We don’t pretend to fully understand the strange and confusing mechanics of the Iowa Caucuses (the Hawkeye Caucii, as Rush refers to them), nor do we make predictions about the results of such things (Edwards and Huckabee), but BlackBoxVoting.org sent out a missive over the weekend, with some very helpful information about how the Election Integrity aspect of the two respective party caucuses will, or won’t, work, along with a the request to forward the info to folks in Iowa.
As the corporate MSM will undoubtedly be watching the horses only as they cross the finish line — not bothering to notice what their owners and jockies are up to on the way there — we’re happy to help with anything that increases citizen participation and transparency in the process, and empowers citizen vigilance and reporting. So with that, we pass along the following important and interesting info from BBV’s Bev Harris…
Black Box Voting has only a few members in Iowa. We need your help to forward this message to other distribution outlets and to every single person you know in Iowa. By positioning itself as the first presidential preference contest in the nation, Iowa has a disproportionate influence on candidate viability — which candidates can stay in the race, and how well they’ll do.
Although some will tell you that the system has checks and balances because delegates assigned at the Jan. 3 Iowa precinct caucuses will go to a county convention where their vote will be clear, this is misleading. Iowa’s convention is months away — more than a month AFTER “Super Duper Tuesday” and many if not most candidates will have dropped out by then, so the delegates at the county conventions ALWAYS are reapportioned and NEVER match the original caucus results.
The situation is very serious, especially for Republican election integrity but also for the Democrats.
WHAT CAN YOU DO? If you live in Iowa, instructions are within the message below. If you do not live in Iowa, but can go observe, photograph and act as a citizen reporter, that would be magnificent. But, if you don’t want to freeze your buns in Iowa in January, here’s what you CAN do: FORWARD THIS E-MAIL BLOG ITEM TO SOMEONE YOU KNOW IN IOWA.
If you don’t know someone in Iowa, forward this e-mail to activism groups and write letters to news organizations.
“Problems and issues with the Iowa Caucuses” — for both the Democratic and Republican parties, including the lack of precinct-based reporting of tallies, and even an apparently Republican-leaning company who is running one of the Democratic caucus web servers — “And what every Iowan can do” about it, follow below from the BBV newsletter…
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH THE IOWA CAUCUSES – AND WHAT EVERY IOWAN CAN DO
Black Box Voting needs live IOWA CITIZEN REPORTS on Jan. 3. Note that the Iowa caucuses must allow observers and must allow both video and photography, as long as you do not disrupt the proceedings. You do not need to be a member of the party to observe or videotape (but you must be registered for that party if you want to participate in the caucus).
In some locations, there will be a Republican caucus AND a Democratic caucus in the same building, giving observers the opportunity to capture evidence in both parties’ caucuses.
Below is an update on election integrity problems with both Republican and Democratic caucuses, in addition to info on how to find your local caucuses.
LATEST BLACK BOX REPORT ON IOWA [REPUBLICAN] CAUCUS
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES:
The Republicans are running such an opaque dog and pony show that, unless they correct procedural issues, citizens nationwide should demand that Iowa lose its “first in the nation” status. Here are the issues for Republican caucuses:
1) Black Box Voting has received reports that political operatives have urged citizens NOT to ask too many questions and NOT to take photos or video of precinct caucus results, warning them that only “conspiracy theorists” would want to independently confirm the announced results.
It is your DUTY as a citizen to oversee your governmental processes. Because Iowa caucus procedures lack basic checks and balances, such as posting the precinct caucus results at the precinct caucus location for the public to examine, it is actually very important for members of the public to take video and photographs and share them.
WHAT TO DO: If you see or hear anyone ridiculing, name calling, or implying that citizen oversight actions will cause “blowback” on their candidate, please REPORT THIS to Black Box Voting, via e-mail or online, live-time forum reports in the IOWA FORUMS section at Black Box Voting, http://www.blackboxvoting.org
2) The Iowa Republicans have NOT publicly agreed to promptly release precinct results for the Jan. 3 caucus. Instead, we are seeing bait and switch tactics, as they emphasize to caucus participants that the counting will be done in public at the precinct. While they keep your eye focused on the front end, a switch can take place at the back end. When they release a total result to the media without releasing the individual precinct results at the same time, there is no way at all for citizens to confirm that their precinct results added up to the announced total.
Please CONTACT both the Iowa Republican Party and the Iowa Secretary of State to tell them you expect to see those precinct results published at the SAME time they announce the statewide total. Iowa Republican Party: (515) 282-8105 Iowa Secretary of State: 515-281-0145
515-281-7142 (Fax) sos@sos.state.ia.us(But aren’t caucuses “owned” by the parties and not the Secretary of State? It’s like this: If Iowa wants to position itself as the first in the nation for caucuses, perhaps the ONLY possible influx of mass tourist dollars in January in Iowa, they need to run transparent caucuses with proper checks and balances. If they don’t citizens nationwide will recommend dropping the Iowa First in the Nation concept).
3) One thing the Republican Party of Iowa has done RIGHT is making caucus locations transparent. All you have to do is go to http://www.iowagop.org and click the map to find every Republican caucus location in a county. Not so for the Democrats, who are making it harder to get a complete listing!
4) We have received conflicting reports as to the procedures at the Republican caucus. A spokesman for the Republican Party of Iowa told Black Box Voting that the votes would be written on paper and counted in front of candidate representatives and observers, then signed off on by precinct captains or whoever they’ve got in charge. WHAT TO DO: If that’s the case, get a photo of the signed results and e-mail it to Black Box Voting – crew@blackboxvoting.org — or upload it directly to the IOWA FORUM section of http://www.blackboxvoting.org.
Another report says the vote will be by a show of hands, then the winner announced. In that case, it will be important to come equipped with a video camera to capture the show of hands!
In either case, at the end it all goes into a black hole. Party officials dial a result into a cell phone, which goes we don’t know where, following a telecommunications routing that is unspecified, and is totalled up in a central tabulation program made by a vendor no one knows the name of, programmed by we don’t know who, and voila! The result is announced.
WHAT TO DO: Get video and photos. Anecdotes don’t do diddly. Report to Black Box Voting any efforts to tell citizens they are “conspiracy theorists” or “hurting their candidate” if they take photos and/or video.
IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAUCUSES
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS:
1) The overcomplexified, overcomputerized, silly smoke and mirrors game:
Again, we see the Amazing Randi in action — look here, don’t look there. Your attention will be drawn to the transparent “count the warm bodies” procedure at the precinct, with no explanation of exactly how the results were arrived at on the other end, after they go into a computerized central tabulation black hole.
Here, in part due to pressure from Black Box Voting, the Iowa Democratic Party says it is at least making an attempt to publicly and promptly release the precinct results. But then comes the overcomputerized, unexplained, overcomplexified process that is front-loaded with reasons it might not happen.
The concept here is simple: THE PUBLIC needs to be able to see the precinct results before they leave the precinct and after they are accumulated into the total. The precinct results BEFORE should match the precinct numbers AFTER, and all of these should match the final total. WHAT TO DO: Encourage your local county Democratic Party to add the simple step of posting a copy of the signed precinct results at each location.
2) About the results web site: the Democrats are saying there will be a special Web site that precinct totals will be posted on. The catch? They have yet to publicly announce the name of the Web site or even confirm publicly that this will happen. There has been some talk of using a password only for the media and/or caucus attendees to be able to see, which would be inappropriate. The public needs to see. WHAT TO LOOK FOR IF THE PRECINCT RESULTS GO UP: Get screen captures of any wandering tallies or changes in figures during the tally process.
IT MIGHT NOT BE PUBLIC: Look for a rationale in the form of a fear of “overloading the Web server.”
And realize that there is NO REASON to withhold precinct results from the public because you are creating an automated special program that may get overloaded. Let’s think about this:
The results can be extracted as a simple spreadsheet and posted as a PDF file that is only about 25 pages long. There is no earthly reason for the simple uploading of precinct results to become a techno-extravaganza, nor to give out special passwords just for the press or for caucus attendees. It needs to be made available to everyone.
3) WE DON’T REALLY KNOW: How this computerized tabulation will occur. Who is the vendor? Who programmed it? Who owns the server?
The Iowa Democratic Party has a bit of a black hole as well, with an automated cell phone-initiated computer tabulation. In 2004, this was handled by a fellow named David Vogelaar and his colleague, Andrew Brown. We don’t know if they are the ones writing the program this time, but regardless — any time data goes through this kind of process, questions arise as to how the program works, whether citizens can check what went in to compare with what came out, and so forth.
WHAT TO DO: Get photos of the results sheets, which are supposed to be signed off on by precinct leaders. E-mail the photos to Black Box Voting – crew@blackboxvoting.org. Do not interfere with any of the goings-on. Get video if you can. Upload the video to youtube.com and e-mail a link to Black Box Voting or post it directly in the IOWA FORUM at Black Box Voting.
4) THE LAST CONCERN: This brings us to the last concern regarding the Democratic Party caucus procedures. For both parties, the telecommunications routing of the data enroute from the precincts to the final announced totals is important. Who has access to this along the way?
There is an interesting situation with the Iowa Democratic Party’s official caucus site. It is called “iowafirstcaucus.org” — http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org — and this is not actually owned by the Democrats, but the site says it is “paid for” by them.
The domain name and the server for iowacaucusfirst.org appear to be owned by The Forbin Project (weird and creepy science fiction name, Google it) — maybe someone’s idea of a joke. The Forbin Project is part of VGM, and the principals of VGM/Forbin seem to be big Republican donors, and very vested in privatized national healthcare providers. What I found interesting was the candidates they have chosen to donate to — like Randy “Duke” Cunningham of San Diego (why were these Iowa guys supporting him?) and Ohio’s George Voinovich, and another fellow who’s under investigation in Iowa named Nussle.
The Iowafirstcaucus server provides the location mapping for the precinct caucus locations. In fact, to find out where to go if you want to observe or participate in Democratic caucuses, go to http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org.
THIS WILL BE IMPORTANT IF: If for some reason the computerized central tabulation and results server is routed through or sitting on iowafirstcaucus.org, that’s a conflict of interest problem, in my book.
“THE END” … for now. Long report, looking forward to hearing from you this week to learn of your observations.
Bev Harris
Black Box Voting
bev@blackboxvoting.org
Black Box Voting is supported entirely by citizen donations. To support 2008 Election Protection Actions click here:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
or mail to:
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA 98057
Donations over $45 receive the “Hacking Democracy” DVD as a gift
Rigged right from the Git-go eh ?
JC Watts is Julius Caesar Watts ?
No wonder he is an authoritarian type
HI all. I would like to introduce myself as a 1st time poster and new reader of this fine blog. I have sat idle far too long especially seeing the corruption of the last Pres. elections, and in seeing that, recently gained employment with 1 of the beast’s themselves, ES&S. In the months to come, I will dutifully report any cantankerous and shifty behind the scene’s activity’s I may see here for everyone else to get the message out. As you may know, ES&S has messed up far too many things in the past, and should not be overlooked this time around as well.
In any event, the current topic is of the Iowa Caucus on Jan. 3rd. From what I can see,no one has reported on some shocking news I came unto myself recently about how the results are tallied for Iowa. I think its urgently needed for this topic to be followed up immediately. Here is what I know though: An Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies The Iowa Caucus votes….electronically, over cell phones, based in Orlando, FLORIDA! If those aren’t a unusual string of coincidences for the nations 1st true watershed election moment, I don’t know what is. Please continue doing what you all do,and expect to hear more from me in the coming months as I see wrongs being done. Thank you.
WhistleBlower
Black Box Voting and helpful volunteers, among them John Howard and John Dean, have debunked that “Israelis counting Iowa Votes” story.
I’m going to hit “post” on this to get this into the record here, then will post again to elaborate.
Here’s a somewhat complex item, so get out a nice glass of merlot.
The “Israeli Defense Firm Counting Iowa Votes” piece has been very widely distributed and discussed. It begins with a premise and a concern that is correct, but follows with disinformation or at least, failure to adequately connect the dots and failure to provide any documents to support the “Israeli” thesis.
The truthful part: The Iowa caucuses, both parties, will use a cell phone-initiated central tabulator for results. We don’t know what company is providing the cell phone tabulation system. Both Republicans and Democrats are using it. We don’t know if they are using the same company. We don’t know the telecommunications routing. We don’t know anything about the computer program doing the tabulation.
But that doesn’t mean an Israeli defense firm is doing it.
The article purports to know that the company handling the cell phone tabulation system is –they say — VOXEO and — they say — this is actually Elron, an Israeli defense firm. Followed by exclamation points and gesticulating all around.
At Black Box Voting, we looked for expenditures, finally found a partial listing thanks to John Howard, confirmed a payment of a grand total of $500 in 2004 by the Iowa Democratic Party to VOXEO. This payment is much too small to cover the tabulation of Iowa’s caucus votes. But — all the expenditures don’t appear to be listed, so that’s not definitive.
Both John Dean and John Howard noted problems with the so-called Elron connection, so I looked into that as well. And there, the story loses its legs. VOXEO is not Elron, and the “connection” is not sufficient to write about. The dates don’t work, the ownership trail actually is talking about a different company founded by the same guy, but that other company was reportedly then acquired by Elron, a company in Israel, we don’t know if the founder is even still involved, and there’s no evidence that Elron has any involvement in VOXEO, or even that the founder of VOXEO has any involvement in Elron.
It’s possible. But it’s not sufficiently vetted out to be a story, and it certainly does not support the headline “Israeli defense firm counting Iowa votes.”
But as I was looking into the VOXEO corporate documents, I did see that it seems to be a company that’s into open source. VOXEO is of course demonized as an Israeli subterfuge of some sort in the widely circulated article.
Looking further, I see that one of VOXEO’s founders is a fellow named Gary Reback.
Who is Gary Reback? Well, he’s a guy that was leading the anti-Microsoft fight. There’s another fellow that was involved in VOXEO, J. Clegg Ivey, that seems to be an attorney of some sort, didn’t take the time to examine what he’s fought for or against.
Which leads me to wonder: Is VOXEO an open source thorn in someone’s side?
I don’t have the time to invest in this, but would be interested in other readers’ take on VOXEO, from the standpoint of whether its apparent enthusiasm for open source is an annoyance to a company like Microsoft.
I dont know what illegal drug you idiots are sniffing, but the results from the caucus are simple math and they are filled out AT THE SITE by the person running the caucus and the captains of the preference groups.
There is ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NEIN, NO chance for the results to be screwed with, no matter what your delusionally psychotic fantasies tell you.
I thought I smelt something fowl up there.
Hmmm… A Snake in the grass . . .
Linked to matt tayler is this video … The only relevant frame …
I can see is @ 45 seconds … It speaks for itself . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...orrection.com/
Bev – Thank you for both posting your debunking of the Voxeo/Israeli business, and for your good work on it (and on the original posting!)
Matt Taylor – Once the math is “filled out AT THE SITE by the person running the caucus” what happens to those numbers? Are they publicly posted at the precinct? Or are you simply presuming that someone back at the central party headquarters (pick one of ’em) is then correctly adding them up and reporting them?
Thanks in advance for any information you can offer on the transparency of the process to us delusional psychotic fantasists.
hey matt,
What’s She about 11 months pregnant … I almost missed it . . .
BTW – Wood’ja happen tono the proud father ? ? ?
JOJ #6, now that was the sappiest video I’ve seen in a while.
I wouldn’t mind seeing Obama as the nominee though.
But I am not looking forward to seeing the Limpball/Swiftboater types calling him Balack Osama or some racist shit like that…I’m sure they are salivating at the thought.
The numbers are sent into the party and they are available for review. In the past there has not been the internet capacity to publish them yet, but that is an option they are looking at this time. The records are reviewable though, hell I’ve gone through the past four for an attempt at creating a mathematical prediction model for a paper. (I failed miserably). The papers WITH THE SIGNATURES are kept as part of the records.
And I’m sorry if my comments seemed mean, but I am just sick to death of people attacking the caucus who have little to no knowledge of the caucus and have no interest in getting that knowledge because it gets in the way of their complaints.
And as for the ignorant comment about the video, if you think a picture of a child showing off her Obama buttons is “significant” I’m guessing you have to notify the local police every time you move.
Matt #11 ROTFLMAO
Link
Bev Harris says – “The truthful part: The Iowa caucuses, both parties, will use a cell phone-initiated central tabulator for results. We don’t know what company is providing the cell phone tabulation system. Both Republicans and Democrats are using it. We don’t know if they are using the same company. We don’t know the telecommunications routing. We don’t know anything about the computer program doing the tabulation.
But that doesn’t mean an Israeli defense firm is doing it.”
Please watch the now spiked four part series that FOX News did after 9/11 before you try and calm anyone’s fears with “the truthful part”….
The Israeli Spy Ring
CARL CAMERON: Here’s how the system works. Most directory assistance calls, and virtually all call records and billing in the U.S. are done for the phone companies by Amdocs Ltd., an Israeli-based private telecommunications company.
Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America, and more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protected, but it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it……
BRIT HUME: Last time we reported on an Israeli-based company called Amdocs Ltd. that generates the computerized records and billing data for nearly every phone call made in America. As Carl Cameron reported, U.S. investigators digging into the 9/11 terrorist attacks fear that suspects may have been tipped off to what they were doing by information leaking out of Amdocs.
In tonight’s report, we learn that the concern about phone security extends to another company [Comverse Infosys], founded in Israel, that provides the technology that the U.S. government uses for electronic eavesdropping….
Is there anyone who doesn’t know Israel has a large stake in the US elections? Due diligence.
let’s face it. america does not have a one person, one vote democracy. what u have is the absurdity of perpetual electioneering, media ‘selection’ of candidates, plus fraud.
your electoral college system is a joke.
the insistence that early caucuses decide candidates for the parties despite their not having demographics that mirror the national stats, is but another undemocratic aspect to the whole farce.
the energy that has been expended so far on an election that will not even take place for nearly another year is mind-numbing.
and no-one could be happier with this arrangement than the corpmedia which rakes in the advertising dollars.
Matt Taylor –
I don’t believe that anyone was “attacking the caucus”, as much as expressing concerns about it, its transparency, and the ability for folks to monitor it so they feel confident in the results (from *both* parties!)
I’d think that’s what we all would want in a democracy, no?
As to the availability of signed papers later on, it’s not needed later as much as it is contemporaneously. No internet needed. Just a copy of the results, and some scotch tape.
Such common sense checks and balances should be in place on both sides. And if reasons for that are needed, please see this short, crucially important piece from yesterday to help understand why.
To say that publishing them is “something they are looking at” on the night of the Caucuses is silly. The procedure should have been established, and announced, long ago. AGain, I’ll even pop for the rolls of scotch tape.
I believe Bev Harris has done due diligence in trying to learn about the caucuses, counter to your suggestion, as evidenced by several comments in her original post above.
re: matt taylor’s video with the doctored photo
of the pregnant white juvenile decked out for Obama . . .
“People” in glass houses shouldn’t throw ankle bracelets . . .
I’m with Matt…it’s all numbers.
On the Democratic side:
1. You have to sign in on a tally sheet when you come in the door. Then people divide into groups according to who they are supporting. The numbers of the groups must total the number of people who have signed in.
2. A candidate must have 15% of the caucus goers to be “viable”.
3. If there are candidates who are not viable, they may choose to go to another candidate or, as in our caucus tonight, they can try to have all people who support non-viable candidates may join together and have an “uncommitted group”. Since they did not have enough for an uncommitted group they all could choose another candidate, either as a group or individually.
4. Each 15% get to elect one delegate to the county convention. So, if a candidate has 45% that candidate’s group gets 3 delegates.
5. Delegates are chosen by the other caucus goers in their candidate’s group.
That’s about it. Not really too complicated. The numbers are tallied again after people have finalized their decision and are in their group.
I don’t know if this makes things any clearer for those who aren’t used to it. Those of us who have been through the Democratic caucuses for many years don’t see it as confusing at all.