A Repeat of Election Fraud 04 Must Be Prevented in 06 & 08 - Cross-post

[Time for change]

I posted this in GD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x710029

It is a discussion of different kinds of election fraud and how to prevent them.

My main points are that I am afraid that voter registration fraud and central tabulator mediated fraud may not be getting enough attention, and I urge that effort be put into prevention of those types of fraud as well as vote switching type fraud.

[Tiggeroshii]

1. Central tabulator mediated fraud?

What's that?

I think our biggest foe right now is electronic voting fraud because any Secretary of State with enough of an agenda can pretty much switch the entire outcome during an election. How does central tabulator fraud work?

[Time for change]

3. Central tabulator mediated fraud IS electronic vote fraud

But it has the potential, I believe, to cost far more votes than individual voting machines. Each central tabulator electronically tabulates the votes for a whole county, whereas individual voting machines count up perhaps a couple hundred votes at most. So, where would you get more bang for your buck -- by rigging a central tabulator or a bunch of individual voting machines? I don't know the answer for sure, but there is a good deal of evidence that in 04 in Ohio the central tabulators were responsible for more vote fraud than the individual machines.

Here is the part of my GD post that deals with that:


Central tabulator mediated fraud

Description
Each county (as far as I know) has a central tabulator, which adds up all the votes that it receives from each of the precincts in the county. It then reports out the official county-wide vote count, along with the vote count from each of the county’s precincts. These vote counts are referred to as “post-tabulator” or “official” vote counts.

The vote count that each precinct sends in to the central tabulator is referred to as the “pre-tabulator” vote count. Obviously, the pre-tabulator vote count and the post-tabulator vote count for every precinct should be the same. If not, then either central tabulator fraud or an innocent mistake occurred, since there is no legitimate reason why a vote count should change after a precinct sends to the central tabulator its supposedly final count.

Central tabulator fraud may involve vote-switching, but it may NOT involve vote-switching. If the central tabulator simply adds votes in the same proportion as the real votes to a heavily Bush voting precinct, that will help Bush even though his percentage of votes in that precinct will not change. Or, the same effect will occur if votes are subtracted from a heavy Kerry voting precinct. When this is done the fraud escapes detection by the kind of statistical analyses that were performed by Professor Mebane in his DNC report or by the Election Science Institute.

Evidence for central tabulator fraud in the 2004 Ohio Presidential election
Some relatively minor evidence for central tabulator fraud was provided in the 2004 Ohio election when Bush received 4,258 votes from one precinct in Gahanna, which had only 638 registered voters, and when an additional 19,000 votes were reported from Miami County (in exactly the same proportion as the previously reported votes) after 100% of that county’s precincts had already reported, giving Bush an additional net advantage in Miami County of 6,000 votes. I call this “relatively minor evidence” because it could have been accidental. I just don’t know.

Much more suspicious IMO was the infamous Warren County “lockdown”, which allowed election officials to tally the Warren County vote in private. This was rationalized by a bogus “national security emergency”, which election officials used as an excuse to tally the Warren County votes in private. They claimed that they learned of this “national security emergency” from the FBI – a claim that was soon denied by the FBI. Yet the Warren County results continue to stand, and without any serious investigation. It also may be significant that this event occurred towards the end of the evening, when it still looked very much as if Kerry would win Ohio, and by the time the Warren County votes had been “counted”, victory had all but slipped away from the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

After much studying of the vote in Cleveland I came to suspect that many thousands of votes were deleted from that heavily Democratic city, as discussed in this thread (See first section of this post). My initial suspicions were aroused because of an anomalous relationship between voter turnout in Cleveland and the number of machines per voter, as discussed in Section IV, page 3, of the DNC report on the Ohio election, and because of very low turnout in many of Cleveland’s precincts, as reported by Richard Hayes Phillips. My suspicion was further aroused when I realized that the very low voter turnout in Cleveland was reported despite the fact that voting lines were quite long throughout much of the city, as described in this thread (See section on “Why so many long voting lines but such a low turnout in Cleveland?”). And the observation by a Green Party observer to the Ohio recount of several anomalies didn’t serve to allay my suspicions.

Some people would say to me, in response to my voicing of my suspicions of central tabulator fraud in Ohio, that that kind of fraud was unlikely because it could be so easily proven by simply comparing the pre-tabulator to the post-tabulator vote count, to see if they matched. But when I tried to ascertain pre-tabulator vote counts for Cleveland I couldn’t find anyone who knew what they were. I contacted Michael Vu, the Director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, to request those counts from him, and he promised to look for them, but he repeatedly failed to get back with me on this. And I also spoke with Ellen Theisen of Voters Unite! about this, and she told me that persons interested in investigating the 2004 election were having a hell of a time trying to get pre-tabulator vote counts from anywhere in the country.

So finally, after discussing this issue with fellow DUer adagiopop, he undertook an effort to obtain pre-calculator vote counts from Cuyahoga County. His initial efforts at this task identified several probable anomalies, as described in this thread, and that investigation is still continuing.

Prevention of central tabulator fraud
It seems so simple. All we need to do is have one volunteer in every precinct in the country (in states where elections are expected to be competitive), to obtain the pre-calculator vote count at the time that the polls close. Then, if the results of an election seem suspicious, all we need to do is compare the pre-calculator counts to the post-calculator counts, and if we identify large mis-matches, then we can feel confident that that’s where the problem is. Then, a full recount of those precincts where mis-matches are identified should be demanded.

[Tiggeroshii]

4. So

Essentially switching to paper ballots would fix the problem?

[Time for change]

5. I'm not sure

I don't know about all the intricacies of how the central tabulator would operate if all individual machines in a county used paper ballots. Theoretically it could mis-total the paper ballots just as it could mis-total electronically sent ballots. But I'm not sure how difficult that would be to arrange in actual practice.

In any event, one very important key would be to obtain pre-calculator counts for all precincts, so that they could be compared with the post-calculator counts later that same evening. I think that would be important to do even if all paper ballots were used.

And using paper ballots would not prevent voter fraud due to illegal voter registration purging, of course.

[Tiggeroshii]

7. I mean, no machines, but rather paper ballots

Paper ballots without any electronic machines... But is that what you are saying? YOu don't know if they would still have the central tabulator if they didn't have the machines? So strange.

[Time for change]

8. Right, I don't know

I suspect it may work differently in different counties. And then again, there may be some counties where some precincts use paper ballots and other precincts do not use them. I do know that some counties having different mechanisms for counting the vote in different precincts.

[Time for change]

9. Another thing to consider about this kind of fraud

is that regardless of whether the total county vote is computed electronically or by adding up the totals with a pencil and paper, it is still critical to obtain the pre-calculator count at the time the polls close. That's because regardless of how the total vote is computed there is always the risk that somehow the vote count may change between the time that it is computed at the precinct level and the time that it is added to the other votes to obtain a total county-wide count.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. it's a matter of checking the electronic machines

No matter what voting method is used, ultimately the precinct-level results need to be tabulated. And that "central tabulation" is very likely to use an electronic machine. Counties aggregate precinct-level results, and states may aggregate precinct- and/or county-level results.

If the central tabulator just aggregates, then nothing too horrific should happen. It is perfectly possible for the central tabulator to aggregate incorrectly if it is misprogrammed. (This can sometimes happen for innocent reasons, because the US has very complicated elections.) But if people have access to the unaggregated data, it is not very hard to check the results.

If the central tabulator could actually alter results, then there needs to be an unaltered baseline (audit trail) to check against, and it needs to be checked. The nightmare scenario is a central tab that sends out instructions to every voting machine, "Take 10% of the Dem votes and change them into Rep votes" -- or overwrites memory cards to the same effect. (Probably more likely is that a state central tabulator would alter county-level aggregates.)

A subtler nightmare scenario is that a clear audit trail exists, but is never consulted. A precinct duly hand-counts its ballots (or whatever), phones in "72 Kerry, 16 Bush," and someone swaps the numbers. That could happen with or without computers. How would it be detected?

I haven't seen any evidence of central tab fraud, but there is no doubt that results can be misaggregated for various reasons, innocent or malign.

[Time for change]

13. Thank you for the clarifications OTOH

I feel that a central issue for 04 is that, as far as I can tell, very few pre-tabulator counts were obtained, so that detecting central tabulator fraud would be very hard to detect (though I believe that there is evidence for it, as noted in my OP on the main thread in GD). I don't understand why that was allowed to happen.

Anyhow, I think that it is very important that the Dems don't let it happen again, meaning that they obtain pre-tabulator counts at all precincts in competative elections.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. yeah, lessons learned

When we argue about 2004 we are mostly arguing from ignorance -- which means that no matter who is right, we all have lost already. Chances are that we are worrying too much about some basically honest officials, and too little about some crooks. Greater transparency up front will help on both counts.

[Tiggeroshii]

15. so

In any case, it should make the votes more difficult to change on a massive scale if all the voting machines(that would normally be linked to a central tabulator) were replaced by paper ballots? It seems to me that it would be far more difficult to change things if the ballots were to be counted seperately and then recorded in the precinct total. This central tabulator thing is well worth looking into though.

[Time for change]

16. I certainly agree that hand counted paper ballots is the best way to go

And I noted that in my OP.

But for any given jurisdiction, whether or not we have hand counted paper ballots, obtaining pre-tabulator votes at the time of poll closing should provide a good deal of protection against at least one important kind of election fraud.

As it is now, as noted in my OP, we are currently undertaking an effort to obtain the pre-tabulator votes in Cuyahoga County, since we suspect massive central tabulator mediated election fraud there. It seems to me that it would have been a hell of a lot easier (and might even have saved the election, if we are right about this) if we had those numbers on election night.

[INdemo]

2. Some interesting reading about the voter fraud of 2004

leaves one wondering that unless we somehow get rid of Diebold machines what will happen.
www.onlinejournal.com/evoting

Scroll down to the "Stolen election of 2004,welcome to......

[Time for change]

6. Diebold was responsible for much of the electronic voter registration

in Ohio in 2004, and I believe that a fair number of the central tabulators were also Diebold.

But they accounted for a small minority of the individual voting machines in Ohio.

Anyhow, I doubt that Diebold is the only voting machine vendor that is involved in election fraud, and the evidence points to a multiplicity of vendors, including ES&S and Sequoia, if you look at the vote switching reported to EIRS.

[INdemo]

11. Well Yes

But in reading that article you will see that the CEOs or former CEOs of both ES&S and Sequoia were big contributors to Republican campaigns and active in the Bush campaign.I by no means meant,although it appeared that way,that Dieblod was the only vendor.Never the less something has to be done to insure fair elections in November or we are toast.

[Time for change]

12. I agree absolutely

I believe that we are now ruled by the most ruthless bunch of thugs to ever rule this country. There is nothing that is too immoral for them to do in their attempt to retain power -- and stealing elections is at or near the top of their list, since they are running out of other ways to win.

[Joe for Clark]

17. I couldn't agree with your main point more or

disagree with your premise more.

I understand, you understand - you make a sensational claim and you better back it up.
We couldn't do that, not because the theft of the election didn't happen, because the information necessary to prove it was withheld. And that information was weak.

That cannot be allowed to happen again.

It really is that simple.

This is not a complex auditing problem at all - maybe time consuming, not difficult.

We can do this, we have 8 months to do it.

Joe

[Time for change]

18. I don't understand what premise you are disagreeing with n/t

[Joe for Clark]

19. Sure.

Don't assume the mode.

DO you know, anyone, really know how they did it??

I only know the result was impossible.

Did they have dead people voting from the cemetaries near them, is that how this happened??

This is a point and shoot propostion, really.

AT the given time people vote - be ready to trace and prove the result. Be prepared to trace the "result" thru the apparatice and calculate the probability.

That result, if done properly, will yield not only the result but how it was done and with a high probability. This is what we have to do now.

I am so sick sick of losing - every numbers guy out there knows this same truth.

I am so sick of losing, and I know we could do this -


Joe

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. he didn't assume the mode

Read the OP again. If anything, the point was the opposite: too many people are assuming one mode and paying too little attention to others.

I don't even assume the result (last time around), but it doesn't matter. The object is to close down all the modes, or failing that, to monitor them.

[Joe for Clark]

21. NO - we better not assume the mode.

I think about 200 or so individuals out there understand the consequence of this assumption - on an acedemic level.

You do assume, don't you?? Hell, it is natural.

Dood, my parents GI bill says we are FDR's party - and this asshole can suck eggs.

Monitor??

NO if there is a cheating I want to CATCH them, and this can be DONE!!


It is not so difficult.


JOE

[Joe for Clark]

23. I read it -

There was a very astute observation made on this site more than a year ago, that the results of the 2004 election had about the same probability as one flipping ten coins in a row and getting heads every time. I think it is quite correct.

I do not know how this election happened, but I really think it is dangerous to go into it with preconceived notions that they used a computer program, et al - to pull it off.

Could have just stuffed a ballot box, too.

The ONLY choice we have is to make sure that if it is attempted again, we catch it with clear, convincing evidence.

Joe

[Time for change]

24. They would have had to stuff an awful lot of ballot boxes to win the 2004

election that way.

On the other hand, programming the central tabulator in Cuyahoga County to delete votes could have accounted for tens of thousands.

You're right that we need to look out for multiple different kinds of fraud, and I tried to convey that in my OP. But I do think that the computerization and privatization of our elections has presented a grand new opportunity for fraud on a scale that never existed before.

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. FWIW

I am among the many who don't agree with that observation. I don't think the results of the 2004 election are anything like getting ten heads in a row.

I no more endorse assuming a particular outcome (Kerry won) than assuming a particular method. And while many find the evidence that Kerry won persuasive, many more do not. (Of course, the truth is not determined by majority rule.)

That's the past. As for the future, you've stated the goal: if fraud is attempted, we want to be able to detect it and to prove it (or as you said "catch it with clear, convincing evidence").

[Amaryllis]

22. Yes! I think about this a lot; so much focus on DREs and not nearly

enough on tabulators and scanners that count the votes; I am very aware of this because of living in a paper ballot state. People think we're home free becasue we have paper ballots. And you don't hear nearly enough about the dangers of centralized voter reg databases.

[Land Shark]

26. Sequoia is trying to make DREs look good in Illinois by messing up opscans

so badly

[Wilms]

27. The CA SoS may be doing something similar.

The volume test protocol included re-using test deck ballots up to seventeen or more times.

Seems like that approach guaranteed a number of ballot jams.

[Time for change]

28. So, if they're trying to make op-scans look bad so that they can use DREs

What other reason would they have for doing this other than that they intend to use the DREs to steal an election?

[Wilms]

29. Plenty.

I should have mentioned that I wouldn't be surprised if the vendors themselves are behind it.

I think there's more money to be made on DRE sales than OpScan.

[KaryninMiami]

30. Here is how you can help! Support Clint Curtis in his run for congress!

Hi there!

I just posted a message about Clint's decision to run for Congress against Feeney (the guy who hired him to design the program that could flip the Florida elections). We need help however- and we need it immediately. We need first of all, to get the word out to everyone about this campaign, which is an opportunity to get election fraud- and election rigging front and center in the mainstream media and expose Feeney for the corrupt Bush family crony that he is.

Clint needs to raise $10,00 by April 7th so we can get him on the primary ballot. We then need to raise enough to launch the campaign and win the primary first (there's another Dem. running but we think we can beat him), then win the election.

www.clintcurtis.com is where people can donate. The blog is up and running there as well. Also of course, www.bradblog has more info on Clint including photos, documents, etc.

PM me I'll send you my contact info and answer any questions that you might have.

Thanks very much!

Karyn

[Febble]

31. Yes

And don't forget voter suppression of all types, including inequitable issuing of provisional ballots which comes half way between voter suppression and miscounting. That stuff all needs to be monitored and quantified too.

Edit: sorry misread the post - you covered voter suppression under voter registration issues. But there are other ways of preventing people getting a valid vote that also need to be monitored.

Anyway - great post on GD!

[Time for change]

32. Thank you Febble -- I also covered other types of voter suppression in the

fourth paragraph of the OP. I even referenced your research on that, along with Conyers' report.