes cast,” said Senator Mary Small (R-Bath), Senate Republican Leader, “they ought to at least agree to turn the disputed ballots over to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court for an advisory opinion. Such advisory opinions were issued in past contested House elections in 1965 and 1967.”

[nicmarlo]

Yet More from GOP site:

For Immediate Release
November 23, 2002
Contact: Dwayne Bickford
Cynthia Bergman

Overt Disenfranchisement of Voters Condemned

Potentially Disenfranchised Voters Decry Democrat Tactics in State Senate Recount and Demand Their Votes Be Counted

PORTLAND—Voters from Maine’s 16th Senate District gathered today in front of the Cumberland County Superior Court to decry efforts by Democrats to overtly throw out valid ballots and in doing so deny them their most fundamental right as Americans, the right to vote.

“I am here today because I want my vote to be counted and I don’t know if it will be,” said Lucia Wright of New Castle. “I am outraged that my vote may be thrown out because people are more interested in winning an election than protecting our rights as citizens to vote, this is terrible to witness.”

A Democrat attorney for Chris Hall is disputing some legitimate ballots because the voter used a blue or black pen, instead of a pencil . . .

[Mudboy Slim]

That article is way too long...can you please summarize?! LOL!!

FReegards...MUD

[nicmarlo]

It's Lincoln County, Maine. And here's an update from today:

The Lincoln County News

Hall Named Provisional Winner in Dist. 16 -- Fossel Withdraws Appeal -- New Strategy Revealed

(Update -- Posted 11/27 at 2:00PM) Senate Dist. 16 Republican candidate Les Fossel withdrew his appeal to the Maine State Supreme Judicial Court regarding the recount in Dist. 16. just 4 hours before the scheduled hearing. Withdrawl of the motion asking the State's highest court to intervene in the recount process removes the last roadblock to the swearing in of Democratic candidate Chris Hall as the new State Senator for Dist. 16.

However, the fight for Dist. 16 isn't over yet.

A statement issued by the State Republican Party leadership expressed resolve that the State Senate will make the final decision on who will be the next senator in Dist. 16, as already outlined in the State constitution.

The statement also revealed that the Republicans plan on taking their fight regarding the ballot count straight to the Senate floor in Augusta. . . .

[nicmarlo]

Here's a list of towns in Lincoln County. Towns of Lincoln County, Maine

• Alna
• Boothbay
• Boothbay Harbor
• Bremen
• Bristol
• Damariscotta
• Dresden
• Edgecomb
• Jefferson
• Monhegan Island
• Newcastle
• Nobleboro
• Somerville
• South Bristol
• Southport
• Waldoboro
• Westport
• Whitefield
• Wiscasset

[sweetliberty]

Thanks nic. I definitely have my work cut out for me!

[nicmarlo]

I thought it would be interesting to compare this county voting pattern to the Bush/Albore election. Here's how Lincoln voted in 2000 for President General Election Tabulations Here's the Maine Election site: Department of Secretary of State:

BROWNE 17
BUCHANAN 37
BUSH 1,410
GORE 916
NADER 92
PHILLIPS 5
OTHER 0

[nicmarlo]

I definitely have my work cut out for me!

The sad thing is, sweetliberty, you'd have no work to do if the Rats weren't such liars, cheaters, stealers.....this is very upsetting what they do, over and over, all over.

[sweetliberty]

Upsetting is hardly the word for it. We have got to find a way to nail their @sses!

[nicmarlo]

Upsetting is hardly the word for it. We have got to find a way to nail their @sses!

Well, I was trying to temper my thoughts....and you're right...we really do have to find a way to stick it to them, hard, and make them pay for their corruption.

[nicmarlo]

Remember that e-mail I sent out 2 weeks ago to the RNC? (I retyped it, below):

As a registered Republican, I am very interested in becoming a "poll watcher" to help prevent voter fraud at the 2004 elections.

There are, however, several questions I have and would appreciate being provided information regarding the following:

1. What kind of "official RNC" training material is provided to state and local precincts for individuals interested in poll watching?

2. Where may this "official RNC" information be obtained from the RNC, other than through a local precinct?

3. To whom, at the national level of the RNC, may I direct further questions, i.e., who is the person or persons in charge of the compilation and dissemination of instruction materials/procedures pertaining to federal and state election laws?

I would appreciate your prompt attention to my questions. Thank you for your time. ----------------------------------

Well, I got a response from: "Info Services Temp" , which told me: "goto www.fec.gov to answer your questions ..."

That's it. No name on the e-mail; no answers to my questions.....the site doesn't appear very helpful, as it is the Federal Election Commission. It is not the Republican Party, which I specifically put questions to ABOUT the Republican Party (not the Federal Government!). I'm pissed! I didn't expect much, but this is pathetic.

[nicmarlo]

See my post #495 (I'm so po'd, I accidentally sent it to myself).

[sweetliberty]

Did you send that email? If so, maybe you should print it out and try sending it regular mail.

[nicmarlo]

(Yes, I sent that e-mail, two weeks ago). I will try one more time, sending e-mail. But that's a good idea, maybe I'll send it snail mail too. Thanks sweetliberty.

[nicmarlo]

Well, here it is; this time sent to info@rnc.org (rather than use their online form). We'll see what happens this time.

To Whom It May Concern:

Two weeks passed for me to receive the following "answer" (goto www.fec.gov to answer your questions) from "Info Services Temp." The Federal Elections Commission website cannot answers my questions, which specifically relate to the Republican National Committee and its particular procedures. I am now re-sending to you the identical questions previously asked and I would appreciate Republican answers, not U.S. Government positions:

As a registered Republican, I am very interested in becoming a "poll watcher" to help prevent voter fraud at the 2004 elections.

There are, however, several questions I have and would appreciate being provided information regarding the following:

1. What kind of "official RNC" training material is provided to state and local precincts for individuals interested in poll watching?

2. Where may thisofficial RNC" information be obtained from the RNC, other than through a local precinct?

3. To whom, at the national level of the RNC, may I direct further questions, i.e., who is the person or persons in charge of the compilation and dissemination of instruction materials/procedures pertaining to federal and state election laws?

As you can see, my three questions relate to the Republican Party and cannot be answered by the Federal Elections Commission. I would very much appreciate answers, from the Republican Party, to my questions. Thank you for your time.

[sweetliberty]

Great. Keep us posted.