Why are some Diebold counties at ZERO percent?

[BevHarris]

Most counties are at around 90%.

Alameda - 0%
Kern - 0%
San Luis Obispo: under 2%
Tulare - 0%

What the heck is going on ?

[Paulie]

1. I know!

Access crashed, so they have to "make" a new DB to import. <sigh>

I hate these freaking voting machines.... they piss me OFF!

[Wonk]

2. Source? That sounds really really odd...

especially considering how one of the touted benefits of computer voting is quicker tabulation of results :shrug:

[BevHarris]

4. ?Source: vote2003.ss.ca.gov go to election summary

and hit summary and county status

check acgov.org and click the election results banner

[Wonk]

6. Thanks. nt

[harmonyguy]

26. Acgov.org - still no results

Neither vote2003 nor acgov.org showing ANY results for Alameda.

Something is weird! Maybe Alamedans voted against the recall, and since the touch-screens broke (early morning report), they had to send out for more pencils and erasers to make the 'right' result.

It's now 10:32pm. The polls have been closed for 2-1/2 hours. Hey Alamedans, do you know where YOUR vote is?
HG

[E_Zapata]

3. are you serious? Access crashed?

Or did the results not look so good, so they are creating a new db that brings the repuke in as a winner????????/

[Paulie]

7. Not serious - DARK HUMOR

These things were supposed to make counting FASTER. Seems the paper scanners kick their but!

[PaDUer]

45. Of course...

they have a pro hacker who KNOWS how to take care of things for them..they know what they're doing.

[The Zanti Regent]

5. Bev--We know the fix is in!

Makes me wanna sing Georgia on my mind...

[monobrau]

8. In Alameda -

We were lined up at the warehouse turning in everything afer 9:00.
The bundle handed in with the results was packed and sealed in a box that was bound for another detination. So it was a long way from being counted when we saw it last.

[AP]

11. I thought they modemed in the results from the precincts.

I thought I read that here earlier today.

[BevHarris]

15. Yes. They modem them in

There is no reason for the results not to be in yet.

Do you wonder if Mickey Mouse won and they don't want to admit it?

[monobrau]

21. No, we don't

I worked at the polls tonight and took a class beforehand.
We were told that no one would modem them in; all are delivered to the warehouse.
Did you work at a polling place in Alameda tonight?

[AP]

22. Someone posted here that the were in a ToughShit precinct and saw the...

...phone lines running to the machines and was told that the results were modemed in at the end of the night.

[BevHarris]

23. Mmm -- I heard same, but with Optical Scan in Marin County

don't know about touch screens.

[BevHarris]

24. Does anyone feel uncomfortable about ballot box the size of credit card

You can palm a ballot box. You can put a stack of ballot boxes in your pocket.

That is literally the truth, with the Diebold touch screens, which use a memory card to capture the votes.

Is it just me, or does this sound like a bad idea?

[Paulie]

25. Scares me to death

There is more security on a Snickers bar at a 7-11 (cameras and the candy isle is right in plain sight of the worker).

I have a dozen PC cards in my desk at work. They'd fit in my pocket without a bump showing.

[Must_B_Free]

35. MIckey Mouse wouldn't be so bad

as long as he surrounds himself with smart people, right?

[PaDUer]

46. I concur..

they should've been in, but don't forget, they're busy playing w/ the numbers in these counties..Look for consistencies..

[NoKingGeorge]

96. What was bundled ?

If the results were not modemed in and a bundle was sent , what is a bundle, the pack-of-cigarette size memory cards? No printers so the bundle would not be paper ....

[monobrau]

102. What was bundled-

2 bags containing the memory cards(the votes), tape reports from each machine, all cards and card encoders, voter rosters, AV and provisional ballots cast, unused provisional ballots and signed reports accounting for the ballots and rosters.
These were sealed in boxes and loaded on a truck.
This was a "sneakernet" operation, so I'm not surprised it took a long time to get results.

There were several voters throughout the day who expressed concern about Diebold. I told them that I would have to refrain from expressing my opinion while I was working the polls, but explained to anyone who wanted to know how the equipment would be used to the best of my knowledge.

[BevHarris]

104. Thank you -- three questions ...

and thanks very much for your input.

1) How many people (and who were they) were in charge of chain of custody of those bags (I presume, one bag for each polling place)

2) At what time was the zero report run? Did you observe this?

3) There are two card slots in the machines. In one, the voter places the voter card to activate the vote. Did you personally observe whether the other slot was empty or had a card in it?

These machines can accept a wireless modem card. It goes in the slot -- I am not clear on whether it can go in the supervisor card slot or the voter card slot or a different slot altogether (although I thought there were only two slots)

At any rate -- along with the question of whether any telephone wires were sticking out of these machines at any time, the question as to whether the second slot had a card in it is relevant.

Thanks for any light you can shed on this.

Bev

[monobrau]

106. Answers

The inspector and I (in the role of judge) had custody of the bags.
They were on my lap while we went to the warehouse.

0 report was run around 6:30 by the inspector.

These machines only had one slot. The same slot was used for the voter and supervisor cards. I set up the machines myself the night before with a student volunteer. No wires except the daisy-chained
power cords.
There was a port on the side of the machine that looked like a standard PC serial port for the modem.


The biggest problem that I saw has been documented elsewhere; which is that the machines were unsecured all night in the polling place.
This was a fire station, so you at least have the firemen there all night.
It's also well known that the bike locks used when the machines are on the cart and the supervisor passwords are the same for everyone and known by everyone.

Also, with all due respect to my fellow poll workers, many are elderly and not very aware of the potential for abuse. A person in my position with the tools and the knowledge could have easily pulled something off.

[BevHarris]

109. Thanks. And for all of us who are not thrilled that the password

is always "1111" I now have a report from a county worker who says the password for all ES&S machines is ESS.

Lovely.

[monobrau]

103. printers

"No printers so the bundle would not be paper ...."

Just to clarify -
The machines do have printers and a report is run before and after the election and signed by each poll worker.
I ran all of the reports at the end, so I was able to see the results for our precinct by scanning down the tape.

[w4rma]

9. Waiting until they find out if they *need* to cheat?

Waiting to find out how many votes they need to recall Davis?

[WaterDog]

13. Just what I

was thinking. It is highly peculiar considering computers are supposed to give quick tallies. This all stinks.

[proud patriot]

10. I was just checking that out too Bev...

I really feel like this process on T.V. is being rushed ...

[PaDUer]

47. Rushed??

What about the one station, I forget which, called the election for Arnie before they knew..now where did we see this before?

[ParanoidPat]

12. Check these numbers closely.....

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
0.0 % ( 0 of 43 ) Lake precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 8:50 pm

Lake County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent



Shall Gray Davis be recalled?
Yes 318 56.0
No 250 44.0
Statewide Yes 983,126 56.1
No 771,349 43.9 Map

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
0.0 % ( 0 of 1786 ) Los Angeles precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 8:50 pm

Los Angeles County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent
Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
0.0 % ( 0 of 351 ) San Joaquin precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 9:12 pm

San Joaquin County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent



Shall Gray Davis be recalled?
Yes 22,577 59.8
No 15,218 40.2
Statewide Yes 1,090,416 56.7
No 834,034 43.3 Map

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
0.0 % ( 0 of 168 ) Santa Cruz precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 9:12 pm

Santa Cruz County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent



Shall Gray Davis be recalled?
Yes 9,260 38.0
No 15,094 62.0
Statewide Yes 1,090,416 56.7
No 834,034 43.3 Map




Shall Gray Davis be recalled?
Yes 181,076 50.9
No 174,880 49.1
Statewide Yes 983,126 56.1
No 771,349 43.9 Map


Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
0.0 % ( 0 of 21 ) Mariposa precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 9:07 pm

Mariposa County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent



Shall Gray Davis be recalled?
Yes 1,664 65.2
No 891 34.8
Statewide Yes 1,051,869 56.7
No 805,987 43.3 Map

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
0.0 % ( 0 of 91 ) Monterey precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 9:07 pm

Monterey County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent



Shall Gray Davis be recalled?
Yes 18,904 48.0
No 20,405 52.0
Statewide Yes 1,051,869 56.7
No 805,987 43.3 Map

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
0.0 % ( 0 of 90 ) Nevada precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 9:07 pm

Nevada County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent



Shall Gray Davis be recalled?
Yes 7,539 63.0
No 4,446 37.0
Statewide Yes 1,051,869 56.7
No 805,987 43.3 Map

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
0.0 % ( 0 of 563 ) San Francisco precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 9:12 pm

San Francisco County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent



Shall Gray Davis be recalled?
Yes 13,358 22.7
No 45,392 77.3
Statewide Yes 1,090,416 56.7
No 834,034 43.3 Map

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
0.0 % ( 0 of 52 ) Shasta precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 9:12 pm

Shasta County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent



Shall Gray Davis be recalled?
Yes 10,486 68.2
No 4,902 31.8
Statewide Yes 1,090,416 56.7
No 834,034 43.3 Map

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
0.0 % ( 0 of 45 ) Yuba precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 9:16 pm

Yuba County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent



Shall Gray Davis be recalled?
Yes 2,601 73.6
No 936 26.4
Statewide Yes 1,102,695 55.4
No 890,434 44.6 Map

:shrug: :wtf: 0.0% reporting?

[WaterDog]

17. Where are you

getting this from? How can there be 0% reporting then numbers listed? Where is this?

[ParanoidPat]

19. Click on link, scroll down, click on Counties....

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/recall/00.htm :shrug:

[WaterDog]

33. Yuba and Monterey

still at 0% reporting but others have % reporting now. Alameda and Tulare still have nothing reported.

[Code_Name_D]

14. Crackers for America at work?

Roomer has it that hackers were going to try and probe the voting machines security and rig the tally to expose the security gap. Perhaps that is why they arn't releacing the numbers.

Yes: 696969.69
No: 500,000,000,000,000,000

That might raise a few eyebrows.

Just speculating here.

[Il_Coniglietto]

16. Yea, we wish those were the numbers

'Course, there aren't enough humans on the planet for that to work, but I like those percentages!

[Code_Name_D]

18. That is the point.

If they were going to do this, they would want to manipulate the numbers in such an obsine maner. Saposably, that way they couln't be prosicuted for rigging an election.

But that is just the roomer I hear. Don't mean their is any thing to it. Still, the data Bev helped put out exposed a lot of back doors to the system. These machines are not secure.

These 0% returns could be the result of that kind of hacking.

But I remind you. I am speculating here. Could be dead squerls in the power lines for all I know.

[nbsmom]

20. The wrong number on yes

666666

[PaDUer]

50. Yes...

someone posted on another thread earlier about the computer system going down! ..hmm...thought they were supposed to have them up/ready.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

27. update

Kern: 75% yes, 25% no with 67% of precincts reporting
San Luis Obispo: 63% yes, 37% no with 100% of precincts reporting


Perhaps enhanced security precautions are being enforced in the counties you mentioned, and slowing down the reporting. After all, it would be a shame if the janitor were to hack into a phone line and modify the vote data while it's en route to the server. :eyes:

Besides, what's the rush? Personally I'd rather they take their time and get it right than rush things and get it wrong. Wouldn't you agree?

JC

[BevHarris]

31. Alameda?

Yes, I agree, the most comforting scenario is that they are checking it twice and then three times.

Frankly, I am stunned that they modemed anything in, but they did in some counties. You see, neither scenario is a good one though -- in the first, they use electronic means which might get hacked. In the drive-in method, it's all too easy to substitute the credit-card-sized ballot boxes.

Yes, I know, you'll say that other security measures prevent that. What? They place the credit card ballot box in a large plastic bag and hold it under a flashlight while four people observe it at all times as they drive it in to headquarters, and then they can prove there is no legerdemain in the process of taking this credit card ballot box and inserting it for upload to GEMS? And while they are inserting one, who is watching the others?

Ah, a scientific way to check, a checksum, or a specially coded card. Except that I've now seen too many memos that describe how this feature goes away.

Bev

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

38. wow

My, what an amazing straw man you've constructed. *applause*

(As you know, I never said any of those things. Please stop putting words in my mouth. This is the 43rd time I've asked you. Seriously -- I can provide the links if you doubt it.)

I actually have no idea whether they modemed anything in at all (if it were my decision, I wouldn't). I suspect the lack of results to date suggests that they're driving them in, at least in Alameda. Either way, who cares? Absent a receipt printer you'll never be satisfied anyway.

As idiotic it may be to have Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California, I'm at least glad that the result was a blowout. Different voting machine vendors, using a variety of voting methodologies (touch screen, punch card, optical scan) were used all over the state. It would be absurd for anyone to suggest they all colluded together in a coordinated (and undetectable) way to rig the election so decisively in favor of one candidate or the other.

Of course, I'm waiting with great amusement for someone to suggest exactly that. ;)

JC

[Must_B_Free]

44. So you are saying that we shouldn't worry about Black Box Voting?

?

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

56. I don't think that's what I said

I'm saying that with such a wide margin of victory over the entire state, in which voting equipment from different vendors using various different technologies was used, it would be absurd for anyone to claim the election was "stolen" or "rigged" by an election company or companies.

I wouldn't presume to tell you whether or not you should "worry" about "black box voting", I leave it for you to draw your own conclusions on the matter just as I've drawn mine. I will presume to tell you to take any statements, particularly technical claims, made by Ms. Harris with a very large grain of salt -- she is often demonstrably incorrect or intentionally misleading, as has been documented many times over on this very forum.

JC

[TrogL]

108. *ding* *ding* *ding* straw man

[PaDUer]

53. Your comment..

{As idiotic it may be to have Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California,)

Hey, look what we've got for the so-called president..

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

60. threats?

Personal attacks are uncalled for.

As for "taking me apart", you crack me up.

JC

[angka]

64. oh please.

continuing to argue with you will only give the fine DU moderators needless work (although why they've let you stick around this long is a little baffling).

you should be happy that i agreed with even a minute fraction of any misdirecting point you've ever made. which you might notice i did.

and remember, it's company policy to clock out for lunch. four punches a day, please.

[angka]

78. and to clarify,

i'm not suggesting for a minute that there was no vote fraud in this election. but it was more likely the same tried and true old methods of fraud we've seen in this country for about two centuries. maybe some touch screen stuff, just for kicks—who knows? i'm especially interested in which areas of the state had more polling places 'eliminated' from this 'special' election.

most of all, though, i think this was a propaganda victory for the GOP. brought out the bread and circus types. that's what we need to come out of this knowing.

[TrogL]

107. I wouldn't byte this

if I were you

*giggles*

[Clete]

28. Maybe the next petition we circulate should

be to demand going back to the old hand marked and hand counted ballots.

[Metatron]

29. Noticed that too, and

I wonder why some counties that have 0% precints reporting, still report a ballot total. (see Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Monterey, Nevada & Yuba)

[rucky]

32. and Imperial

[Metatron]

34. Now Glenn, too

WTF?

[Il_Coniglietto]

30. Majorly confused

The percent reporting just went from 42.8 to 42.6...typo??

[Briarius]

36. yep, just changed to 46.2

although there are still two counties at 0%

[rucky]

37. What Counties Should We Be Watching Now?

[Kenneth ken]

39. Alameda & Tulare still at 0 n/t

[BevHarris]

41. If I'm not mistaken, Tulare is quite small

I find it curious that Tulare is so late. Alameda is going to be something we should watch very carefully.

[Metatron]

42. Also Del Norte still has 0%

and they only have 12,000+ registered voters (18 precincts)

[Kenneth ken]

49. 164 precincts -

in Tulare. no way to see how many voters that equals. Still showing 0 reporting as of 11:40 PST.

edit - whoops - Tulare shows 131,694 registered voters (had to go to a different page)

[Kenneth ken]

70. Tulare reporting now

showing FINAL

one page shows 68,891 voters

the yes/no page shows
48,309 yes
19,051 no

67360 total

another discrepancy 1,531 votes


fwiw - I'm not sure how synchronized these pages are. Just reporting what I see.

[Clete]

40. At 11:00 PM PDT

47% of the precincts have reported, which means 53% have not. This has been the same for an hour. Have they stopped counting? They don't even have half the precincts in yet? What is going on.

[Toucano]

43. Kick

:kick:

[uhhuh]

48. Orange county

O.C. numbers have not been updated in three hours. What's with that?
Also, if monobrau handed off his Alameda precinct results at 9:00, where are they? Where are ANY Alameda results? Three hours to post any numbers is too long.

[proud patriot]

51. Heads up Bev

Find Alameda
http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/recall/mapN4.htm


None of their votes have been counted yet ....
http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/recall/01.htm



Alameda is not on the map

I clicked on all the parts in the bay area and none are alameda..

[Toucano]

52. On this map

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/recall/mapN4.htm

It is the white one near all the red ones.?

[proud patriot]

54. I swear it didn't look like that a second ago

never mind

[Kenneth ken]

55. Colusa County

Shall GRAY DAVIS be recalled (removed) from the Office of Governor?
100.0 % ( 14 of 14 ) Colusa precincts reporting as of Oct 7, 2003 at 11:48 pm

Colusa County Returns County Returns | Statewide | Other Contests

Votes Percent


Shall Gray Davis be recalled? Yes 3,695 75.1 No 1,229 24.9
Statewide Yes 2,578,951 54.9 No 2,124,870 45.1 Map



County Name Total Precincts Precincts Rpt'g % Rpt'g Reg'd Voters Ballots Cast % Turnout First Report Date-Time Latest Report Date-Time Report Type*

Colusa 14 14 100 7,718 7,718 100 07-10:08pm 07-11:37pm F


here's a reporting with bad math - the yes/no vote shows 4,924 votes, but the other page shows 7,718 total registered voters, and 100 % turnoout.

FWIW.

[Toucano]

58. Alameda

Started reporting at midnight.

The witching hour? Ooooh!

[demobabe]

63. Alameda - No WAY

Registered voters in Alameda County:
706,056

Ballots Cast in Alameda County:
129,502

Voter Turnout: 18.3%

The lowest reported turnout in the STATE!

There is NO WAY the folks in berkeley would stay home. Something majorly fishy here.

[uhhuh]

59. OMG!! Someone check out Colusa County

They show 100% voter turnout! I know there are only 7,100 of them, but I can't imagine they have 100% registered voters voting. Also, of the 7,100 of them, apparently about 3,000 didn't vote on the recall question....hmmm.

Update:
Colusa county:7718 registered voters. 7718 recorded votes: 100%

On the recall:4924 total votes cast, both yes and no

On the candidates: All candidate totals, added together:4765

Prop 53 total votes, both yes and no:4613

Prop 54 total votes, both yes and no:4736.

tell me how this makes sense??

[BevHarris]

62. new "BAD MATH" topic at BBVreport.org forum

I launched it with this. As we examine the reports tomorrow, we'll find discrepancies.

Listen, folks, this is where I found the over 100 elections miscounted by voting machines -- in the auditing and bad math after the elections, which was further examined and unraveled into machine miscounts.

You can help greatly by reporting numbers that don't add up, and also, please, check to see if results were posted at your polling place -- they were supposed to be printed before modeming them in and they are supposed to be posted for seven days.

If they don't show up until AFTER results are tabulated, we've got a problem. Think, wide open GEMS hack, revisited. The protection against the GEMS hack, I was told, was those polling place printouts getting run before submitting results to GEMS, and they are supposed to be posted!

1) Bad math
2) Results posted?

Report at http://www.BBVreport.org or email me with the information privately. Need polling place and time you checked for the printout.

Thanks.

[Oilwellian]

68. You beat me to the post

I was just going to post this...I also captured and saved the screen.

Colusa 14 14 100 7,718 7,718 100 07-10:08pm 07-11:37pm

14 precincts, 100% reporting, 7,718 registered voters, 7,718 ballots cast, 100% turnout. :wtf:

[uhhuh]

75. Get the vote beakdown too

I updated my post, but I still can't figue out how to save a screenshot. Call me stupid, I guess...

[BevHarris]

77. Screen shot:

on Windows, hold "alt" and press the "print screen" button (up near the scroll lock)

Then go into the dinky little draw program they have (under "accessories" and paste it (or hit ctrl-V) then save it as a jpg or whatever.

[Eloriel]

94. Well, some of those registered voters unvoted

Here's the 8:40 a.m. results:

Yes 3,695 75.1%

No 1,229 24.9%

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/recall/06.htm

Eloriel

[Toucano]

76. Someone did a recount! Someone did a RECOUNT?

Now it says 5,064 total votes for 65.6% turnout

3695 YES
1229 NO

Hmmm!

[Oilwellian]

61. Also Note...

The extremely low turnout percentage under county status for Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, et al. as compared to the rest. You might want to screensave a few pages of this irregular stuff.

[BevHarris]

65. Extremely low turnout was also noted in Miami in 2002

In certain heavily Democratic precincts, and the anomalies were quite pronounced and did not match earlier elections of the same type. One precinct had a turnout of 10,000, then 13,000, then suddenly 4,000 yet no change in residency or demographics.

These low turnout numbers are disturbing, because they are in minority areas. They need to be compared with previous elections -- the elections do not need to be the same type; we need to see if these areas traditionally have low turnout.

These are the kinds of discrepancies that will tell the story. Not a bunch of election night backslapping by TV anchormen.

[Andy_Stephenson]

74. San Luis Obispo

Yes 52,025 62.8
No 30,927 37.2



Arnold Schwarzenegger Rep 39,839 49.4
Cruz M. Bustamante Dem 21,195 26.3
Tom McClintock Rep 14,577 18.1

108 108 100 137,290 85,492 62.2


But when I add all candidates votes for governor I get 80622

[Kenneth ken]

66. Alameda just started

reporting. You need to look at the page with County Status as the Heading - all the way to the right will show R U or F

only when they get F are they done (Final)

[Metatron]

71. Alameda

with 61% of precincts reporting there is only 18% turnout - which seems low

edit: title

[Andy_Stephenson]

69. I must be dense

where do I find the number of registerd voters in each county to match up to those signed in and voting.

[Oilwellian]

72. Right here..

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/status.htm

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

67. another update

alameda: 35% yes, 65% no with 61% of precincts reporting
tulare: 72% yes, 28% no with 100% of precincts reporting


Guess the secret accu-vote touch screen rigging code we were promised didn't work in Alameda... voters there seem pretty decisively against the recall (although there's still 39% of precincts left to report their results so I suppose it could theoretically change).

I've been scouring the news for reports that these "totally insecure machines" were hacked today. Nothing so far. You'd think that if anyone could hack these infernal things (and had the motive to do so) it'd be the left-wing computer guys at Berkeley (conveniently located in Alameda county). I have to admit I'm a little disappointed on some level... "328 security flaws" and yada yada. I'll keep my eyes peeled.

JC

[BevHarris]

73. While you are scouring, scour up evidence that they posted results

at the polling place, obtaining the printout BEFORE submitting the results to central count.

Voting machine anomalies are found in the auditing and number-checking phase, not in the "is it fun to vote?" phase.

I look forward to your report as to the specific polling places that posted results before sending them in.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

79. you crack me up

Sadly I don't live in California, so I have no idea where or whether results are posted on any doors there. I'm sure one of the BBV "media crews" is rushing around with a camera and a cell phone to every polling center in the county... after all, they should be pretty well-rested after their general non-deployment today.

You're really reaching now, Bev. Seriously.

Alameda has the biggest percentage of votes against the recall of any county in the state. Where's the rigging in favor of the recall that we were promised? Where are the reports of these allegedly insecure machines getting hacked to hell and back? Yeah, that's right... forget all that. The real issue is posting printouts on the door. Are "the bigs" covering this? :eyes:

JC

[BevHarris]

81. Apparently you've never done an audit

or any forensic accounting work.

I have, so step aside.

The step of checking for printout made BEFORE transmitting results, and posting on the door, is an audit method that shows whether one of the procedures was in place to prevent altering the totals at central count and then back-changing the polling place data.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

85. And you haven't done any computer programming

But it doesn't stop you from shooting off your mouth about Diebold program code, wireless networking, computer hacking, etc.

I'll shut up about forensic accounting work when you stop talking about computers, how about that?

I totally agree that if there are no printouts it's a serious problem. We apparently disagree only on whether they were produced. You seem to assume they weren't. I choose to believe they probably were. I grant you that I have no idea whether anyone taped copies to the door of the polling places. Better call "the bigs" quick, otherwise tomorrow's "BBV Fear-Mongering Proves Baseless" headlines will probably embarrass the cause.

JC

[shance]

87. Whew - little defensive Tinnie boy -scared we may find something?

Chill out. Your transparency is showing.

[Cocoa]

110. that Alameda result PROVES the GOP stole the election

they obviously rigged it to favor Davis to make it look like there was no fraud. You fell right into their trap. :-)

[Matilda]

88. Am I being naive?

I don't fully understand your voting procedures, but if there's any
hint of fraud, should someone be contacting Democrat headquarters, or Governor Davies or something to take a look at what's going on
before Arnie moves into the Governor's mansion? Maybe that's easier said than done, but is it worth a try?

[Kenneth ken]

80. Alameda County

as of 12:30 PST

County Name Total Precincts Precincts Rpt'g % Rpt'g Reg'd Voters Ballots Cast % Turnout First Report Date-Time Latest Report Date-Time Report Type*

Alameda 1,010 618 61.1 706,056 129,502 18.3 07-11:55pm 08-12:01am R


61% of precincts reporting and only 18 % turnout? no other county has percentages of reporting/turnout that far apart.

[Metatron]

82. Colusa

Remember when they were reporting 100% turnout? It has been changed to 65.6% reporting.

[Oilwellian]

83. Thanks for the heads up

Bev, I have a screenshot of both 100% being claimed and then the switch to 65%.

[BevHarris]

84. Can you e-mail them to me?

[e-mail]

[Metatron]

86. I do too, except

I saved them as individual archived web pages (html).

[ParanoidPat]

89. Just send them as attachments.

:evilgrin:

[Metatron]

90. Will do - thanks

[Metatron]

91. 2:08 am Pacific time - the site is down now (n/t)

[uhhuh]

92. I was just doing a little something..

I don't know if it's helpful, but I was taking the results from the counties with 100% reporting, and I noticed something..

Check it out:

Total Votes Recall(yes+no) Candidate selected 53 54


Alpine: 573 569 502 520 525


Amador: 14811 13797 13819 13145 13517


Butte: 65300 63279 61869 55598 57320


Calaveras: 17559 16858 16747 16325 16736


Colusa: 5064 4924 4765 4613 4736


Contra Costa: 290645 284771 261752 258894 269990


Del Norte: 6578 6517 6035 6030 6152


Fresno: 173340 167613 164987 156527 161128

Glenn: 7087 7004 6622

This is where the site stopped responing, so I stopped there. It seems to me that there is a huge number of people who either made no decision on the recall, or didn't pick a candidate, or both. I don't know if it means anything other than a lot of people are really stupid, or if it indicates anything else, but it does seem like an incredibly error ridden election.

[nini]

97. hmmmmmm

you'd think everything that voted yes.. would have picked the replacement - those numbers should be closer than that

[loudsue]

93. This has been happening since 2000 -- discrepancies....

You heard all day yesterday how HUGE voter turn-out is. Polling place volunteers were swamped, most of the day.

Then the totals come out.

Then, everyone is told voter turn-out was low!

THEY'RE LYING THEIR ASSES OFF!!!

We need to have a revolution over our right to vote in this country.



:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[RedEagle]

95. Keep the Analysis Going

Kick!

[Eloriel]

98. Machines by county

Thank to ParanoidPat on another thread:


County
Alameda Diebold Accu-Vote-TS touchscreen
Alpine Datavote punch card
Amador ES&S Optech Eagle optical scan
Butte Mark-A-Vote optical scan
Calaveras Datavote punch card
Colusa ES&S 550 Optech optical scan
Contra Costa ES&S 550 Optech optical scan
Del Norte Datavote punch card
El Dorado Datavote punch card
Fresno Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Glenn Datavote punch card
Humboldt Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Imperial Datavote punch card
Inyo Datavote punch card
Kern Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Kings Sequioa Optech optical scan
Lake Mark-A-Vote optical scan
Lassen Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Los Angeles Votomatic punch card
Madera Mark-A-Vote optical scan
Marin Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Mariposa Sequioa Optech optical scan
Mendocino Votomatic punch card
Merced ES&S 550 Optech optical scan
Modoc Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Mono Sequioa Optech optical scan
Monterey Datavote punch card
Napa Sequioa Optech optical scan
Nevada ES&S 550 Optech optical scan
Orange Hart Ballot Now optical scan
Placer Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Plumas Diebold Accu-Vote-TS touchscreen
Riverside Sequioa Edge touchscreen
Sacramento Pollstar punch card
San Benito Datavote punch card
San Bernardino Sequioa Optech optical scan
San Diego Votomatic punch card
San Francisco ES&S Optech Eagle optical scan
San Joaquin Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
San Luis Obispo Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
San Mateo ES&S Optech Eagle optical scan
Santa Barbara Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Santa Clara Pollstar punch card
Santa Cruz Mark-A-Vote optical scan
Shasta Sequioa Edge touchscreen
Sierra Votomatic punch card
Siskiyou Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Solano Votomatic punch card
Sonoma Mark-A-Vote optical scan
Stanislaus ES&S 650 Optech optical scan
Sutter Mark-A-Vote optical scan
Tehama Datavote punch card
Trinity Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Tulare Diebold Accu-Vote-OS optical scan
Tuolumne ES&S 550 Optech optical scan
Ventura Datavote punch card
Yolo Datavote punch card
Yuba Datavote punch card

[IkeWarnedUs]

99. kick

[BevHarris]

100. For a longer shelf life: Log the discrepancies here

http://whitestarwebsitedesign.com/bbvreport/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7

The election audit data section of http://www.BBVreport.org -- has sections for "bad math" and other topics

That way it stays in a central repository that won't drop to the archives here.

[BevHarris]

101. dup - ignore

sorry.

[RedEagle]

105. Keep Reporting

Kick