Fraud(Default to Bush) documented in Florida touchscreen county machines

[berniew1]

The biggest Democratic counties in Florida of Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade each had dozens of incidents of vote switching reported from Kerry to Bush, mostly and a few from Kerry to a minor candidate. As well as a much lesser number of switching in the U.S. Senate race. Poll workers told frustrated voters who were having trouble that "this has been going on all day". I have the EIRS cases for each county. This was even reported to be happening on the radio during the election. (but no one has done anything about it?)

There were also a lesser number of cases of switching reported in Hillsboro, Sarasota, and Pinellas.
Some of these were in the U.S. Senate race.
This is clear documentation that the "Default to Bush" pattern was programed into the touch screen vote equipment in large numbers of the precincts of the big touchscreen counties. The only question is who was responsible and what to do about it.


The Florida EIRS case data that supports the vote machine fraud in the big Florida touchscreen counties, just as my previous study pointed out(www.flcv.com/fla04EAS.html) is at:

www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html

[Liberty Belle]

1. Start by sending it to Congressman Conyers

and the media.

[GetTheRightVote]

2. Yes, get the information out to everyone possible, interesting findings

[berniew1]

3. From EIRS data we know which machines by precinct were rigged

The same is known and documented by county and precinct in Ohio by RHP and in New Mexico by analysts there, we have all the details including exactly how it was done.
The overview and documentation for Ohio, New Mexico, and Florida is at
www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
and
http://www.helpamericarecount.org/NewMexicoData/NewMexicoGeneralElection.pdf

[Doctor O]

4. And why is this Fraud at this point?

Fraud in your use indicates that someone did this on purpose to swing the election. What proof do you have that it was fraud vs a faulty computer program that was not tested or programmed correctly - by a nonpartisan.
All the stattistics inthe world indicate something happened, but where is our proof of actual fraud.
We are claiming fraud whiteout proof of wrong doing. If we are claiming fraud without hard evidence that it occurred then we are creating our own problems with those we want to convince.

[berniew1]

5. Computers only do what they are told to do. Someone rigged the machines

And why else would they swing hundreds of thousands of votes to a certain candidate by deliberate acts other than to steal an election they don't think they can win without the dangerous act of rigging vote machines?

[berniew1]

6. But also note: analysts have also documented other fraud in these states

As well as huge level of systematic voter suppression of minority voters in all 3 states; Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and major efforts to cause large numbers of misvotes in these same precincts. Which went to Bush, by default.

http://northnet.org/minstrel/columbus.htm
http://northnet.org/minstrel/cleveland.htm

www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=state&selectstate=IN&selectproblemtype=ALL

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/930

www.flcv.com/votefrau.html

[Doctor O]

8. None of these have any proof of fraud.

Simply statistical analysis which is not proof of fraud. Malfunctions yes, machine problems yes, but these are not proof of fraud.

[Doctor O]

7. Where is the proof that someone intentionally rigged the machines?

In order to be fraud there has to be an intention to commit a crime. Whether we believe that there is, where is the proof. There has been 0 proof offered except in the form of statistics and reports that something did not go the way it was expected to.

And I repeat where is the proof, no one has presented any on rigging the machines.

Voter suppression was not the subject of the thread.

[berniew1]

10. Anyone who knows much about computers knows that computer did what told to

do. And someone rigged the touchscreen computers in several swing states. Thats a matter of record by looking at the EIRS incidence reports, and from the poll workers who observed in all day in those areas. Its clear it was deliberate fraud; and there are only a limited number who could have done it in each precinct. The only question is what is going to be done about it.

[berniew1]

11. The vote machines aren't inherently unfair; only if deliberately rigged

[Doctor O]

12. Its a good thing I don't know anything about computers,

I run a software company.
We have designed and built software programs for optical scanning
designed and built mission critical software used in 0ver 100 of the top banks in the world. Plus many other industries
Over twenty years of software design management, and managing technical people and complex development environments.

Now what is your computer experience.

And Again I ask WHERE IS YOUR PROOF I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY. I have only seen speculation that Fraud happened no proof.

[Carolab]

14. Getting a wee bit testy, aren't we?

I doubt your story. What software company? Where is YOUR proof of what you are saying?

I doubt you can even run a software program, let alone a company serving the clientele you claim.

These machines consistently defaulted to Bush, NOT Kerry.

Who are you, really? Throw down.

[electropop]

36. Dr. Zero _does_ run a big OCR company

It's either Diebold, Triad, ES&S, or Sequioa.

[Ellipsis]

15. He an OCR guy, he doesn't have to spell get it?

You might be frustrated searching for the truth, some threads are meant to distract. There is statistical evidence of fraud. Math is not physical .

I'm going to give the bit-mapper, the benefit of the doubt, but 1980, that would be one expensive scanner, you'd have to be one of the early fathers, a one bit TTL guy, certainly not a color guy.

welcome to DU

k

[Woo]

19. doobie doobie dooo...

Exactly how long would you be designing 'mission critical' software for banks if your software couldn't add 1 to a total -- and how many times has it been reported that a voting machine in this election failed at achieving that simple task?

Yep, that's what I thought.

That's just about all you need to know about computers to know it aint rocket science, it fraud... thank you very much.

[pbartch]

27. you only have about 50 posts here. Have you bothered to read

the many of HUNDREDS of posts that point to the proof? Take some time out to read before you get all critical.

[Alizaryn]

40. Then you would have to agree that the public

depending on these very machines to not be compromised has the right to ascertain that through an objective examination including the "proprietary" source code, right?

It seems to me that if this were a murder investigation, and all circumstances pointed to someone as having committed the crime the search for the murder weapon (therefore proof) would be not only allowed but demanded. The "statistics" in an election case equates to "circumstances" in a murder case from my perspective.

The bottom line is...until we can see the machines counting our votes as being nonpartisan and clean this debate will continue. IT HAS TO BE FIXED.

[Igel]

29. They do what they're told, no doubt.

But many a time I've told a computer to do something other than what I intended.

(So what's up with those obviously intentional double posts I see from time to time?)

[galadriel]

25. Since you are such an expert on computer software

What is your explanation of the reason that 86/92 reported incidents of vote switching flipped Kerry to Bush? There is one reported incident the other way around. Do the statistics for yourself. Odds against this are in the megabilions. What other explanation than intentional fraud can account for this pattern of evidence? I have an open mind, but the burden of argument is now in your court. Since you are an expert, it shouldn't be difficult for you to satisfy my curiousity.

[Doctor O]

26. Many problems could have happened.

This includes

1. Bugs in software - As well tested as software is, software will never be completely bug free. A different sequence of events by a user may expose a bug that software testers may never find.
2. Calibration issues with a machine. Touchscreen devices need to be calibrated.
3. Other hardware issues - faulty design, etc
4. User error.
5. After voting, the previous user touches his candidate of choice again which presets for the next user
6. Version problems. Machines have not been upgraded with a correct version of the software which has fixed bugs in the programs
7 The particular amchines were never tested after the candidates had ben entered (this could also be considered calibration)


Again my simple point was that while we do know there is a problem, we are unsure of the cause and we have no direct proof of fraud. For fraud to exist must be deliberate and intentional.

[Ellipsis]

35. All the more reason to do a hand count...

I think a smart guy could extrapolate out the likelihood of bugs ETC. and potentially use that to ones advantage. it doesn't have to be the guy who created the solution, only if he knew there was manipulation, and didn't come forward would he be in trouble.

but if today' s OCR software can read the serif on 5 point type with a 99.99% we should be able to compensate for bugs and let the voter double check his work.

Question: If default vote bush? Set the thermostat to high or low to make a difference?
That be funny.

k

[On the Road]

38. Perfectly True

At this point, the reports are not proof of malicious intent but a pattern which suggests it. Given the number of individual complaints of vote switching, it would seem to warrant an investigation. That's the only way to move beyond supposition.

On the other hand, a machine set to give all undervotes to a default candidate is more damning. There should be never be a default candidate, and it's difficult to see why the software would even allow one to be assigned.

On your requests for proof:

I do agree that sweeping accusations undermine the credibility of many election fraud activists. There is plenty of evidence of irregularities, but they often get buried under piles of bad argument and misinterpreted data.

I understand your looking at the reports from a development perspective, thinking how this could have come about innocently. In any individual case, it's true -- it could be any of the things you mentioned and more.

However, in a case of suspected fraud, it's necessary to compare that interpretation with a less innocent interpretation and decide which is more likely. It's difficult, because the reports are neither random or objective. That's why there's a lower threshold of evidence needed to start an investigation than to prove an allegation.

Personally, I think that standard has been met, and investigations should be made on several fronts.

[fasttense]

23. You are not looking very hard

First off what about the 57,000 complaints by voters who were unable to or who had difficulty in voting for the person they wanted. Then we move on to the systematic placement of fewer machines to democratic and college precincts and general harassment of minority voters there. Then we move on to Feenley (not sure of the spelling), Madison and Yang. To this you can add all the found votes and glitches. Not to mention all the precincts that had 95% to over 100% voter turn out. And guess what, in 95% of all these cases, they fall in favor of B*sh. What do you mean no evidence. Oh I see you are new. You need to read up before making such a vast generalizations.

[Igel]

31. Those 57k complaints

included all kinds of things: light bulbs burned out, lines too long, precinct chairman quitting, machines jammed, somebody complaining his/her name isn't in the poll book. Long lines = crankier people = more complaints. You keep an incident log and you usually put *everything* in it, CYA.

I have no doubt that intimidation occurred; but I've heard accounts in which somebody said he or she was intimidated ... by the person just standing there. This leads me to think of the numbers as a big spongy.

The problem with "fraud" is the same as with "lying": one post I read the first few days I was reading DU had one DUer defending himself: "Don't accuse me of lying." The response: "I didn't, I think you have the facts wrong." Point: lying (and fraud) involves intent. *Proving* intent is a bitch. Imputing malicious intent to the "Other" is easy.

[pgh_dem]

33. the use of nonpartisan in this context is comical

anyone who had access to programming these computers cannot rationally be called non-partisan, as their companies' partisan status is beyond question.
a person acting under contract as an agent to an interested party can be assumed to be serving that party's documented interest.

[Peace Patriot]

37. Bogus argument

You can prove the commission of a crime by statistics--perfectly acceptable in court--in this case, the astronomical odds against human error or random chance always favoring one candidate (Bush). Also, context: the odds on the Exit Poll discrepancy (same discrepancy); the odds on paper vs. electronic vote discrepancy (same discrepancy). The odds that all (or almost all) trouble voting happened to Democrats. The odds that only black voters can't fill out a ballot properly. The odds that if you make people stand in line ten hours to vote, many will not be able to.

Like that. Then you find the perps. Let's see, in an ordinary crime, the population of potential suspects is quite large. But in THIS crime, there is one person who benefits the most, in an orverwhelming sort of way (leader of the free world, and all that).

That a crime was committed, who the perpetrators are, and the remedy, are each a separate matter. You are mixing them up.

[bleever]

9. Gee, these machines were represented to the public as accurate

and fair.

But if there was a default set to one candidate or the other, they are clearly neither fair nor accurate.

So that representation, by the vendors and political sponsors is FRAUDULENT.

Come on, how hard is this? Really?

:eyes:

[emlev]

13. Are these all the same types of machines? Are undervotes low?

I'm wondering if they're the ES&S iVotronic machines also apparently rigged in Mahoning County, Ohio, as per Richard Hayes Phillips's study.

[berniew1]

28. These are touchscreen machines similar to the ones in Mahoning, Ohio

I don't have the undervote data. It would be good to look at but would take a good bit of time to compile it. Anyone know an easy source. i went to state web site and it wasn't very useful for such when I was there. Maybe they don't want people to know.

[EndElectoral]

16. File a suit and impound the machines...and decompile the code

[Ellipsis]

17. I was just thinking about that, Can that be done?

When the elections over we could offer to buy these old machines... help um out. Get that old technology out of their hair!

[berniew1]

30. That should be done, but not necessary to know what happened

Computers only do what they are programmed to do. If they register a vote for Bush when Kerry or Nader is punched, they were set with default to Bush. Someone programmed them to produce this result.
And the same thing was happening all day on these machines. Except for few that were so hard to override that they had to be taken out or "recalibrated"

[sandnsea]

18. Which machines?

Can you get the brand of machines that did this and compare them to the same brand, in the same precincts and/or different precints. Why did some malfunction and some not malfunction. I haven't seen anybody trying to get an explanation for the exact same brand of machines malfunctioning in one place and not another.

[Emit]

20. It seems that this problem has occured in the past...

This article was included in a Diebold Employee's email (those that were found online some time ago). Maybe they were scoping out the competition (ESS). I can't tell why some of these types of articles were being passed via e-mail. The thread is here:
http://diebold.datengrab.biz/lists/announce.w3archive/200210.dir/index.html#00023


The article/email here:
http://diebold.datengrab.biz/lists/announce.w3archive/200210.dir/msg00014.html

Excerpts:
<<snip>>
County Democrats say early votes miscounted
Court hearing delayed as meeting planned on touch-screen problem; GOP criticizes filing
10/23/2002
By ED HOUSEWRIGHT and VICTORIA LOE HICKS / The Dallas Morning News

Dallas County Democrats asked a state district court judge to shut down early voting Tuesday because some touch-screen ballot machines hadn't accurately recorded votes.

But Democratic leaders opted later to delay a court hearing, agreeing to meet Wednesday with county elections officials and representatives of the Nebraska-based ballot machine manufacturer for an explanation. The Democrats said they received several dozen complaints Monday and Tuesday from people who said that they selected a Democratic candidate but that their vote appeared beside the name of a Republican on the screen. They also said some votes cast for Republicans were counted for Democrats.
<<snip>>

Jostling causes problem

Similar, isolated problems have occurred in previous elections, he said. They normally occur when the machines are jostled in transport and get "misaligned," Mr. Sherbet said. Readjusting and properly aligning the machine's mechanisms, he said, is a quick, simple process for a county elections employee who has been trained by the manufacturer.

The touch-screen machines – made by Election Systems & Software – have been used in more than 90 Dallas County elections in the past four years and have an outstanding record overall, Mr. Sherbet said.
<<snip>>

Mike Limas, chief operating officer of ESS, defended the voting system Tuesday. "We're continuing to work with the county to see if we can validate what's being discussed and resolve it," Mr. Limas said. "This really doesn't happen very often, although obviously it's very serious to someone who feels that their vote is not being accurately counted."
<<snip>>
Some county Republican leaders said Tuesday that Democrats were exaggerating the extent of the voting problems for political gain.
<<snip>>
Some voters who wanted to vote a straight Democratic Party ticket instead had votes assigned to all Republican candidates, the court filing says.

The problem is a "gross violation of constitutional and statutory rights," it says. Voter Kate Kettles told The Associated Press that she tried to vote for all Democratic candidates but that the computer highlighted Republicans all the way down the ballot. She said that an election official moved her to another machine but that it took several tries to get the correct candidates selected.
<<snip>>

[eomer]

22. It seems that when machines are jostled and get "uncalibrated"

they always tend to go in the Republican direction.

Is there some weird Coriolis Effect that makes touchscreen machines want to lean to the right?

[berniew1]

34. This is a systematic , consistent pattern: only explained by Default to B*

only explained by default to Bush.

[americanwoman]

21. Or it could be touch screen calibration problem.

Either way, I suppose this alone doesn't necessarily prove "intent". But it's distressing as hell that all of the reports would give the advantage to Bush.

[zimba]

24. All machines are suspect since

at one time or another different machines from all the different brands have shown a tendency to change Kerry votes to another candidate. In a county in Indiana it was optical scanning machines by Fidlar and the switch was from Democrat to Libertarian.

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2557466

November 12, 2004
Computer Glitch Found in Franklin County Ballot-Counting

(Brookville) - A recount prompted by a computer glitch in Franklin County's voting machines has given a Democrat enough votes to bump a Republican from victory in a county council race.

The glitch in the Fidlar Election Company optical vote-scanning system had recorded straight-Democratic Party votes for Libertarians.

When the votes were recounted by hand last night, Democrat Carroll Lanning leaped from fifth to third in the three-seat council race and Republican Roy Hall fell to fifth.

[StephanieMarie]

32. Sent to KO. n/t

[Niche]

39. There's also a research team with the Greens...

I will get the email and forward.