Dielbold Vote Counting Fraud - Take Three. And Action!

And amazingly, neither have there been complaints of voter disenfranchisement nor has a candidate complained of vote counting irregularities in New Hampshire. 

Clearly, the Diebold issue in New Hampshire is a solution in search of a problem.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1547 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 7:17:18 PM
 

The absence of evidence

Mr. Murphy,

You comment on every article I post about the NH voting systems. The e-voting crime is a self-erasing crime. You sound like most people in NH, complacent, and yearning to believe that all is well. 

But all is not well. How can it be when 81% of our votes are controlled by corporate interests and counted in secret? I have asked you this question before and you decline to answer.

Everything else is irrelevent. Do you believe in secret vote counting? Because I will remind you that this is a hallmark of fascism, not democracy.

If you don't believe in secret vote counting, there is only one path: get rid of it. Period.

We don't need to waste time debating the fraudulent standard NH arguments: "we've never found a problem" blah blah blah.

Just admit you either support or don't support secret vote counting.

That is the only issue on the table, my friend. 

by Nancy Tobi (69 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 7:29:51 PM
 

The absence of evidence is decidedly important

In answer to your question, I'm in favor of open and honest elections to include the vote counting process, as established by existing state law.  This is open as opposed to secret.  But what does the term "secret" mean exactly in this instance? 

Well, secret is defined as "kept from knowledge or view"; however, I think Ms. Tobi might want to use "working with hidden aims or methods" even though she has no tangible evidence of such dark deeds being employed in New Hampshire - http://www.webster.com/dictionary/secret .  Personally, I prefer the former defintion because it's more reflective of the issue and its associated concerns.

And what is being kept from our knowledge or view?  The software source code and physical counting process?  Well, what does the great state of New Hampshire require with respect to vote counting, knowledge, and view?  I know Ms. Tobi knows what it requires because, as she mentioned, we've been here before, haven't we?

And I'll restate what I said then yet again - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=45724 :

With respect to "knowledge and view", I'll offer you two references to the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA).

Firstly, RSA 658:2 states:

"Each town and ward political committee of the 2 political parties which cast the largest number of votes for governor in the state at the last previous general election is authorized to appoint between September 15 and October 15 of each general election year 2 inspectors of election to act at each polling place. If the number of voters qualified to vote at a polling place shall exceed 2,000, said political committees may each appoint for such polling place one additional inspector for each 1,500 qualified voters or fraction thereof in excess of 2,000. The town and ward political committees may also appoint such additional inspectors, equally divided between said 2 political parties, as the moderator considers necessary for the efficient conduct of the election. On or before October 15, the chairmen of said political committees shall notify the appointees and the town or ward clerk and city clerk concerned as to appointments made under this authority. If any such appointments are not made by said political committees and proper notification thereof given on or before October 15, then the appointments shall be made by the selectmen of the town or ward in equal numbers from said 2 political parties." - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/658/658-2.htm

And secondly, RSA 669:30 states:

"Any person for whom a vote was cast and recorded for any office at a town election may, no later than the Friday following the election, apply in writing to the town clerk for a recount of the ballots cast for such office, the clerk shall appoint a time for the recount not earlier than 5 days nor later than 10 days after the receipt of said application." - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/669/669-30.htm

Now, I might be a little dense and have misinterpreted these statutes, but don't these reflect the means by which citizens have "knowledge and view" of the voting process and its results?

No doubt, Ms. Tobi will use the "But Monkey" here with something like, "Yes, but... such oversight does not take into account the "flawed" Diebold units and their corrupt creators."  This would be when I'd point out to her that she'd be using the more sinister second defintinon.  And in order to use said defintion, I'd need to review evidence of wrongdoing in New Hampshire by the units, their creators, voters, candidates, and/or regulators.

Well, do you, Ms. Tobi, have any such evidence?  Anything?  At this point, I'll even take an erroneous billing invoice from Diebold to the state.  If you do not, then your case is weakened significantly.  Or perhaps you're proposing a pre-emptive strike on a voting system that intelligence reports indicate could threaten the security of Americans...? 

I don't think I need to point out the potential hypocrisy here.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1547 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 9:13:16 PM
 

Observable is observable

There are not sinister or good definitions of this word. It has an objective definition. The NH Constitution mandates sorting and counting of votes in open meeting. OPEN meeting. With citizen oversight and checks and balances. The Constitution does not say, "if you are thinking that the anonymous people programming computers to count your votes in secret might have screwed up you can ask for a recount" The Founders, yes, those who actually put their lives on the line to bequeath the gift of freedom to the rest of us, those Founders of the democratic republic, understood that elections must be open to citizen oversight and checks and balances to ensure that the first count is honest and trustworthy.

New Hampshire-ites have been drinking the recount koolaid for far too long. As though a recount is an election. It is not. It is something that happens many days after the election, during which time many things can occur in the chain of custody of the ballots that might influence the recount.

This is why the first count is so important, and also why I really don't care about all the placebo arguments my fellow Granite Staters repeat ad nauseum about our recounts.

It is good we have recounts. Yes. But recounts are not substitutes for elections and it is high time we stopped using them as such.

I understand it is difficult to face the reality that there really are bad guys who have an interest in rigging our elections. It is difficult to come to terms with the fact that our system opens so many doors to these bad guys to have their way with our votes.

But once you come out of denial then you will be ready to begin the work that needs to happen: restoring democracy.

The world can bear no more of our illegitimate regimes. We have a collective responsibility to make things right. 

by Nancy Tobi (69 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 1:57:21 AM
 

Tom Murphy - You Are Part of the Problem

Thank you sir for doing your best to use the internet to find something that may remotely be related to what you are talking about.

This is what I got from your response:

1) In elections there are people appointed to retrieve numbers from one counting agency, and report them to another group of people. And? I don't see how this has anything to do with a lack of evidence about anything.

2) Your second quote is just silly. I know you feel all proud of yourself copying and pasting a link to words that sort of represent what you are trying to say. Unfortunately, section 669 of the RSA is in regards to town elections. There's a difference between town elections and general elections. That's why they go through the trouble of separating everything into sections for you. Oh, in case you need MORE evidence that you're wrong, this is a TOWN election:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/652/652-7.htm

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/652/652-4.htm

Now that we have determined that you have no idea what you're talking about. Here's what I have to say:

It's people like you that are causing this country to falter. Your huff and puff of flawed arguments is ugly and makes me sick to my stomach. Do yourself a favor and do some real research before you go trumpeting your own flacid horn into the ears of the people who are trying to make a difference in this world.

ilovebonnie.net

by ilovebonnie.net (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 1:35:43 AM
 

I'm a voter, you're a voter - we ARE the problem

You have my sincere apologies on the error.  And thank you for providing the link to the general or state elections. 

I forgot that the above "cut and paste" was from a previous discussion with Ms. Tobi that focused on (among other things) local elections during November 2007.  While the references were valid for local elections, they are not for state-held elections.  The following link should be used to reference recount issues for state elections or primaries - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/660/660-mrg.htm .

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1547 comments) on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 1:04:02 PM
 

Did somebody say "evidence"?

Mr. Murphy,

You seem to be under the notion that if a voting machine prints the same tally results every time you tell it to, that the tally results are correct and accurate.  In fact, an infected machine will show no signs of improper results.

Because you seem to be of the Fox persuasion, might I recommend you watch this clip:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JESZiLpBLE

Or listen to the testimony of a computer programmer tasked to write a program to flip the results of an election:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gocC_456PzI 

Here's a great report from Democracy Now (which, I know, is one of the left-wing media organizations, but listen anyway):  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfRAzxMVSXs

And lastly, how about a clip on CNN showing the same technique for stealing an election with Diebold machines:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hCyVsUir8k

Wouldn't you agree that having a physical paper-trail to back-up the electronic vote should be a requirement to make sure there was no electronic voter fraud? Voters should have their ballots printed out so they can review them, to make sure that at least the paper ballot is accurate..

With eVoting machines, elections can be called almost immediately, but doing a recount is pointless.  As a computer programmer, I know that when I tell a computer to calculate (5+2=X), that it will undoubtedly return X=7. But what if the 5 should have been a 3?  The computer has no way to know that.  But with a paper trail, you could figure that out.  It would be a time consuming process to count the paper ballots, but isn't our democracy worth it?

by Jason Hears (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 2:31:47 AM
 

Ahh, Mr. Murphy

What a very lot of time you take for these Patriots.

With the intimate details handled by insiders and a sole source private vendor run by John Silvestro, this is the system you  vote on:

Part 3: chips etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WELeo5SSNDc

Part 4: ports, modem, misc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3HbxaYHcQs

First look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIlzqfUgZG8

Ballot reader etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i3x2SIF99I

by Bev Harris (73 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 3:01:23 AM
 

Yes, Ms. Harris...?

"What a very lot of time you take for these Patriots."

Had I known I was dealing with Patriots with a capital P I might have thought twice about my comments. I'll try not to overly tax yours and their already burdened time commitment because I'm just a patriot (with a small p), and yet I have defended the Constitution twice now against foreign enemies; the same Constitution that grants you and others the ability to vote. But... I digress.

Yes – I have a rebuttal.

Firstly, I placed my primary vote on an "infamous" Accuvote optical scanner this morning at the New Searles Elementary School (Ward 9) in Nashua, New Hampshire today. If you want to do some sleuthing and check the City of Nashua voter rolls for Ward 9, you can even find my home address to prove I'm a real person and not a "pen name". But... I digress yet again.

Secondly, as required by law and is detailed in the New Hampshire Election Procedures Manual, a monitor was posted at the scanner to observe my placing my completed ballot into the unit. Additionally, there were other monitors at the two entrances/egresses, four ballot clerks to handle their distribution, one clerk and one supervisor handling new voter registrations, and one overall moderator - http://www.sos.nh.gov/FINAL%20EPM%208-30-2006.pdf (for those concerned with town vs state references, I'm aware that this is the link to the 2006-2007 manual. I have it on good authority that these sections have not changed significantly).

Did I feel comfortable that the "system" was working? Yes, absolutely.

And lastly, I intend to return to the New Searles Elementary School this evening at approximately 7:30 p.m. EST to observe the public vote count which should occur at or around 8:00 p.m. EST.

Is the scanner, in conjunction with the ballot counters for unreadable and absentee ballots, going to perform the counting? Absolutely.

Do I feel believe the election officials will reconcile the counted votes against the total number of ballots issued by the NH Secretary of State less those voters marked off on the check-in rolls plus the counted absentee ballots? Absolutely.

Do I think other voters will be present to watch the counting? Absolutely because a friend of mine will be joining me.

Will I observe that the used and unused ballots are sealed appropriately once the vote totals have been counted? Absolutely.

Will I watch the sealed containers holding the ballots be transferred to the City of Nashua Clerk's Office? No.

What?!? Why not, Tom??? Well, at some point you just have to "trust" the process, regardless of what form that process takes – be it manual, mechanical, and/or electronic. And you're comfortable with that given the multitude of links that others have shown you that voting evil and incompetence abounds everywhere??? Quite simply – yes. No process or system is 100% accurate. For that reason, laws, regulations, policies, and procedures have been developed and implemented to ideally prevent but more fairly mitigate the extent of resulting inaccuracies.

If you want to view "concerns" with the hand counting process, check out this link - http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=C3D71385-6C61-4A70-8423-2A1B6776E18C . Holding the ballots up to the light to glimpse which way the chad hangs, whether or not that is a dimple, and the like wasn't pretty then, wouldn't be pretty now, and certainly wouldn't be any more "accurate" in either case than a scanner recount.

If you want to allege that either internal or external manipulation of the hardware and/or software is occurring, then please do so. But prior to making any changes to either the units (aside from typical security, software, and firmware patches and upgrades) or the counting processes, first provide the evidence that such malfeasance actually exists.

I have been making this request for New Hampshire votes repeatedly for the past several months. Why won't any of the Patriots answer it in a simple "yes" or "no"?

Do I require that my single-family dwelling be retrofitted with ceiling sprinklers because a fire has the potential to happen? No because the cost to risk ratio is very low. But I DO have a fire extinguisher on each floor and in the kitchen; smoke/fire alarms on each floor, each bedroom, and the furnace room; a fire ladder in a bedroom closet on the second floor; and a family plan on where to meet outside (by the mailbox). Do these actions alone or together prevent a fire? No, but they increase the likelihood that the family will escape the fire unscathed.

Do I mandate that my vote counting process be conducted manually and by hand because I'm concern about the potential of vote counting fraud? No because the cost to risk ratio is very low. But I DO develop and implement laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, as well as appoint proven personnel to oversee and conduct the polling locations, ballot counting, and ballot securing post-election. Do these actions alone or together prevent vote counting fraud? No, but they increase the likelihood that the overall voting process, including the vote counting, will be conducted without inconsistencies.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1547 comments) on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 12:45:20 PM
 

Please continue your coverage

It is a long road to slog and, Nanci, I greatly appreciate your dedication in calling out and reminding all of us Americans of this great shame at the very heart of our nation.

This week's story in the New York Times [ http://tinyurl.com/3xwzsz ] is a must read for all of those who continue to be skeptical of the importance of this issue, or have only recently begun to look into this.

Two recent pieces right here on Op-Ed News carry forward the same theme:

1. [ http://tinyurl.com/2vwuco ]

2. [ http://tinyurl.com/2j5rkq ] 

The pen name Tom Murphy is an example of how the combination of ignorance, confusion, and apathy can be deadly to our democracy. He dogs every discussion of this issue with an attitude that, essentially, says "Trust the few private organizations that control electronic voting, because unless you can actually prove their criminality in a court of law, they are trustworthy."

This is nonsense, as anyone who has followed this issue (or has read the articles above) knows. These companies have been shown time and again to be incompetent, collusive with one political party, and able to shield their activity behind the protection of an unseemly patchwork of laws and regulations in many states across the nation.

by Alfonso "Chief" Jackson-Lee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 3:58:59 AM
 

*sigh* Over so soon and without incident?

What!?!  No allegations of Diebold wrongdoing from yesterday's primary in New Hampshire?  Surely, the "strange" comeback by Senator Clinton, when compared to recent polling in that state, MUST suggest that somebody monkeyed with the machines...?

If this seems like taunting, it is.  All went reasonably well yesterday and your unfounded fears remained - unfounded - click here .  Better luck next time, though, in identifying that it was the professor in the study with the monkey wrench.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1547 comments) on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 8:06:17 AM
 

First in the nation

Thanks for the article Nancy Tobi. Thanks to videos, especially Bev Harris' amazing research and vast information 'out there'  there's no doubt these elections are rigged. "Live Free or Die" "Free State Project" - are they serious?  McCain and Clinton just don't make sense.  Forget what they say, watch what they do. For Tom Murphy:

 "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer 

by Tweety (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 6:46:16 PM
 

Live Free or Die

Good quote.  I've used it here a couple of times here on past occasions.  It works both ways, you know.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1547 comments) on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 9:53:23 PM
 

Murphy's Law

This article is not about Murphy, but the history of fraud by Diebold Corp. Ever since Ohio's Diebold machines counted more votes than the number of registered voters, the process is irremediably suspect. Couple that with a partisan Supreme Court which ruled that "..counting votes could be unfair to George W. Bush..", and a Republican Party, which, if they don't cheat, they can't win, and Murphy's Law comes into play.

You remember Murphy's Law?

"If something can go wrong, it will." 

Please, Mr. Murphy, admit that the waters around you are 'risin, and he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled.

If human beings count the votes, they can watch each other. Factoring "cost-benefit ratio" here is applying a false economy. Like the man says, that for which we are willing to "risk our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor," is priceless.

The violation of the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremburg Charter, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, US Code, Title 18, and the establishment of internment camps by this admn., including proposed House Bill 1959, making certain thoughts illegal, cries out for a little more skepticism, no? 

by martinweiss (16 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 308 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 8:18:55 AM