Kansas Statistician Blocked By Court From Accessing Voting Machines' Paper Trail

[mhatrw]

http://bradblog.com/?p=11590

As we saw last night, the Nevada GOP, wisely, used hand-marked paper ballots, publicly counted at each caucus precinct. And now, Wichita University mathematician Beth Clarkson, PhD, head of the school's National Institute for Aviation Research, is calling for the same thing for Kansas elections, in light of a state court ruling last week barring her from accessing so-called "paper trails" from the state's touch-screen voting systems as used in their 2014 elections. "I am becoming more and more convinced that we need to go with an entirely paper ballot system --- and hand-counted," she tells me, while noting that optical-scan computers may "provide fast results, but you have to verify them --- which we're not doing. I think to have full transparency for all citizens, you need to have a hand-count of paper ballots."

...

She details the basis for her lawsuit which attempts a recount of a ballot measure from the 2014 election following a statistical analysis of the results which, says she, confirms a theory initially reported by two other statisticians in 2012 [PDF]. According to their study, computer-reported results from larger precincts, with more than 500 voters, reveal a "consistent" statistical increase in votes for the Republican candidates in general elections. That increase in votes runs counter to expectations for more densly populated jurisdictions. (Clarkson explains the theory in more detail during my previous BradCast interview with her from August 2015.) Last week a state Judge allowed her recount case to move forward, but denied the motion by her new lawyer, former US Attorney Randy Rathbun, to allow her to review the "Real Time Audit Logs" (RTALs, also known as "Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails" or VVPATs in other states) from the voting machines used in the 2014 election, thus defeating the entire point of her challenge.

"My analysis only shows that there's something there we don't understand. It does not show cause. I think that manipulation of voting machines is the most probable cause, but I could be wrong on that. But the only way to know is to look. And not being allowed to look is, in many ways, a more serious issue." Clarkson has now been blocked from viewing the RTAL's now in both her public records request and recount lawsuit. "It seems to me that either I should be able to look at them under the Open Records Act or I should be able to examine them as part of a recount. You can't have it both ways, but apparently they can."

She goes on to offer her thoughts on why the state, including GOP "voter fraud" fraudster turned Sec. of State Kris Kobach, would be working so hard to block her attempt at oversight of election results; the unprecedented support she has received from the public for her case; and whether last week's state court ruling will now be appealed. By the way, the very same, oft-failed, unverifiable touch-screens in question --- the ES&S iVotronics --- will be used once again across the state of South Carolina during this weekend's Democratic Presidential Primary. You can follow Clarkson's progress on her case at her ShowMeTheVotes.org website.

[-none]

1. As mentioned, only verifiable paper and pencil ballots has to be used in elections.

With limited to no over-site in the use of electronic, touch screen voting machines, we have no real way to verify anything. The people lose, the people owning and controlling the machines win.

[questionseverything]

2. we the people have lost control or oversight of our own elections

the output from sc says hc won big but honestly, who knows?

the blackboxes that people "vote" on are owned by 1%ers

the website that reports the "results" are owned by 1%ers

as we are seeing in kansas, the little people have no right to even see the "paperwork" behind those "results"

tomorrow on super tuesday, we will see similar "output"

following link is from 2010 but nothing has changed


http://bradblog.com/?p=7875


A total of 1,465 votes seem to have suddenly showed up in the Dem Senate race! And then there are the disappearing votes in the Republican race...

more from that link...

2,699 Republican votes have now disappeared! There were reportedly 2,793 Republican voters on May 19th, but just 94 as of May 25th! Neat trick!

To top it all off, even after all of these mystery adjustments, the "total votes" cast in Monroe County as of May 21st, as shown above, is said to be 2,159 --- so, despite the radical change in results, the county's 0% undervote rate stayed intact. Every single voter who cast a vote in either the Republican or Democratic Primary election on May 18th voted in the Senate election, at least according to the Arkansas Sec. of State.

The "good" news? In the CD1 race, while the number of Republican voters has dropped by 229 (to 89 total) and the number of Democratic votes has increased by 60 (to 1,920 total), at least there are not now more Democratic votes than physically possible, as with the county's original numbers on May 19th.

So What The Hell Is Going On?

It's taken a week or so of going from one election official to another to to unwind the mess, and only some of the anomalies detailed above were finally explained.

In trying to sort it all out, The BRAD BLOG spoke to a clerk at the Secretary of State's office, the State's Director of Elections and, on the local level, the Monroe County Clerk, Election Commissioner and Elections Coordinator. None of them were able to explain the most troubling aspect of the numbers.

[brooklynite]

10. "the output from sc says hc won big but honestly, who knows? "

...because it simply isn't possible that voters would overwhelmingly WANT Hillary Clinton, right?

Perhaps the fact that Bernie Sanders chose not to contest the results, which were consistent with all recent polling, should answer your question?

[questionseverything]

16. truthfully no one knows who the voters want because the system is undemocratic

if elections can not be overseen by regular citizens from beginning to end, they are nothing more than "output"

i noticed you changed your tune from...no pol has ever questioned, complained about results to bernie has not complained

since i pointed out judge rawl in sc did contest his primary to no avail


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027647260

http://www.sweetremedy.tv/fatallyflawed/media/RTA_Fraud_Flyer_3_7_12.pdf

judge rawl from sc took his case to the sc democratic party but they sided with non transparency

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7899

super Tuesday election results spin for days after the 2010 primary

http://bradblog.com/?p=7875

2,699 Republican votes have now disappeared! There were reportedly 2,793 Republican voters on May 19th, but just 94 as of May 25th! Neat trick!

To top it all off, even after all of these mystery adjustments, the "total votes" cast in Monroe County as of May 21st, as shown above, is said to be 2,159 --- so, despite the radical change in results, the county's 0% undervote rate stayed intact. Every single voter who cast a vote in either the Republican or Democratic Primary election on May 18th voted in the Senate election, at least according to the Arkansas Sec. of State.

The "good" news? In the CD1 race, while the number of Republican voters has dropped by 229 (to 89 total) and the number of Democratic votes has increased by 60 (to 1,920 total), at least there are not now more Democratic votes than physically possible, as with the county's original numbers on May 19th.

[HickFromTheTick]

3. Crooked Elections are the ONLY reason to have electronic-only voting systems.

This whole corrupt election system was enabled by the hanging chad scam, and you rubes keep letting it happen cuz 'Murica.
Banana republic bullshit. The credibility of the American electoral system is a big fat 0. Doesn't matter who runs at all, the choice is made and the charade is for the punters only.

[Enthusiast]

6. You have nailed it!

[L. Coyote]

4. What? "a theory initially reported by two other statisticians in 2012"

First of all, hypothesis and theory are confused by people you might as well quit listening to.

Second, the hypothesis in question is totally bogus, the suit has no basis, and the court is correct.

Third, we still need transparency in voting systems or we have no democracy. Being right about that does not make you immune to going off on a bogus hypothesis that was introduced into the election integrity movement to ratfuck it.

[tkmorris]

5. I have no real idea if her hypothesis is bogus

If it is, I would certainly like to know that. However you have offered no evidence to support your claim that it is.

If I find the time perhaps I will look into her claims in detail, insofar as I am able. Your post would have been a great deal more useful if it had provided some reasoning for your conclusions, or at least some detail what those conclusions ARE, beyond a mere dismissal.

[L. Coyote]

9. This is the problem, people who don't know want those who do to follow up for them.

Better to first know what you are talking about, then comment. Even Clarkson doesn't know. No wonder she is denied by the court. She can't make a showing.

Those of us who do know shouldn't have to spend our time at nauseum repeating the same thing over and over again every time another person pops up. It is like playing wack a mole. So what if you answer the question, it never goes away.

Don't feel bad, she has no idea either (but she files a lawsuit anyway).

[mhatrw]

7. Why should any court bar a citizen from confirming the results of an election?

please elucidate ...

[L. Coyote]

8. I have not read the court ruling. I know they didn't create a barrier, they just rule on the law.

Kansas law governs the proceedings.

[mhatrw]

11. So why are you defending a ruling against confirming election results when you do not

even know its legal basis?

Don't you agree that it would be in in public interest to confirm that the election results recorded by electronic voting machines match the voter verified paper ballots that are printed out expressly because of public concerns about the reliability of electronic voting machines?

[L. Coyote]

12. I'm criticizing a bogus hypothesis duping people.

Election integrity is a mixture of intrigue and activism. Not all is what it appears on the surface because crimes really are afoot. The criminals want you to watch the other hand, as usual. So beware the bullshitters and their slick cons--and the donate buttons. And watch out for the well-intentioned being duped by the bullshitters.

[mhatrw]

13. So explain why we should not be allowed to audit the specific voting machine trends shown.

https://www.statslife.org.uk/significance/politics/2288-how-trustworthy-are-electronic-voting-systems-in-the-us

[L. Coyote]

14. Actually, the showing is the responsibility of the petitioner.

Since no one can make a showing, let's move on to a real problem. Or, can you perhaps.

[mhatrw]

15. I am trying to discuss this in good faith. Are you?

If you are, please explain your antipathy to Clarkson's hypothesis that her data analysis by voting machine type by precinct size may be indicative of manipulated results in some types of voting machines.

I just want to know why you called her hypothesis bogus.

[L. Coyote]

17. We've covered that in detail before here. Precinct size correlates to Republican voters

and a guy says that indicates they cheat on every election he has studies. Actually, it indicated there are larger precincts in Republican areas, the mega-church correlation. The fake model, designed to introduce this kind of havoc, is called cumulative vote share. It is so simplistically stupid, I can't fathom why anyone would fall for it, except wishful thinking does that.

Oh yeah, the guy makes his living selling books with his bogus crap.

[mhatrw]

18. I agree about the guys. Their paper is not persuasive.

I don't agree about Beth Clarkson. Clarkson broke it out by voting machine model, and her data is far more compelling.

https://www.statslife.org.uk/significance/politics/2288-how-trustworthy-are-electronic-voting-systems-in-the-us

I also see no reason to think that Clarkson is a ratfucker or in this for the money. And I see no reason whatsoever not to audit supposedly fairly counted votes, regardless of whether her data can potentially be explained in some other manner.