Need some help on San Diego--DU Machine Folks, thats YOU!

[autorank]

ANSWERS that will help the "Parallel Election" folks in San Diego

The machines in San Diego were Diebold optiscans, counted on a Diebold central tabulator. Ballots were paper, printed by Diebold.

1) Precincts were recounted. The recount matched the machine count exactly. How likely is an exact match with this Diebold configuration? This is the key question.

2) The ballots,all of them, were not sealed since the election, 2 weeks. What is this about?

3) The recount by the county BoE was done in secret. Is this typical?

4) Hundreds of pollworkers were allowed to keep voting machines overnight, with programmable memory cards inside protected only by seals. Potential for breaking seals?

5) Central tabulator hooked up to the internet? Ugh!


Thanks!!!

[wli]

1. here's my take on it

1. 100% likely. Machines add up numbers, the numbers come from elsewhere. Fraud or no fraud, everything can be made to add up this way.
2. Big red flag for fraud.
3. Another big red flag for fraud.
4. Yet another big red flag for fraud.
5. A fourth big red flag for fraud.

There you go.

[autorank]

4. Thanks!!!!

[Past_World_Doubt]

2. Most likely all a total fraud...

They've done this repeatedly. http://blackboxvoting.org

Get Black Box Voting and USCountVotes involved immediately to force full access to the ballots.

http://www.uscountvotes.org

Anything else is a lie.

[autorank]

3. Thanks!!!

[Febble]

5. According to this report

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20050824-9999-7m24recount.html

A partial recount yesterday to test the accuracy of scanners that read ballots and tallied votes in the San Diego mayor's race July 26 revealed results that were nearly identical to those of the machines.

An election worker logged votes during yesterday's recount of about 30 precincts in the San Diego mayoral race.
For example, a discrepancy of perhaps one vote occurred in a few precincts.

My understanding, from a contact in San Diego who listened to a local radio news report, is that the recount was conducted in front of representatives from CAPE and from Democracy in America, and that both groups were satisfied with the recount.

Jerry Ewig of Democracy for America said the only voting system he deems reliable is one that uses paper ballots counted by hand.

"No machines," he said.

The recount "does not prove the system is accurate and correct," said Ewig, who lives in Temecula. "We're still in need of a system that is verifiable and transparent to the people."

I would agree with Ewig that even if the system performed OK on this occasion, it does nothing to prove that the system is "accurate and correct" - or unhackable. It also tells us nothing about whether election fraud occurred in other, non-monitored precincts, nor whether election fraud occurred in the presidential election.

However, if CAPE and Democracy in America are correct, it DOES indicate that an exit poll (because that is what the parallel election was) can be "significantly" different from the count, even in the absence of fraud. The significance value for the 4% discrepancy was, apparently, 1 in 1300.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/weblogs/luna/archives/001939.html

Edit with update:

Got the link to the CAPE website:

http://www.studycaliforniaballots.org/.

It looks as though the recount precincts were selected according to a random number generator, i.e. unlike Ohio.

Apparently the ballots were paper, filled in in pencil and counted at the precinct (i.e. not centrally). You could see the machine tally your vote.

[Liberty Belle]

6. This is not entirely true.

I spoke with a CAPE representative who is not satisfied with the result of the recount, for several reasons:

Most ballots were left unsealed between the election and recount, per Judy Alter, head of CAPE. Thus the chain of custody failed to provide protection against tampering for the recount.

The Registrar refused to allow a recount of the proposition. (In some other areas, fraud has been found in recounts when someone swapped out ballots for president or substituted forgeries, but failed to also change votes in other races on the ballot. Looking at the proposition might have detected any such switch.)

Costs of the recount were jacked up beyond what CAPE considers reasonable.

The match between the recount and machine count was so nearly perfect as to be somewhat suspect; one would expect a reasonable number of discrepancies, ie when a ballot is smudged and misread by a machine, for example.


Also, these ballots were read by a central Diebold GEMS tabulator at the registrar of voters office. Although the Registrar had promised to allow any citizen to observe the count, he placed the screen 8 feet away behind glass, visible only with binoculars, and had one activist arrested for attempting to enter the tabulating room in order to enforce his civil right to watch our votes being counted.

The registrar also failed to turn over audit logs after a citizen requested them. Those would have showed who accessed the tabulator on election night and whether entry logs were changed between users.

Also, the registrar conducted a separate 1% hand recount required by law in secret--failing to notify CAPE even though CAPE had requested to observe the procedure.

In Cuyahoga Ohio, a special prosecutor just subpoenaed the entire board of elections over several election law violations--including conducting a recount in secret.

So the recount is not very reassuring, and raises more questions in my book.

[autorank]

7. Liberty, thanks for the Truth!!!

This really clears things up. Much appreciated!!!

[Liberty Belle]

8. You're welcome!