What if Triad inserted stage 2 program

[mirrera]

I am not a programmer, so bear with me. I have been trying to get my mind around what "cheat" the Triad employees who tampered with machines in Ohio, could have been doing. It wouldn't make sense to "clean" the machine, because all the counties are ultimately re-counted. The goal for cheaters would be to NOT hand count Ohio so that they retain control of the vote. My understanding is that they wanted the 3% that they were required to hand count and then run through the machines, (in order to see if the machines were accurate and could be used instead hand counting the rest of the county) to not be over 500 ballots. What if that was requested so they could install a new program that is set to be clean, up to 600 ballots, and then go back to setting fixed percentages for certain candidates? No one wants to re-count by hand, the cheaters for obvious reasons, and election workers because it is Christmas and it sucks. So it would be easy to convince election workers that what you are doing is going to help them get out of there earlier. We are lucky Sherole Eaton came forward. This really is just a conspiracy theory on my part, and I am using the words with out a smirk. I am interested in what people think these techs did, because no one is answering Triads statements about it being normal to re-program a machine to count only one candidate. I am interested in other people's THEORIES about what is possible, since I am not a programmer. I believe some kind of computer cheating happened, but I would have thought a hacking job more likely.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

1. I know nothing about programming either, but

the red flag went up in my mind, too, when they said or implied that it was normal to re-program a machine to count only one candidate. What is the big deal about letting the machine recount all the votes? Would it have taken that much longer? So some of the info is irrelevant to this particular recount. What difference should that make to Triad or anyone else?

[mirrera]

2. Exactly

But I am not sure what the protocol is. Someone needs to find out if that IS a normal procedure. If it is, it should be stopped for obvious legal reasons. If it isn't normal operating procedure, then Triads defense should be debunked. Another thing is, why not re-count all races since you are re-counting anyway.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

3. Since the only hand recount they would have to do would be

for President, really shouldnt make that much difference, timewise to have all recounted by machine. This just (obviously) seems like a sneaky excuse to temper with the machines...I am sure Arnebeck, et al, are onto this, and it will be interesting to hear what they have to say.

[gulogulo]

11. "What is the big deal about letting the machine recount all the votes?"

I believe the Ohio law states that the recounts HAS to count only the contested election, and no others. That is why the machines had to be adjusted to count only one election.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

19. I see--thanks -nt

[electropop]

51. that's not a sufficient excuse to tamper with the software

OK, so they only need to count one portion of each ballot. If other parts are counted, they just don't have to publish the rest of the tally table. Which seems slimy to me, but that's the law.

[gulogulo]

55. AFAIK, the law says

that you actually are NOT allowed to COUNT other races, not just not allowed to publish them.

[electropop]

56. does the law say anything about code-swapping?

This is just one more area where it appears the enemy has studied every line of the law and come up with ways to circumvent it. New federal laws are desperately needed.

[gulogulo]

57. electropop - yes, new laws are needed

but they expressly cannot be federal laws. Federal authorities have no jurisdiction over the states in electoral methodology. Each state is free to decide for itself how its elections are run.

[electropop]

62. That's not what Conyers and other Members believe

They passed a law allowing 18 year olds to vote before they passed the amendment, and there was no problem in the Supreme Court. They have every right to claim Federal jurisdiction over Federal elections.

[Pierre de Fermat]

29. One obvious reason to exlude all but the president in the recount is:

When I voted (I live in Raleigh, NC) there was about 40 different choices on the ballot that I had to make. Some choices were national in scale - for example, US president, US senator and US house. Some choices were at the state level - for example, Governor and state house and senate representatives. Some of the choices I had to make were local - for example, sheriff and school board. Finally, there were 5 or 6 bond issues I had to negotiate.

Folks, it takes 40 times longer to process and write 40 voter choices to the hard disk than it does to process and write one voter choice (president) to the hard disk. This is true no matter how fast the computer is. If the only race of interest is the presidential race, why process the other 39 voter choices ?

Now consider the following:

By their own admission, the BOE says the computer is 14 years old. At best, that computer has a 60 MHz Pentium processor. It might even be pre-Pentium a 386 or 486. Such a computer bears no relationship whatsoever to the computer sitting in front of you right now, when it comes to disk read/write operations per second and processing power. The time it would take to process and write all 40 voter choices on the ballot to the hard disk of a legacy computer like this is significantly more than the time it would take to record a single voter (president) choice to disk.

There are other reasons totally unrelated to processor speed and disk read/write speeds that it would make sense not to recount other races that aren't in dispute. Would you like me to share them ?

[gulogulo]

32. "There are other reasons totally unrelated to processor speed"

One such reason would be Ohio elections statutes forbidding re-counting any election but the one that is being contested in the recount request.

[electropop]

53. Puh-leaze

even a dog of an old computer will record the punched holes (I think that's what we're talking about here) faster than the reader can pull the next card through.

[eomer]

4. Conspiracy?

All of the 88 BOEs followed the same approach to the recount (or at least all of them as far as I know). None of them followed the written rules. All of them violated the rules in the same way, which was to refuse to select the 3% precincts randomly and then to force the 3% machine and hand counts to match in order to avoid the full county hand recount. And this is known for a fact, regardless of whether the full county machine count itself was fraudulent.

This violation of the rules in order to achieve a certain result seems to me to be an illegal rigging of the recount. Even if the motivation by some of the BOE officials was to have time to go Christmas shopping, the actions taken were still illegal.

So we have all 88 BOEs illegally rigging the recount the same way. This result is only possible if there was an orchestrated effort to get all the BOEs to take this approach. Someone obviously coached or directed the 88 BOEs on how to illegally rig the recount. This is called a conspiracy.

[mirrera]

8. I agree, plenty of laws broken...

And every crime by it's very definition is a conspiracy. A planned illegal plot. The only reason I put my idea forth as a conspiracy theory, is that it is one. And I am sick of the media adding meaning to those two words. Anytime we come up with an idea of how this crime was done, it is no different from a policeman standing over a dead body and trying to figure out who did it. I do not want us to become afraid to share ideas while they are still in the 'what if ' stage. I am trying to get some ideas about what may have happened. Until proof comes out all we have is theories ("Not that there is anything wrong with that!" As Sienfield used to say...) There were clear violations of the law during this re-count, and the arbitrary definition of "random" was only the tip of the iceberg. I think only one county that I read a report from actually put precincts in a bowl and picked. All the rest picked precincts in order to be close to the 500 mark they had set as the most hand counting they wanted to do to check the machines.
I know there are plenty of grounds for rejecting this re-count as being unfairly done, BUT, my original questions are more about the significance of the tampering. What do we think happened? I really am interested in theories. Every good detective uses them to get to the truth. What do people think the techs did? Many of the observers watched as the machines counted correctly, and in many counties the BOE did not seem to be anything other then election workers doing their job (in some precincts they were awful). I know something is fishy, but I am trying to imagine what the voting companies did that would work with only a few helpers within the system. That is why I was wondering if they had a sort of second stage program that they inserted in the guise of re-calibration. Also is it common in Ohio or elsewhere for machines to be re calibrated for a re-count?

[eomer]

22. "Something that would work with only a few helpers..."

is an important point. Obviously a lot of people helped in some way because there were a lot of people who fudged the manual steps to avoid the full hand recount. But it's hard to believe that all those people thought they were participating in delivering a fraudulent count. So the approach had to be to get a larger number of people to fudge but to make them think the reasons were innocuous. Then a smaller number of people would be in on the real reason for fudging it in just that way.

[mirrera]

26. Exactly!

There is no way all these people are fraudsters. I was a poll watcher in my little town in Maine. I was treated pretty gruffly by this Republican woman who was in charge of the poll books. Not because I was a Democrat, but because to her I was a young wippersnapper that had only lived in town 18 years instead of 3 generations. She was mean but she wasn't a plotter. BUT we did for the first time ever, have a scanner instead of a wooden ballot box (Which could have been stuffed all these years for all I know). They all thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.

[roseBudd]

47. We have to consider that these elderly poll workers & BoE officials

are for the most part probably computer illiterate. They do not realize that software is written by individuals who may have motive and that no pre or post election testing will reveal fraudulent tabulation that may be switched on by time, events or percentages.

Even punch card ballots are tabulated by software written by 1 of 2 companies with GOP preferences.

[Pierre de Fermat]

Ok, then....

...if some are fudging because they were asked to for some innocuous reason, and they had no idea that they were perpetrating fraud, they ought to be willing to talk about it. After all, were just following innocuous instructions. We have their names. There is a $200,000 reward. Surely someone will talk.

[Igel]

42. They may have just not wanted to spend time on it.

Office worker. Usual routine to do. Wants to minimize other stuff. Been there, been like that.

Pick random precincts to meet or exceed 3%, you're likely to exceed 3% by hundreds of votes. Which is to say, 20 minutes that you could spend surfing the net or talking on the phone. Plus all the ancillary costs. And if you think that all's on the up and up, then the recount is a waste of time, esp. if it's obviously not going to help the glibs (i.e., you're convinced that the "real" reason for the recount isn't the reason being touted, but to show you're corrupt).

Also, the more votes you count as the 3% the greater the chance of some mismatch between machine and hand count, all things being equal. And if 3% handcount takes most of a day, 100% handcount would take most of a month--or they'd have to hire more people. And the county supervisor wouldn't like that in most places--they're already raising taxes or cutting services--unless their local constituents care.

[eomer]

44. Talk about what?

We already know what they did. They've already admitted that the 3% precincts were not chosen randomly. They've already admitted to extraordinary measures to force the 3% hand and machine count to match.

What we don't know is the part that they don't know either (according to my theory that you were responding to) - was the machine recount of the whole county rigged and, if so, how?

For that part we can't ask the unwitting participants - we would need one of the smaller number of knowing participants to talk or we would need to examine the physical evidence.

[Pierre de Fermat]

Already, that means 352 involved, half...

democrat, half republican. I wonder how many of these people could use that $200,000 reward for evidence of election fraud ? Maybe they don't know about it ?

[roseBudd]

48. Only a programmer with access to the tabulating program would know

and with literally 1000s of lines of code that would be tedious, or the programmer who wrote the program, and they would not be likely to tell on themselves.

[mirrera]

49. Why 352?

As I have said before, if this is a software issue none of these people need to do anything, or be involved in any way other then what their job description leads them to do. They have already admitted that as part of their contract with these voting companies, there are technicians available through out the whole election process. Even the Technicians do not need to know much. Installing stuff is pretty easy. Due to the variety of computers, I am sure they have to have a wide variety of software versions. They call up their boss at Triad, they say we are re-counting county (a), the boss says o.k. install program 1.2.3. No fraud there. Meanwhile the election officials don't even have to worry about all that computer nonsense. They check the poll books, help Martha with the voting procedure, and get their feelings hurt, or become pissed when people from away start questioning their integrity. Because they haven't done anything wrong! Maybe... I am not talking about some of the more fascist/racist counties, just your average county in America. They don't think there is anything wrong with strangers touching election materials, because we as a country have been asleep, and didn't make it clear that it is unacceptable. We will now.

[Doctor O]

5. I believe that Ohio State law

dictates that only the candidate the office the recount is being done for my be recoutned.

[Junkdrawer]

Wierd. This dupe just appeared with no double post...

:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

6. There's some evidence that the punch card decks were replaced...

with scrubbed decks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=175430&mesg_id=175517&page=

Personally, I think the technicians took evidence of the election day "rig" out of the tabulators. As I said in the above post, I'll bet the "new" tabulators are clean.

[koffison]

7. OMG

This is going to go on just like the Kennedy assassination theories.

Am I the only person here that believes that if we are down to the "technician level" of supporting an Ohio conspiracy, that one of these involved guys would not have a tell all book out by now for 10 million or so? There would be a RACE by some of these guys to get the first book out to cash in. Also, out of the dozens of poeple needed to keep a conspiracy secret, wouldn't the odds of just 1 of them realizing what they are doing is wrong or could make him famous or a lot of dough if he outed it?

The problem with these rediculous conspiracy theories afloat about almost anything in the world is the fact that human beings have to be involved in them and that makes their success or even reality very suspect if not just downright stupid.

[Junkdrawer]

9. Well, this "rediculous conspiracy theory" has eye witnesses and an..

Affidavit from Democratic election workers...

AFFIDAVIT
December 13, 2004
Sherole Eaton
Re: General Election 2004 - Hocking County, TriAd
Dell Computer about 14 years old - No tower

On Friday, December 10 2004, Michael from TriAd called in the AM to inform us that he would be in our office in the PM on the same day. I asked him why he was visiting us. He said, "to check out your tabulator, computer, and that the attorneys will be asking some tricky questions and he wanted to go over some of the questions they maybe ask." He also added that there would be no charge for this service.

He arrived at about 12:30PM. I hung his coat up and it was very heavy. I made a comment about it being so heavy. He, Lisa Schwartze and I chatted for a few minutes. He proceeded to go to the room where our computer and tabulation machine is kept. I followed him into the room. I had my back to him when he turned the computer on. He stated that the computer was not coming up. I did see some commands at the lower left hand of the screen but no menu. He said that the battery in the computer was dead and that the stored information was gone. He said that he could put a patch on it and fix it. My main concern was - what if this happened when we were ready to do the recount. He proceeded to take the computer apart and call his offices to get information to input into our computer. Our computer is fourteen years old and as far as I know had always worked in the past. I asked him if the older computer, that is in the same room. could be used for the recount. I don't remember exactly what he said but I did relay to him that the computer was old and a spare. At some point he asked if he could take the spare computer apart and I said "yes". He took both computers apart. I don't remember seeing any tools and he asked Sue Wallace, Clerk, for a screwdriver. She got it for him. At this point I was frustrated about the computer not performing and feared that it wouldn't work for the recount. I called Gerald Robinette, board chairman, to inform him regarding the computer problem and asked him if we could have Tri Ad come to our offices to run the program and tabulator for the recount. Gerald talked on the phone with Michael and Michael assured Gerald that he could fix our computer. He worked on the computer until about 3:00 PM and then asked me which precinct and the number of the precinct we were going to count. I told him, Good Hope 1 # 17. He went back into the tabulation room. Shortly after that he (illegible) stated that the computer was ready for the recount and told us not to turn the computer off so it would charge up.

Before Lisa ran the tests, Michael said to turn the computer off. Lisa said, " I thought you said we weren't supposed to turn it off." He said turn it off and right back on and it should come up. It did come up and Lisa ran the tests. Michael gave us instructions on how to explain the rotarien, what the tests mean, etc. No advice on how to handle the attorneys but to have our Prosecuting Attorney at the recount to answer any of their legal questions. He said not to turn the computer off until after the recount.

He advised Lisa and I on how to post a "cheat sheet" on the wall so that only the board members and staff would know about it and and what the codes meant so the count would come out perfect and we wouldn't have to do a full hand recount of the county. He left about 5:00 PM.

...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Junkdrawer]

38. Plug that leak..Plug that leak..Harder...Harder...

Rah Rah Rah...

...

But Sherole Eaton, a Democrat and the deputy director of elections for Hocking County who wrote the affidavit, said her words have been blown out of proportion. She doesn't think Triad tampered with the votes and is a little angry that the Green Party and others have spun her words to imply that they did.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,66072,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

Oops, looks like another leak just sprung up...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x180597

[mirrera]

54. Missing the point

All the affidavit says is a Triad technician came and did some things that struck the woman as suspicious. She also defended Triad when people tried to make some kind of proof out of her statement. Right there she has shown me she has no agenda. Triad does not dispute what she says, other then the fact that she heard the technician say he was putting in a patch. When Triad tried to gloss things over, she didn't want THEM twisting her words either, and made it clear that both she and her co-worker heard the word "patch". So for me it is not necessary that this affidavit be a "legal" instrument, though as far as know, she has not denied it's use as evidence in a court of law. When some one swears to something, it is at least worth investigating.

[koffison]

41. So much for her "affidavit", looks like she is already running for cover.

"But Sherole Eaton, a Democrat and the deputy director of elections for Hocking County who wrote the affidavit, said her words have been blown out of proportion. She doesn't think Triad tampered with the votes and is a little angry that the Green Party and others have spun her words to imply that they did.

Eaton's story came to light only when members of the Green Party contacted her before the recount to discuss the procedures and asked who had access to the counting software. When Eaton mentioned Triad's recent visit, the Green Party took the information to Conyers and presented it at an ad hoc Judicial Committee hearing in Ohio as evidence of possible vote tampering.

Eaton said that after the Green Party started spreading the information around, she decided to write the affidavit to get her account on record so that it would not be distorted or misinterpreted."

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,66072,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

[Junkdrawer]

43. So, she wrote and signed an affidavit so her words wouldn't be...

twisted, but NOW she's running from that affidavit?

Why do I she she's getting some heat? :think:

Hey, maybe Bush has an outfit that stops leaks. I know, let's call them "The Plumbers"...

[mirrera]

58. She is not running for cover

Before people go off on that tangent, read it carefully. She is sticking by what she said, she just does NOT think it is evidence if vote tampering. She also doesn't know anything about computers, that is why technicians are there to help. But it is a real misunderstanding to read that article and think she is running for cover. She sounds more like a concerned citizen that reported something having no idea of the controversy she stepped into. These people see NOTHING wrong with the vote machine companies. That is what makes taking advantage of the situation so probable.

[Junkdrawer]

10. PS: Here's another report from another county...

Mercer County: Triad Mechanic Permitted to Disassemble Tabulator:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x179552

[mirrera]

12. If someone in your family were the victim of a crime

you would welcome people's ideas about who, what, when, where, and how. Those ideas, until proof was found, would be considered conspiracy theories. Many of us believe a crime was committed, and many of us know how insecure our system has become due to the use of computers in every stage of the election process. It almost takes a more unreasonable amount of faith to not believe that the computers were rigged. When grownups used paper ballots in elections, ballot box tops would be found floating in San Fransisco Bay. When lever machines were used, the nubs would be filed off the punch wheels in order to change the vote. Now we have technicians that TOUCH our voting machines when they are not part of the BOE, nor are they approved members of any party. When did that become an accepted part of the process? I think it is healthy to question these procedures. It does not need a huge amount of effort, nor a large group of people. These technicians are not election lawyers, they have no idea if they are breaking any laws. They are computer people "fixing" machines, according to what ever assignment they have been given. The reason I was asking what people think they did, if indeed they were cheating, is that it is hard to believe in anything too complicated. I am interested in a computer person sharing their theories. Also if Triad says that the Techies always recalibrate for a re-count, their defense would hold a lot more water if it was a normal procedure. Is it? How can I find that out? Thank you for sharing your theory, that it didn't happen through the use of technicians. Possibly not.

[Pierre de Fermat]

15. Agreed

We are piling theory atop theory atop theory.

For example - the exit poll discrepancy: The state with the highest exit poll discrepancy (NH) was recounted to the satisfaction of those requesting the recount. The recount showed that the exit polls were wrong and that the actual vote was right. Instead of assuming that exit poll discrepancy as fraud was a non-starter, we make up another theory to explain it: In NH alone, the republicans made sure the actual votes would match the ballots so that the recount would show no fraud. How did the republicans know that NH would be the first state recounted ? Well, that was easy - simply make sure the exit poll was off by the greatest amount in NH.

At this point, there would have to be hundreds of people involved with the fraud.

Look no further for the reason MSM is ignoring this story.

We need to refocus.

[eomer]

45. You are welcome to refocus

For my part, the rigging of the recount just makes me more suspicious that there's something there. I want to see some hard evidence to prove it one way or the other. If you'd prefer not to see the hard evidence, then that's your prerogative. By the way, I think that makes you an advocate of "faith-based elections".

[roseBudd]

16. Not when the programmer is the daughter of the founder of the co.

now run by her brothers.

Like when Tony Soprano said to Christopher, "you're blood"

[gulogulo]

13. "I'll bet the "new" tabulators are clean."

If the new tabulators are clean, and the machine recounts match the election-day recounts (within reason) - then doesn't it follow that election-day tabulators were clean too?

[Junkdrawer]

14. Not if the decks of punchcard votes were swapped...

So how are they passing the 3% recounts? Looks like the actual punchcard decks have been replaced by machine punched decks ( see http://www.cardamation.com ) synchronized to the reported results.

....

<<...in those random selected precincts came out of their boxes all nicely, neatly, tiddytiddy sorted...>>
Yes they did. I witnessed this myself in another county.

There were pre-sorted by the vote that was on them for President.

And there were no hanging chads, not even one in hundred of ballots.

(Yes already reported to the Green party recount people for their records.)

.....

Again, read this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=175430&mesg_id=175517&page=

And there's this report...

The watchers who were keeping an eye on the Greene County BOE offices were kept away the day before the recount...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=178060&mesg_id=178060&page=

[roseBudd]

17. It would be interesting to see if the ballots have any fingerprints

on them

[Junkdrawer]

18. You bet. As I said, these decks need to be subpoenaed as much or more..

than the "fixed" machines.

[gulogulo]

20. ok, is the theory then

that the ballots were swapped for pre-machine-punched decks in every county in Ohio? And the BOEs, Republicans and Democrats alike, are blissfully unaware of this or are covering it up?

Basically - if your theory requires that more than a handful of people have to be "in" on the fraud, it is fatally flawed. There is absolutely no way that anyone could keep that under wraps. Especially if your explanation has to involve complicity of Democratic officials.

[Junkdrawer]

23. First of all, Triad only operates in 41 of the 88 counties...

Second, the goings on in Greene County (unlocked doors, etc.) have caught my attention.

Third, there are reports from all over Ohio that the ballots were kept in unsecured locations such as unlocked closets.

[eomer]

25. The original post puts forward a theory...

that would require only a couple of people to be in on the fraud. And it provides a plausible explanation for why someone felt it so important to rig the recount a certain way in all 88 counties.

[gulogulo]

27. The original post put out a theory

that requires at least a dozen technicians to do - there are 41 counties in Ohio that use Triad tabulators, and if every one of them had to be outfitted with the new "patch" - all in a few days, a couple of people could not possibly do it.

The other flaw in that theory is that this method is VERY vulnerable to detection. All it would take is one inspection of the code in one of the 100 or so tabulators.

[eomer]

28. It is very vulnerable to detection...

only if we get to look at the machines.

Are you in favor of impounding and looking at the machines or are you saying it's all just a bunch of silliness and we should "move on"?

[gulogulo]

30. Sure, impound and inspect

the hell out of them. Anything that clarifies these elections is good. I *know* this will be done eventually. I hope it is done soon.

[eomer]

34. Great, I'm glad we agree on that.

We can all theorize all we want to, and some of us may want to, some of us may not want to... but it's all moot unless we can get a direct examination of the machines, cards, etc to prove or disprove all the theories.

[eomer]

33. Even if it took a dozen, which I doubt,

this would be a dozen people all from a small company that could easily coordinate and direct such an effort. Quite a bit different than trying to coordinate and direct a larger number of BOE officials.

So thanks for your contribution - I think you've helped clarify how this was probably done.

[mirrera]

39. Thank you...

This is what I am asking, were they just doing what they said they were? If so is it common practice? The technician according to the affidavit signed by Sherole specifically said that he was putting in a patch. In the wired article http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,66072,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3
Sherole Eaton does not like the fact that people are jumping to conclusions that the vote was tampered with, just because the computer was worked on. She also mentioned that the Tech told her he was putting a PATCH in. Triad denies a patch was put in, and says that Sherole must have mis-heard.
Sherole Eaton said there was no way she mis heard because she doesn't even know what that word means. Her co-worker is in her 70's and also heard that word "patch" and also does not understand what it is. As far as I know, a patch usually applies to a program, or the OS. Wouldn't that be why he re-booted? I am just interested in what would a potential 're-count cheating' program look like IF that is what happened. I know there were patches put in EVERY machine in Georgia, I think during the 2002 elections. And a lot of suspicious results occurred. There was much denial on the part of the election official's part, mostly because of the "uncertified" nature of the offense. I really do not believe that every election official is suspect. I think Bev Harris in her book has an interview with one of the technicians who was part of the team who installed the patches. He sounded like my geeky brother, not a criminal. He just talked about all the bogus systems out there that had to be patched and how much work it was. I do not think all the technicians have to be criminals to do the dirty work. When you install a new program in your computer, you don't examine the code. It is all compiled, you install. The BOE has already admitted that the Triad technicians are there and available to help out every step of the election, including this re-count. The Technician called in for info on what to input into the computer. Let's not forget who runs these voting companies, they are co-workers, not competitors.

[gulogulo]

40. if this was an old computer -

and I saw it referred to as "14-year-old Dell", then if its CMOS battery died, you could not just replace the battery and boot it. You would have to re-input the specific hard disk's parameters into the CMOS memory, otherwise the machine would not boot. Since there would probably not be any records on these, you'd have to open the machine to find out what hard disk was in there. Then it is entirely plausible for the technician to call in to the central office to tell them which exact hard disk model it was so that they could find and tell him what parameters to input.

To someone who is not experienced in computers this may have looked suspicious. I am sure this will come out today in the meeting Triad is holding.

[mirrera]

59. Makes sense if true...

If true would that be the patch that the Technician told Sherole he put in? That sounds more like hardware. It was the president of Triad, Brent Rapp that said it was a CMOS battery. EXCEPT wait a minute... they didn't call the technician for help, he stopped by to offer help, which may just be part of the contract with Triad. It is strange though, that the battery chose that moment to die...and in another county it was a switch. It is amazing that these old machines made it through hours on election day, but the re-count seems to be the straw that breaks their back.

[never cry wolf]

46. I have had the same thought myself, mirrera

I am not a programmer either, but I would think that it woyld be an easy task to program the machine to count 3% clean and then go back to "10 for them, 10 for us = 9 for them, 11 for us," at whatever percentages are needed to make the original counts jive reasonably closely.

This also would NOT take dozens of technicians. Yes, dozens to install the patch, but do they even know what is on the disc the programmer hands them? These field technicians don't write the program, just install it, and if need be call into the home office for specific commands and/or help.

As soon as I heard that techs were messin with the machines and that the recount was to be done on the machines given the 3% hand/machine match I had the same thought.

[mirrera]

21. But if they cleaned the machines

that would only allow for the 3% test to pass, allowing them to count the other 97% by machine instead of by hand. If the machines were now running clean, the re-counts would show the real numbers. Since as far as I know the county totals are remaining fairly close to the certified results, that limits the possibilities to:
1) there was no election fraud to begin with as far as the machine counted votes go
2) they cheated during the tests with scrubbed decks, etc. and the Technicians did nothing more then what they said they did, the machines still had dirty code and that is why the totals match the certified results.
3) The technicians installed patches which allowed the tests to run clean, but cheated with the totals of the whole county to make them closely match the certified results.


My idea is that cleaning wasn't an option because the whole county was going to be counted period. The only choice up for the taking was by hand, or by machine. If our answer is (1) then everything matched cause everything matched. (2) It may still be so that they could get out of this tedious job early. If our answer is (3) Which I have to favor because of the sworn affidavit (sp?), what would have to have been in those patches? I thought it was signifigant that they refused to have the 3% of any precinct be above 500 votes. Like they needed a cut off point for the test votes.

[Junkdrawer]

24. Also a good theory...

Well worth considering... :thumbsup:

[pgh_dem]

52. further support for your theory

Someone with better searching abilities than me can find that Cobb interview/statement where he showed that in one county Kerry picked up like 8 votes during the 3% hand count, but only 12 total when the machine did the whole county.
This squares with your idea of a 'clean count' < 500.
Since the statutes don't require the hand count to match the official count, but only have the 3% hand count match itself when run through the machine, Kerry picking up a couple votes here or there isn't a trouble for them.
However if Kerry's proportion of picked up votes had continued along the lines of that 3% handcount, he would've likely picked up those next 4 in the next 1.5% counted, not total for the remaining 97%.
Obviously, that'd be a problem.
He'd be picking up more like a couple hundred or more per county.
Still not enough to overturn the election, but all that handcounting might show even larger discrepancies than a couple cherrypicked precincts.

[mirrera]

60. Question

I read a similar thing, can't find it right now, but how do they determine that he picked up 8 votes out of the 3% hand counted? Picked up from what total? What total would they have compared it to? If they were comparing it to the machine total, then the machine total was off and 97% should have been hand counted. If they are comparing to the certified totals, they would have had to have counted the whole county to know there was a gain. I just thought of this now...
But you hit the nail on the head of why I think it is possible. they don't care if he gains a few votes over all so clean in the 3% would work. ESPECIALLY if you know it is no more then 500 votes. If this had been done properly it would have been 3% of any random county with a variety of populations.

[pgh_dem]

61. getting further afield

into what i remember rather than what I can source, but...
my understanding is it was a pickup of 8 votes over the official totals, but that wouldn't trigger a hand recount because the machine counted those same 8 pickups.
it was decided that the machine was working, and the rest of the ballots were sent through the machine.
what I'm suggesting is that somebody like TIA could crunch up the numbers for the statistical likelihood that they just happened to pick the only precincts with 75% (8/12) of the previously missed Kerry votes.
I'm going to guess it's pretty remote.

[Junkdrawer]

31. Here's another question: Why were the decks sorted?

In my experience (I started programming in the '60s) card readers and card sorters are very different pieces of equipment. Why would you need to put the (fragile?) decks through a separate machine before a hand recount?

[Chimpanzee]

35. And what information were they sorting on??

Is this needed to ensure the outcome is exact every time? What do you get if they are not sorted?

[Junkdrawer]

36. Well, eye witness accounts they were sorted on Presidential Candidate...

It's one of the many reasons I suspect machine-punched replacement decks.

[electropop]

50. I am a programmer

and I think you have it about right. They would need the machine to match hand for the first batch, but they would need it to match the original results for the full machine recount. So the original cheating code had to be replaced by code which is accurate for a while, then strays back to the original rigged counts.

[Lil]

63. very interesting posts here. Thanks - good thinking.