Tags for This Article:

Electronic Voting (2795)  Election-Voting Issues (1972)  Arizona (146) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ;
Add to My Group
June 5, 2006 at 23:00:00

How the 2004 Election was stolen on optical scanners: John Brakey and the "Hack and Stack"

by David Griscom, Ph.D.     Page 3 of 3 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

(0.0 from 0 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

However, a September 2005 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf recognizes that there is evidence that security weaknesses in voting machines "…have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and MISCOUNT [emphasis added] of votes." So, while Palast focuses on the LOST votes, John Brakey and I have homed in on the MISCOUNTS.

One method of miscounting has been demonstrated by Harri Hursi (links above). Namely, it entails flipping votes for candidate A to candidate B and vice versa, by inserting executable codes into the 1.94w memory cards associated with the optical-scan ballot boxes (the "HACK").



When the HACK is covered up by the STACK (i.e., only precincts where the ballot boxes were stuffed by colluding poll workers are "randomly selected" for hand recounting), we become victims of a scam that John Brakey has termed the "HACK and STACK."

That is, a hand recount of the HCPBs in a STACKED precinct would be found to agree with the official ballot tally – even though the poll workers had shuffled ballots in and out in order to skew totals away from the way the voters actually voted.

On the other hand, the remaining, NON-STACKED precincts using optical-scan ballot boxes with 1.94w memory cards are vulnerable to HACKING, which could be adjusted to skew the official tallies to approximately the same degree as the STACKED ones. But big the difference is that any hand recount of a HACKED-but-NOT STACKED precinct would instantly reveal the actual MISCOUNT.

With 25 million voters voting on optical-scan machines in 2004, the HACK and STACK alone could have been sufficient to steal the election -- despite the fact that voter-marked HCPBs were employed. If only a few percent of the precincts had only been truly RANDOMLY SELECTED for hand recounts, the HACK would have been detected. Then we would now be talking about a conspiracy to steal the election as a PROVEN FACT instead of denigrating election-integrity researchers as "conspiracy theorists."

Moral: As long as optical-scanners are with us, we must assure TRULY RANDOM RECOUNTS.

 1  |  2  |  3

 

David L. Griscom, a Fellow of the American Physical Society, retired in 2001 from the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, where he had been a research physicist for 33 years. He has subsequently held visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology; he was also Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at The University of Arizona in Tucson. By virtue of his collaboration with John Brakey, Griscom was an invited presenter at both the National Election Reform Conference (Nashville, April 2005) and the Election Protection Hearing (Houston, June 2005)

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 comments

Scott Tyner is from Hattiesburg, MS.
Scott TynerScott Tyner is from Hattiesburg, MS.

random precinct counts

Kathy Dopp of NEDA developed a formula for determing what percentage of ballots must be counted in order to have statistical validity based on the difference in the candidates' number of votes.  For instance, if the difference is 10%, not that many ballots need to be recounted.  At 1%, most of them need to be counted, and at .1%, you might as well count them all. 

I would provide a link but this system won't allow words with over 90 characters! 

Try vote.nist.gov (backslash) ElectionIntegrityAudit.pdf . 

For states to mandate that only 10% of ballots be re-counted is formula ripe for disaster in close elections. 

by Scott Tyner (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 16 comments) on Monday, June 11, 2007 at 11:41:17 AM
 

 

1 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Sarah Palin, A Wolf in Moose Clothing by Anthony Wade

Democrats, Conservatives, AND Sarah Palin Being Played by Karl Rove by Greg Purcell "Wordmeister at Large"

FBI/police ordered to curtail protests: Explains Amy Goodman's arrest? by Kathryn Smith

Sarah Palin: Small Mind In A Big Little Town by Judy Swindler

Video: Is Bristol Palin Baby Trig's Mother? Evidence & Pictures by theWeb

Republicans Are Mean by Mary Lyon

GOP Convention Day One – Let the Deception Begin for Team McBush by Anthony Wade

BREAKING NEWS: Palin took millions in earmarks as mayor and governor. by Ed Tubbs

Limbaugh Watch: Palin Pregnancy Talking Points by Dean Powers

Barack Obama - America's 6th Black President? by J. Nayer Hardin

Popularity Navigation
Control Panel:

Select Time
6 hrs 12 hrs
1 Day 2 Days
3 Days 1 Week
2 Weeks 1 Month
2 Months 3 Months
6 Months Last Year
Select Content
Articles Diaries
Polls Events
All Op-Eds
News Life/Arts/Science
Select Popularity
Page Views
# of Comments
Recommend Emails
  

Go To Top 50 Most Popular