Alvin Greene; The South Carolina Miracle

[Botany]

No money
No home
No Campaign Staff
No Ads
No Public Speeches
No Website
No Job

But he won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate with more votes than ballots cast?
It is a miracle!

And now he has a lawyer helping him against possible legal action because of questions
that have risen because of his campaign?

I wonder who is funding his lawyer?

[burnsei sensei]

1. The election should be nullified on its face.

This man and whoever his friends are should face some serious political consquences. In the future, "Alvin Greene" will become the name of God knows how many straw or scarecrow candidates set up by Republicans.
This is not even political theater.
It is a political trick designed to show contempt for the Democratic Party.

[el_bryanto]

3. They've had a hard time proving that so far

We'll have to see what happens.

Bryant

[LisaL]

4. If he actually got the votes, on what basis should the election

be nullified? If people are so un-informed they will vote for someone because of his name/position on the ballot, then what would be the basis for nullification?

[Catbird]

5. Election fraud needs to be investigated.

Many of us in South Carolina do not think he actually got the votes. If you look at the detailed voting patterns, they just don't make sense. Being listed first doesn't usually get someone 60% of the vote. Please see the many DU discussions of election fraud and voting machines.

[LisaL]

6. I agree it needs to be investigated.

But as of now, I personally don't believe anything will come out of it. It looks to me like the guy truly got all the votes.

[CTyankee]

15. And there is crossover voting in the primaries, which some states, including mine, do not have.

That leads me to believe in the possiblity that repubs recruited true believers to actually go to the polls and vote in the Dem primary for the good of the "cause." In a normal primary, that is OK, if sneaky. But in combination with a shady operation putting this guy on the ballot in the first place (who gave him the $10k?) this looks like a perversion of the electoral system.

[burnsei sensei]

18. Where there is a resonant suspicion like this,

the election should be investigated thoroughly.
The candidate did not campaign.
Was there any personal platform submitted?
This is kind of like the reverse of registering names from cemetery lists in elections.
Instead of a hollow voter, we have a hollow candidate.

[dgibby]

17. Very doubtful.

There have been multiple complaints of vote flipping. They are still using Diebold voting machines here, no paper trail, no way to track the votes.

Many people have complained that the voted for Rawl, only to have the vote register for Greene.

[WeDidIt]

7. Who knows if he actually got the votes?

The votes are just electrons in a bunch of machines. There is nothing backing up what the machines say.

[niceypoo]

2. Alvin "Soylent" Greene

[mod mom]

8. Let's examine some facts, shall we:

A poll by SC Index held on May 18, 2010 indicated that Democratic candidate Rawls was at 43% and Sen Demint @ 50% with likely voter (the winner Greene held 7%) w a MoE of 4.6% , and yet the Democratic primary results indicated the Alvin Greene won by an astounding 59%.


http://scindex.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-poll-results-for-sc.html


This information coupled with the fact that the ES & S machines used were BANNED IN OTHER STATES (including my state of Ohio where SOS Jennifer Brunner's commissioned EVEREST Project to test different machines for accuracy & tampering).

S.C. to use voting machines banned in other states
Associated Press
Monday, January 7, 2008

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2008/jan/07/s_c_use_voting_machines_banned_other_sta26854/

GAO Report on e-voting Machines:

Examples of Voting System Vulnerabilities and Problems
• Cast ballots, ballot definition files, and audit logs could be modified.
• Supervisor functions were protected with weak or easily guessed passwords.
• Systems had easily picked locks and power switches that were exposed and unprotected.
• Local jurisdictions misconfigured their electronic voting systems, leading to election day problems.
• Voting systems experienced operational failures during elections.
• Vendors installed uncertified electronic voting systems.

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05956high.pdf


FROM 538:

6.14.2010
More Developments in South Carolina D-SEN Primary
by Tom Schaller @ 7:13 PM

-snip

In another development, the Greene=black theory of how Alvin Greene gained separation in what might otherwise have been a random vote split between two candidates--which I discussed in the second bullet point of my second post on this bizarre race--has taken a hit. Chris, that very smart reader at The Monkey Cage who produced those nice, precinct-level graphs, emailed to inform me that the actual racial distribution of the Greene surname undercuts this very point. I'm not sure if he wants to be identified by last name too, and until I hear otherwise from him, I'll just call him "ChrisC." But here's what he wrote me:

I am really surprised that this hasn't come up yet in all the discussion, but the Census produced a file that broke down last names by race (I can't for the life of me find it online right now though). Per the 2000 Census, of people with the last name Greene, 70% were White and 25.5% were Black. It is more likely Black than the average last name, but I think people haven't really talked about the first name Alvin might also be thought of as a "Black" first name (though as someone who has lived in the New York most my life I do realize Southerners tend to have more unusual names). As a test I ran the avg Black % by Census block of people with the first name Alvin in Erie County, NY (Buffalo area) and Long Island in both cases the avg census block % was about twice the overall population. Something interesting I thought I would share.

I don't know what to think about the Alvin first name advantage hypothesis. My goodness, how much crazier can this get? But if the surname distribution data is true, the random-walk-plus-ballot-order-plus-surname-signal theory of Alvin Greene's victory would have to be reduced to random-walk-plus-ballot-order. And, as I've failed to mention here previously, but was discussed also in that John Sides post at The Monkey Cage, ballot order is normally expected to confer a slight advantage to the first name listed on a two-person ballot.

You mix in all the other stuff--over-votes in three counties in the GOP gubernatorial, the disparity between absentee and election day ballots, the weird circumstances surrounding the $10,000 filing fee paid by an unemployed man to enter a race he never campaigned to win--and I still think there's something fishy here. It's going to be very, very interesting to see how the South Carolina election board folks respond.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/more-developments-in-south-carolina-d.html

Did Alvin Greene Win Because of Ballot Order? Because of Race?

-snip
And I’m not sure that the potential ballot order effect is implausibly large. Assume for the moment that voters were essentially choosing at random between the candidates. That would imply a 50-50 outcome. The actual outcome was 58-41, which only implies that 8-9% of voters were influenced by ballot margin.

Another question is whether there was any information on the ballot that might have cued voters to choose Greene over Rawl. I wondered whether SC voters might have inferred the candidates’ racial background from the names of the candidates. I looked to see whether there was any relationship between Green’s percent of the vote in each county (data here) and the percent black in that county from the 2000 Census (data here).

There is a modest positive relationship, although it is not statistically significant. Ecological inference problems make this analysis suggestive at best, but I don’t see much happening.

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/06/did_alvin_greene_win_because_o.html

[mod mom]

11. SC AG was warned about the ES & S iVotronics not complying w SC requirements:

We understand that you have been asked by Representative Joe Neal to review South Carolina's pending purchase of ES&S iVotronic voting machines and determine whether South Carolina should require the use of a voter-verified paper ballot. VotersUnite! is a national organization of citizens concerned about election integrity in the United States.1 At present, we are the only organization dedicated to informing election officials throughout the United States of the facts regarding voting systems. We are writing to call your attention to the following facts.
The use of direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines does not allow election officials to comply with the South Carolina law requiring recounts in close elections.
Section 7-17-280 of the South Carolina code of laws requires a recount in all elections where the margin of victory is less than one percent of the votes. When a direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines is used to record votes, a recount of the original votes is not possible. All that is possible is to review the initial count by checking the record of the votes. If the machine made an error in recording votes, that error would be reflected in the electronic record and would impact the review as well as the initial count.
The use of ES&S iVotronics does not comply with the South Carolina requirement for voting systems to meet the minimum standards of the Federal Elections Commission.
Section 7-13-1620(A) states that no voting system may be approved for use in the state unless it meets the minimum requirements of the Federal Election Commission's national voting system standards. HAVA maintains the current 2002 standards to be those minimum standards. ES&S iVotronics do not meet the 2002 standards.

A recent hearing of the U.S. House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards found the testing and certification process for voting equipment to be inadequate.
There is no federal oversight of the process. Vendors contract independently with the testing labs and supply the test plans. No one, not even election officials, are informed about the testing process. The tests do not include testing for viruses or other malicious code, and even the Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs) agree that the standards are not adequate.

Even if the iVotronics met the current FEC standards (which they do not), experts and lawmakers agree that those standards are insufficient to ensure the adequacy of the systems.

1 Since April 20, 2004, VotersUnite! volunteers have, at their own expense, delivered "Myth Breakers for Election Officials" to 534 local election officials across the country, as well as hundreds of state and federal legislators, journalists, and other interested parties. Supplemental information about voting systems can be found on our web site, www.votersunite.org.

Section 7-13-1620(F) requires a field test of any new voting equipment, held in two or more precincts during a primary, general, or special election. This law states that the test must demonstrate the accuracy of votes reported on the machine.
We are not aware that such a field test was conducted on the iVotronics. If it has been conducted, the only way to demonstrate the accuracy is by using parallel testing techniques described in the Brennan Center report.2 We are not aware that this has been done during the procurement process.
The use of ES&S iVotronic voting machines and the Unity accumulation software does not meet the South Carolina legal requirement for accuracy in recording and counting votes.

Section 7-13-1640(A)(6) requires that any electronic voting system used by the state shall "correctly register or record and accurately count all votes cast for any and all candidates and for or against all questions." A history of recording and counting problems with these systems indicates that they cannot be relied on for accuracy:
Miami-Dade County, Florida. September 2002. The iVotronic voting machines failed to count 8.2% of the votes.3
Dallas County, Texas. October 2002. The iVotronic voting machines registered the incorrect choices on the screen.4
Broward County, Florida. November 2002. The ES&S voting system failed to count 22% of the votes.5 In addition, the iVotronics registered incorrect choices on the screen.6
Wake County, North Carolina. November 2002. The iVotronic voting machines lost 436 ballots.7
Louisiana. November 2003. One-third of the state's 900 new iVotronic voting machines overheated.8
Broward County, Florida. January 2004. The iVotronic voting machines registered 134 blank ballots in a one-race election whose winning margin was 12 votes.9

http://www.votersunite.org/info/letter_to_mcmaster.pdf

[mod mom]

12. multitude of Voting machine problems reported on election day:

Doubt grows in South Carolina election results
June 15, 1:43 AMCharleston County Elections 2010Rob Groce

-snip

This not only sparks suspicion, but adds to questions about the reliability of the voting machines used, which is already in doubt due to a multitude of problems reported on election day.

Elizabeth Halbertstadt worked June 8th as a “rover” – a technician who responds to calls about voting machine problems – in the West Ashley area of Charleston.

The number of times she was called to precincts for repairs was very high on election day, even more than the number from the general election of 2008, Halberstadt said, and even though turnout for that ‘08 election was more than three times higher than the number of votes in that area’s recent 2010 primary.

The problems Halberstadt most frequently encountered, she said, were touch-screen calibration errors, in which a vote for one candidate would appear on the final review screen as a vote for another.

-snip
http://www.examiner.com/x-44755-Charleston-County-Elections-2010~y2010m6d15-Doubt-grows-in-South-Carolina-election-results

[mod mom]

14. More ES & S ivotronic problems in SC:

-snip

Some participants in the Republican Party primary election claimed that Democratic races appeared on their ballots along with the GOP slates.

Halberstadt also mentioned frequent incidents in which voting machines simply stopped working.

Dorchester County had the same interruption in service with multiple machines, sometimes in rapid succession at one precinct, according to poll managers present.

Clemson University’s Eleanor Hare expresses extreme doubt in the reliability of the particular iVotronic voting machines used in South Carolina. Hare is Associate Professor Emerita of Computer Science at Clemson, and is also on the Board of Directors of the state’s League of Women Voters.

-snip

http://www.examiner.com/x-44755-Charleston-County-Elections-2010~y2010m6d15-Doubt-grows-in-South-Carolina-election-results

[PJPhreak]

9. Ya Know...

S.Carolina has an "Open" Primary,Any body can vote in either/both Primarys...I wonder if the pubby's voted for Green so as to make a Dem win impossable,a "Word of mouth" kinda campaign thing that guarantees a DumbMint win.

This would just fit the Teabagger mentality...Vote for the "Idiot" in the Primary making the Dems look stupid and the Freeper Wins.

Ok,so mabey I'm just being a conspiracy nut.

[Botany]

10. I tend to think the EES iVotronic machines helped

But where did this guy get $10,000 + to file for the campaign?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR2010061106159.html

[asdjrocky]

13. Son of Lee Mercer, all 3.

[lib2DaBone]

16. This says a lot about the election process in America....

Maybe we need to go to purple fingers...

[jazzelle]

19. Well, he DID run a low key campaign...

ands he IS soft spoken.

[SlipperySlope]

20. Good article on the election and "irregularities"

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/sc-democratic-primary-getting-weirder.html

[mod mom]

21. S.C. Attorney General not investigating Alvin Greene

(CNN) – The Attorney General of South Carolina has no plans to investigate Alvin Greene's shocking win in last Tuesday's Democratic Senate primary.

"No one has provided this office with any credible allegation or information suggesting criminal wrongdoing," said Mark Plowden, a spokesman for Attorney General Henry McMaster, a Republican.

-snip
Plowden pointed out that SLED, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, is the state's investigative authority and said that information about possible criminal activity would be referred to the agency.



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/15/s-c-attorney-general-not-investigating-alvin-greene/?fbid=0akvlL1c71U

[Scurrilous]

22. K & R

:thumbsup: