BREAKING: E-MACHINES FAIL! TX PRIMARY RECOUNT HALTED BY SEC OF STATE!

[babylonsister]

BREAKING: E-MACHINES FAIL! TX PRIMARY RECOUNT HALTED BY SEC OF STATE!
Kudos to BradBlog for the heads-up!

Edited on Tue Mar-21-06 06:29 PM by BradBlog
BREAKING: Texas Primary Recount Halted By Secretary of State!
Hart Intercivic Touch-Screen Voting Machines in Tom Green County Fail To Print Ballots for All Votes in Mandated Recount!
REPORT: 'Electronic machines not providing all info', 20% Discrepany Between Recount and Election Night Results!

Just reported by San Angelo (TX) Standard Times is information that the Texas Sec. of State has stepped in and stopped the recount of ballots being printed from the Hart Intercivic "eSlate" Direct Recording Electronic (DRE), touch-screen, voting machines. The stoppage of the recount is due to failure of the voting machines to print all ballots cast in the state primary two weeks ago.

On orders from the Texas Secretary of State’s office, the recount for the Tom Green County Court-at-Law No. 2 race has been suspended midway through its second day.

About 1:30 p.m. today, county Republican Chairman Dennis McKerley stopped the recount after workers found discrepancies of as much as 20 percent between what was counted Monday and what was reported Election Night.

"We’re having some trouble with the electronic equipment," McKerley said...


COMPLETE STORY:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002583.htm

ADDITIONAL BRAD BLOG BACKGROUND STORIES...
-- Sec. of State Was Warned: Hart InterCivic Whistleblower's 2004 Report
-- Trouble in Tarrant County: 100,000+ Extra Votes on Hart Machines in Tarrant TX Primary
-- March 7, 2006 TX Primary: Loads of E-Voting Problems Across State

[Melissa G]

1. Soon they will all know what we in election reform

Have known since 2000. The machines are garbage! Thanks, babylonsister!

Just put a link to this in election reform..vote this thread up folks!

[Patsy Stone]

2. Thanks, babylonsister!

K&R

[IndyOp]

3. nevermind... (n/t)

:hi:

[bleever]

4. Thanks, babylonsister!

:toast: to everyone getting a good look at the machines!

[MagickMuffin]

5. I don't know if this has been posted

but another interesting link to this story http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002542.htm which exposes the corruption involved within the election officials overseeing "our elections", this wouldn't happen if the corporate elite weren't in control of our government, and news media!


The BRAD BLOG can now report, however, that according to a Hart InterCivic company whistleblower -- who also happened to have later worked as an "election programmer" in Tarrant County -- the problems with Hart InterCivic's systems in Tarrant County, Texas and elsewhere are not new at all. Not by a longhorn long shot.

Letters sent by William Singer of Fort Worth, a former Hart InterCivic "technical specialist" and Tarrant County election worker, to state officials back in July of 2004 warned of exactly such problems. The letters, obtained and published here for the first time exclusively by The BRAD BLOG, reveal that serious problems and concerns of possible election system meltdowns were already apparent with the Hart machines in Tarrant County long ago. However, the warning letters were all but ignored by both election officials and even state law enforcement officials.

The "glitch" in last Tuesday's primary, as reported the Star-Telegram, "caused Tarrant County to report as many as 100,000 votes in both primaries that never were cast." After the problem was discovered, they report, "the local turnout from a possible record high of about 158,103 voters to about 58,000."

A review of several notarized letters sent by Singer to officials in both Texas and Ohio in 2004 warned of fraudulent activities, buggy software and hardware, dysfunctional testing and development procedures, unsecured working environments and possible criminal behavior by both Hart InterCivic and Election Workers in both states.

Singer -- who eventually resigned from the company and ended up working as an Election Programmer for Tarrant County, where last Tuesday's "glitch" occurred -- wrote of allegations that Hart illegally supplied specially prepared machines for testing to state election officials. Along with doing so, they also withheld a number of known security, programming and hardware flaws during official review and certification of the systems.

[sonias]

6. Good catch MM!

And thank you babylonsister for the BradBlog story link too. Folks I think we've reached the tipping point finally in Texas. This will blow things wide open.

Let the lawsuits begin!

Sonia

[babylonsister]

7. But is it only Tom Green County, sonias, or do you think

this could spread (across the state and country:evilgrin: )?

"the recount for the Tom Green County Court-at-Law No. 2 race has been suspended midway through its second day."

[sonias]

10. babylonsister, I know of two lawsuits that are in the works

One specifically targeting eSlate machines from some Harris activists, and another challenging the constitutionality of electronic voting by David Van Os. With this additional bit of information, those lawsuits are going to make big headlines. They are ready to go. I'm trying to get them to file them, please file them now. Take advantage of the 100,000 overvote in Tarrant on eSlate and now this failure in Tom Green. The time for action is now!

Rage against the voting machines!! :nuke: em!

Sonia

[MagickMuffin]

9. Let the lawsuits begin! --- I 2nd that!

Hopefully before the November elections, although it would be even better if it was before the run-off's!

But I bet the lawsuits would drag out over a long long period of time.

I also bet/believe when David Van Os, takes office we will start to see honest elections again.

[lostexpectation]

8. What sort of elections are these? from non-USA browser

?

[sonias]

11. These were primary elections in Texas

Under our voting system in the US, we hold a party specific (Democrat and republican) primary elections, to decide who the candidates will be in the November general election. Our primary was held on March the 7th and several races are now in a runoff because no one person got the plurality of the vote (50% plus 1 vote). Only happens in races with at least 3 candidates. If the votes are very close, candidates can ask for recounts to confirm their win or loss. In the case of these electronic voting machines, it should be a run the program again to make sure you get the same totals sort of thing. You think it would work, but nope it didn't. The recount numbers are showing as much as a 20% discrepancy from the votes reported on election night.

Texas failed to pass a bill mandating voter verified paper audit trails and ballots.

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked. :sarcasm:

Sonia

[lostexpectation]

12. er R v R and D v D

so its to choose the final two for a congressional election?
is it repub nominees versus repubs nominees

and dems v dems?

you siad party specific

[sonias]

13. Yep, that's the case

D v D and R v R, to establish a clear plurality vote winner. You vote on entirely separate ballots according to party. The winner in a race must win 50% of the vote plus at least one more single vote. In races where there are 3 candidates and no candidate reached the 50%+1, there must be a runoff. In this case in Tom Green, one of the candidates called for a recount which is his/her right. That's when the s*it hit the fan. The machine recount was way off the totals reported on election night. The fraud is being exposed! So our Secretary of State, which handles the responsibility of elections for the State, stopped the recount. He's a republican, and he just spend $3 million of our taxpayer dollars promoting "e-voting as easier, faster and more secure". Big fat stinking egg on his face tonight.
:evilgrin:

Sonia

[MagickMuffin]

14. Since the SOS stopped the recount,

who is the winner?

Will that be determined by the SOS?:shrug:

[sonias]

15. Well we all want to know that, don't we

Supposedly the eSlate folks were sending a person from their company to Tom Green on Wednesday. No doubt to fix the programming so that the numbers match, i.e. the ballots being printed by their machines equal the log book of persons that signed into the polls. But whose going to trust them? If this were my race, my candidate would insist on a re-vote on paper. It may still go into a re-vote if they can't determine that the machines are accurate. With as many of those poll workers doing the recount, seeing the debacle first hand. They can't cover this up.

Sonia

[sandnsea]

16. Glitchgate

I keep saying it, pull all these computer fiascos under one umbrella, give it a name, and people will start to pay attention. Let them decide whether it's intentional fraud or lousy machines; either way they'll decide they don't want them.

[babylonsister]

17. Wow, sandnsea, that's an excellent idea!

Every damn state under their own umbrella, show and prove it!

[BrightKnight]

21. AND Gate, OR Gate, NOT Gate, NAND Gate

Flip-Flops, Truth Tables, Insulators, Resistors

Here are a few gates that you might use:

--------------

Engineers are incapable of designing a machine that can reliably collect votes. Teams of engineers have been working on the problem for years. The algorithm is far too complex.

Perhaps the problem is with the new faith based boolean function the the Repugs are using.


Even if such an algorithm could be devised the the hardware to support it has not been invented yet. The only exception to this is the iPod Nano. Voting with an iPod would not work because people would get too distracted listening to music.

[BlueCollar]

18. I feel vindicated

I was one of 11 who voted against certifying the results of the primary at last weeks Tarrant County Democratic Party Exec Comm meeting. 68 voted in favor so I was on the losing end....

I raised this issue (BBV) starting in 2000,but was ignored...

Should be interesting at the weekend's convention....

[derby378]

19. We tried telling everyone about these machines...

The Republicans wouldn't listen. Too many voters were apathetic about the whole thing.

And now, this has happened.

[sonias]

20. News article link

http://www.sanangelostandardtimes.com/sast/news_local/article/0,1897,SAST_4956_4560939,00.html
Ballot recount stopped
Problems with voting machines delay results
March 22, 2006

A recount of ballots cast during the March 7 primary election ground to a halt Tuesday - midway through its second day - after workers could not resolve discrepancies that affected more than 1,400 ballots.

Tom Green County Republican Party Chairman Dennis McKerley suspended the recount of the County Court-at-Law No. 2 race about 1:30 p.m. after seeking advice from the Texas Secretary of State's Office, which suggested shutting down the recount until what appear to be problems with electronic voting machines could be fixed.

"When a couple numbers didn't come out right, we tried the double-checks and kept checking," said McKerley, who as GOP chairman is running the recount. "We're having trouble with the electronic equipment."

SOS Roger Williams - This is the state of Texas, we have a problem!

Sonia