Immediately below you’ll find various responses you can expect to hear from your Secretary of State, election officials, the media, etc, followed by the facts with which to answer these disingenuous government/corporate “talking points.” (supplied by BlackBox Voting and edited.)
THE TRUTH: In some states the public is not allowed to examine the paper trail. Some machines produce a paper trail that is on very flimsy paper and is very difficult to read. Furthermore, the computer can print out whatever you might want to see and still do something completely different inside the machine. It is extremely rare that the paper trails are looked at by anyone.
TALKING POINT: In some states, after each election, some random “audits” are done, where the electronic votes are compared to paper ballots or to the paper trail for one or more races, to verify that they match.
THE TRUTH: This is not an audit, it is a spot check, and it is often controlled by the same people who program the system and control Chain of Custody for absentee ballots. These “audits” are usually done a few days after the election and the Chain of Custody has been broken. How does the public know there has been no ballot switching?
TALKING POINT: Our state has very good recount laws to ensure the accuracy of a count in close elections.
a) A recount is only performed after the ballots have been removed from public sight and the Chain of Custody has been broken. No "after the fact" recount can authenticate the original count.
b) In some states recounts are not allowed unless a candidate had “lost” by a very small percentage point.
c) In some states, a “recount” means just running the ballots through the same electronic equipment/computer again.
TALKING POINT: Our elections are run by county auditors using certified voting systems.
THE TRUTH: What this is saying is "Trust us. We will verify the election for you."
That is not the same as allowing the public to see the essential accounting itself. The right to authenticate our own elections is an inalienable right, derived from the right to self government.
According to the US Constitution, our representatives are to be chosen by the people. The People cannot transfer this right to the government. Any election run by the government must also ensure that the public can see and authenticate all essential steps.
The government cannot be in control of choosing itself.
TALKING POINT: The voting systems have been tested by independent test laboratories and when installed, cannot be changed.
b) These labs test only what the vendor tells them to test. They have also been caught omitting key tests.
c) Saying "the installations cannot be changed" does not mean "the votes cannot be altered."
d) Votes and vote totals can be altered whether or not electronic vote counting software is an approved version.
TALKING POINT: The machines are certified at the national level, tested and certified by our state and tested by the county.
Imagine this: You work as a teller at a bank. They decide to remove the video camera that shows you counting the cash. Instead, they give you a pretest to "detect whether you might tamper at some point in the future." Pretests can help detect incompetence in the election setup, but there is no pretest anywhere that can predict alteration of the count at a later date and time.
There IS a way to detect vote tampering, and it is transparency. The public must be allowed to check whether actual voted ballots match electronically reported counts.
TALKING POINT: After testing, the machines are then locked and sealed until put into use.
THE TRUTH: Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. We always hear this statement and we also regularly see that some machines weren't sealed; that they were accessed by technicians or elections insiders mid-election; or that crucial transactions are missing from or added to the vote-counting computer's audit logs.
Even if machines were sealed, since computers can only do what they are instructed to do by their administrator, locking and sealing has no bearing on inside access or actual manipulation of the count.
Historically, tampering by insiders is the most common form of election fraud.
TALKING POINT: Each election there are random audits to compare the vote counts to the actual paper ballots to make sure they match.
b) A random spot check is not protective against alteration of the count by someone with inside access. At best, spot checks may detect accidental error, but they do not detect deliberate alteration. Those controlling the spot check also control ballot Chain of Custody.
c) By the time a spot check is done, Chain of Custody is broken. No after the fact audit or recount can substitute for public right to see the original count.
e) No partial count authenticates the whole pool. The public must be able to authenticate the count of the whole, not just a part of the count.
There are all kinds of games with after-the-fact "random" spot checks. The random is not truly random; the ballots were substituted, ditched, altered before the count; the race chosen for counting is hand-picked...
f) The public is not allowed to do the spot check. It is assigned to an entity chosen by the same people who run the election.
Basically, "We will do a random spot check" means "Go away, we will authenticate this for you. You cannot authenticate it yourself."
TALKING POINT: Most voters vote on paper ballots, so do not vote on the electronic machines
THE TRUTH: More than 98% of votes in the U.S. are counted electronically. Even if you mark your vote on a paper ballot, it is almost certain your ballot will be counted by an Optical Scan Machine that is a software-driven.
TALKING POINT: Many voters vote early or by absentee ballot and those counts are checked each day to verify the number of voters match the number of ballots received/submitted.
THE TRUTH: The public cannot "verify the number of voters matches the number of ballots" with absentee voting. With absentee or early voting, the public can never see who actually put the ballot into the system.
With absentee voting, the public can only see a report generated by the same insiders who control the voting system.
With absentee voting, the count can be altered by adding, subtracting, changing, or substituting ballots before the machine counts them; and also by alteration of the electronic counting process itself, because electronic counting is hidden from the public. So is the storing of the ballots that arrive prior to the election hidden from the public.
TALKING POINT: We are committed to running fair, accurate, transparent and auditable elections.
THE TRUTH: Even though most election officials and poll workers are honest and hard-working, no state is really committed to running transparent elections because almost all the vote counting is concealed and the entire premise is that only the government can validate the election of itself. Beyond even this, in the vast majority of cases even the government is in the dark as to how the votes are really being counted, with only the insiders (corporate vendors) who program and service the computers in the know.
* * * * *
Out-Of-State Corporation Offered Wisconsin Election Clerks a Deal on Touchscreen Voting Machines That Make Election Results Impossible To Verify: EDA Alerts Clerks To Dangers
For full story please open Press Release in .pdf format below.
When DailyKos publisher and owner Markos Moulitsas demanded that his pollster produce raw data from the polls Moulitsas purchased, he established a principle of election polling transparency that could open up the checkered history of presidential elections in the United States.
The controversy erupted when Moulitsas (kos) fired his polling company. He was unhappy with their results and demanded that his pollster, Research 2000 (R2000), turn over raw data for review. Moulitsas said:
"Early in this process, I asked for and they offered to provide us with their raw data for independent analysis -- which could potentially exculpate them. That was two weeks ago, and despite repeated promises to provide us that data, Research 2000 ultimately refused to do so." kos
When R2000 either refused or delayed (there's disagreement on that), kos took their actions as a sign of "fraudulent polling practices" (from the kos lawsuit). DailyKos published a searing criticism of R2000 and the National Council on Public Polls supported kos in his demand that R2000 release the raw polling data. Blogger Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com and the New York Times supported kos, as well.
The request by kos is well justified. He'd paid for the polling. Like any customer in this type of arrangement, he had a right to the product of the work done in his behalf.
Reviewing the basis for the polling results, particularly the raw data and the analytic methods, could answer two key questions: 1) were the polls actually conducted and 2) did the techniques used meet the professional standards of other polling organizations.
The president of R2000, Del Ali, defended his polling and denied any and all accusations of improper conduct: "Every charge against my company and myself are pure lies, plain and simple, and the motives as to why Kos is doing it will be revealed in the legal process and not before that." Some of the criticisms of R2000 polling methods have been answered by independent analysis at RichardCharnin.com
We don't know how the law suits will turn out. But without much doubt, the raw data will be released at trial or during the discovery phase.
But there is a much bigger case for releasing raw polling data, one that has a profound impact on our history as a nation. That raw data, requested time and again, is the polling data from the 2004 National Exit Poll, sponsored by a consortium of mainstream media organizations (Associated Press, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox).
The Other Raw Data - Election 2004
The 2004 election was marred with controversy throughout the country. Florida and Ohio received the most attention. Had Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry won Ohio, he would have achieved an Electoral College victory. This had an enduring impact on public confidence in the 2004 presidential election. By September 2006, only 45% of registered voters surveyed were “very confident” Bush won election “fair and square.”
The situation in Ohio was so questionable, an ad hoc congressional hearing was held to examine the irregularities. Current House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) led the congressional delegation. He presented his findings in the report, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio.
Conyers made requests for the 2004 exit poll raw data but was turned down (Congressman wants 'raw' exit poll data). Without that critical raw data, the results in Ohio and nationwide could not be fully reviewed and analyzed.
Others including Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll) in (Proving Election Fraud), Michael Keefer, Mark Crispin Miller, Steve Freeman, and the Election Defense Alliance provide compelling arguments to question 2004 and subsequent election results (see Landslide Denied, 2006). But like the Rep. Conyers and his 2004 inquiry, they were not allowed to review raw exit poll data from 2004.
At the root of any demonstration of election fairness or fraud is an examination of the raw data and methodologies used by the mainstream media's hand picked polling. This is the only national data that we have. The results of the exit polls are presented after statistical analysis but without full access to the analytic methods used or the actual raw data gathered
When kos asked for R2000's raw data, he made an important and principled demand.
It follows that it's an even more important and more principled demand that, at long last, the mainstream media consortium that controls the 2004 exit poll raw data release that data for open examination (and other years, as well). These aren't their election. They belong to the people. We have a right to verify their accuracy.
Kos will have his day in court. He will see the raw data as a result of his law suit filed on July 1. Now it's time for the people to see the raw data from their elections. Let us determine if the suspicions of election fraud are justified.
But it's been six years since Representative John Conyers and others requested the exit poll raw data to determine if election fraud was responsible for four more years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
It is now time to release all of the raw data from all the presidential election exit polls to determine if those who claim to spread democracy throughout the world are actually practicing it at home.
As the National Council on Public Polls said, "public disclosure of all the relevant information about the polls in dispute will provide a solid basis for resolving this controversy." The council was referring to the kos - R2000 dispute but the same principle applies to exit poll data controlled by the mainstream media.
It's time to know how our history is made and who's making it.
N.B. The official 2004 exit poll results released by the mainstream media pollsters had to be contorted to show a Bush victory. Their official polling showed that Bush supposedly won 2004 in the nation's big cities, not the Red states, as broadcast to the public: see Election 2004: The Urban Legend.
This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.
Stock deals are rigged for insiders. Big money runs Congress. And we've gone to war based on a series of calculated lies.
Are you willing to accept the fact that our elections are subject to the same type of corruption?
If you are, then Proving Election Fraud by Richard Charnin pulls back the curtain and exposes the pattern of election fraud over the past four decades. It's not a mystery when your look at the numbers and check them against multiple public sources. The information is all there - if the experts care to look.
Charnin is the widely known internet poster using the name TruthIsAll. He was the first to discover the glaring discrepancies in the 2004 election results shortly after the polls closed. His internet posts on the mathematical impossibility of a Bush victory were critical in fueling the doubts about that election and those that followed.
His many posts are the basis for a consistent narrative and argument using a clearly outlined and heavily quantified analysis. The result is a wealth of information about how elections really work and a methodology (the True Vote Model) that allows the interested reader to check the official results of any national or state election.
Charnin's straightforward style fits his subject matter. For example, early on he makes a powerful point, one of many that appear throughout the book:
"Simple mathematics proves that the 1968, 1988, 2004 and 2008 elections were fraudulent. The returning voter mix required for the Final Exit Poll to match the recorded vote was not just implausible -- it was impossible. In each election, more voters from the prior election returned to vote than were alive. The fact that they were returning Nixon, Bush 1 and Bush 2 voters cannot just be a coincidence. The statistical anomaly has no rational explanation other than election fraud." (p.52)
When the official victory margin includes dead voters and excludes uncounted votes, it's more than reasonable to assume election fraud.
How does Charnin know this? He took the time to correlate pre-election polls, historical (Census) votes cast and recorded, voter mortality, returning voter turnout and national exit poll vote shares. Using this basic information, he calculates the True Vote for each presidential election since 1968. And he debunks the arguments designed to convince us that Bush actually won while the exit polls "behaved badly," including "reluctant Bush responder," "swing/red shift," and "false recall."
Uncounted and Phantom Votes
Uncounted and "phantom" voters are the basis for much of the analysis found in the book. Votes remain uncounted because they're "spoiled" or of a separate class, provisional and absentee votes. Returning "phantom" voters were necessary in order to force the Final National Exit Poll to match the recorded vote in the four elections referenced.
Nixon won by half a million recorded votes, but six million went uncounted. George H.W. Bush won by seven million and more than ten million were uncounted. Gore won by a half million with five million uncounted. And Kerry lost by three million with four million uncounted. Uncounted votes are typically from minority districts where the vote is consistently 70-90% for the Democratic candidate. Is that a coincidence?
Had the phantom voters not materialized and had all the votes been counted, history would have changed. In addition, the Clinton and Obama margins would have been significantly higher than recorded, perhaps forcing the hoped for change. More important, the will of the people would have been accurately measured in what we were led to believe was a fair election process.
Knowledge is Power
Specialization often times advances a particular field of study and produces greater knowledge and more useful theories, services and products. However, in the case of elections, complexity and specialization are enemies of the people. They take away access to and participation in the voting process and blind us to the awareness of voting irregularities and election fraud.
Proving Election Fraud dispels the mysteries of modern elections. It walks the reader through the process of understanding how elections work, provides simple explanations of the principals of election analysis and offers an online resource that anyone can use to develop their own True Vote Model. Of equal or greater importance, Charmin's relentlessly thorough analysis shows just how outrageous election fraud is and frees the reader to analyze the accuracy of official election results.
There couldn't be a better time than right now to analyze elections. In 2004, less than 10% of voters thought that the election was rigged. By mid 2006, two major polls showed that nearly half of the registered voters thought so. It's time to take an objective and liberating look at how elections really work in order to demand that they work for us.
This review may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.
Disclosure: In 2006, Charnin (known to me then as “TruthIsAll’”) and I collaborated on a three-part series which quantified the risk of fraud in the midterm elections.
More resources online: The Election Calculator (contains a True Vote Model); The Interactive Election Simulator (run your own pre-election projection and exit poll simulations); and the Monte Carlo Polling Simulation - Excel Model.
The Data Analysis Working Group collects and analyzes exit poll numbers, official election returns, baseline historical election data, and relevant demographic data to evaluate accuracy of reported election results and raise early warning of suspect data patterns suggesting election fraud.
The Data Analysis Group will contribute to the EDA Election Data Project by developing data conversion tools and procedures to standardize election data collected from all electoral jurisdictions in the nation, so that normative election data histories and baselines will be prepared in advance of elections. The group will also develop automated analytic software routines to rapidly isolate and examine anomalous patterns that suggest error or fraud in officially reported election results.
With baseline data and forensic data-checking software in place, comparative analysis of exit poll, election result, and historical voting data can be run in real-time as election results are released on Election Day. Anomalous data patterns indicating the possible presence of voting fraud will be flagged for immediate, intensive analysis. Candidates in affected races will be advised against early concessions, pending further investigation, and preparations for hand recounts will be commenced, drawing on recount funds and trained precinct volunteers.
Coordinator: Harold Lecar CA
Co-Coordinator: Dale Tavris MD
Jerry Lobdill TX
Tom Manaugh TX
Sally Castleman MA
Eugenia Sherman FL
Jonathan Simon MA
Jeremy Lewis NY
Sharon Mullen MA
Mary Edwards CA
Cary Nation FL
Dave Kraig NM
Joanna Herlihy MA
Josh Mitteldorf PA
Vic Bobnick NY
Dave Larson IL
John Wenger CA
William Steve Lang FL
James Q. Jacobs OR
John Belmonte NY
Conrad Sieber OR
Additional others who helped in the 2006 Election Data Project are encouraged to join the Working Group
GO TO THE FORUM (Forum access requires Working Group registration)
The Massachusetts Special Election For US Senate
By Jonathan Simon
August 27, 2010
On January 19th, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held a Special Election to fill the Senate seat left open by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy. It would be difficult to overstate the political implications of this election. Because the seat was the 60th for the Democrats, it carried with it the effective balance of power in the Senate: without it, in a dramatically polarized and decidedly uncooperative political environment, the Democrats would not be able to override a GOP filibuster. As the media let Americans know, everything from the shape of healthcare policy to financial regulation, from energy and environmental policy to critical judicial appointments hung in the balance.
Just as significantly, the victory by Republican Scott Brown over supposed shoo-in Martha Coakley was taken and trumpeted as a “sign:” the political calculus for the upcoming general elections in 2010 and 2012 was instantly rewritten, with the anger and unrest that apparently produced Brown’s victory establishing expectations of catastrophic losses for the Democrats in November and beyond. All in all the political impact of this single, under-the-radar state election was seismic, very nearly “presidential.”
The Electoral System
With stakes that high, citizens not only of Massachusetts but of the rest of the United States would hope to find firm basis knowledge, as opposed to mere faith that the votes were accurately counted as cast and that the seating of the certified winner, along with the massive implications alluded to above, at least reflected the will and intent of the voting constituency. Instead, this is what a citizen seeking such knowledge about the Massachusetts Special Election would find:
Election Defense Alliance
Introductory Summation:In 2008 the exit poll discrepancy was considerably smaller than in 2004, but it was still well outside the margin of error. I won’t calculate an exact number, since we don’t have all the data yet. But it’s safe to say that the difference is very unlikely to be explained by chance alone.
The fact that pre-election polls provided an estimate very similar to the exit polls in 2008 (The Obama lead was a little bit less in the pre-election polls, but it was surging upwards in the last couple of days, so probably the two were about equivalent) makes it even more likely that they were both accurate.
So that leaves two possibilities: Exit poll bias (and pre-election poll bias as well) or impaired election integrity – that is, election fraud.
Consequently, EDA undertook an effort yesterday to capture exit poll statistics from all major statewide races (President, Senator, and Governor) prior to “adjustment” of the statistics to match the official election results. (Once the statistics are “adjusted” to match the official election results they are worthless for the purpose of assessing the exit poll discrepancy because the “adjustment” erases the discrepancy.)