TOUCHSCREAMS: 86 OF 88 PUSHED KERRY, CAME UP BUSH!

[TruthIsAll]

MOST WERE IN OHIO AND FLORIDA.
THESE ARE JUST THE INCIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED.
READ ABOUT EACH DOCUMENTED INCIDENT RIGHT HERE.

THE ODDS, IF YOU HAVE A FAIR MACHINE:

************* ONE OUT OF OF 80 MILLION TRILLION ***********

YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT?
THE CALCULATION IS PRESENTED BY ANOTHER DUER.
SEE POST #35.

I TRIED IT IN EXCEL USING THE BINOMIAL FUNCTION.
THE NUMBERS WERE TOO BIG FOR THE PROGRAM.
SO YOU WILL SEE IT IN POST # 35.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=126395

[Liberty Belle]

1. :kick:! Send this to those doubting-Thomas Senators.

[berniew1]

2. The EIRS incident report "paper trail" documents fraud in most states that

I've check that have "paperless trail" touchscreens, but not in the ones with paper trail.
(mostly default from Kerry to Bush but some other races also)

Vote machine fraud documented in

Florida and New Mexico
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html
http://www.flcv.com/bernalil.html

Ohio http://northnet.org/minstel/alpage.htm Mahoning
and http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

Orange Co. Calif http://www.flcv.com/orangets.html

Mercer Co. Pennsylvania www.voteprotect.org maps Penn Mercer
Travis co. Texas www.voteprotect.org maps Texas Travis
Snohomish Co. Washington www.voteprotect.org maps Wash Snohomish
and etc.


Most is in big touchscreen counties in swing states.

[Bill Bored]

8. berniew1 do you have

A complete list of states without VVPBs? I found the verifiedvoting.org maps to be incomplete. Most states show "Unknown" when I pull up "Audit Trail Requirement."

Only 4 states seem to have had the trail in 2004.
They are VT, NV, OR (no E-voting) and IL.
But it's hard to know if this is true when there are at least half that are "Unknown."

I'd love to be able to tie all the machine problems, the exit poll anomalies, etc. to states without the paper trail but there isn't enough info on that site, is there?

Thanks.

[euler]

3. How did you rule out other possible non fraudulent...

...reasons this might have occurred ? After all, if this evidence is presented in court as proof of fraud, the other side will raise this issue. You really need to be prepared to answer it. INDEED, if you could answer the question, some senators would probably be more receptive to our pleas.

Yes, I know we have no access to the machines so there is no way to provide the required proof, but this makes my point: THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED PROOF. This is all that matters in the real world. Here on DU, you have a great response to posts like mine (you are a freeper! you suck! you are a naysayer! get lost!) That response won't play well to a judge. If you can't provide proof that the vote switching was fraudulent and not a software bug, hardware failure, uncalibrated touch screens or fat-fingered voters, then, in the real world, this isn't fraud.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

11. is PROOF really required?

The requirement of proof to launch an investigation (more robust and immediate than what's likely from the GAO) seems questionabl;e. I'd hope that a judge would agree that there is reason to doubt, analyze data, acquire and analyze code, interview programmers, test some machines, seek an explanation. When Blackwell stonewalls, or voting machine vendors will not open their code to analysis,or BoE officials lie about a terror threat, one wonders what they are hiding, and the demand for incontrovertible proof seems unfair.

Uncalibrated touch screens? If that was the case, revote the precinct then ditch the machines altogether. Fat fingers register the wrong vote? Then this is not the country for that machine, either. Ditch the machine and get the county's money back from the vendor and revote. Some errors can be harmless and blameless. Systemic error makes the results invalid. And when nearly every error favors one candidate, then it's appropriate to consider fraud.

I feel that proof is necessary before putting the architects of election fraud in jail or requring damages paid by machine vendors. However there is plenty evidence (the statistical analysis is one of several aspects) right now to reasonably challenge the results of Nov 2, in Ohio.

[floridadem30]

4. I love your posts. I believe dade county was one of the counties this

happenend in. I also find it a little strange that republicans filed suit in dade about incorrect totals of the vote but later withdrew their case. They still claim they have proof but aren't taking it to court. Strange.

:)

[New Earth]

5. touchscreams!!!

LOL wtf

[texpatriot2004]

6. TIA's work is KickA**

[mountainvue]

7. Thank you, TIA. Your work on this

stuff over the last two months has been phenomenal.

[Wilms]

9. 80 MILLION TRILLION

Just lucky, I guess.

I wish they'd bankrupt Las Vegas, the lucky bastards, instead of wrecking the country.

But, it's alright. Nixon won re-election, too.

[genius]

10. Send this to Byrd, Durbin and Boxer

[bleever]

12. I'm beginning to suspect foulplay.

I'd like to review the receipts, if no one minds.

[Mojorabbit]

13. An interesting letter to the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/opinion/l05vote.html
I serve on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers P1583 working group that is drafting the electronic voting equipment standard. The managing director of the I.E.E.E. Standards Association says (letter, Dec. 31) that "the draft standard includes criteria for a voter-verified paper trail performance."

In fact, proposals for verifiable voting records have been rejected out of hand in this committee. As a public relations gesture, the standard includes an addendum that defines, but very specifically does not require, verifiable voting.

Current electronic voting machines cannot be proved trustworthy because they are unauditable. When totals on these machines differ from exit poll projections, we have no empirical way to determine which numbers are correct.

Concerns about voting technology are sometimes painted as sore-loser griping. But when equipment can be unauditably rigged, election results will be bought by organized criminals and terrorists, not just politicians.

Cem Kaner
Melbourne, Fla., Dec. 31, 2004
The writer is a professor of software engineering, Florida Institute of Technology.

[Withywindle]

14. *headscratch*

I just don't get why anyone would EVER think a voting machine that couldn't give a verifiable, auditable paper trail was acceptable under any circumstances.

Who in hell would ever put their money in an ATM that couldn't print an accurate receipt? NO ONE. EVER.

So why should the burden of proof be on the "it smells fishy" side?