Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Just let the people believe their votes count.

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Just let the people believe their votes count.

Stop The Presses! I Mean It.
Stop The Voting!
Stop The Election!
Stop Everything
Until Our Votes
Are Verifiable
And Really Count!

If you are inclined to let other people fix problems for you, please remember that “other people” are already hard at work to change your voting system to suit their own agenda and profit margin.
These other people (my perception) have a different view of democracy from ours. What are their plans; Oh I think we’ve been down trail often enough?

We have a large segment of our voting population who genuinely believe that their vote doesn’t make any difference so; they don’t vote! The damn truth of the matter is that in many instances there is ample evidence that they are right. Now add those who are just too damned lazy, uninformed and self-absorbed to take the time and trouble to vote, and things become bleak. Stir into the stew the single issue ideology voters who will get to the polls even if they have to be wheeled in on a stretcher to vote against anything or anyone that/who represents reason and compassion, and things get scary.

Hence we have horrid apathetic voter turnout because people feel impotent to impact the system and no longer have either a feeling of pride or ownership in/of this nation. Then we have those who have surrendered their rights and abandoned their responsibilities in the hopelessness of total cynicism of “what will be; will be”. Things are not good!

The lower the bar of expectations can be set, the greater the number of our voters who just give up and wait for the morning after to be told by the droning media what their futures will hold. Then go to work, come home and mix a pitcher of Martinis, suck down a few beers or uncork the first bottle of Merlot and prepare for yet another night of reality TV, remoting away from any newscast…they have had enough.

With an endless, futile and costly Iraq war, a stinking economy and most Americans seeing the country on the wrong track, the greatest national group delusion is that electing Democrats in 2008 is what the country needs. It’s not a matter of changing Party, because that is simply a matter of changing one pair of soiled underwear for another.

Keith Olbermann was praised when he called the Bush presidency a criminal conspiracy. Even that misses the larger truth.

The whole two-party political system has evolved into an instinctual criminal conspiracy hiding behind illusion induced delusion.

Virtually everything that Bush correctly gets condemnation for could have been prevented or negated by Democrats, if they had had courage, conviction and commitment to maintaining the rule of law and obedience to the Constitution.

Bush grabbed power from the feeble and corrupt hands of Democrats. Democrats have failed the vast majority of Americans. So why would sensible people think that giving Democrats more power is a good idea?

They certainly have done little to merit respect for their recent congressional actions, or inaction when it comes to impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Oh, and then there is the matter of the public becoming increasingly estranged from the voting process because it is fast becoming a sham…one of those creeping lowered expectations. Yep, now we have criminals being selected by criminality at the polling place, so why the hell bother? Just let them play their games and stay out of the way. That brings us to the latest and newest aberration…Diebold, or whatever other name it would like to masquerade behind.

Diebold Elections Systems, Inc. is no more, at least in name.

After a year and a half of conversely trying to dump their failed voting unit and/or lying to customers about the reliability and security of their voting systems, corporate parent Diebold is giving up the ghost of its election business which, according to an analyst in a Reuters report, was "responsible for less than 10 percent of Diebold's revenue, and 100 percent of its bad publicity."According to a company statement released August 16, 2007, Diebold Elections Systems, Inc., will become Premier Election Solutions . Catchy little name for a premier screwing. Sorry I don’t feel elegant of pen today.

August 16, 2007
Diebold Election Systems to Become Premier Election Solutions

The company president, David Byrd, who has overseen the disastrous election unit for some time, will stay on as president to go down with the ship, apparently, and undoubtedly with a nice severance package somewhere down the line.Applying full lipstick to the pig, the company statement declared, "The change to Premier signals a new beginning for the company." And President Byrd picks up where he left off, furiously polishing his turd with the claim that "This is both a fresh identity for our company and a unique opportunity for us to concentrate our focus solely on providing best-in-class elections solutions for current and potential customers. Where is Tom Sawyer and his can of White Wash?

No word on when they'd begin that "focus" after years of claiming same, but doing anything but. They have, however, radically lowered their expected revenue statement for the year by $120 million. That will correct itself as we get closer to election time and state legislatures purchase more and more of their technological trash.

After a string of disastrous reports on the quality and security of their voting systems, along with plummeting stock prices , it seems clear that Diebold, the once-great, more-than-100-year old company, is doing whatever it can at this point to save the corporate parent.

While its stock price (DBD) plummeted at the 17th opening bell and was down some 5.6% from the 16th , the price has began to rise again in the last hour or so of the day on news of the SPIN-off.

More than anything, however, the move may well be a harbinger of a coming declaration of bankruptcy for Diebold/Premier, as we have come to know it.

With the unit now spun off from the blue chip Diebold parent, declaring bankruptcy or dissolving the company altogether might be less trouble for investors and the main company as a whole, as their extraordinary legal and financial liabilities continue to mount...but people keeping buying the damn things!

The BRAD BLOG has speculated in the past that voting machine companies such as Diebold and Sequoia Voting Systems, whose corporate parent Smartmatic has also been unsuccessfully seeking a buyer for some time, will likely have trouble unloading their units given the extraordinary liabilities all of these companies now likely face after years of producing shoddy equipment and attempting to defraud both the public and election officials about the quality, security, service, and price of their hastily built voting systems.

A devasting exposé by "Dan Rather Reports" aired will likely make Sequoia even more difficult to unload. The investigative report detailed seven Sequoia plant workers who testified on camera about a mysterious order to use inferior paper on the company's punch card ballots to be used in Florida during the 2000 election.

As well, they were told --- despite the objections of the plant's quality control manager --- to change the alignment on the punch card chads being sent to Palm Beach County. Rather's report tested the inferior, misaligned ballots that were sent to the county anyway, in 2000, and found that "hanging chads" resulted on ballots that had punched through cleanly for years before the bad paper and re-alignment was forced by still-unnamed company officials.

In the wake of Rather's report, the election watchdog group Voter Action has called for a Congressional investigation into allegations of "commercial fraud" by all of the voting machine vendors.

In Diebold's statement announcing the restructuring this morning, they admitted that "efforts to sell this company...have proven unsuccessful." Instead of blaming the failure on their hackable, inaccurate, inaccessible voting systems, they claim the move was "due in part to the rapidly evolving political uncertainties and controversies surrounding state and jurisdiction purchases of electronic voting systems."

Diebold's voting systems have been found in study after study to have severe problems. But the final blow may well prove to have been the recent findings by California Secretary of State Debra Bowen's independent "Top-to-Bottom Review" of all voting systems certified in the state.

The devastating reports, by computer scientists at the University of California, found that Diebold's voting systems were easily hacked in just minutes and even failed to meet disabled voter accessibility standards as mandated by federal law.

Bowen decertified Diebold's touch-screen systems beyond the use of one unit per polling place in order to marginally meet those federal disabilities standards. All of the systems' unreliable "voter verified paper audit trails" will have to be counted, 100%, by hand.
Since the latest findings in the Golden State, other states and counties have begun to reexamine their own use of the flawed systems.

Angling, perhaps, for the "Understatement of the Year Award," Diebold spokesman Michael Jacobson downplayed the importance of California's actions, suggesting to PCWorld that Bowen's moves "played a small part in the decision to restructure the business unit and lower revenue expectations."

The company announced today that they were "lowering [their] full-year revenue expectations for the election business by approximately $120 million" from their previous estimates for the year of "$185 million to $215 million."

While we're no financial analysts, the adjustment would seem to lower expected revenues from more than $200 million to a paltry $65 to $95 million, by our rudimentary math.

"This is a cumulative effect. There's a lot of activity in a lot of states," Jacobson understated to PCWorld.

Last year, Diebold admitted that it was under "formal" investigation by the SEC, reportedly due to allegations of misstatements to investors concerning projected revenue from voting machine sales and long-term service contracts.

As well, the company is currently defending itself in a Securities Fraud Class Action lawsuit filed in December of 2005 charging fraud, insider trading, manipluation of stock prices, and concealment of known flaws in their voting machines.

Those of us in the Reality Based World, however, paying close attention to Diebold's various attempts to re-arrange the deck chairs on its Titanic, have been noting all of these glaciers in the water for some time. Diebold CEO Tom Swidarski might have been wise to take up our offer for advice on what was wrong with his company back when we offered it in March of 2006, just after former CEO Walden O'Dell had finally been pushed overboard.

O'Dell, a George W. Bush "pioneer," having raised more than $100,000 for the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign while he led the North Canton, Ohio, company, had infamously --- and disastrously --- brought Diebold to the center of attention for e-voting critics when he wrote that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" in an ill-advised Republican fund raising letter back in 2003.

The company has been forced to defend itself against charges of corruption and vote rigging ever since.

But while it hasn't been shown that Diebold has actually thrown any elections, myriad findings, including California's reports and a study last year at Princeton University, have shown that both the physical and software "security" on its systems are easily violated and could allow a single user with access to just one of its voting machines to implant an undetectable computer virus that could flip an election without detection.

The University of California also found an undocumented user account that could allow company employees to access and take over the entire voting system remotely without use of even a password.

New Hampshire-2008- So far the errors highlight problems with electronic voting, but don't overturn Clinton's surprise victory.

Taking A Hopeful Break For A Few Moments

Back To Reality….
Election integrity activists in New Hampshire are finding all kinds of problems with the electronic vote count in last week's presidential primary, after a first day of recounting the Democratic vote. But the problems so far have not changed the outcome of the race that Hillary Clinton won.

According to an extensive report by Brad Friedman, editor and publisher of the BradBlog, ("Perhaps the most dogged critic of electronic voting machine technology in the blogosphere." - The New York Times), which tracks the election integrity community, there have been numerous errors -- small and large -- that the recount, a process where paper ballots that were originally scanned by computer are now counted by hand, has turned up.

These include: electronic tallies that were off by several votes, paper ballots the were not read by electronic scanners (550 in one town), ballots that were not read because the voters used the wrong kind of marking pen. He also reported that some election records are missing, notably computer memory cards.

Election integrity activists from across the country have converged in New Hampshire for the recount, seeing it as an opportunity to showcase the shortcomings of electronic voting systems -- and possibly explain Hillary Clinton's surprise victory in the New Hampshire primary. They were drawn to New Hampshire after noticing that Barack Obama won in precincts counted by hand while Hillary Clinton won in the computer-tallied precincts.

Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign requested and paid for the recount.

The activists have said that New Hampshire election officials, who used a Diebold optical scan system in 80 percent of the state -- where hand-marked paper ballots are scanned by computer to be counted -- should have audited the machine tallies on Election Night. While some New Hampshire precincts did that, it was not a widespread effort required by state officials.

Curiously, the activists' work may help build a case for a new bill to be introduced in the House today by Rep. Rush Holt, D-NJ, that would provide $600 million for election officials to replace paperless electronic voting machines with the same kind of optical scan system used in New Hampshire, but only if those jurisdictions conduct mandatory audits of the vote totals -- which is what New Hampshire is doing now.

Ironically, in New Hampshire the problems of electronic voting can be seen and tracked because there is a paper audit trail. In the upcoming South Carolina primary, where the state uses paperless electronic voting systems, there will be no independent audit trail to verify the vote.

The voting machines in Horry County, South Carolina were not reset to zero before the first voters came to cast their ballots, the state's Election Commission admitted today.

The Commission stated that the technicians perform a "clear and test" procedure on all machines prior to the machines accepting votes, but in this case, it was not carried out before people arrived at the precincts to vote.

"This resets the test votes recorded on the machine to zero," a press release by the Commission read. "Without performing this measure, the voting system will not allow machines to be opened for voting on election day."

But the Commission blamed the delay on human error, even though Election Systems & Software voting machines used in South Carolina were decertified by the California Secretary of State last year, after the company refused to provide information necessary to review the voting systems, as required by state law.

To accept votes," the Commission stated. "This issue was due to a human error in preparing the machines for the primary.

The 2008 Primary season has been wracked by allegations of vote fraud stemming from the use of unreliable and easily hackable voting machines belonging to Diebold and ES&S and other vendors.

New Hampshire was forced to carry out a state-wide manual recount after discrepancies emerged between hand counted and machine counted votes.

Huge Diebold Disparities Uncovered In New Hampshire RecountMemory cards missing as attorney voices concerns about transparency

Paul Joseph WatsonPrison PlanetFriday, January 18, 2008

Huge disparities between votes cast on Diebold electronic voting machines and actual hand counted tallies are emerging during the New Hampshire recount, with Hillary Clinton gaining the most from over a hundred unaccounted for votes in one Manchester Ward.

The recount in Manchester's Ward 5 revealed a disparity whereby establishment candidates received over a hundred 'black hole' votes between them that could not be tallied during the hand count.

Diebold Result
Hand Count

At the moment there is no indication of where these extra votes came from, but the figures again cast the accuracy of Diebold voting machines into severe doubt and provide further evidence of the need for a return to hand counted paper ballots only in all federal elections

Brad Friedman at The Brad Blog continues to provide great coverage of the recount, unlike New Hampshire's foremost news outlet WMUR, whose "only source seems to be whatever (New Hampshire Secretary of State) Gardner tells them," according to Friedman.

In addition, 550 ballots in Stratham were not read by the Diebold machines at all and were rejected as blank ballots.

Voting Rights attorney John Bonifaz also told Friedman of his deep concerns about the transparency of both the initial election as well as the recount.

"I'm very concerned that this is not a fully transparent process that is happening there," he said.

Diebold memory cards used in New Hampshire, which have been proven to be vulnerable to hacking and could easily be used to steal an election, are "missing" according to state officials

Bonifaz, "Says he was told by Secretary of State William Gardner that his office doesn't get involved in tracking what happens to those memory cards. Some have reportedly been returned to LHS, and may have had their memory erased already," reports Friedman.

"When you have a private company counting 80% of the votes, and you later learn that the memory cards are unaccounted for, you have a serious question about the transparency and accountability in that process," Bonifaz said.

Federal law mandates that all materials from elections be preserved for 22 months thereafter, so if the memory cards have been wiped then LHS Associates, who it was revealed last week had hired a narcotics trafficker to a high-level executive position, would be facing criminal charges.

In another shocking development, vote fraud expert Bev Harris witnessed first hand that a majority of ballot boxes had 8 inch slits in their side. Election Defense Alliance's Sally Castleman followed the boxes back to the ballot vault and also noticed the cuts. Read Bev's report here

Pre-election polls projected that Barrack Obama would win the New Hampshire Democratic primary election. An average of seven opinion polls predicted that 38.8 percent were going to vote for Obama, while 30 percent would vote for Clinton. The opinion polls came close to predicting the final results for New Hampshire's hand-counted votes - 39.2% for Obama and 34.9% for Clinton - but New Hampshire's Diebold/Premier machine-counted votes reversed the outcome.

The reversal of the machine and hand counts is consistent with programming errors counting votes cast for Obama, for Clinton and votes cast for Clinton, for Obama.

To see this consistency of New Hampshire's election results with programming error, analysts examined Clinton and Obama vote shares out of votes cast only for Obama and Clinton. Overall, Clinton's hand count share of such votes is 47.07% to Obama's 52.93% share and a virtually exact reverse pattern occurs with machine counts where Clinton's share is 52.95% to Obama's 47.05%.

A statistical analysis of New Hampshire's Democratic primary by the National Election Data Archive rules out precinct-size and seems to rule out demographic factors as possible causes for the reversal of Obama and Clinton's machine and hand-counted results; and shows that the pattern is consistent with vote miscount favoring Clinton.

The National Election Data Archive's New Hampshire analysis and raw data is posted on the Internet at

About 80% of New Hampshire ballots were counted by Diebold/Premier optical scanning machines without any post-election manual audits to verify the machine count accuracy.
Press reports hypothesized theories for why Clinton beat Obama in New Hampshire including:

1. the "Bradley effect" (closet racism) that white voters lie to pollsters and "say" they'll vote for a Black, but given a secret ballot don't,

2. the "damsel in distress" theory that Clinton's tears brought women voters out for her,

3. the "good weather" theory, and4. the "economy was key" theory.

It would be interesting to know why these effects would only occur when ballots are counted by Diebold/Premier voting machines but not when ballots are counted in public view by hand.The "electronic miscount" theory could be a more plausible explanation for the discrepancies between the opinion polls and the machine-counted results.

Could someone have mis-programmed – by accident or on purpose – the optical scan machines such that Hillary's votes went to Obama and Obama's votes went to Hillary?


The Secretary of State (SOS) of New Hampshire announced that there will be a statewide recount of the paper ballots beginning on Wednesday, January 16, because presidential candidates Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Albert Howard requested it.

It is imperative that, not only ballots, but poll books and absentee and provisional voter records are inspected for a representative sample of recounted precincts. Post 2004 election investigations of "recounted" (and non-recounted) precincts in Ohio discovered large numbers of "phantom" ballots for which no voting records could be found, and disenfranchised voters for whom no ballot could be found - see

U.S. Representative Kucinich asks for a Recount of NH machine counts in the interest of election integrity

Kucinich is asking for donations to pay for the Democratic Primary recount

Is the suspicious pattern in New Hampshire's Democratic primary results caused by voting machine counting? We have no clear idea, because we have no confidence in the unaudited machine vote counting process. Knowing how easy it is to corrupt machine-counted election results, it is appalling that New Hampshire and other states do not routinely conduct post-election manual checks of the accuracy of machine vote counts.

Human mistakes and worse are inevitable, and without routine post-election measures to detect and correct mistakes, and without public oversight over security and chain of custody of ballots, inaccurate vote counts and incorrect election results are inevitable.

The full analysis of the National Election Data Archive is available at ElectionArchive.org


Does this state conduct any publicly observable post-election independent manual counts to check the accuracy of machine counts? (This would require voter-created, or at least voter-checked, paper ballots.)Were the detailed vote count data and raw polling data made publicly available immediately after the election for analysts to detect any possible suspicious patterns?Were the invisibly-machine-counted vote counts checked, audited, provably correct?
Is there public oversight over chain of custody procedures for election records and ballots?

What are the state's procedures for securing paper ballot and election records; and how may the public participate?


Another Statistical analysis which reaches the same conclusions as the National Election Data Archive, with links to vote count data

New Hampshire Secretary of State Web Site

National Election Data Archive

Note: No exit poll data was publicly released after the election unless it had been adjusted to match the final unofficial vote counts. I.e. No public exit poll data is available to use to judge the accuracy of the election results as occurred after the 2004 presidential election.

CNN Exit poll info:


Keith Olberman Covers the Story

Diebold Again: Did Hillary Really Win New Hampshire?by Dave Lindorff

New Hampshire to Recount Ballots in Light of Controversyby Kim Zetter January 11,2008

Informative article w/ good links to exit poll info

Diebold favors Hillary, hand count for Obama

Election Integrity Questioned in New Hampshire - Dennis Kucinich formally requests recountBy Michelle Wolski, Epoch Times Florida Staff
Primary Concerns - Hoisting a few red flags about the electionsby Robert C. Koehler, Tribune Media Services, January 10, 2008

Analysis of Hand-counted versus Diebold-counted Precincts


Where Paper Prevailed, Different Results, By Lori Price

US Count Votes, DBA National Election Data Archive urgently needs your donations if it is to continue its work to try to obtain public oversight over the integrity of election results via mandatory routine vote count audits and public access to election records and election data, and public oversight over ballot security procedures.

Donating money to get out the vote efforts, to political candidates, or to efforts to educate voters on issues, makes little difference if votes are not accurately counted.

NEDA can not continue its efforts without funding.

THANK YOU. PLEASE PASS ON THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.CONTACT: Kathy Dopp (1) 435-658-4657Kathy Dopp, Executive Director,
The National Election Data ArchiveP.O. Box 682556Park City, UT 84068
phone 435-658-4657

History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview ofElection Auditing Fundamentals
"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of bodyand mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day," wroteThomas Jefferson in 1816

The Greatest Cover-Up Of All: Vote Fraud In America

You're running in your first election for City Council in a crowded field of 26 candidates. Nine will be elected. The No. 1 local anchorman comes on TV at about 9:15 PM and announces that you're going to do very well for a first time candidate, then flashes on the screen that you're running 12th; only three places from victory. Such a finish would give hope to all who were daring to "fight city hall."

Earlier in the evening, a liberal-leftist home-town university professor who was analyzing early returns for another local TV station had projected that your arch-rival, and his ally the sweetheart of the anti-God portion of the establishment was headed towards defeat.


At approximately 9:45 PM, the same anchorman announces that there has been a computer breakdown. 45 minutes later when the computers come back up, a massive switch has occurred. You and 7 other feisty challengers have fallen to the very bottom of the heap. The establishment sweetheart has jumped into a winning position against all odds.

Despite unprecedented public dissatisfaction, the same old faces are elected once again. Many conclude that "you just can't fight city hall." Things have worked out just great for all those entrenched politicians who seemed to be the object of such public dissatisfaction right up to election day. The next morning, you scan the papers in vain for any mention of the computer breakdown: no record for posterity.

The above scenario is my story, but it was happening in dozens of places all across the nation. It was 1979 and a new day had quietly dawned in America - UNVERIFIABLE, RIGGABLE computerized vote tabulation. (end of sidebar)

Ballots for Bullets

When I was small I remember my Dad saying how in other countries they would shoot each other to decide the transfer of power. In our country it was done by the ballot at election time.

Millions of American soldiers have fought and bled and died to protect your right to free and fair elections; to protect your right to an orderly, peaceful transfer of power when the people so will.

How Your Parents' Votes Were Counted

Once upon a time, Americans voted by Paper Ballot. At the end of the day after the polls had closed, neighborhood people, Democrats and Republicans, worked together to count the votes in the precinct (polling place) BEFORE the votes left that precinct. The count was then posted at the precinct polling place for all to see. This is the only way to insure a verifiable election. Variations of method are possible, but the elements of physical ballots which are counted and posted at the precinct before the ballots leave each precinct are essential to insure a fair and honest count.

To rig an election with the above safeguards built in, one would have to bribe many hundreds of neighborhood people, including key Democrats and Republicans in each precinct you hoped to rig. Finally, the group of people bribed at each precinct would only have access to a tiny fraction of the vote.

The Greatest Coverup Begins

About 1974 a sinister development was in full swing all over the United States. In many areas, especially high populations regions, the votes were no longer being counted in the precincts by neighborhood people. The switch was on to computer vote counting systems. Typical was Cincinnati, Ohio where votes were bundled up immediately after the polls closed and sent to a mysterious central computer room to be counted by secret computer codes. To add insult to injury, the votes were counted away from the watchful eye of the entire electorate and the press.

Despite the brutal cover up that has been conducted for going on three decades by the news media and the major parties to prevent you from hearing about this issue, some major media news items have appeared. In a rare but superb news story on the eve of the 1988 Presidential election, Dan Rather (CBS Evening News) engaged in this exchange with computer expert Howard J. Strauss of Princeton University:

Rather: "Realistically, could the fix be put on in a national election?"

Strauss: "Get me a job with the company that writes the software for this program. (ed: Strauss was referring to the most common computer program in use) Then I'd have access to one third of the votes. Is that enough to fix a general election?"

"A House Without Doors"

In an earlier clip during this CBS interview, Howard J. Strauss dropped this bombshell: "When it comes to computerized elections, there are no safeguards. It's not a door without locks, it's a house without doors."

The most succinct introductory summary to this mind-blowing subject is found in the ground breaking book Votescam: The Stealing of America by James & Kenneth Collier. The following is quoted with permission granted by the late James Collier in 1991:

The chapter begins by quoting the first words spoken by President-elect, George Bush in his Nov. 8, 1988 victory speech in Houston, Texas. Bush said: "We can now speak the most majestic words a democracy can offer: "The people have spoken . . . "

The Colliers comment in the following brilliantly written passage:

It was not "the People" of the United States who did 'the speaking' on that election day, although most of them believed it was, and still believe it. In fact, the People did not speak at all. The voices most of us really heard that day were the voices of computers strong, loud, authoritative, unquestioned in their electronic finality . . .

The computers that spoke in November 1988 held in their inner workings small boxes that contained secret codes that only the sellers of the computers could read. The programs, or "source codes," were regarded as "trade secrets." The sellers of the vote-counting software zealously guarded their programs from the public, from election officials, from everyone on the dubious grounds that competitors could steal their ideas if the source codes were open to inspection . . .

You may ask: What "ideas" does it require to count something as simple as ballots? Can the "ideas" be much more complex than, let's say, a supermarket computerized cash register or an automatic bank teller machine?

The computer voting machines do not have to do anything complicated at all; they simply must be able to register votes for the correct candidate or party or proposal, tabulate them, count them up, and deliver arithmetically correct additions . .

People with no formal training, even children, used to do it all the time. So why can't the public know what those secret source codes instruct the computers to do?

It only makes common sense that every gear, every mechanism, every nook and cranny of every part of the voting process ought to be in the sunlight, wide open to public view. How else can the public be reasonably assured that they are participating in an unrigged election where their vote actually means something? Yet one of the most mysterious, low-profile, covert, shadowy, questionable mechanisms of American democracy is the American vote count . . .

Computers in voting machines are effectively immune from checking and rechecking. If they are fixed, you cannot know it, and you cannot be sure at all of an honest tally.

If you understand the above quoted paragraphs, you understand the problem.
Crash, Cover-up, Lawsuit, Fix

Among the many struggles which have taken place all over the USA in the last few decades over this issue, I can speak about only one from first hand experience: Cincinnati, Ohio (part of which is covered on page 242-247 in the Collier book, Votescam) Fortunately, the Cincinnati case illustrates as well as any other instance how the establishment media and both major parties coalesce to thwart any attempt to get rid of their precious, riggable computer vote counting systems.

"How Elections Are Stolen" in American Opinion magazine (written in 1977 by Dr. Susan L.M. Huck, who later served as an aid to Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald, who disappeared during Korean flight 007) alerted me to the dangers of computerized vote counting systems. A great American patriot, the late Jim Stefanopoulus, (a man who proved to be uniquely providential in my life on several occasions) handed me the Huck article shortly after it was published. If Mr. Stefanopoulus had not handed me this article, I don't think I would have recognized the significance of the computer crash we witnessed on election night in 1979, i.e., that it was not an isolated incident, but a part of a nationwide pattern of computer crashes on election nights, invariably resulting in the "re-election" of incumbents.

When we actually witnessed our very own computer crash in 1979 (described near the beginning of this article) during which everything worked out perfectly for the "in-crowd" -- I knew something big and bad was up. When the Cincinnati newspapers failed to mention the computer crash the next morning and the accompanying candidate position shake up -- this was our first taste of the media blackout that dozens of other concerned citizens were experiencing all over the nation.

After due research and preparation, we filed suit against our local Board of Elections in 1981, and after 4 years of public service litigation conducted by my father, James J. Condit Sr., our side won a decisive victory. Judge Richard Niehaus ruled: "There is no adequate and proper safeguard against the computers being programmed to distort the election results." What the Judge's ruling means, Mommies and Daddies and Boys and Girls, is that thousands of your votes can be switched in the blink of an eye and no one would ever be the wiser!

Judge Niehaus also issued a court order allowing us and our chosen experts "to observe all phases of the election process" on election night 1985 with a view that we bring evidence back to his court so that the situation could be properly remedied.

Shortly before this court ruling, my mother-in-law, Kay Kleiner, a tireless crusader for our country since the 1950s, had providentially alerted me to a series called "Votescam" by the Collier brothers being carried in the Washington DC-based weekly newspaper, The Spotlight. Thanks to this tip, I was able to ask the Colliers to serve as two of our court-approved experts in 1985. As reported in their book, the Colliers had already video-filmed women punching votes out of voters' ballots at the Board of Elections on election night 1982 in Miami, Florida.

And to my surprise (but not to theirs), the Colliers also caught women on camera plucking votes out of punchcard ballots in Cincinnati, this time using household tweezers.

Disappointingly, Judge Niehaus (in his tennis shoes) was summoned down to the Board of Elections at about 7:30 PM on that 1985 election night by the heads of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Judge, in a highly unusual move, modified his court order on the spot insisting that observing "all phases of the election process" did not include videotaping!

The audio portion of the confrontation between Ken Collier on the one hand, and the Judge and both local Party heads on the other, is captured on a video camera which was pointed at the floor during the tense exchange. The Colliers were told to quit videotaping under threat of arrest.

The next morning we appeared on the Jan Mickelson Show on WCKY Talk Radio. Mickelson, who is one of the top Talk Show Hosts in the country (now for many years on WHO in Des Moines, Iowa), was skeptical when Ken Collier asserted that we had video-film of women pulling votes out of ballots with common household tweezers. He shot a quick glance my way as if he were having second thoughts about having let us on the air at all. But then our credibility shot sky-high when no one from the Board of Elections was willing to come on the air against us.

Back to election night: While the Colliers' videotaping efforts were causing such consternation to the Election officials, our other court-approved expert, Mr. Robert Strunk, was moving quietly through the system with my Father.

Mr. Strunk, a highly respected computer analyst who once headed the Xavier University computer department, issued a magnificent report to the Court detailing why the computer vote counting system was NOT verifiable. Mr. Strunk said that to believe the published results under this computer system was "an act of faith."

Please observe that the conclusions of Mr. Strauss and Mr. Strunk, as well as the conclusions of dozens of other honest computer experts, agree completely on the unverifiability of these computer vote counting systems. As far as we know, there is not one computer expert in the nation who has gone on record in an attempt to refute these scholarly individuals.

Despite his previous fine decisions, Judge Niehaus, perhaps feeling the heat from the local power structure, excused himself from taking any action to remedy the riggable computer system by announcing that he was a "pacifist" judge whatever that means. In order to try and effect a remedy, we appealed, and two years later in 1987 our deplorable Court of Appeals dismissed the six year-old case stating absurdly that the county judge did not have any jurisdiction over the county computer vote counting system. (!!!) (And believe it or not, Hamilton County, Ohio, which houses Cincinnati, is STILL using the exact same easily rigged punch card system today in 2003.)

Whistle-blowers Emerge

In the meantime, something momentous happened. Two whistle-blowers had come forth from Cincinnati Bell. One of them eventually testified in convincing detail during court proceedings connected with our lawsuit that he had been involved in causing a computer crash while helping to alter the local 1979 election by wiretapping into our computer vote counting system. (The reader will recall that this was the very year we had been stunned by the candidate shake-up which occurred seemingly during the computer shutdown.). The key whistle-blower had already watched for several years as a Congressman, the FBI, and all the press stonewalled his evidence.

On election eve 1986, Cincinnatus Political Action Committee, our local political vehicle, had issued a press release asking the media how they could ignore Judge Niehaus's finding and continue to report local elections as business as usual when the same riggable computer system was still counting the votes. Only Channel 12 responded and took a brief statement from your writer, but the spot they aired right after Monday Night Football caught the attention of the key whistle-blower, and he contacted us the next day, election day '86.

After another year of being stonewalled, we convinced the frustrated whistle-blowers that the only way to break through the media censorship was to utilize a little known law which forces TV and radio stations to accept a candidate's political ads provided no obscenity is involved.

Days before our TV ad featuring the whistle-blowers was to air, Judge Niehaus again played a key role when he ruled favorably on my Father's request to allow the key whistle-blower to enter his sworn testimony about wiretapping the computer on election nights as well as causing that crash in 1979 into our suit against the Board of Elections, which had not yet been thrown out by the Court of Appeals. Together the TV ad and the sworn testimony combined to spark the only two significant local major media reports that have ever appeared. Anchor Nick Clooney and reporter Mary Krutko of Channel 12 aired an excellent, in-depth local TV segment, and twenty minutes later during the same newscast our TV ad featuring the whistle-blowers ran.

The next morning (Oct. 30, 1987), reporter Randy Ludlow wrote an outstanding article in the Cincinnati Post. But these two reports alerted the Media Moguls that word was getting out to the public -- and the media curtain of censorship was slammed down over all local establishment media, i.e., the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Cincinnati Post, Channel 5 (NBC), Channel 9 (CBS at that time), Channel 12 (ABC at that time).

WLW Radio Talk Show Host Mike McConnell gave wiretappers Gates and Drais, as well as myself, a forum, and WLW night talk show host Bill Cunningham interviewed Gates and Drais.

After several meetings with Gates, Drais, and myself -- a now defunct neighborhood paper, The Mount Washington Press, embarked on a series of articles about the controversy, primarily spearheaded by reporter Gregory Flannery. Flannery is now at the downtown "alternative press" paper City Beat, where reporter Maria Rogers wrote an in depth article on the votefraud issue in the November 2002 issue.

Eventually a cornucopia of establishment press coverage did ensue but it focused on all the other aspects of the wiretap story, while maintaining the brutal cover-up of the computerized vote fraud issue. All the rest of the coverage was devoted to relative trivia such as which millionaires and organizations had been allegedly phone tapped, speculation as to why, etc. etc. etc.

By time the smoke had cleared in the wiretapping story, 5 policemen had resigned in disgrace and Cincinnati Bell admitted one of its trucks had been used in wiretapping activities. The Wall Street Journal had mentioned the story. Local Cincinnati newspapers, TV, and radio stations combined to carry over 400 reports. Even the national CBS program 60 Minutes aired a segment on the Cincinnati wiretapping story, but again suppressing the computerized votefraud apsect of the story. In a 1989 court proceeding between wiretapper Leonard Gates Cincinnati Bell, the chief computer man at the local Board of Elections admitted under oath that if someone had the relevant codes he would have a 100% chance to alter the election results.

So, omitted from all major local and national media press coverage up to November, 1988 -- with the two already noted exceptions, was any intelligible reporting on the computerized votefraud aspect of the story. (Several of the highly explosive radio shows featuring the Colliers, the whistle-blowers, and myself are preserved on audiotape. Our TV commercial featuring the whistle-blowers and the local Channel 12 spot is preserved on videotape as is an hour interview which I conducted with one of the whistle-blowers early on just in case we had not been able to break through the media curtain.)

New Yorker Magazine, Dan Rather, and the U.S. Department of Commerce

Even though 99% of the investigative reporting on votescam has been done by private citizens and non-establishment investigators (for instance, while the "respectable" New York Times has done only 3 stories on the subject, the "persona non grata" Spotlight weekly was carrying over 300 stories), there have been enough establishment sponsored stories to demonstrate that the major news media has what some call "guilty knowledge."

On the eve of the Bush-Dukakis election, Ronnie Dugger broke the almost total silence in the major media on votescam when his article "The Dangers of Computerized Voting" appeared as a cover story in the Nov. 7, 1988 issue of New Yorker magazine (This dynamite article is available in most libraries).

Dugger, who visited me for a week in Cincinnati during the wiretapping uproar, exerted his journalistic skills to present this issue in an undeniably credible manner. He documented the activities of many and varied citizens, candidates, and experts generally unknown to each other who have been working on the votescam issue in virtually every region of the country from the early 70's to the present day.

Within days of the appearance of the Dugger cover story in The New Yorker magazine, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather carried the only report on the computerized votefraud issue to date to appear on a major national TV network, featuring computer expert Dr. Howard J. Strauss. We have also preserved this excellent 5 minute report on videotape.

In August of 1988, the U.S. Bureau of Commerce published a comprehensive study under the auspices of the National Bureau of Standards by Roy G. Saltman, Special Publication 500-158 entitled "Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying." (There is also rumored to be a second volume of the Saltman study, but we have never seen it.)

This is probably the most comprehensive compilation of all the lawsuits and other aspects which surround the issue of computerized voting published thus far. This government study supports Dugger's article, as well as supplies mountains of evidence documenting the problems with computer vote-counting systems.

The fact that Saltman failed to pick up our Cincinnati case -- which featured both the most decisive judicial ruling and the only whistle-blower to come forth to date on the computerized vote fraud issue -- demonstrates the difficulty faced by even a well-funded government agency in compiling a comprehensive list of all the local and sporadic efforts that have been conducted to expose the dangers of computerized vote tabulating.

Even -- as this updated version is written -- after the 2000 Presidential election fiasco -- the thus-far successful suppression of the computerized vote scam issue from widespread public notice, debate and understanding -- is a chilling demonstration of major media censorship in America.

Why Does the Board Of Elections Exist?

The Boards of Election exist for one reason: to guarantee that the results published on election night are in fact what the people voted that day, i.e., the will of the people; to insure in a way that can be verified that what the people voted in the thousands of neighborhood polling places is what shows up as the final results. It doesn't matter how many pieces of literature are distributed, or how many TV campaign commercials run, or how much shouting goes on, or how many debates are televised -- if the votes are not counted accurately.

If the computer programs which "count" our votes are poised to switch key votes in the blink of an eye, the rest just doesn't matter. As computer whiz Howard J. Strauss said at the end of that lonely 1988 CBS Evening News report: "Should we make it voluntary that we have safe elections or should we demand safe elections?"

The new computerized vote-counting systems are constructed so that nothing can verified or proven. No one except the faceless expert who writes the vote-tabulating program has any idea of what is in it. And not even that programmer can be positive that some other clever computer expert has not devised a way to tamper with his program on election night.

It is not my job, or your job, to prove that votefraud has occurred in any given election. It is the job of the Board of Elections to prove to US, the public, that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent votefraud, as far as is humanly possible.

The only way to insure this all important "verifiability" is for neighborhood people to count paper ballots in full public view BEFORE the votes leave the neighborhood precinct, and then post the results immediately at that polling place for all to see. Impossible? India (the world's largest democracy), Great Britain, and Canada -- have used the paper ballot method all along -- and still use it today.

I charge that we have thousands of people holding public offices that were never elected to those offices by the people, but were put in by computerized vote fraud. I charge that millions of taxpayers are paying taxes that were never passed by the people, but were made to look like they passed by computerized vote fraud. You, dear reader, cannot prove my charges wrong -- and neither can anyone else in the United States of America. That is an absolutely intolerable state of affairs.

The Board of Election officials at the local, state, and national levels, together with the "mainstream" news media, are maintaining, both explicitly and implicitly, that the election night results are verifiable and above reproach. That is. THIS PRETENSE IS AN OBJECTIVE FRAUD.

It is a fraud which involves an essential cornerstone of freedom in our country: our right to vote, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, includes the right that our vote be counted accurately. Without these rights regarding the vote, the "consent of the governed" becomes a meaningless phrase.

Whether that fraud is limited to the objective deception that computerized vote counts are safe and verifiable -- or whether it extends to include the silent rigging of thousands of U.S. elections by silent, computerized vote fraud over the last 30 years.
The Historic Video
Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine


If one wanted to be labeled cynical or paranoid he/she might suggest that there are forces out there just practicing now for the big show in November 2008.

No comments: