READER COMMENTS ON
"E-Voting System Adds 100,000+ Votes in One Texas County During Tuesday's Primary Election!"
(23 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 3/9/2006 @ 4:48 pm PT...
See John Wasburn's observations, "This [official] story is fraudulent," as reported in my earlier comment on BB. John W. goes on to point out that the official explanation for the problem is bogus, and shows why.
Another major defect slips past the ITA "inspection".
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 3/9/2006 @ 5:25 pm PT...
I don't know about the official ignoring it on election night...I live in Dallas Co. (Dallas and Tarrant Counties being the two main counties in the DFW Metroplex--which is basically two VERY different cities that are connected by a third very different city in between them in one huge, conglomerated metropolitan area), and I heard on the news around 11PM on election night that there was a Tarrant county "unknown glitch" that added as many as 100,000 votes, evenly dispersed among candidates for one race, but not to worry because it didn't affect the outcome (????!!) and someone was figuring it all out.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 3/9/2006 @ 5:28 pm PT...
I got another e-mail from John Lapp at the DCCC today, this one crowing about how the above-mentioned primaries are a sign that the Republicans are doomed. Mr. Lapp claims "It won't be pretty, and we won't let them get away with it."
He's inviting people to an online chat, Friday morning at 10. Anyone think it's worth trying to get some answers about how "we won't let them get away with" election fraud? Questions can be submitted in advance; the url is here. www.dccc.org/blog_chat
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 3/9/2006 @ 7:07 pm PT...
"The system did what we told it to do," said John Covell, a vice president with Hart. "We told it incorrectly."
Oops - we were supposed to have it add 2 repub votes for every dem vote, not evenly!
The Spread Sheet at the Black Box article posted by Catherine is interesting.
I changed the numbers in the first row of the yellow field to 7,450 480 so that both candidates had the same total vote on the bottom line. This represented the "Actual" vote.
In the columns for the "Fraudulent" vote the results were 125,804 70,443
That's not a problem?
New story at top of the blog - More trouble in Florida!
"FL Candidate Votes for Self, Sequoia Touch-Screen Voting Machine Flips Vote to Opponent!"
Check it out!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 3/9/2006 @ 8:35 pm PT...
Fantastic news! (sort of.) We have Hart in Austin (Travis County) and we're always looking out for more Hart screwups! Thanks for this one!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
Gina de Miranda
said on 3/9/2006 @ 9:59 pm PT...
Now, before y'all run over to pick you up some of my BBQ, the blog's not open yet. See, I've still got to pick birdshot out of my hiney from hunting with Double Barrel Dick Cheney. I see Vickie's been here, too.
I'd like to make a few points that I have made several times before. To all of y'all who have sent hate mail to Texas...we did not produce this boy. We don't breed anything without brains, it is too dangerous out there on the Texas range, what with rattlers, coyotes, cougars and such like. Bush is from Eastern and Midwestern stock. Y'all need to figure out how come he got such a short stick of DNA! I had heard that the Bushes are so cheap that they bought their DNA used to save money and that might explain why their young'uns are a tad under-engineered so to speak.
In any event, I have said this a million times. I worked the 2004 elections and I registered Latino voters all the summer before the vote. There is NO WAY THAT BUSH GOT AN UNEXPECTED WAVE OF SUPPORT FROM LATINOS. That is why I don't believe that ol' demi-fascist Cuellar (?) swept that county. The fact is that we have a real reliability problem with the voting machines here. In 2004, the Hart machines kept switching from Kerry to Bush. In 2002, there were more votes for lieutenant governor than governor in San Antonio. In 2004, Bexar County (majority minority) reported out vote totals about 9:00 pm declaring Bush the winner...too bad that they actually did not get them out of the machine until the following day at 4:00 pm.
Also, none of the census and voting roles for our state reconcile to each other. According to the Rebubba-kins and Governor Goodhair, we got 3 million new folks moving to Texas. That is just not so. The only group that moved to Texas in large numbers was illegal immigrants and vultures looking to pick Enron's bones clean. I could not make the numbers add up without adding in purged voter rolls.
Now, I know that both Goodhair and Bush are bad at math, but the rest of us may not be. It is time to take another look at this picture. Every county that doesn't have DREs (paperless vote eaters) went blue. (so much for Californian's theory that we're all stupid in this state)
I used to tell a joke that in Texas, we're so darn patriotic we vote even after we're dead. That was funny when it was not true.
PS: Anybody know how to use Lifli for the Mac?
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 3/9/2006 @ 11:37 pm PT...
where are the dems,
...everybody knows the fight is fixed
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 6:38 am PT...
Isn't it strange, that after three stolen elections, the candidates (Democrats) never challenge the vote count? Isn't it also strange that certain Democrats maintain their seats? Anyone out there ever wonder how Reid and Pelosi can never get the Dems to vote together? Wake up sheeple, you're being played. Oh yeah, Google Sen. Diane Feinsteins and Rep. Pelosi's husbands. These cats are sitting on some fat cash. Our fight is not with the Republicans, but with the sellout Democrats.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 8:12 am PT...
Uh...how the hell can 100,000 extra (non-existent) votes NOT change the outcome? Did it share out the fake votes equally among all candidates? Was the primary uncontested? 100,000 votes is NOT inconsequential and I believe that the pattern of false vote allotment between candidates would say a lot about inherent bias by the company or election officials in charge of the equipment (all to the GOPer?)
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 8:53 am PT...
Calvin (#9), methinks there is something to your point. You brought to mind, once again, one of Gore Vidal's quotes:
ôIt makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the peopleö.
**'Expose Tom Feeney'**
"SUPPORT CLINT CURTIS!"
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 9:10 am PT...
Here's the e-mail reply I sent to the "Thank You" I got for providing support to Rodriguez.
I am not giving money to ANYBODY any more who doesn't pledge to fight to the bitter death to have the votes counted. NOT A PENNY! I am not going to be "Kerried" again.
I donated to your campaign (see below) even though I am in Portland, Oregon.
Now, the only questions I have are these:
HOW MANY PROVISIONAL BALLOTS WERE CAST AND NOT COUNTED?
HOW MANY BALLOTS WERE RULED VOID and WHAT WERE THE PERCENTAGES OF THOSE FOR CUELLAR versus RODRIGUEZ?
Great to make a little statement about how Webb County was holding up the voting again, but if you're not willing to GO TO THE MAT to fight a DINO who obviously has the Republican Controlled Voting Machines working for him, then why did I give my money?
It's not about YOU and your political future if (when!) the media brands you a "sore loser" and a "spoilsport!" It's about the rest of the races in November that are going to be stolen exactly the same way yours (and a hundred others in the last six years, including two Presidencies) was.
It's not who casts the votes, it's who COUNTS the votes.
I am disappointed.
They keep coming and asking for money, even for the out-of-state races. I am NOT giving a penny until they show what they are about.
THERE IS NO SINGLE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THAN WHETHER EVERY ELIGIBLE VOTER WILL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE and WHETHER OR NOT OUR VOTES WILL BE FAIRLY COUNTED. Bush and the Republicans can have 12% support and it won't matter if we don't have fair elections. We are a hair's bredth away from 1938 Germany. November 8, 2006 may be the moment we choose whether or not we care enough to fight for our Democracy.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 9:44 am PT...
The "even distrobution" claim is "viable".. not sure it's accurate or true, though (gonna read over on BBV to get more info).
Basically, if the code added X votes to a candidate on the first vote, every candidate could get the same "extra" votes (as long as there was at least one vote). Any other scenario leaves a LOT to question (as does this scenario, trust me).
Basically, in code, you have multiple variables running around in code. If someone accidently did something like...
one part of code:
#define abb 20000 // very bad practice
#define abc 0 // again, BAD
then later, in some other code.. once a vote was cast and it was going to be "tallied"
candidateXYZ = abb; // trying to initialize the var, but has a TYPO.. should be "abc", which is 0
candidate += 1; // put the vote in the variable.
Personally, I've seen code like that from students who were failing their programming classes (I used to tutor and grade for my profs while I was getting my BS in Comp Sci). It's bad practices all over the place which makes things confusing (for no good reason).. bugs get in that shouldn't be there (setting the var to 20,000 instead of 0 like above).. but testing should find them. If no one noticed that "100,000 votes magically appear", that system was NOT tested (not very well).
I think it's a bunch of bullshit, myself. I think it's what they are saying so they don't have to have a new election (which should be mandated by law under these circumstances).
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
New arrests in Alabama Church Fires
said on 3/10/2006 @ 10:44 am PT...
It looks like they will get off
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 12:14 pm PT...
The thing that's really interesting about the spreadsheet (and I only noticed it after a comment by BBV poster Robert Sawdey) is that the winning candidates were tallied in descending order (largest vote chunks first, decreasing throughout the day), and the losing candidate's votes somehow miraculously showed up in the reverse order--smallest chunks early in the day, moving each time to larger chunks a the day progressed.
Why does the order matter? Because, as John Washburn and Robert Sawdey point out, the added votes DON'T affect both candidates evenly. The earliest chunk of votes got counted 6 times in all, the next chunk of votes got counted 5 times in all, etc. So the relative size of the chunks of vote was extremely important since the effect was multiplied rather than simply added.
It seems pretty unbelievable to me that one candidate would have a huge turnout early in the day, and another candidate the opposite, and that the increase/decrease in the size of the blocks of votes would form this kind of consistent pattern.
See the discussion here:
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 1:04 pm PT...
# 12 Charlie L
What are you doing to assure that your vote is counted in Multnomah County Oregon?
Have you read the Bradblog entry about the testing failure of 30% of the ES&S optical scanners in Ohio? That is the brand of optical scanners used in Oregon. I have made inquiries to my Clackamas County Elections Director and basically got a: "trust me" response - she said they have checks and balances in place; refused to tell me what those checks and balances are or send me the documents I requested; and, refused to tell me the model number of the machines (she did tell me they were ES&S machines).
We only get recounts in Oregon if the result is close enough. I expect that if the memory cards have been tampered with they will make sure that the result is not within 'recount jeopardy.'
We HAVE to go back to hand counting OR we have to have random hand counting to test the accuracy of those machines.
I understand that there are elections which may have been tampered with (through electronic vote counting) as far back as 1998. These thieves have had eight years to hone this theft of democracy. Every citizen in every county of this country has the obligation to assure that his/her vote will be accurately counted.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 1:43 pm PT...
I"ve said it before (as have many), and I"ll say it again.
There is NO GOOD REASON to use MACHINES to count our ballots, run our elections. NO GOOD REASON. The ONLY machine that should be allowed to be in the process (for tallying) is the PHONE.. when you call in your counts to the "next level up" in the counting process. And, I also think, since we have the technology and it can be HELPFULL, we need to TELEVISE the COUNTING.. They should also have cameras rolling on the polling stations the ENTIRE TIME they are open.. show empty boxes become sealed and locked.. then opened for the count. Remove the ability for "boxes to go missing" or "be replaced", etc.
This really is easy stuff, if anyone would just stop to give a shit..
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 3:01 pm PT...
Catherine a #8
I noticed that progression also. I'm not clear if that was the actual way the votes came in, or an example to show how it could be swayed.
Does anyone know of any trends as to one party voting early compared to the other voting late?
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 3:10 pm PT...
"Every county that doesn't have DREs (paperless vote eaters) went blue. (so much for Californian's theory that we're all stupid in this state)" --- (a Texan)
Yes, Bush is from New England stock.
All counties without paper trails went blue.
All other counties went red.
Seems like a pattern.
Wouldn't it be an amazing outcome of all the efforts to ensure voting is done accurately that all the entrenched politicians and their 'support groups' would turn out to be frauds and be booted out? Do ya think the Rich would stand for a real Democracy for long?
Things are indeed getting "curiouser and curiouser".
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 3:26 pm PT...
Who cares? It's only everything you ever will have at stake and only everyone you will ever love who will die, including you. What's the big deal about that?
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 3/10/2006 @ 5:19 pm PT...
"Does anyone know of any trends as to one party voting early compared to the other voting late?"
I'm pretty sure I read a study where they said Republicans tend to get out early, and Dems get out late.. that is, "good little conservatives are up for church and work" and "dirty liberals are lazy and doped up all the time, they don't get out of bed before noon, if at all"..
Actually, there's a bit of "truth" to that too.. Dems are laid back, in general, and Repugs are pretty anal (and neurotic, and often psychotic). So I can believe a trend exists where pugs are early and libs are later. Put that into a "compounding" situation, and Pugs blow Libs away, regardless of true votes (within a threshold.. and I HATE math.. so I"m not gonna work up an equation or model ).
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 3/11/2006 @ 4:29 am PT...
Turns out it was sample data. John Washington has added text to the sample files to make this clear.
The second file has 5 pages of different examples, which I hadn't realized until he added more explanatory text.
The examples show that the order in which the votes come in can result in the defective programming announcing the wrong candidate to be the winner. This shows that the programming error CAN affect the election results--contrary to assertions otherwise.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 3/11/2006 @ 10:37 am PT...
Uhm, to the guy who says it doesn't matter who you vote for because they all represent entrenched elites rather than The People: Yes, but they represent entrenched elites who have very different ideas about how to control The People. The Republican elite wants to control the people with lies, wars, and hate. The Democratic elite wants to control the people with bread and circuses. Frankly, if given a choice between the two, I'll choose the bread and circuses, thank you!
Of course, the whole point of all this election fraud is that it appears that the two factions have basically come to an agreement to split up the country betwixt themselves, and are using the voting machines to do so. So we (the people) don't get a choice after all. The question is, what are we going to do about it when the whole body politic appears to have been corrupted? Given that we're a nation of cowards who would never have the courage to stage a second American Revolution, and thus kicking the bums out at gunpoint isn't an option?
- Badtux the Orwellianly Controlled Penguin
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 5/2/2006 @ 4:01 am PT...
I also oneself something would want to find out on this theme. Very attentively I will read every post.