Mark Crispin Miller: Irregularities in California Race!!

[DEMActivist]

IRREGULARITIES IN CALIFORNIA RACE!!

Long-shot candidates do startlingly well in Tulare County

DIEBOLD MACHINES YIELD FISHY RESULTS!!

My friend in South Carolina writes:

I ran a number crunch of CA counties that use Diebold machines to cast/count votes and found some weird figures that show a skim of votes from top candidates to people who were unlikely to affect the outcome. I did my hand calculator work on the California election results (from the secretary of state's site) when 96% of precincts had reported. The website showed:

Counties using Diebold Touchscreens:
Alemeda, Plumas

Counties using Diebold Optiscan:
Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Placer, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Trinity, Tulare.

There were a total of 1,403,375 votes cast in these counties combined. The CA total was 7,842,630 at this stage of the count. Thus 17.89% of all the state votes were cast/counted on Diebold equipment.

I had earlier noticed some lower order candidates (ones who couldn't affect the result) were getting unusually large numbers of votes in Tulare county. I decided to test to see if the these and other 'fringe' candidates might be used to receive skimmed votes in other Diebold counties.

http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

[Cha]

1. Kick

:kick:

[Spazito]

2. Wow!

That is astounding! I wondered myself why the fringe candidates were getting the votes they were getting.

[chascarrillo]

3. Something's fishy, and it's not Diebold

Just glancing over this, it looks like a bunch of half-baked conclusions. One to tide you over: Miller claims that Diebold "skimmed" the votes from the higher-profile candidates. However, the %Diebold votes/%Statewide votes for the higher profile candidates are above average as well, save for Schwarzenegger who is down a percentage point - but there could well be legitimate factors for it.

This is hardly a valid statistical examination of Diebold counties. It would be interesting to see a proper study done of this, but I can say for certain that this report isn't a proper study.

[KittyWampus]

7. Miller's Methodology Is Wrong?

I'm just asking.... my grasp os statistics is non-existant

[chascarrillo]

9. Just not exhaustive enough

I think that the way he attempted to check results could be good. However, it's just a small piece of the puzzle. And it looks like he selected the data to fit his conclusions.

For example, he only examines a handful of the 135 candidates' totals. It almost seems like he cherrypicked 10 small-profile candidates to prove his assertion. If you were doing an actual statistical analysis of voting patterns in Diebold counties, you'd examine and list every one of the 135 candidates.

[gasperc]

21. yeah, it needs to be more exhaustive but #'s in Tulare = #'s in LA

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/gov/01.htm#cty

I went and looked at the actuals in Tulare, Pulmas and LA counties. Pulmas is small, single digit stuff. But in Tulare, alot of the totals for the other 120 candidates are close to numbers in LA county but LA has ALOT more voters so statistically it doesn't jive. More exhaustive research could show a pattern. There could have been a test of some "death star" type SW, like ENRON used.
Remember the energy crisis started kinda small in San Diego county in the summer of 2000 before it exploded in the winter of 2001. Enron saw watch it market clogging software could do in 8/2000 and went full tilt by Jan/2001

PS what's Bev talking about, other's news, put it in the public domain, does she want us to post our findings at news outlets??

[KittyWampus]

4. My First Commentary On the CA. Race

I believe it was the electronic machines.... and its not because I don't want to "face facts"

The blitz around Arnold was the same as what surrounded Junior in 2000.

They TOTALLY blew past any semblance of pretending to count votes and just made it seem inevitable.

[qanda]

5. Very interesting.

I thought that something didn't sound right about the numbers when I heard them this morning.

[DEMActivist]

10. Thanks! (about the all caps) and....

Let's not forget that the exact same thing happened with Diebold machines in Florida in 2000.

Al Gore got -16,024 votes and all the minor candidate totals added up to 16,026 votes.

In the presidential balloting in Volusia County, Candidate James E. Harris garnered 9,888 votes out of his statewide total of 10,469. Candidate Howard Phillips got 2,927 votes in Volusia of his statewide total of 4,280. And Candidate Harry Browne received 3,211 Volusia votes, by far his best county showing in the state where he totaled 18,856.

Add up these three minor party candidates' votes in Volusia County and they total 16,026.

Now, remember the unusually high presidential-to-senate total vote difference of 19,257 in Volusia. The difference between that number and the 16,026 votes the three minor party candidates got is 3,231, or just about what the difference appears to be (on a percentage basis) in the other Florida counties between president and senate votes cast.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3A0AE5D6.9B210A64%40excite.com

[Boom_cha]

6. Definitely fishy...

but the number of votes involved (i.e., the total votes received by these lowerr-order candidates) is minuscule.

[punpirate]

15. Well, the problem is...

... that while it seems fishy, if one adds all the votes for candidates below the top three, there are 495,487 votes there--not nearly enough to make up for 1.31 million votes Bustamante lost to the Austrian asshole.

And, it would have been a lot of work to shuffle votes for that many candidates (although, given the time it took counties with Diebold equipment to actually begin reporting, one would wonder). I haven't yet found solid explanations for why Diebold counties took so long to report.

Moving vote totals from Bustamante to Schwarzenegger, or from Bustamante to McClintock would have been simpler and quicker.

What I find more disturbing are these three items. I have not been able to find a hard count on the number of provisional ballots cast, nor a hard count of the total ballots cast. In the link below, the estimates are 500,000 to 1,500,000, and considering the problems with reduced numbers of polling places, I would guess that number would be on the high side.

Second, I am wondering why the election offices, for the purposes of verifying absentees, up to 28 days, but the state is now predicting ten days:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/2003_cert_timeline.htm

This is a very specific timeline.

Third, I am wondering about the fairly large swings between vote totals for the four questions, yes/no @ 7,974,741, candidates @ 7,697,807, prop. 53 @ 7,422,337, and prop. 54 @ 7,722,828. In one instance, that's a difference of ~550,000 votes.

The cumulative effect of all these things might be considerable.

Cheers.

[4dog]

8. A careful analysis will take a while longer.

In the mean time, read Bev Harris's discussion on missing election reports in CA (link below). Don't forget, there are plenty of well-practiced vote-stealing procedures that predate electronic voting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=496859&mesg_id=49685

[greenwow]

14. Sigh

> A careful analysis will take a while longer.

True, but they won't allow it. They only allow 39 days for the election to be certified. That isn't long enough to investigate all of the laws that were broken. Damn repug theives are going to get away with yet another one.

[hang a left]

34. Link is not working

[KoKo]

11. Well, just read article in WaPo tonight saying the media has known for

days that Aunold was going to win. Hmmmm.......

Since California has a Democratic Legislature, and many top Democratic officials, it would seem that someone would be sympathetic to Miller's speculation.

[DEMActivist]

12. Not Mark's numbers - a Bartcopper, actually

Faun Otter over at Bartcop - who has been researching these machines as long as I have.

Please note this line at the top of the blog:

My friend in South Carolina writes:

[Nlighten1]

22. What do you make of this?

I know you and Bev have been looking at these Liebold machines for some time now. Have you done the math on the numbers from California yet?

[DEMActivist]

23. My personal opinion is that it all fits historically

I'm not at all surprised.

I really think the electronic voting machine vendors NEED elections to check if the software will do what they programmed them to do.

Is it possible that the programs need to be tested thoroughly before the 2004 election? Was California "practice" for the big theft? California was the best place for a serious alpha test wasn't it? They have ALL the vendors in California, don't they?

I think it's probable that the recall was about MUCH more than Arnold or Gray Davis.

They need to be absolutely POSITIVE they can pull it off, and get away with it, in 2004.....perfecting the method....

on edit:
Further, they just had a major revision certified in May 2003 and needed an election to ensure it was functioning as planned/programmed.

[Junkdrawer]

32. Indeed, CA has so many electoral votes...

all Rove may need is to rig CA. And the spin could be as simple as Arnold's coattails.

[LeahMira]

39. Good questions!

Is it possible that the programs need to be tested thoroughly before the 2004 election? Was California "practice" for the big theft? California was the best place for a serious alpha test wasn't it? They have ALL the vendors in California, don't they?


Far as I'm concerned, if Californians are happy now and will quit complaining, let them deal with Arnold as they see fit. But I do think that the issue of the machines is one that needs serious attention. I hope we can separate that issue from the issue of who seems to have won. All we need is for Republicans to accuse us all of sour grapes and deflect attention from the real concern, i.e. the machines.

Are there any other elections coming up anywhere in the country, even school board elections, where a closer look at the machines could happen?

[Eloriel]

41. The people involved

with rigging elections aren't going to be intereested in school board elections. Trust me.

And I'm sorry to break the news to you, but "the issue of who seems to have won" is THE issue about voting machines. For one thing, that's the basis of most legal challenges.

Eloriel

[Zorra]

13. Absentee ballot totals: does anyone know

what they are? I can't find any info, and I believe a lot of Dems voted w/ absentee ballots to avoid the black boxes.

[hang a left]

35. not just the absentee ballots but the provisional ones as well

[TruthIsAll]

16. WTF!Bustamante only gets 19% in Diebold counties with 53% Dem registration

They must have stolen it primarily in heavily democratic Alameda!

Diebold Registration
County Dem Rep Ind Green

Alameda 369 130 10 15
Fresno 148 151 6 1
Humboldt 33 22 2 1
Kern 98 124 6 1
Lassen 5 6 1 1
Marin 70 36 2 4
Placer 47 79 3 1
Plumas 4 5 1 0
San Joa 110 110 4 1
SanLuOb 48 61 3 2
SantaBar78 72 4 3
Trinity 3 3 0 0
Tulare 47 61 2 1
Diebold Totals
1060 860 44 35
53.03% 43.02% 2.20% 1.75%

State Totals
6825 5388 299 155
44.60% 35.21% 1.96% 1.02%

State total 7,842,630.
Cast in Diebold counties 1,403,375
17.89% of the total votes cast.
Schwarzenegger 581,145 3,552,787 16.36%

Bustamante 447,008 2,379,740 18.78% Were Busta's votes sprinkled around like Gore in Volusia?

McLintock 186,923 979,234 19.08%
Camejo 39,199 207,270 18.9%
Huffington 7,498 42,131 17.79%
Ueberoth 3365 21378 15.74%
Flynt 2384 15010 15.88%
Coleman 1869 12443 15.02%
Simon 1351 7648 17.66%
Palmieri 2542 3717 68.3% <WTF
Louie 598 3198 18.7%
Kunzman 1957 2133 91.75% <<WTF
Roscoe 325 1941 16.7%
Sprague 1026 1576 65.10% <<WTF
Macaluso 592 1504 39.36% <<WTF
Price 477 1011 47.18% <<WTF
Quinn 220 433 50.8% <<WTF
Martorana 165 420 39.28% <<WTF
Gosse 60 419 14.3%

[BevHarris]

17. Each of your items is reporting someone else's news.

Strange. You and your team have a whole bunch of new Georgia research. We are all eagerly awaiting your placing this critically important information in the public domain, where it belongs.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. Tulare and cell phones

Didn't I read in a post that Tulare was one of the Diebold counties that was reached by cell phone?

[moondust]

19. Isn't somebody going to demand a recount in these places?

I've heard that the bar is set pretty low on who can demand a recount and why.

[KittyWampus]

20. Demanding A Recount In At Least ONE Diebold County

Would be good for some headlines, wouldn't it?

I bow to the staticians that can crunch numbers!

[DEMActivist]

24. Is the counting completed?

I think officials said it would be several days before all the ballots (including absentee) were counted.

Does California law allow a recount request before the counting is finished?

[punpirate]

27. Certainly, the counting is not complete...

... given the number of absentees yet to be counted, along with the significant number of provisional ballots to be verified and counted.

If you go to the CA SoS site, they do have a timeline for certification of the vote, which can extend as far out as 28 days from the election.

As for recount demands, I would guess they would have to be filed, as in most places, prior to the date the SoS certifies the statewide vote.

Cheers.

[DEMActivist]

28. Perhaps niave, but....

wouldn't one need to wait for absentee (at least) before asking for a recount?

Asking for a recount before you reasonably know where you stand would be foolish AND appear petty, wouldn't it?

[punpirate]

29. Not necessarily...

... but I suppose it would depend upon the justification given for the need of a recount. Here's the timeline details:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/2003_cert_timeline.htm

One would have to watch cumulative returns from today through Nov. 4th to determine if the absentees and provisionals had been counted, and whether or not those votes would make a stronger case for a recount, I suppose.

I think the key to this is the number of provisional ballots--there's not been any count published of them--only guesses from state election officials. If those somehow bring the totals very close in the next few days, someone ought to challenge the results.

Cheers.

[Chamfer]

26. Nah. Demanding a recount would be a PR disaster.

The election was a massacre. Demanding a recount in any county would appear petty, and I think there would be a backlash. You only recount when it has a chance to help you win.

[hang a left]

36. How about just revoting in the counties of Alameda and

Los Angeles using punch cards, to see if the data jives.

on edit: Who gives a crap what it looks like we are talking about voting here for damn's sake. If there is even a chance that they are manipulating the votes let's find out now for sure before 2004

[shance]

48. Welcome to Electronic Voting. Where recounts can change at the touch of a

button.

This is of course shows us why Electronic Voting is a license for fraud and abuse.

[BikeDeck]

50. Anyone can call for a recount

Any California citizen can demand a recount be done. It only takes one person. But heres the catch. The person how demands the recount be done has to foot the bill for the recount!

[tinanator]

25. no way did all these losers pick up 1000 or so votes

http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/gov/00.htm

This is a sign of monkey business to me. Id say votes were shuffled in two directions because there was so much opposition.

[Junkdrawer]

30. GEMS Manual entry screens...

GEMS (Global Election Management System) is the program which collates the votes of touchscreen, optical scan, and even punchcard ballots. In theory, CA precincts are supposed to print (and post for public viewing) the precinct totals from all these methods BEFORE they send the results to GEMS for subtotaling. In theory. In practice we are seeing that the reports are not being posted.

The result of this is that a malicious insider can change the numbers in GEMS before they are released to the public. There are several ways this could be done. Indeed, GEMS seems to be purpose built for such a task – multiple counting tables (sets of "books"), open Access database, and erasable, non-autoincrement audit logs. (See: Inside A U.S. Election Vote Counting Program ) Indeed, there is a manual entry/manual edit screen built right into GEMS that would allow any of the precinct numbers to be changed anyway the editor desires. There are only two constraints:

1.) The end numbers have to add up to the turnout total
2.) There is an audit entry made in the audit log.

The first constraint may be why we are seeing these minor candidates with large totals – rob from Bustamante, give to Palmieri et al.

The second constraint is overcome as simply as opening the vote database in Access and deleting the log entry. And because the audit table does not have autoincrement keys, not a trace is left.

Now, in the case of optical scan and punchcard, if the editing is large enough, caught, and if a big enough stink is made, a recount is possible. (In Volusia County Florida, this was done in 2000, AFTER the Democrats won a hard fought court case.) As for touchscreens, well if the PCMCIA vote cards haven’t been erased or altered, maybe one could get a “recount”. Maybe.

[shance]

47. Thats no theory Junkdrawar. Posting results after close is California LAW

n/t

[Junkdrawer]

49. Bev called the SOS yesterday and his office said that...

the PROCEDURE is to print and post the reports, but that there is no LAW that requires it. If there is, you should contact Bev.

[Spazito]

31. The AP article has hit Yahoo, is #3....

Some Voters Skeptical of E-voting Systems

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&e=3&u=/ap/recall_electronic_voting

[Capn Sunshine]

42. by all means, vote for it

keep this in front of the Yahoo audience if nothing else.

[Junkdrawer]

33. Kick

:kick:

[Wickerman]

38. Kick

nice discussion, keep it kicked

[bearfan454]

37. Kick !

[noiretextatique]

40. kick for alameda county

something is screwy with the numbers here :bounce:

[republicansareevil]

43. This reminds me of the old penny-skimming scam

In Office Space, Superman III, and probably some other movies, there is a plan to steal large amounts of money by skimming just fractions of pennies from multiple accounts. This is sort of the reverse: they add small numbers of votes to a large number of candidates by skimming those votes from a specific targeted candidate. Makes it hard to detect...

[Kelvin Mace]

44. Just my observation

The numbers need to be evaluated by a mathematician/statistician, probably several. If we are to make a claim of a rigged election, the evidence needs to be bullet-proof, iron-clad and air-tight, with belt AND suspenders.

Anything less will be laughed at and we will lose credibility.


Diebold AccuVote Ingredients

Taxpayer money.................$5000
Security Flaws....................328
Critical Security Flaws.........26
CEO commitments to
deliver election to GOP........1
Tamper-proof Paper ballots...0
Tamper-friendly digital
ballots................................At least 32MB
Your actual vote..................None of your business.

[hang a left]

45. kick

[WaterDog]

46. I thought the numbers are funny

Kick:kick: