Broward Co., FL: Votes for Democrats are registering for Republicans

[seafan]

Glitches cited in early voting

snip

Several South Florida voters say the choices they touched on the electronic screens were not the ones that appeared on the review screen -- the final voting step.
Election officials say they aren't aware of any serious voting issues. But in Broward County, for example, they don't know how widespread the machine problems are because there's no process for poll workers to quickly report minor issues and no central database of machine problems.

Debra A. Reed voted with her boss on Wednesday at African-American Research Library and Cultural Center near Fort Lauderdale. Her vote went smoothly, but boss Gary Rudolf called her over to look at what was happening on his machine. He touched the screen for gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis, a Democrat, but the review screen repeatedly registered the Republican, Charlie Crist.

That's exactly the kind of problem that sends conspiracy theorists into high gear -- especially in South Florida, where a history of problems at the polls have made voters particularly skittish.
A poll worker then helped Rudolf, but it took three tries to get it right, Reed said.
''I'm shocked because I really want . . . to trust that the issues with irregularities with voting machines have been resolved,'' said Reed, a paralegal. ``It worries me because the races are so close.''
--snip
Broward poll workers keep a log of all maintenance done on machines at each site. But the Supervisor of Elections office doesn't see that log until the early voting period ends. And a machine isn't taken out of service unless the poll clerk decides it's a chronic poor performer that can't be fixed.

snip

Joan Marek, 60, a Democrat from Hollywood, was also stunned to see Charlie Crist on her ballot review page after voting on Thursday. ''Am I on the voting screen again?'' she wondered. ``Well, this is too weird.''
Marek corrected her ballot and alerted poll workers at the Hollywood satellite courthouse, who she said told her they'd had previous problems with the same machine.
Poll workers did some work on her machine when she finished voting, Marek said. But no report was made to the Supervisor of Elections office and the machine was not removed, Cooney said.
--snip
Mauricio Raponi wanted to vote for Democrats across the board at the Lemon City Library in Miami on Thursday. But each time he hit the button next to the candidate, the Republican choice showed up. Raponi, 53, persevered until the machine worked. Then he alerted a poll worker.

[Deja Q]

1. Who the hell are programming these things?

And are they inside or outside this country?

And those who say the answer -- the veracity of the information could be asked on too.

What happened to paper and magnetic ink? Has Bill Gates dumbed everyone so much that writing on paper is too difficult?! x(

[sharp_stick]

2. Oh, I think they're inside the country

and they are likely all registered republicans. Ever notice how almost ever irregularity benefits Rove's little gang?

[ClintonTyree]

164. Always.......

that's how often these "glitches" favor Republicans. What are the odds against that happening? These machines, produced by a company owned by a man that has "guaranteed" victory for "Little Boots' Bush, are not worthy of ANY reliable results and should be thrown on the scrap heep.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. It's not new - and obviously not deliberate

If someone really wanted to commit election fraud, the voter wouldn't see the improper selection. But these damn screens are notorious for miscalibration and poll workers are trained to reset them.

[tsuki]

4. It gives me a lot of faith in the ATM machines across the nation

that have Diebold written on them.

[Anna Lee]

11. Only proves that Diebold knows how to add paper trails.

Of course, they have to want to remember how.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Funny thing about that.

ATMs have always had a paper trail for verification. ATMs work just fine, thanks. So the explanation for DRE malfunctions and lack of verification is?

[hpot]

21. ATMS have to follow strict banking standards

I read somewhere that the source code has to be available and audited.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. My point.

The technology used by DREs was pioneered by ATMs over the last 30 years. Making reliable and auditable ATM machines is a known engineering task, one that has been repeated across generations of ATM machines. The only reason why DRE machines are unreliable is that THEY ARE DESIGNED TO BE THIS WAY.

[LiberalFighter]

123. Same for Casinos/Gambling

[RaleighNCDUer]

173. Bankers are important. Voters are not. nt

[yourout]

5. I disagree.......its the perfect excuse.

I work with industrial touch screens everyday as a programmer and we NEVER have to recalibrate after initial setup.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

24. Agreed. It has to be deliberate.

I don't work with touch screens, but I've been in IT for years.

No programs this bad could be allowed to remain in use without the flaws in them being deliberate.

[Selteri]

168. This has gone on too many times

I think if the Repubublicans pull off another 'miracle' like the last two Presidential Elections that people might begin to wake up that their vote isn't being counted where they want it.

I only hope that should this voting corruption continue that the people will rise up enough to make a big stink and force it to be investigated or perhaps we'll actually see a good old fashion riot from voters being POd that their votes have been thrown out like yesterday's trash.

This system has gotten so obviously corrupted that it cannot stand on any merit, any arguements about this not being deliberate and about the exit polls being skewed is beyond viable anymore. With these voting machines already misreporting numbers, with the crap from Ohio where Blackwell is intentionally delaying the counting of the eary votes when the numbers are record level high... Things have to be fixed or our coutry is naught but a dictatorship with the illusion of freedom under the truth that we have lost our civil rights.

[RaleighNCDUer]

174. IMO, these clear and obvious flaws - they present themselves on

the screen, for god's sake - are a distraction from where the real fraud is occuring, in the tabulators. All the people saying "I'm glad I don't have one of those - I use an optical scan" are just as likely to lose their votes and anyone using a touch screen. And of course, Diebold and ES&S and Sequoia all make the tabulators, as well.

[FogerRox]

59. How about

The ES&S Touchscreens need to be cleaned with windex
skin oils get on the screen and divert the galvonic response.

[FogerRox]

105. Are your screens in a position to get oily? From Food or suntan lotion

do you clean your screens?

[bullimiami]

9. bull-oney. its got nothing to do with calibration. it is obviously deliberate.

[qnr]

10. I agree it could be miscalibration, however, I would like to see some mention of

a vote for the Republican candidate registering as third party, Democratic, or no selection depending upon the direction of the miscalibration. I haven't really heard anything on that yet though.

[darkism]

155. IF this were screen miscalibration...

...no one would ever GET to the summary page because the miscalibrated machine would keep registering the wrong vote on the VOTING page.

The only explanation, if I'm interpreting this situation correctly, is that there is code executed when moving on to the next page that is flipping these votes. People are touching the candidate they want and the MACHINE is changing the vote on the last page, presumably with the hope that no one will notice.

Still, a pretty poor scam. If I were coding these machines to steal votes, I would just print the correct summary page and just record the vote for the wrong candidate.

[foo_bar]

199. you have a point

...no one would ever GET to the summary page because the miscalibrated machine would keep registering the wrong vote on the VOTING page.

This seems like a safe assumption, but even the voting page isn't all that clear:

2. Color usage (# reviewers – 4)
• The “X” on red background is too low contrast.
• The red X indicating selection doesn’t always look red.
<...>
The "X" in the button that shows a vote(,) is ugly - it goes outside the box

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~bederson/voting/umd-dre-report.pdf

If I were coding these machines to steal votes, I would just print the correct summary page and just record the vote for the wrong candidate.

Your way, people go to jail. Not necessarily, of course, but the FBI could follow the trail of bread crumbs and determine at least the scale of fraud. This way, the result is the result, but Dems have to jump through more hoops to register their choice (file under "time-honored suppression tactics"), and the remaining votes can be blamed on the voter not checking their work, like the shell game contained in the Palm Beach butterfly ballot. I'm not convinced this is the case, not having seen the software up close, but there were quite a few reports of this behavior in 2004 (not 100% R->D as some have speculated, but still pretty one-sided and apparently concentrated in Broward/Miami).

The easiest way to game the outcome is to put universally crappy machines in counties with solid voting blocs (like Philly's shouptronic fiasco), so every screwup can be honestly attributed to engineering failure (in spite of the double standard that distributed the machines just so). This could also be the case in Florida; not a conspiracy to switch votes to repubs (which might leave a bread crumb of evidence), but a conspiracy to give Broward/Miami-Dade/Palm Beach the worst voting tech imaginable. Either way, the best strategy is to distribute information to voters (don't hit the OK button until everything's OK), even though it's potentially unfair by design, but perhaps we'd have won Florida2k if Palm Beach voters had a packet explaining that the second oval wasn't what it appeared to be.

[Fredda Weinberg]

208. Could you explain that please?

The Next button is on the bottom, the candidates are listed in the middle of the screen. What prevents the voter from advancing to the verification screen?

[darkism]

218. If the screen were miscalibrated, the user would have trouble selecting the Dem on the voting page.

Thus, they wouldn't even get to the verification page because they'd be unable to select the Dem on the voting page and would likely call over and election judge or forfeit their ballot instead of intentionally vote for a republican.

[Fredda Weinberg]

219. But that's not what's happening

Some of the voters see the checkbox next to the wrong candidate before advancing to verification screen; some notice the mistake then. In neither case is the problem an inability to select anyone. That wouldn't be a calibration issue.

[w4rma]

16. I'm getting a little sick of your feel good statements about how any voting problem

isn't really a problem.

I have never, not once, ever seen you admit that there is a problem with anything anywhere except with the people who try to fix problems.

[Fredda Weinberg]

35. That's because I've already done my share

I was living in West Palm Beach when the damn DREs were introduced. I was the first to phone the League of Women Voters to warn them - and now they want a paper trail too. I was in touch in the local media, so the public was informed.

I dare say I've done more than nearly every DUer on this subject - so if the truth sickens you, that's your problem.

[w4rma]

52. Oh you made a phone call. I see. And you think that gives you some sort

of protection from criticism about your attacking folks who are trying to make a difference. You think that you're being one of the first in a line to inform a local group is some sort of excuse for attacking everyone else trying to do the right thing.

[Fredda Weinberg]

100. Facts should protect us ... I gave you an authoritative source n/t

[w4rma]

111. No you gave me a research project that you hope I'll waste my time on.

Why don't you repost the supposed relevant 'fact(s)' that you are touting? (And I don't mean an encyclopedia of non-relevent information.)

[TankLV]

144. You're not the only one that has noticed that...

My, my, my - you must have struck THE raw nerve of TRUTH!!!!

[Peace Patriot]

17. Obviously not deliberate? You're guessing, Fredda Weinberg.

You want elections in which we have to guess that vote-flipping to Republicans is not deliberate?

You are greatly understating the problem. The machine stays in place. Other voters use it, not knowing of this problem. They aren't so attentive. Their votes get changed--and THEY DON'T NOTICE. This goes on all day. A few alert people complain. Nothing is done. A great number of votes can be stolen--it only takes a few votes per precinct in some elections--and a close election goes to the Bushite.

Election fraud in electronic voting machines can occur in the machines, visibly or invisibly, and in the central tabulators, after the bunches of electrons that our "votes" have become are "sent" to the central tabulators. Because a FEW VOTERS caught visible evidence is NO REASON FOR COMPLACENCY. Would YOU have wanted to vote on those machines?

I've seen you before at DU, often pooh-poohing problems in this EGREGIOUSLY non-transparent voting technology. Do you LIKE non-transparent, unverifiable vote counting, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations? Please tell us.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Fredda Weinberg]

36. Alerting me? For speaking the truth? Ha!

Go look it for yourself ... the miscalibration issue is an old one and no one with any credibility has concluded otherwise. Were you paying attention during the HAVA hearings? It was discussed then.

[Jim Sagle]

46. Whatever you say, Fredda.

:boring:

[Fredda Weinberg]

48. Yeah, when I have facts on my side

Didn't we go through all this when Bev Harris was pulling DUers chains? Or when "our" investigators made baseless accusations of murder? C'mon Jim, you disappoint me.

[Jim Sagle]

85. Hey everybody, get a load of this!

The "baseless accusations of murder" she's referring to are the accusations that Killer Joe Scarborough killed one of his office staff.

Nothing baseless about it, and everybody goddamn well knows THAT as well.

[Fredda Weinberg]

101. Except the poor girl's family

Jim, I've known you for a while, but I think you're losing it.

[Jim Sagle]

106. Fredda, go post a poll on whether Lori died a natural death.

Then we'll see who's losing it.

[Fredda Weinberg]

108. We find the truth by polling? C'mon Jim

The woman's family has already been put through enough - do you have to besmirch her good name again? Remember, the accusation was that this married woman was having an affair - and that was the reason she had to be eliminated.

The physical evidence demonstrated she died after laying unconscious for hours - and the nurse who happened to discover her body reported no signs of foul play.

Give it up, Jim. It's like arguing that Bev Harris discovered malware in the Diebold machines. I'm sure it would be satisfying, but it never happened.

[Jim Sagle]

110. That's the only way we CAN find it if local officals won't do their jobs.

[OnTheOtherHand]

122. say whaaa?

How could a DU poll possibly be the best way -- never mind the only way -- of finding out whether someone was murdered?

EDIT TO ADD: Not to take us any further off topic -- I'm just flummoxed.

[Jim Sagle]

124. Thank you. It was indeed a detour.

[Wilms]

126. What? You doubt the accuracy of DU polls?

:nuke:

[OnTheOtherHand]

138. LOL-- accurate in what they are designed to measure

I'm not quite sure what that is, but hey, whatever. No worries.

[TankLV]

145. Well, WE all know from YOUR posts that YOU'VE lost it

LONG ago!

[Peace Patriot]

57. So, they KNOW, and they haven't fixed this?! It is OUTRAGEOUS!

People's votes are getting switched three times to Republicans, by the machines; nothing is done--and you say this is "an old issue"?

Sorry, but it is an alarm signal! This is not right. This should not still be happening. OBVIOUSLY, the "discussion" at the "HAVA hearings" was not followed by action to prevent it from ever happening again. Discussion is well and good. What about ACTION? Why is it still going on?

And WHOSE assurances are you accepting? And WHO is "no one with any credibility" in your view?

[Fredda Weinberg]

102. The mistakes are reported both ways

And the public is willing to tolerate mistakes in the elections system. I've seen it here in NYC with our lever machines and witnessed the debacles in Florida. Shouting won't make the situation any better.

I've seen progress; in my home state, an auditable paper trail will be part of whatever system we adopt. Do you know what your elected officials are doing on the subject?

[TankLV]

146. "The mistakes are reported both ways" They are? PROVE IT!!

So far, EVERY FUCKING TIME this type of vote stealing has been reported - IT ALWAYS FAVORS THE REPUKES.

EVERY.
FUCKING.
TIME.

[Fredda Weinberg]

210. These guys say you're wrong

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5331&printsafe=1

Election 2004 E-Voting Incidents
from the Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS)

Election Verification Project Press Conference
November 18, 2004


E-Voting Problems Reported:


Machine breakdown
(total malfunction, sometimes entire polling places, power/battery failures, machines locked, long lines, voters turned away)

Misrecording (Kerry recorded as Bush and vice-versa, touchscreen calibration)

[pokercat999]

162. What is wrong with pen and paper?

[WinkyDink]

191. Evidence???? Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Fredda Weinberg]

33. The problem's been documented since 2002

And I helped get it into the papers. I even tried to get it on video, but the producers of Unprecedented were so enamored by the system they accepted LePore's explanation.

You just don't understand ... but that's okay, I'm used this abuse from "our" side.

[LiberalFighter]

125. Recalibration was not to correct the voting screen

When it shows the vote for someone other than what you want it is correct. It is just that the programming has a few bugs that causes the correct screen to show.

[WinkyDink]

190. NOT deliberate? Then why only from D to R? Some odds, those are.

PUH-leeze.

[Fredda Weinberg]

212. It's not always D 2 R

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5331&printsafe=1

Election 2004 E-Voting Incidents
from the Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS)

Election Verification Project Press Conference
November 18, 2004


E-Voting Problems Reported:


Machine breakdown
(total malfunction, sometimes entire polling places, power/battery failures, machines locked, long lines, voters turned away)

Misrecording (Kerry recorded as Bush and vice-versa, touchscreen calibration)

[redacted]

25. Fredda, your statement is DELUSIONAL!

If the results were due to "miscalibration" then one would expect that half of the time the GOP would benefit and half of the time Dems would benefit. We'd expect the results to be random, like many events in nature.

There's nothing "random" about one side, the GOP, always getting the benefit of the software failure.

Voting machine "miscalibration" is a myth they spread over at Free Republic and on Fox News. It's such complete and utter nonsense that the Princeton University computer scientists never even addressed it as a realistic possibility.

[Fredda Weinberg]

37. Actually, there are reports

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5331&printsafe=1

E-Voting Problems Reported:


Machine breakdown
(total malfunction, sometimes entire polling places, power/battery failures, machines locked, long lines, voters turned away)

Misrecording (Kerry recorded as Bush and vice-versa, touchscreen calibration)

Now, don't you feel stupid?

[redacted]

54. Are you kidding? No, I DON'T feel stupid, and I don't appreciate your

smartass question. You should be ashamed to address a fellow member of this community like that, and THEN offer such absurdly weak support for your argument.

Is this the best you can do, Ms. Fredda Weinberg? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Let's see: between election day and Nov. 18, 2004, the Verified Voting Foundation told us, based on the information you provided, that at least one "miscalibration" event took place. You haven't given us any statistics as to what the frequency of "miscalibration" incidents were, which is what we were talking about in this thread, not "total machine failures" (which could be due to any number of factors), or any other problems. And since you're so convinced that "calibration" issues are such a serious problem, how do those incidents relate to flipped votes? Show me your proof.

I think the larger question here is, why are you coddling these voting machine manufacturers in spite of what is now overwhelming evidence that these machines are unreliable? Are you a current or former emploryee? A stockholder? How do you benefit from publicly coddling these disgraceful right-wing lunatic voting machine firms here on Democratic Underground? Anyone who seriously believes at this point that poll worker operator error is the most significant factor as to why these machines fail is certainly taking denial to the limits of sanity.

[Fredda Weinberg]

103. Facts really bother you, don't they

So you think attacking me will make them go away?

I make a living developing back ends for commercial web sites. Don't own any stocks and have publicly advocated against DREs for years.

I've also been paying close attention to this subject for years, following hearings and academic researchers. This particular problem with DREs, along with others, *is* well known and IMO, should be reason enough not to use 'em.

But once again, the bogus charge of deliberate fraud is introduced. Bev Harris tried it with Diebold and I confidently predicted she would fail to prove it. She did, but not before fleecing DUers for whatever she could get. I was derided then by fellow members of this "community", so I understand the dynamics at play.

[Kip Humphrey]

91. Actually, mis-calibration CAN occur in the ballot definition file but can't "mis-calibrate"

dynamically due to use. Static and oil buildup on the glass CAN interfere with registration due to use but a "mis-calibration" is a configuration event attributable to a configuration setting in the ballot definition file.

[FogerRox]

60. In a heavily DEM area DEM will vote or touch the same spot repeatedly

The ES&S Touchscreens need to be cleaned with windex
skin oils get on the screen and divert the galvonic response.

[Jim Sagle]

27. It obviously IS deliberate, Fredda, and everybody goddamn well knows it.

You're fooling no one here.

[Fredda Weinberg]

34. I wish it were so; we'd have a solution by now

But the same thing's been happening in Florida since DREs were introduced - and you know better than anyone that I've been following this issue closely. Fact is, the screens miscalibrate frequently and the public has accepted this.

[Jim Sagle]

45. They only miscalibrate one way. Funny how that works.

[Fredda Weinberg]

47. You're wrong about that

E-Voting Problems Reported:


Machine breakdown
(total malfunction, sometimes entire polling places, power/battery failures, machines locked, long lines, voters turned away)

Misrecording (Kerry recorded as Bush and vice-versa, touchscreen calibration)

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5331&printsafe=1

Wanna make more baseless accusations?

[Jim Sagle]

49. Vice versa doesn't happen. Get real.

[Fredda Weinberg]

56. You're saying Verified Voting is lying?

I linked to their report - and dammit Jim, if I didn't have first hand knowledge of this, you'd think I'd stick my neck out?

I was in touch with the Palm Beach Post reporter before - and after the Wellington debacle. Can you imagine how satisfying it was to tell him, "I told you so?"

But the issue wasn't deliberate fraud - the truth about DREs is bad enough.

Get real yourself, Jim. You've seen me stand up for truth too many times to discount authoritative sources like Dr. Dill.

[OnTheOtherHand]

83. "what, never?" "hardly ever"

According to a friend who worked through the EIRS reports carefully, the ratio of reports was (from memory) 87 to 7 favoring Bush.

Of course, EIRS reports don't constitute a random sample. Basically, I for one have very little clue about how common this phenomenon is or whether/to what extent it disproportionately affects Democrats. My priors tell me that this is probably a dumb way to go about stealing votes: I would think it would take at least as much work as stealing them undetectably. But I don't know of any authoritative sources that discuss it. Can you direct us to some?

I should note that the problem could disproportionately affect Democrats even if it doesn't involve deliberate fraud; those are separable issues.

[Fredda Weinberg]

107. Here's a computer science professor's take

http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers/touchscreencalib.pdf

And the Association for Computing Machinery is all over the issue

http://www.acm.org/usacm/Issues/EVoting.htm

Do a Google Scholar search - you'll find lots of research in this area.

[OnTheOtherHand]

well...

I have the utmost respect for Doug Jones, as he knows, but I was hoping for a source that addresses the prevalence and distribution of touchscreen errors. I guess, in a nutshell, no one has any way of knowing (or, as he puts it, there is little "hard evidence"). I can look on Google Scholar and see if I am missing something.

As I've said, I tend to agree with both of you that the payoff from a deliberate miscalibration is probably small.

[papau]

134. I agree - it is too easy to steal the vote with no problem showing - as per the

Princeton video and as per the stat analysis of 04 Florida that showed vote pattern change was so extremely unlikely that the stat estimate is that 300,000 votes in 04 appear to have been switched to Bush - but only in strongly Dem areas! Of course this is not theft per the media - and as shown by the Princeton video - there can never be proof other than stat - and the media instead gives praise of the GOP's great get out the vote effort!

I suspect the reason it always favors the GOP is that the screen has a standard screw-up pattern, and the GOP just try for a little extra edge by ordering the placement on the screen of the ballot names in places where such screen screw ups will always help the GOP.

Other states rotate the placement of the names on the ballot by precinct for just that reason - but not Florida.

[Fredda Weinberg]

139. Name placement is determined by statute

It depends on which party holds the governorship.

[papau]

171. Name placement doesn't rotate so its easy to locate a spot on screen that

favors one party when there are problems, if there is a standard direction that "problems" move the recording area. It was my experience years ago that there was a bias in terms of how screens made errors.

That bias may not exist today. Plus the gain would be minimal. But I do come back to the fact that the "errors" always seem to favor the GOP.

[Fredda Weinberg]

207. But they don't "always" favor the GOP

And I don't know why you keep coming back to that "fact". It just ain't so and I've posted an authoritative source to back my assertion. I don't know any other way to hold a honest discussion on the subject.

[papau]

221. Fredda - your source - links below - does indeed say some were R to D, but

the source data is very unorganized. I believe if you get a complete incident table you will find 90 D to R and only 4 R to D. Which is odd.

But as I have said many times before, I agree that this is on the margin and not all that important compared to the massive vote theft that occurred in Florida (estimated as 300,000 votes) in 2004 via the machines reporting (not recording - I am talking about the number that goes in the tally for the precinct) D votes as R, giving rise to the Bull S..T that the GOP had a great GOTV effort in Florida - it was just an effort that no one could find either the volunteers that did the work, nor see see the actual new faces that said they were voting GOP instead of Dem that year.


In any case below are the links to your source data (and folks - Dallas 2002 is the election in the incident report data base of reports that says Dems complained about D to R on their individual votes, while the article, without source, says that there were also R to D, albeit apparently un-complained about).

https://voteprotect.org/epc/index.php?display=EIRExportMapNation&tab=ALL

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/resources/documents/ElectronicsInRecentElections.pdf

[Imagevision]

220. The dude from Princeston stated an election can be hacked in under an hour!

Rove pulled it off in 04, and to continue Bush's money machine in Iraq, pacifying the Oil & Drug companies - they need to win which is what Rove is all about, regardless of who lives well and those needed to die for,... "the cause"

[mistertrickster]

129. Cool it . . . people who see the pattern that this article clearly shows

are not making "baseless accusations" nor are they "afraid of facts."

I teach argumentation and am a debate judge in college.

Your ONE (count 'em) ONE source does not refute the idea that in this instance, three voters had their vote for a democratic candidate changed to a republican one. There was no "vice-versa" cited by this article.

It may well be that assuming election fraud turns out to be baseless, but the evidence in this article, while not definitive either way, is stronger FOR election fraud than the other way around.

You're just BAITING people with that smugly superior tone.

You made your point . . . badly IMHO . . . now just cool it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

137. begging your pardon, but

I think once someone is accused of lying -- as Fredda was in post #28 -- it doesn't wash to complain that that person is "just BAITING people with that smugly superior tone."

This is one of those DU things that I just don't get. When someone is accused of lying, just what is the appropriate tone in which to respond?

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

163. assumes facts not in evidence

Fredda's take on this issue is somewhat cheerier than mine, but no one has "caught" her in a "lie" here. She has said that the vote-switch reports have gone in both directions, and that is true. You could look it up in the EIRS yourself.

EDIT to clarify meaning: I think Fredda's record of factual accuracy is way ahead of several other posters'.

[TankLV]

186. No - she's claiming that it's EQUAL - it's not - the vote switch ALWAYS

100% OF THE TIME

BENEFITS REPUKES.

For her - or you - to try to sit here and claim otherwise IS A DOWNRIGHT LIE!

[eomer]

189. Not quite 100%, but pretty close to it.

I counted the incidents reported to EIRS in 2004 for the three counties of S. Florida and the count was 42 flips from D to R and 2 flips from R to D.

42/44 = 95%.

[OnTheOtherHand]

196. wrong, and wrong

Fredda hasn't even used the word "equal" in this thread. And as eomer points out in his response, the vote switch does not "100% OF THE TIME" benefit Republicans.

At this point I am closer to eomer's perspective on the issue than I am to Fredda's, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit around and say that Fredda is a liar.

I sure hope you aren't going to call eomer a liar now, too.

[Fredda Weinberg]

216. Thank you n/t

[TankLV]

147. WRONG again, honey.

they only switch Democratic votes to repuke votes...

You need to do some research...

[WinkyDink]

193. I don't believe that report's detail of "vice-versa". That was clearly

thrown in there for show. I want PLACE and PRECINCT.

[Fredda Weinberg]

217. Verified Voting added this for show?

The Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS) added it for show?

Get real.

[rainy]

170. does this help?

Progressives helped concede election by conceding the moral high ground
by Christopher Bifani
March 21, 2005

Was the election “stolen” from John Kerry?

I say probably, because it literally is about probabilities.

Almost all the so-called “irregularities” favored Bush. If, in fact, irregularities occurred because of innocent systems failure then why weren’t as many Republicans screaming about their votes flipping over to Kerry?

Why weren’t as many Republicans freaking out about more Kerry votes than their precincts had voters? Why weren’t as many Republican precincts as Democratic precincts inadvertently shorted voting machines?

What is the mathematical probability of nearly every irregularity in a Republican-manufactured voting system randomly favoring the Republican candidate? A gazillion to none, probably. So, yeah, I suspect fraud, big time. And sooner or later, someone somewhere will get religion or the guilts or a payoff and spill the beans.

[Virginian]

51. We aren't trained to make any calebrations.

If a machine breaks or doesn't function as it should, we have to take it out of service. We can still get the votes off of it at the end of the day, but we don't use it unless a technician comes in to adjust it. No machine leaves the polling place during the election. No one works on a machine at the polls without the proper credentials and double verification of credentials.

Everything is verified and witnessed by election workers of two flavors and can also be witnessed by party poll watchers of any party. The number of votes on the machine must be the same after it is fixed as before it is fixed. Any replacement machine brought in to the polling place must always have the counter set to zero.

The total number of votes on the machines must equal the total number of voters who have checked in at the pollbooks. Several counts are taken throughout the day.

[Peace Patriot]

63. It doesn't matter if the number of voters matches the numbers of votes.

What matters is WHO the votes were FOR, and if they are true votes of the voters--and not SWITCHED votes. And THAT cannot be verified by ANY current procedures--given TRADE SECRET PROPRIETARY vote tabulation software, and no audit (many states) or (the very best states) only a 1% audit. Where there is no audit and/or with paperless touchscreens, vote tabulation is so shrouded in darkness that totals could be entirely invented and no one could ever prove it. With optiscans and no audit, only in the case of a recount (extremely difficult, expensive and rare) could fraudulent vote switches be discovered (provided the paper ballot backups were protected). With optiscans/1% audit, you have a tiny chance of finding fraud, and corrupt officials AND secret programming can manipulate the sample.

All your procedures are worthless, without transparent vote counting: vote counting that we can see and verify; open source programming that everyone can review. What good does it do to "secure" a machine that is manufactured by a Bushite corporation, and is "tested" in secret by the election theft industry itself? By the time election officials get the machine, god knows what's inside of it. We might as well just ask George Bush and Dennis Hastert who they want in Congress and let them pick and anoint Bush "pod people." Really, that's what these machines mean. They LITERALLY have that capability. They may not use it, or they may not fully use, this time. They would be smart to keep it to a minimum (say, a majority in the House that looks Democratic, but is impeachment-proof and ineffective). These corporations who are secretly "tabulating" our votes are directly plugged into the Bush Junta. Diebold's CEO, until recently, was a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser, for godssakes! ES&S (a spinoff of Diebold) was initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals (among other things). Diebold and ES&S are run by two BROTHERS, Bob and Ted Urosevich. And the third big election theft player, Sequoia, employs the Republican former head of elections in California, and his chief aide, to peddle their machines. These are the people "counting" all our votes behind a veil of secrecy!

There is NO security, NO procedures, NO laws, NO safeguards to prevent them from dictating the results of our elections. One hacker, a couple of minutes, leaving no trace--in the MANUFACTURING stage--that's all it takes. And, for all we know--given the SECRECY and private corporate control of all "testing"--the tests are deliberately designed to MISS those lines of code, which then self-erase after the vote switching is done. OR, the PRIVATE CORPORATE personnel who are required to constantly service these crapass machines--at great additional expense to the taxpayers--can EASILY insert self-erasing malicious code before and during elections--in the voting machines themselves, or in the central tabulators (which are ALSO run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code).

"Double verification of credentials" doesn't matter, if the "verified" person is a private Diebold or other election theft industry private employee.

This is an OUTRAGEOUS situation. It's not outside hackers that are the danger--it's INSIDE hackers! Thus, all these so-called "security" measures are a farce, a dumbshow, designed to hoodwink election workers and the public.

Our democracy is in mortal danger from these machines. We must get rid of them. We MUST!

[Virginian]

160. We do not make calibrations.

I will continue to do my part on election day and make sure we are running the process fairly, that there are honest people working to help people cast their ballots and at the end of the day, we provide an accurate report of the results we get from these machines and you keep up the good fight on the machine verification.
I do hope some day we can get a genuine audit from our machines.

[RaleighNCDUer]

176. You hope, some day?

What does that do for THIS election?

Keep hoping.

ON EDIT:

But thank you for what you ARE doing - I hope that soon we will not have to rely on hope.

[Fredda Weinberg]

214. They do in Florida n/t

[tomp]

68. i'll believe that when i see repub votes switching to dem. nt

[we can do it]

88. Oh No - OF Course Its Not Deliberate - It Just Only Always Favors Rethugs

Give me a freaking break.

:eyes:

[papau]

131. Fredda - "obviously not deliberate" when it is always a problem helping the GOP?

Has there ever been in Florida an innocent screen problem that produced more votes for Dems?

I want to believe - and actually I do believe - its innocent - but only because the Princeton video showed that it was easy to fix the vote with no one ever seeing an error.

Given how easy it is to steal with no one seeing anything, it would stupid for this to be a deliberate attempt to bias the vote to the GOP.

But I sure do wonder why the error that is found is always one that appears to favor the GOP.

[Fredda Weinberg]

211. It doesn't "always" favor the GOP

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5331&printsafe=1

Election 2004 E-Voting Incidents
from the Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS)

Election Verification Project Press Conference
November 18, 2004


E-Voting Problems Reported:


Machine breakdown
(total malfunction, sometimes entire polling places, power/battery failures, machines locked, long lines, voters turned away)

Misrecording (Kerry recorded as Bush and vice-versa, touchscreen calibration)

[Divine Discontent]

135. obv. not delib...

says WHO?

older people, or people rushing to get out might not see the error. yes, the fact is a secret code program would do it so we wouldn't know of the theft, but this could be another way they steal votes, so to say it's def. not delib. is rather odd.


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[Occulus]

159. They like you to think that.

It enables them to do exactly what you believe can't be done.

These screens are not, not, NOT "notorious for miscalibration", and in fact, truly don't need to be calibrated frequently. How do I know this? We have kiosks where I work that are touchscreen; employees use them to change their withholding, health plans, submit job bids, and a slew of other things all the time.

The technology is sound. It's the people who are writing the code interpreting the touches that are unsound. They must be either incompentant or biased, and I know this as a fact, because I see touchscreens working flawlessly, and without regular maintainance, every day, across hundreds of potential users.

Diebold is fucking with us, laughing at us up their sleeves, and you're buying it- hook, line, and sinker.

[blunitedstatesdotcom]

161. Voting Irregularities

if someone is careless in not verifying their votes, assuming the machine registered them correctly, just a few votes here and there can influence an election as close as a few are in FL. its funny that we don't hear the same reports about votes for Crist changing to votes for Davis.

I'd be curious to know if these same machines were used in 04 and what work, if any, had been done on them prior to this election.

[Virginian]

50. If you store the machines stacked too high, this can happen.

The machine's touch screen will warp and you can select one candidate and watch it as the machine switches the vote to the other candidate.

[papau]

132. but always in favor of the GOP? n/t

n/t

[Fredda Weinberg]

213. No, not always

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5331&printsafe=1

Election 2004 E-Voting Incidents
from the Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS)

Election Verification Project Press Conference
November 18, 2004


E-Voting Problems Reported:


Machine breakdown
(total malfunction, sometimes entire polling places, power/battery failures, machines locked, long lines, voters turned away)

Misrecording (Kerry recorded as Bush and vice-versa, touchscreen calibration)

[icymist]

198. It's creating an air of confusion, making timely recounts difficult if not impossible!

The election has already begun to be stolen.

[Bitwit1234]

6. Rove

No wonder rove had his usual smirk...he knows what the outcome will be since they programmed them again. Why is it...the mistakes are ALWAYS in favor of the republicans. No once has a republican came forward and said the machine bounced to the democrat when the selected a republican.

[Kolesar]

7. Article does not say the brand of machine--reporter should have noted it

A "problem" like this could easily stymie a timid voter who is intimidated by the authorities at the voting place.

[Fredda Weinberg]

38. I'll give you a hint ... it ain't Diebold n/t

[w4rma]

53. And who is it miss know it all? Thanks for nothing. (nt)

[Fredda Weinberg]

99. Doesn't matter. All DREs are vulnerable n/t

[w4rma]

117. Finally something we can agree on. (nt)

[kcass1954]

177. They're ES&S iVotronics. n/t

[Kolesar]

180. I think that's what is in my county!

Definitely taking my digital camera with the video recorder on it.

[hpot]

8. Those Machines should be detained for forensic purposes

[Mr_Spock]

12. Couple of election workers on NPR called the software "primitive"

& said it was about as awful a windows patch job that they could possibly have done. It's amazing that these hackable Neanderthal machines have actually been certified in so many places. Does that imply that the older equipment was even less reliable? The big deal is the lack of a paper trail & hackability obviously.

[flordehinojos]

13. BRENDA SNIPES IS A BUSH ASS KISSER . HER JOB IS TO MAKE SURE

SHE HANDS THE VOTES OVER TO REPUBLICANS. SHE WILL SAY THE MACHINE HAD A HICCUP. SHE WILL SAY THE MACHINE HAD A GLITCH. SHE WILL SAY THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS--BUT ALL THE TIME BRENDA BUSH ASS KISSER IS WORKING TO DELIVER THE VOTES TO THE REPUBLICANS.

(this afternoon some guy was walking the neighborhood. he said he was canvassing for KLEIN the democrat running against CLAY SHAW. HE HAD MY NAME, MY HUSBAND'S NAME AND OUR SON'S NAME. HE ASKED IF WE WERE GOING TO VOTE FOR KLEIN. but since i don't care who knows that i will never vote republican i told him yes, then gave him a piece of my mind about bush and about the delusional thinking of KLEIN and every other democrat who thinks they are going to win and take democracy back with votes as long as bush and the likes of brenda the bush asskisser snipes control the machines. then i told him 'for all i know you might be an undercover homeland security person--he had a handheld machine that he kept punching as i kept talking--and who knows if someone is going to come and take me away after all i've told you--but quite frankly, i don't care. he said he wouldn't be wearing a VOTE FOR KLEIN gummy sticker posted to his shirt if he were a homeland security. i said yes you would. if you were a homeland security undercover person you would be wearing a kline sticker.]

[BattyDem]

14. Will someone please explain to me why the "glitch" always works in favor of Repugs?

Has there EVER been ONE report of a person selecting the Republican candidate and the machine registering the Democratic candidate's name instead? :grr: :grr: :grr:

We went through this during the last three elections and Americans just simply ignored the obvious. WTF is it going to take to get people angry enough to get off their asses???

[FogerRox]

61. In Broward...

In a heavily DEM area DEM will vote or touch the same spot repeatedly

The ES&S Touchscreens need to be cleaned with windex
skin oils get on the screen and divert the galvonic response.

[smoogatz]

15. Funny, they never flip the other way--from the Republican to the Democrat.

I mean, ne-fucking-ver. I have not once read or heard of that happening. Why do you suppose that is?

[Fredda Weinberg]

40. You're wrong about that

E-Voting Problems Reported:


Machine breakdown
(total malfunction, sometimes entire polling places, power/battery failures, machines locked, long lines, voters turned away)

Misrecording (Kerry recorded as Bush and vice-versa, touchscreen calibration)

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5331&printsafe=1

[smoogatz]

67. That's not a specific example.

I've been following this issue since touch-screen voting was first introduced, and in every specific anecdote I've heard/read, the machines always either default to Republican or flip to Republican, never "vice versa."

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[Fredda Weinberg]

215. Verified Voting is lying?

The Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS) is lying?

You're simply wrong. Since 2002, DREs have been doing the same damn thing - and shouting at me won't change the facts.

[EFerrari]

18. Broward Co.? I don't believe it!

:)

[redacted]

19. NEWS EDITORS: STOP CALLING THEM "GLITCHES"

Because never once, EVER, has there been a reported case of Dems getting wrong votes, why don't you editors accurately call it "GOP BIAS" or "REPUBLICAN SOFTWARE DEFAULT SETTINGS" or something truthful that makes the theft of Democracy sound a little less trivial?

[nashville_brook]

71. here here! they're NOT glitches, snags or oopsies

[lostnotforgotten]

22. I Reported This Exact Same Behavior November 2004

When I worked as a early voting clerk for Dallas County Texas.

No one paid attention to me then, especially the Democratic party.

One of the reasons that I now a registered independent.

[Fredda Weinberg]

44. And it was reported in 2002 in Florida

and the public reaction was the same. Ain't it a bitch?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

23. My email to the writers

Dear CHARLES RABIN AND DARRAN SIMON,

If these problems were accidental glitches, they would also flip votes from the Republican candidate to Democratic candidate and from the Republican candidate to the Independent candidate, but I can not remember ever, ever reading where this happened. It is always the Democratic candidate whose vote is flipped to a Republican or an Independent.

As journalists, it seems to be within your job responsibilities to ask why this pattern continues. You might even look into a correlation between reports of such problems and election results that deviate from the exit polls by more than the exit poll’s margin of error. Check into the board of elections supervisor’s political affiliation to see if they are acting in the interest of a political party rather than in the interest of fair elections.

As an observant consumer of news, I find the constant referral of these malfunctions as “glitches” quite inaccurate. It is much more likely that they are evidence of the systematic stealing of votes from Democratic candidates. This theft it is reflected in election results that deviate from the exit polls by more than the poll’s margin of error, as happened in hundreds of locations nationwide in 2004. And, coincidentally, every time it happened, it was in favor of the Republican candidate for president.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

26. That's a solid letter. Fine work.

:yourock: :headbang: :yourock: :headbang:

[seafan]

29. Thank you for your fine letter! This type of laziness by the press

is dangerous to our country.

[Fredda Weinberg]

41. You're wrong about that

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5331&printsafe=1

E-Voting Problems Reported:


Machine breakdown
(total malfunction, sometimes entire polling places, power/battery failures, machines locked, long lines, voters turned away)

Misrecording (Kerry recorded as Bush and vice-versa, touchscreen calibration)

[Peace Patriot]

65. As I recall, out of 88 reported incidents of visible vote switching on the

touchscreens, all but 2-4 of them (can't recall exactly) were Kerry votes changed to Bush votes. TruthIsAll calculated the astronomical odds of this happening.

www.TruthIsAll.net

I'm not going to find it for you. TruthIsAll's series, "To Believe Bush Won, You Have to Believe....," is so compelling on so many different statistics, and in so many ways, that this one stat is not that important, except to add a tiny pebble to the mountain of impossibilities that Bush won.

I'm pretty sure it was 88 (or very close to that). And I'm sure it wasn't more than 4 switches that favored Kerry. The most compelling stats are the astronomical odds against Bush winning the Diebold/ES&S vote "count" (the "official count") while losing the exit poll count, and the contortions that the pollster Edison-Mitofksy had to go through to make the exit polls match the results of Diebold/ES&S's secret formulae. It would be funny if so many people hadn't been killed or tortured because of it.

So, yes, there were minuscule instances of touchscreen switches favoring Kerry--and a comparatively MONSTROUS number of them favoring Bush.

I don't think that's where the main fraud occurs--in the voting machines. I think it occurs in the central tabulators (partly based on my study of California, where there was a very odd plummet in Kerry votes--what looks like 5% to 10% theft from Kerry--that occurred ONLY in the Republican counties, regardless of voting method; this points suspicion at the Diebold-controlled central state tabulators, with the vote thieves apparently deciding upon the Republican-controlled counties as the places where the theft would be overlooked by corrupt Republican election officials, and would raise fewer eyebrows in general). (Kerry won the state by a 10% margin; Barbara Boxer, in the Senate race, won the state by a 20% margin; the entire difference between them is to be found in the Republican counties, which means that a whole lot of people voted for Boxer...and Bush! Figure THAT out!)

In other words, I think the theft was largely invisible, and centrally controlled. So whether the massive number of touchscreen vote switches favoring Bush, compared to the minuscule number of vote switches favoring Kerry, was malfunction or fraud, is not that important (except in trying to pinpoint exactly how the voting machines interface with the central tabulators, to produce a fraudulent outcome). Malfunctioning screens--or screens that are signaling fraud--are also not so important to the fraud itself as is the lack of any paper trail, or an inadequate paper trail (for instance, a mere paper receipt that may not have legal standing in a recount). This leaves the system WIDE OPEN to fraud--both in a direct, operational way, and as to there being zero deterrence to fraud. This may explain why the election theft industry, and Bushites, have been so anxious to get touchscreens in place--for instance, in California. Touchscreens should have been dropped long ago, if we lived in a country with sane political leaders. They are basically unauditable voting machines. The optiscans are cleverer components of this election theft system--requiring a bit more caution about where to steal votes, and how many to steal. (Recounts--though very rare--are a bit of danger.) But touchscreens--my God!--Stalin himself couldn't have devised a more blatant tool of tyranny.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

78. Touch screen flips are bad, but the tabulators are hellish bad

I do IT for a living. I would never, ever implement a system that is as easy to hack as some of the central tabulators that are currently in use.

IIRC, in many cases, the precinct doesn't even have a record of their votes, other than what is stored on the central tabulator. Unfortunately, most central tabulators are ridiculously easy to hack, being a windows based system using an off-the-shelf database like Access. All I need for my guy to win with 99% of the vote is five minutes access to the network and a couple of passwords.

I would log onto an unused workstation somewhere on the country network and then use remote access to log onto the central tabulator. At that point, I'd execute a couple of SQL statements and the vote would be whatever I wanted it to be.

I'm not certain (I do applications, not network engineering) but I think I could erase a couple of server log files and there would be not record that I was ever there.

Microsoft's focus is not on providing the most secure systems. They provide the best bang for the buck business systems and while their security is getting better, it's still not that great.

(Edited to fix spelling error)

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

76. I don't remember ever reading of a Bush to Kerry flip

I didn't say they didn't happen.

If so, and PeacePatriot's (84 pro Bush, 4 Pro Kerry numbers) are correct, the odds of this happening by mistake are millions to one.

The number I remember is over 60,000 independently reported machine malfunctions during the 2004 election. Who knows how many were not reported?

[TankLV]

150. Same LIE that does not support what you are claiming...

[WinkyDink]

195. Reported WHERE? Oh, I forgot; "reports" are sworn affidavits. NOT.

Just keep posting that flotsam.

[philb]

30. Thousands of votes were switched in Broward & P.B. & Dade in 2004

by Switch Screen Electronic machines. Why would anyone think it wouldn't happen in 2006 also?
Fraud, switching, manipulation of registrations, illegal purges, illegal dirty tricks,
manipulation of absentees and provisionals totaled a swing of over 300,000 votes in 2004
and swung the national election.
www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
www.flcv.com/Fla04EAS.html

Similar happened in Ohio, to a somewhat lesser extent but enough to swing that state also:
www.flcv.com/ohiosum.html

[FogerRox]

62. I was in BRoward in 2004, yup.

In a heavily DEM area, DEMs will vote or touch the same spot repeatedly

The ES&S Touchscreens need to be cleaned with windex
skin oils get on the screen and divert the galvonic response.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

77. Cleaned with windex? One more reason not to use the &%$%$ things

If they aren't reliable, don't use them.

If they are instruments of election fraud, don't use them.

If they don't provide a voter verified audit trail, don't use them.

Any of the above should be enough to make us go back to paper.

I would be glad to go to my local precinct every election cycle and sit with a bipartisan group under video camera surveillance and tally votes. We could go to the Vegas casinos and learn how to position cameras so that every action in the room would be on tape. The casinos do it to keep dealers honest.

[FogerRox]

104. Well yes, Banks clean their screens but do poll workers get instructed to clean the DRE?

Irregardless DREs are not acurate for a variety of reasons. Funny thing about the Wilety labs testing process, they never test the DREs to see if they actually work during an election.

[Cobalt Violet]

31. Stealing it right in front of our faces. Only the Repuke ever gain from this.

Does anyone voting repuke have their vote come up for the Democratic candidate? I didn't think so.

[Fredda Weinberg]

43. You're wrong about that

E-Voting Problems Reported:


Machine breakdown
(total malfunction, sometimes entire polling places, power/battery failures, machines locked, long lines, voters turned away)

Misrecording (Kerry recorded as Bush and vice-versa, touchscreen calibration)

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5331&printsafe=1

[Kurovski]

84. Wrong said Fred. So what's the percentage?

That's not listed at your link. You seem awfully hot to create the impression that the events are equal.

The evidence is that they are not.

Overwhelmingly, the votes switched in favor of the Republican.

You may be interested in the truth, but it's pretty obvious your affinity is not for the whole truth.

Nice technique.

We've seen it before.

[TankLV]

152. Repeating the same LIE will not convince us, honey...

[Cobalt Violet]

188. Your right . I'm not convinced by her lies. Just annoyed.

Like mosquitoes annoy me.

[philb]

225. Virtually all touch screen swings were from Dem to Repub, but there

were some in the other direction such as in New Mexico.
But even there the majority were Dem to Repub
www.flcv.com/newmex.html
www.flcv.com/summary.html other states


Its obvious these were not just random malfunctions.
If they were miscalibrations it was mostly intentional- systematic miscalibrations are another easy way to swing votes on electronic machines.

But similarly for other types of voting.
Dileberate miscalibrations of punch cards in Ohio cost Kerry very large numbers of votes such as in
Cleveland. also other places.


Lots of ways to rig an election. And lots of them contributed.

[philb]

32. Over 100,000 votes were swung in Fl. in 04 by provisional & absentee ballot manipulation

(hundreds of thousands of votes were swung in Florida in 2004 by provisional ballot and absentee ballot manipulation- plus hundreds of thousands more by other means) As documented by EIRS www.flcv.com/EIRSFla2.html

/Today's Crime Against Democracy//:/ *Provisional Ballots Rejected*

Introduced by federal law in 2002 as part of the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA), the provisional ballot was designed especially for voters of
color. Initially proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus to save the
rights of those wrongly purged from voter rolls, it was, in swing
states, twisted into a back-of-the-bus ballot, unlikely to be tallied.
This is why provisional ballots are often referred to as "placebo ballots."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
/History, Suspects & Perps//:/ *Ballots Disappear/Rejected Across the U.S.*

To understand how specific groups such as the African-American and other
minority populations were targeted in the 2004 election, it needs to be
understood that the HAVA provisional ballot law allows election
officials to give provisional ballots to any persons who:

* /show up at the polls on Election Day but find that their names
are not on the voter rolls; or/

* /have their right to vote challenged by an election official or
partisan observer./

Unlike regular ballots, provisional ballots are /*not required be
counted*/ under HAVA. Rather, the decision whether or not to count
provisional ballots is determined by the 50 individual Secretaries of
States across the nation. Large numbers of provisional ballots,
primarily from Democratic precincts, have been systematically rejected.
During the 2004 election, a total of 3,107,490 voters were moved into
provisional ballots. The number of ballots rejected was a stunning
1,090,729.


*Take Steps to Combat Provisional Ballot Rejection*

1.

All voters need to *check the status of their voter registration,
polling location, and Election Day identification requirements.*
They also need to ensure their ID matches the voter registration
name exactly. Voters can be challenged over minor things, such as
a middle initial on their ID while the voter roll has a full
middle name listed.

2.

Provide volunteer assistance at polling places to assist voters in
finding their proper precinct location.

3.

Target minority communities to educate them on their voting rights
and potential tactics or scams used to block their vote in 2004.

4.

Have observers in place in minority precincts to identify where
large-scale voter challenges (use of provisional ballots) are
occurring.

5.

Set up a provisional ballot alert hotline for observers to
immediately report provisional ballot use. Lawyers should be
on-call to assist in stopping the practice of moving voters into
provisional ballots.

6.

Have volunteers in place to observe and videotape the custody of
provisional ballots with the same rigor as for regular ballots.


*/Nationwide Election Protection Hotline:/*

*1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) *

*/Voting Rights Institute Hotline:/*
*1-888-DEMVOTE (1-888-336-8683)

[OneBlueSky]

39. um . . . didn't this happen in 2000? . . . and in 2002? . . . and in 2004? . . .

gee, you'd think that six years would be enough time to find the glitches and fix them, no? . . .

unless . . . UNLESS! . . . unless the glitches aren't glitches at all, but intentional programming "features" to ensure Republican victories . . .

but they wouldn't do that . . . would they? . . .

I mean, they're S-O-O-O-O patriotic, and S-O-O-O-O committed to democracy, right? . . . to the extent that they're waging a war in Iraq to bring those poor backward folks the blessings of democracy, at an unbelievable cost in lives both American and Iraqi . . .

so they wouldn't mess with our election system just to maintain control of Congress . . . would they? . . .

:sarcasm: (evident, I hope) . . .

[Fredda Weinberg]

42. Can't anyone around here do a web search?

This problem has been in the news since the damn things were introduced in West Palm Beach. We had an election in Wellington where there were undervotes in a single race - you think people showed up to cast blank ballots? But we couldn't do a recount ... there was no paper record.

Did the public care? Not really.

[BeFree]

55. Fredda

Looking over this thread I can tell your credibility is in the dumpster.

As for a web search... it's been done and the results show a 95% to 5% imbalance in the vote switching from Dem to publican v. pub to Dem.

I don't know what your angle is but it sure isn't credible and I doubt you care. But presences like yours just before the election are to be expected and I am damn glad to see the public here on DU show a real distaste for what you're are feeding them.

[nashville_brook]

72. word... we're no going back to re-proving our case

the election reform forum here on DU has seen the whole gamut of poo flung our way. we don't have to do "web searches." time for doubters to do "web searches." or better yet... a DU archive search... :evilgrin:

fredda's got her assignment.

[Fredda Weinberg]

109. And you loved me when I cracked Florida's central voter file

I reported the truth then and now. What you choose to believe is up to you.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

172. WTF?

You:"....I cracked Florida's central voter file"

That's an idiotic statement. The only part that makes any sense is the part where you say you cracked.

[Fredda Weinberg]

209. Look it up, dude. Greg Palast gave me credit in his book

Yeah, the CD sat in the Brennan Center for months 'till I opened it. And I've made the county's emails available as well.

Now, don't you feel super stupid? All you had to do was an Internet search.

LOL!!!

[BeFree]

222. No, I don't feel stupid

I can't keep track of trivial information and you don't provide any links.

Look here, I applaud you if you have made waves in reform. Good for reform=good for us. But what we see here on this thread is not good for us, so, you see, you present a great contradiction. That's not good.

[FogerRox]

58. The ES&S Touchscreens need to be cleaned with windex

skin oils get on the screen and divert the galvonic response.

[we can do it]

89. Is You Button Stuck?

B-)

[Kurovski]

90. Not to mention Estee Lauder hand cream!

:hi:

[EFerrari]

116. That's it! They're probably using Clinique Toner instead.

:rofl:

[Kurovski]

130. THAT was a good one.

:rofl:

[Laelth]

64. Strange behavior!

Why are FogerRox and Fredda Weinberg copying and pasting the same responses over and over in this thread--as if repeating these statements over and over will make them true?

<i>Makes me suspicious ...</i>

-Laelth

[ArmchairMeme]

87. Galvonic

I have also been noticing the galvonic recalibration glitches showing up here today also.

[FogerRox]

95. Call me lazy, but I did add a bit each time, as I pasted & posted

I suppose you might deal with the skin oil issue, as did Kip Humphrey. Is that possible? Thanks in advance.

[w4rma]

113. If I was a Republican election official willing to commit fraud, I might put the

Republican on the side of the screen that would benefit from the galvanic skin oil problem. I bet Kathrine Harris or any of her protegees would, also.

[FogerRox]

119. It doesnt work like that

you allocate 6 voting machines in DEM areas, forcing more people to use fewer machines, oils build up on the JOhn Kerry area....& start switching to Bush. And Allocate 30 Machines to repub areas, so its not an issue. Plus the repubs get the benifit of long lines in DEM areas. So its a win win for the repubs.

[TankLV]

154. You're not the only one...

[eomer]

66. In April 2005 I counted the EIRS DRE switch incidents in S. Florida in 2004

and the count in the 3 counties was:

Voter pushed Kerry, vote switched to Bush: 42 reports
Voter pushed Bush, vote switched to Kerry: 2 reports

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=353045#361275

Why are the reports skewed so far in one direction? Inquiring minds would like to know.

[FogerRox]

94. Well if, say, in Broward Cnty, a heavily DEM cnty

75% of voters voted for Kerry, more skin oils accumilate on the Kerry area of the glass screen, so more votes jump to Bush. Broward got 4-6 DREs at each early vote location, Miami had 30 DREs in a location. SO the skin oil problem would occur in Broward, and less likely in Maimi Dade. Of course if voting machine allocation was equal, this would too fair for the Repubs.

[eomer]

165. We know that's not the explanation, for a couple of reasons:

One is that oil accumulation, if it were the cause, would be expected to cause similar vote switches in down-ticket races. They would typically use the same area of the glass. The reports that I've read all said that just the Kerry/Bush choice was affected.

Another reason is that the voters reported that the vote registered correctly for Kerry when they touched it and it was only when they arrived at the review screen that the vote had switched. If the problem were oils accumulating on the glass then the vote would not appear to register correctly on the screen with the presidential race and then later switch. A physical problem like you allege would show up right away on the screen where the voter is trying to select the choice.

The vote switching as reported cannot have been caused by oil accumulating on the Kerry spot.

[kcass1954]

184. I live in Broward - the only part with a problem in 04 was the

*/Kerry section. I'm not a techie, but even I can figure out that if the problem was caused by "calibration issues" or a dirty screen, all subsequent displays would have been affected. This was not the case - only the */Kerry display had a problem.

[GeorgeGist]

69. Any reports of MINOR issues...

flipping Republican votes. Didn't think so.

[mom cat]

70. Hell! Why would they remove a machine that is giving Bushco the

vote fraud he wants? I'll bet that a machine that gave the Dems even one false vote would be in the dumpster already!

[mnhtnbb]

73. Why is anybody surprised? This is going to happen everywhere.

[yourout]

75. If skin oil residue left over from repeated Dem selection was the problem.......

then the problem would be Rep votes flipping to Dem.

NOT DEM VOTES SWITCHING TO REP!

This is intentional........not accidental.

[Straight Shooter]

79. Local grocery store is accurate after thousands of touches on their screens.

Never once have I punched in my phone number and have it show up as another number, nor has it ever registered "credit" when I punch "debit."

I guess a correct grocery total is soooo much more important than an accurately recorded vote, right, Fredda and Foger?

And I've never seen the cashiers clean the screens with Windex, either.

[FogerRox]

97. I have seen bank ATM cleaned as well as other ATMs

Deal with the science, not with the Messenger.

[Straight Shooter]

127. Dealing with the science of probabilities.

2004, heavily Repub areas, lots of fingers touching the screens, over and over and over, yet where is the outcry that votes for Repubs went to Dems? You can bet the GOP would have been screaming bloody murder, but there's silence all around.

I don't buy the "science." Unless the science in this case is also nicknamed "red herring."

[FogerRox]

96. Not if DEM districts got 6 DREs and Repub Dist. got 30 DREs

As was the case in BRoward vs Maimi Dade in 2004. 4-7 hr lines in BRoward, none in Dade.

[w4rma]

115. And that is yet another fraud issue: Distribution of voting equipment to create long lines

in Democratic districts and eliminate lines in Republican districts.

[FogerRox]

120. Bingo, A two for one winner for repubs.

[Amaryllis]

80. Damn those glitches....they just kinda seem to come out of nowhere.

[Kurovski]

81. Dammitdammitdammit...damn-it.

Robert F Kennedy Jr., won't you say something about this?

[lebkuchen]

82. This is what I think happened in 2004

I refuse to believe Bush brought in a million, two million, more votes in FL than Kerry.

[FogerRox]

121. We were 6 k votes OVER TARGET IN BROWARD.

Broward is like 75% DEM. maybe 80%...

[lebkuchen]

157. Rove hyper-"corrected" on FL in 2004

since it had proven to be such a troublesome state in 2000.

[ThoughtCriminal]

86. Random Bugs should not always favor one party

And yet, everytime this happens it seems that mis-recorded votes go to Republican candidates. If it happens once the odds are 50-50, twice 1/4, three times 1/8, four time 1/16 and so forth...

Are there any reports of touch-screen machines ever mis-counting a Republican vote as Democratic?

[jarnocan]

92. BU**SH** says we are dancing in the endzone, NO way we know better,

they are going to play their dirty games as long as they can get away with it.

[In Truth We Trust]

93. Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW! ...or Fascism Forever. Are you ready for a full scale revolt?

Cuz that is the only way to restore democracy. Massive gov't shutdown NOW!!!

[ClintonTyree]

166. But if we did that.......

ABC and the rest wouldn't be able to project the winner at 6:00 PM the night of the election. The nation would be in turmoil if we had to wait a single day to know the results. Democracy has to be instant, EVERYTHING has to be instant in our country. :sarcasm:
What would Katie Couric DO for those 12 hours or so that would ensure a fair election? No one would sit and listen to her endless stream of pablum, that's for sure. Why............people might even turn their TVs off for a while! Besides, they want to get it over so they can air "CSI Des Moines" on time. Wouldn't want to miss an episode of riveting entertainment like that now, would we? :sarcasm:

[FogerRox]

98. Bring it over here if you dont like the skin oil issue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x455454

[Mister Ed]

128. Question regarding the skin oil accumulation issue

It seems perfectly plausible to me that, in heavily Democratic precincts, skin oils will accumulate over the popular Democratic candidate's place on the touchscreen, eventually causing attempted votes for that candidate not to register.

What I can't explain to myself is how that failure to register a vote for the Dem shows up on the summary page as a vote for the Republican opponent. Shouldn't it instead appear on the summary page as no vote in that race? Could this be caused by a "default-to-GOP" bias in the program, the existence of which has been hypothesized by some?

[FogerRox]

151. The galvonic response tends to jump to the nearest receptor

if Kerry is greasy... and Bush is right next to it..... instant switched vote.


"Could this be caused by a "default-to-GOP" bias in the program, the existence of which has been hypothesized by some?"


DAmn you got a good memory..... Yeah if you want to go that far, its possible. But IIRC that means the bad guy carefully writes it into the ballot definition file. Cheating at the tabulator might be easier, maybe.

But we do know for sure about inequitable voting machine allocation, we do know that DREs are not all that, and a bag of chips. Wiley Labs tests voting machines. Wiley shakes them, heats them up, humidity, voltage fluctations, etc. The one thing that Wiley never tests..... they never set the voting machine up and let 200 people vote. They never test to see if they actually work.

WE can't expect them to work right. ANd you know what? They don't.

[Boxturtle]

169. I use touchscreens all the time at work.

My hands usually have oil all over them from working on the machines, but I have never had any issues with using the touchscreens with oily hands. If the oil gets too bad, I just wipe the screen clean with a rag.

[FogerRox]

175. Exactly. Once in a while the touch pad on my lap top gets geasy from food

-yeah bad habit, eating while on the computer- and the touch pad starts acting funny. ANd I bet the touchscreens you work with are not cheap crap. Deibold & ES&S are.

[OnTheOtherHand]

179. OK, but are we talking about two kinds of reports?

It's hard to sort out, but my impression is that some people are reporting votes that are initially misregistered ('I pushed for X, but Y lit up instead'), and others are reporting that the summary screens didn't match the votes they initially cast.

It's possible that some folks don't notice that their votes were initially misregistered until they get to the summary screen. But there could be something else at work as well.

I have no firm opinion on this; I'm just trying to sort it out.

[FogerRox]

182. I talked to about 2 dozen voters who experienced this in Broward FL- 2004

Most had not used the E&S touchscreen before. "some folks don't notice that their votes were initially misregistered until they get to the summary screen", I think you raise a good point there.

[OnTheOtherHand]

197. thanks -- let me see if I understand you

Are you saying that your impression of the two dozen folks you talked with is that probably their initial votes all were misregistered, but some didn't notice until they got to the summary screens? I mean, I just crammed a bunch of words in your mouth, but just let me know which ones don't fit! ;)

If someone told you that they were sure the initial votes were registered correctly but the summary screen was wrong, would you be skeptical? if so, how skeptical?

I have no opinion in this matter -- I have never even touched a touchscreen voting machine (and would be reasonably happy to keep it that way). I'm just trying to sort it all out.

(EDIT TO ADD: meanwhile I need to catch up with the other thread, after which maybe I will know some of the answers to these questions... done. Nope, still unsure.)

[FogerRox]

200. You got it.

1-Are you saying that your impression of the two dozen folks you talked with is that probably their initial votes all were misregistered, but some didn't notice until they got to the summary screens? I mean, I just crammed a bunch of words in your mouth, but just let me know which ones don't fit!


Correct. I talked to about 2 dozen who said thier John Kerry/Betty Castor votes got flipped to Bush and the "R" senate candidate.. Menendez IIRC.

2-If someone told you that they were sure the initial votes were registered correctly but the summary screen was wrong, would you be skeptical? if so, how skeptical?

Fairly to very skeptical-No.

I have no opinion in this matter -- I have never even touched a touchscreen voting machine (and would be reasonably happy to keep it that way). I'm just trying to sort it all out.

I'll be voting on a pushbutton DRE for the 1st time this Nov 7th.

[eomer]

201. Pretty hard to miss a vote registering incorrectly on the vote screen

When you touch a choice it immediately highlights it. Your eye is by necessity focused on that part of the screen. It would tend to catch your attention if a choice were highlighted other than the one you intended.

Here's a video demo of an ES&S iVotronic:
http://www.srqelections.com/ivotronic/touchscreen_video.htm

Watch it and you will see what I mean.

I just voted on an iVotronic yesterday and the screens in this election in my county look a bit different than the ones in the demo, but they are roughly equivalent.

In the case I posted in the other thread, the voter and the workers paged back through the voting screens and confirmed that the choices on those screens were for Dems but when they came again to the review screen then they flipped to Republicans.

[OnTheOtherHand]

202. yeah, that last seems pretty telling

Not necessarily to contradict what the estimable FogerRox has said, but what he describes doesn't account for that sort of problem report. I don't assume any particular limit to the number of ways in which DREs can torment and abuse voters.

[eomer]

203. Yes, I think there are reports of both types.

Both the kind where the selection doesn't work right away and the other kind where the selection looks fine on the voting screen and doesn't flip until you get to the review screen.

The latter pretty much has to be a software problem (and not just a hardware problem).

[Wilms]

206. Does this help.

I only want to say so much about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=455562&mesg_id=455796

[FernBell]

112. will we never be rid of this curse?

[FogerRox]

114. If we take the COngress back I will continue to think

there is some democrcy left. Otherwise... I dont know. What do good patriots do... ya know.....

On edit, forgive my rudeness, welcome to DU

[EFerrari]

118. Welcome to DU, FernBell.

:)

[humbled_opinion]

133. Document it ... Document it... Get the ducks in a row..n/t

[casus belli]

136. We need a step-by-step process outlining how to report these things

And we need to get that information out to ALL voters. A step-by-step process is needed that illustrates what to do, who to notify, and how to ensure that your vote was counted properly. And it is important that these things be done at the time of vote. If we wait until election results are disputed, instead of WHEN the incident occurs, we are at a disadvantage in trying to prove that inaccuracies, malfunctions, or fraud had occurred. If, in a worse case scenario, a machine has been tampered with and malicious software installed, the ONLY way anyone would have to prove it is to do an audit of the machine while it is still in use. As we've seen from many of the experimental vote fix scenarios online, most malicious programs are able to erase any trace of themselves, but that stage seems to come when the final vote is tallied. If we have a process in place and can prove even ONE case of fraud, then that is probably the only chance we stand of people taking these accusations seriously.

[IWantAChange]

140. Nothing new in Broward County.......

lived there for 4 years, my neighbor was a poll worker and dedicated Democrat - told me that in the last Presidential Election in the precinct he worked there were nearly 400 less votes in total for President than there were voters who cast ballots. I thought that was surprising since the average homeowner in my town was 38 and the average home value was in excess of $600k - amazing that all those people could afford really nice homes but either didn't want to vote for President or just couldn't figure out how.

[civildisoBDence]

141. Broward County is where the lawyer was shot twice with rubber bullets

during a protest, and where Larissa Alexandrovna's cousin (?) was arrested and held.

Then there's Palm Beach County, home of hanging chads and Rush Limpbaugh.

What's wrong with that part of South Florida?

Newsprism

[Rude Horner]

142. Speaking as someone who's written my share of computer code

I just can't imagine that a voting program can be all that difficult to code. I mean, for God sake, they've had years to work on the damn things. I could toss together a more reliable voting program in an afternoon!

I understand touch screens needing calibration but hell - we've got touch screen at our place of business and they're used daily by truckers with dirty hands to log in and log out of their shifts. They've been going strong for a couple years now and I've never had to recalibrate the touch screens yet. And they're trying to tell me that this is a recalibration issue, BEFORE the official election day even starts?!!! I can't imagine there's THAT many people voting on these things yet!!!

I don't buy it. And if it's true, then if it's this bad NOW, just wait till election day. Holy shit.

[FogerRox]

156. In fairness, rude, each election has to be a new ballot definition file

How many times are all the truckers fired and new truckers hired? And arent the spaces static in the use you cite? While in an election, sometime you might need more text to say:

4 Freeholders are running for 3 at Large positions, the voter can only vote for a maximum of 3.

Carol CLarke (D) Freeholder at large
Bob Smith (D) Freeholder at large
Bob Jones(D) Freeholder at large
Muriel Shore (R) Freeholder at large

Then the next election you dont even use that space for an explanation. ALl you might have is

Joe Decinzenzo (D) County Excutive.

And it all has to line up. Thats when the calibration occurs, when you write the ballot def file.

Plu, were your touchscreens were manufactured by Diebold or ES&S, thats part of the deal here. Diebold or ES&S DREs are about $3,500 per. Full featured 30 inch screen, 40 languages- written & audio, VVPB printers.... by Avante is $7,000. Diebold or ES&S are cheap crap.

Edited for re-write

[ChiciB1]

181. Just Scanning through Comments Here... I Would Like To Know If Anything

is being done about this. I myself voted absentee here in Sarasota County because I don't trust ES&S, but I'm still not totally confident that my vote will be counted. We have an extremely tight race for Congress here and at present Christine Jennings is ahead. But do I think she will win?

I see very very few bumper stickers for Buchanan and many for Jennings, but if Buchanan wins I DOUBT ANYTHING will be done. I took my absentees down to the supervisor of elections and hand delivered them. Still I remain very distressed about the outcomes all over this country!

Dictators aren't known to be very ethical and the fact that Red Rover keeps saying he's not worried bothers me. Sure it COULD be a tactic on his part to put on a "good face" but it could also mean we will get screwed again. Don't forget Jebby is STILL here and so many newspapers have endorsed Jim Davis and STILL Davis is behind in the polls. Of course I don't run with many Repukes, but most people I talk with say they want Davis!

It's not the fault of Democrats that there is such a feeling of fraud, I think we've seen it happen regardless of how much they protest it never did!

[TankLV]

143. ...switches Democratic votes to REPUKE - once again!...

How come there are NEVER instances where repuke votes are switched to Democratic votes?

But has the whore media ever made note of this "small" FACT?!

[FogerRox]

158. LOL why would the repukes want to switch thier votes to DEM

Thats just stupid.


:wink:

[TankLV]

187. Exactly!

Why change something that works - 100% of the time - for THEM!

[Eric J in MN]

167. We need to switch to voting on paper ballots nationwide.

How many more elections are we going to read about voters touching one candidate and getting another before state governments are forced to admit that touchscreen machines are the world's most expensive pieces of garbage?

[TomClash]

178. No different than when Kerry lawyers were there in 2004

It's all bullshit.

[mod mom]

183. It's lawyers like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x454968

DINOS-DLC

[mkb]

185. Problems With Voting Can And Should Be Corrected

     This is a good reason to have paper ballots or some other
form of voting that can't be easily manipulated.
     I believe that there can be many reasons why people vote
or don't vote, including people finding out your identity, but
better voting apparatus would help those that decide to vote
feel confident that their vote is tabulated correctly.  Voting
is of course an individual choice, and there are good things
about it and bad things about it.  Think it over, and good
luck.

[april]

192. What in the hell are they going to do about this?

[april]

194. I am sure that if they were voting for a Rep it does not happen

this makes me Sick!!! has anyone done anything

[demo dutch]

205. Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes (R) was appointed by Jeb Bush

Funny how that is. Broward Co. is probably the most Dem county in FL!

[demo dutch]

204. Broward Co is the most Dem county in FL, ....Jeb appointed Supervisor

of elections Brenda Snipes (R). So isn't that just strange!!!!

[philb]

226. Broward County alone had over 100,000 votes swung in 2004

www.flcv.com/browardo.html
www.flcv.com/broward.html
www.flcv.com/EIRSfla.html

[BushSpeak]

223. Need tech help on "Bush default & deliberate mis-calibration"

In 2004 there was much speculation about the default value being set to Bush on purpose. Then if the voter didn't hit the precise zone, it would default to Bush. If the machines were mis-calibrated deliberately, so that the zone for Kerry was smaller and off-center, then it would be quite plausible that several voters would touch a zone and continue without catching the error. Not everybody checks the review page. (Can finger pressure also be programmed?)

Thus, some voters would fall through the safety net and others would catch the error and try to correct the vote several times, creating long lines, while others would get lucky on the first try. Just let lady luck decide which vote is recorded accurately.

See http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/youngstown.htm">DEFAULT SETTINGS IN MAHONING COUNTY by Richard Hayes Phillips

He also states that
"Mahoning County utilized ES&S Ivotronic touch screen machines. The administrative password for these machines was reported on the ES&S website itself. By default, the password is 1111."
So it is fairly easy to alter "default values and calibrations".

Black Box Voting did a FOIA in Palm Beach Co. in 2004 for the Dre logs and found that nearly 1500 of the 4500 Dre's had to be recalibrated during the election.

There's also less risk of doing time in prison for machine calibration than vote switching.

Could a tech person give me feedback on this idea to see if it's credible?

I plan to do an information campaign on e-voting here in France, and this would be one argument, although minor, that I could use.

[ponthedge]

224. Confusion begets rewards of the disenfranchised...

To fully appreciate the beauty of their tactic one must agree that the level of early voting problems is already highlighting the issue that our vote will not count. How funny!

Think! The real tactic here is to disenfranchise before the election. Why vote at all? We already lost. I wonder how many people reading stories like this will fail to vote because they just don't want to deal with the hassle...there will be some, rest assured.

Rove is a genius. A mad hatter evil genius. Is it truly his plan to disenfranchise the voters BEFORE they even vote?

As for the skin oil argument, uhumm, I have programmed industrial touch-screens for manufacturing for years now and even in the dirtiest conditions there has never been a problem like the ones that are being bandied about here in this forum. The problem, if it exists, is solely due to the design of the system. Therefore, any problems are known and more than likely exacerbated by the designers. Diebold is not a neophyte outfit with very little QA, they know what they are doing and they did it on the cheap and they did it poorly.

And we will pay for their errors...