You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #213: Regarding the Mebane piece. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Dynasty_At_Passes Donating Member (254 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #194
213. Regarding the Mebane piece.
"He concluded that precinct-tabulated optical scanned ballots produced fewer over-votes than any other type of ballot,"

But the problem is he stated this would have ENSURED GORE WON THE ELECTION BY 30,000 VOTES when the very opposite is true.

This is the red flag I'm talking about.

"A "faulty memory card" was cited as the cause by the manufacturer. Experts and Diebold's own technical staff dismissed this as implausible for substansively the same reasons cited by the author:

"A memory card is like a floppy disk. If you have worked with computers for any length of time you will know that a disk can go bad. When it does, which of the following is most likely? In an Excel spreadsheet that you saved on a 'bad disk,' might it read a column of numbers correct the first time: '1005, 2109, 3000, 450...' but the second time, replace the numbers like this: '1005, 2109, -16022, 450...' Or is it more likely that the 'bad disk' will ... fail to read the file at all, crash your computer, give you an error message, or make weird humming and whirring noises."'

Diebold internal emails:

Ken Clark (Diebold ES R&D Manager) January 18, 2001 1:41 PM
"My understanding is that the card was not corrupt after (or before) upload.
They fixed the problem by clearing the precinct and re-uploading the same card.
So neither of these explainations washes. That's not to say I have any idea what
actually happened, its just not either of those ... The problem is its going to be
very hard to collect enough data to really know what happened. The card isn't
corrupt so we can't post-mortem it (its not mort)."



John McLaurin - Diebold ES - 18 Jan 2001 15:44:50
"...the negative numbers ... occurred when Lana attempted to reupload a card or
duplicate card. Sophia and Tab may be able to shed some light here, keeping in
mind that the boogie man may me reading our mail. Do we know how this could occur?"



Tab Iredale - Diebold ES - 18 Jan 2001 13:31
The problem precinct had two memory cards uploaded ... on the same port approx.
1 hour apart. As far as I know there should only have been one memory card uploaded.
I asked you to check this out when the problem first occurred but have not heard back
as to whether this is true. Given that we transfer data in ascii form not binary and
given the way the data was 'invalid' the error could not have occurred during transmission.
Therefore the error could only occur in one of four ways:
...
<4> There is always the possiblity that the 'second memory card' or 'second upload'
came from an un-authorised source.



John McLaurin Diebold ES - Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:56:06
I will be visiting with Lana on Monday and will ascertain the particulars related
to the second memory card. One concern Ive had all along is 'if' we are getting
the full story from Lana.
("Lana" is Lana Hires, the Volusia election employee described by Blackboxvoting as "particularly unhappy about seeing the Black Box Voting investigators in the office" in Nov 2004, described by BBV as having initially rejected their request to visit the warehouse containing election voting data, and "ordered them out")

BBV summary of Diebold memo's:

"What we know from the memos can be summarised as follows...

Two memory cards were uploaded from Volusia Couny's precinct 216, the second one was loaded sometime close to 2am in the morning. It automatically replaced the first card's results and reduced Gore's total by 16,022 votes and added several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates;
Both memory cards loaded into the system clean and without errors, indicating (contrary to the official line) that they were not faulty;
After the error was noticed the original card was reloaded and the mistake was rectified;
The error was introduced in such a way that the total number of votes remained unchanged (again something that could not happen by chance);
According to the technical boffins, the chance of the memory card being corrupted and still passing the checksum error test are less than 60,000 to 1;
The technical managers at Diebold Election Systems considered it a reasonable possibility that the second card was part of deliberate conspiracy to rig the election results." "

http://www.answers.com/topic/2004-u-s-presidential-elec...

Now, Mebane says that the optical-scan machine would have given Gore the election based on its ability to filter out overvotes. This is false, because it was this very optical-scan machine which virtually costed Gore the election. 16,000 votes in the deciding chapter, were lost by a "blamed memory card" Theresa LaPore says referring to Diebold. However the memory card was switched, and was proven to not be faulty. So someone basically deleted 16,000 votes at least, which erases Gore's margin, and it was the optical scanner who was the culprit in 2000.

This is a very serious distinction which harms Mebane's credibility immediately, because he gusses on the probability of Gore's win without citing the facts. If the optical scanners were really better and a lesser liability than the other system, it would not have costed these politicians the race. The fact is it is just as insecure, because the memory cards can be preprogrammed to alter and delete votes. That is what Diebold did here and Mebane does not even scan over it, hence why his argument about the Al Gore race falls apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC