Ohio Summary of Green Recount Team reports of county recount efforts- only about half of counties have completed Green reports- few of the counties allowed full complete audits
http://www.flcv.com/greenrc.htmlMost counties did not choose a random sample of precincts for the hand count vs machine comparisons, thus there is no reason to believe the "recount" was useful and likely to identify fraud or manipulation that might have occurred. In fact precincts where known fraud or manipulation are known to have occurred were not audited.
Only 4 relatively small counties were noted in the recount summaries to have done full random samples as required by Ohio law. 4 other counties were noted as having either done a random sample with demographic limits on the counties that could be chosen or to say they did previous random sample without recount team participation.
In the recount/audit process, there was evidence of fraud or manipulation of vote totals that were likely to have produced significant deviations in the official vote totals compared to the voter intent in many counties. This is in addition to failure to count or take into account undervotes due to hanging chad as can be done according to Ohio law. The hanging chad were a problem in getting agreement between hand counts and machine counts in many punch card counties.
The following counties were identified as having evidence of fraud or manipulation that could have produced significant differences between official counts and voter intent(or significant efforts to prevent recount team from assessing the validity of vote totals)
Auglaize, Ashland, Coshocton, Cuyahoga, Fairfield, Fayette, Fulton, Green, Hamilton, Hardin, Hocking, Licking, Lucas, Medina, Mercer, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Perry, Putnam, Sandusky, Summit,
Some of these counties have had followup analysis by independent analysts that provide further documentation on these counties issues, as well as large numbers of irregularity incident reports to the EIRS hotline on election day. Some of this documentation can be found at the following 5 sites:
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm Mahoning and Columbus and Cleveland and etc.
http://www.freepress.org Departments articles
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html Ohio
http://www.voteprotect.org maps Ohio county
http://www.votersunite.org Ohio
The Green recount teams in several counties also documented that the DRE touchscreens in some counties have individual votes by precinct stored in the computer memory and audits and hand recounts. One county, Lake, produced a sample printout of 3 % of the votes from election day and carried out a handcount of this printout tabulation, which matched the computer compilation. Which should not be suprising. But it should also be noted that the Ohio Secretary of State forbid recounts of the touchscreen votes in other counties where it was requested. Indications of fraud have been found in at least 3 of the other touchscreen counties in Ohio and further audit of the machines in those counties would likely have produced further evidence of these problems. The Greens are continuing their efforts in this regard, but are meeting with resistance.
The Green recount teams in several counties also documented that the Triad Manufacturer representatives have a remote patch to the Triad compilers and can make changes to the compilers remotely. They maintain and test them remotely, and on election day had a running tally of votes on their company website as the votes came in.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
