GAO Report= Election Was Stolen

Why isn't this being reported? It's rather long, from Huffington report. Here's a link to the GAO sort of:http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Government+Accountability+Office
This should be reported LOUD & OFTEN by the media. WTF?

<snip>
. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

In essence, the GAO study makes it clear that no bank, grocery store or mom & pop chop shop would dare operate its business on a computer system as flimsy, fragile and easily manipulated as the one on which the 2004 election turned.

The GAO findings are particularly damning when set in the context of an election run in Ohio by a Secretary of State simultaneously working as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Far from what election theft skeptics have long asserted, the GAO findings confirm that the electronic network on which 800,000 Ohio votes were cast was vulnerable enough to allow a a tiny handful of operatives -- or less -- to turn the whole vote count using personal computers operating on relatively simple software.

The GAO documentation flows alongside other crucial realities surrounding the 2004 vote count. For example:

The exit polls showed Kerry winning in Ohio, until an unexplained last minute shift gave the election to Bush. Similar definitive shifts also occurred in Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, a virtual statistical impossibility.

A few weeks prior to the election, an unauthorized former ES&S voting machine company employee, was caught on the ballot-making machine in Auglaize County

Election officials in Mahoning County now concede that at least 18 machines visibly transferred votes for Kerry to Bush. Voters who pushed Kerry's name saw Bush's name light up, again and again, all day long. Officials claim the problems were quickly solved, but sworn statements and affidavits say otherwise. They confirm similar problems inFranklin County (Columbus). Kerry's margins in both counties were suspiciously low.

A voting machine in Mahoning County recorded a negative 25 million votes for Kerry. The problem was allegedly fixed.

In Gahanna Ward 1B, at a fundamentalist church, a so-called "electronic transfer glitch" gave Bush nearly 4000 extra votes when only 638 people voted at that polling place. The tally was allegedly corrected, but remains infamous as the "loaves and fishes" vote count.

In Franklin County, dozens of voters swore under oath that their vote for Kerry faded away on the DRE without a paper trail.

In Miami County, at 1:43am after Election Day, with the county's central tabulator reporting 100% of the vote - 19,000 more votes mysteriously arrived; 13,000 were for Bush at the same percentage as prior to the additional votes, a virtual statistical impossibility.

In Cleveland, large, entirely implausible vote totals turned up for obscure third party candidates in traditional Democratic African-American wards. Vote counts in neighboring wards showed virtually no votes for those candidates, with 90% going instead for Kerry.

Prior to one of Blackwell's illegitimate "show recounts," technicians from Triad voting machine company showed up unannounced at the Hocking County Board of Elections and removed the computer hard drive.

In response to official information requests, Shelby and other counties admit to having discarded key records and equipment before any recount could take place.

In a conference call with Rev. Jackson, Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others, John Kerry confirmed that he lost every precinct in New Mexico that had a touchscreen voting machine. The losses had no correlation with ethnicity, social class or traditional party affiliation---only with the fact that touchscreen machines were used.

In a public letter, Rep. Conyers has stated that "by and large, when it comes to a voting machine, the average voter is getting a lemon - the Ford Pinto of voting technology. We must demand better."

But the GAO report now confirms that electronic voting machines as deployed in 2004 were in fact perfectly engineered to allow a very small number of partisans with minimal computer skills and equipment to shift enough votes to put George W. Bush back in the White House.

Given the growing body of evidence, it appears increasingly clear
that's exactly what happened.

GAO Report

greatest shames. You're right. People should be marching in the streets in outrage.

Democracy betrayed, mocked, and murdered...

for the next round. :shrug:

Okrent mass mailed US last December I think, and told us there was no story here. I still have that email somewhere. :evilgrin:

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:51:34 -0500
To: "Elizabeth Ferrari"
From: "Public" <public@nytimes.com> Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Re: Blackwell Locksout Certified Recount Volunteers on Fri 12/10
At 04:54 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:

> Mr. Okrent
>
> I personally think it's outrageous that the Times
> failed to cover the Conyer's hearings.
>
> And now, Mr. Blackwell is sabotaging the Ohio recount
> in violation of OH state law.
>
> Is the Times going to ignore this whole story? I'd
> like to know so that I can reconsider my subscription
> options. If the Times won't cover the news, I have to
> find a paper that does.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Elizabeth Ferrari
>
> San Francisco CA
>



Dear Ms. Ferrari,

In the first few weeks after the election several readers wrote us about this issue. Mr. Okrent responded to these concerns on his web journal. I include the entry below (see post #35).

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html?offset=36&fid=.f555e99/36

dokrent - 5:40 PM ET November 21, 2004 (#35 of 40)

The Times and Covering Allegations of Election Fraud

Sorry to have been neglecting this spot for so long; I could give you a list of excuses, but none of them is especially good.

Now, though, my mailbox has begun to overflow with criticisms of The Times for not looking more deeply into allegations of large-scale vote fraud in Ohio and Florida, a story (if true) that no one can ignore. In some of these messages, writers say that "now that the theft of the election has been proven ...," The Times must
reveal this to the wider world.

Were the assertion even nearly so, I would do more than recommend that The Times reveal it ­ I’d be demanding it publicly, loudly and frequently. But the evidence I have seen to date proves nothing, other than that there was a certain amount of error in certain counties, and an aggressive effort by some partisans in
some areas to challenge some likely Democratic voters. To my knowledge, no one in the Kerry campaign’s vast on-the-ground operation, or in its armies of well-situated lawyers, has made the argument that what happened in Ohio (or Florida) could have changed the result of the election. Similar views were explained in "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread By Blogs, Are Quickly Buried," by Tom Zeller (Nov. 12).

And more, I expect, will be explored and explained in future articles if meaningful allegations can indeed be established as facts. Both Matthew Purdy, the head of The Times’s investigative unit, and Rick Berke, the paper’s Washington editor, assure me that reporters will continue to look into the issue. I’m confident that if they find something, they’ll publish it. A good investigative reporter (much less a whole staff of them) turning away from a story like this one ­ if true ­ would be like a flower turning away from the sun. Careers are made by stories that detail massive election fraud.

But: the operative words here are if true. Wishing doesn’t make it so. Although it would probably pain him to have someone from The Times touting his work, David Corn of The Nation, in a recent column, offers plenty of reason to examine the allegations before I, or anyone else, should leap to give them credence. You can find Corn’s column here.

Since then, over seven hundred other readers have raised similar concerns requesting more coverage on this issue. You may be interested in the following articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22poll.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/politics/15ohio.html

I raised reader concerns with Mr. Okrent and a few days ago he asked me to let you know that he does not believe The Times's coverage of the voting in Ohio is over.

The following articles have since appeared:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/politics/29ohio.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html

Mr. Okrent wanted me to write you back asking that you please stay tuned.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

I've stayed tuned. Has the NYT

:shrug:

2004 election theft.

1. They failed to inform voters that Bushite corporations--mainly Diebold and ES&S (run by Bush campaign chairs and rightwingnuts)--had gained control of vote tabulation during the 2002-2004 period, with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY software in their electronic voting systems, and little or no audit/recount capability, and furthermore with nifty election-stealing features like internal modems (direct company access) and extreme insecurity and hackability.

2. On election night, these news monopolies DOCTORED their exit polls (Kerry won) to FIT the results of Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae (Bush won). Kerry won their exit polls by a 3% margin. They then permitted their "consortium" pollster (Edison-Mitofsky) to FALSIFY that result, and to match it to the covertly tabulated Diebold/ES&S result. This was not the normal exit poll adjustment for election day demographics. It went way, way beyond that, into the realm of absurdity (for instance, in-putting a 100% turnout of Bush-2000 voters without deducting a % for those who had died in the meantime; and other fraudulent and ridiculous tweakings to confirm a Bush win, despite evidence to the contrary). See www.TruthIsAll.net for more details.

They put FALSE NUMBERS on everybody's TV screens, late on election day. They denied the American people major evidence of election fraud, and thus squelched protests and calls for investigation.

This was the worst journalistic crime I have ever witnessed.

They actively prevented change. They stopped our political system from making a desperately needed change of course. And they then blackholed the story about how THEY and the Bushite election thieves did it.

In my opinion, the Bushites perpetrated the open, blatant Voting Rights Act violations in Ohio because Kerry's win was even bigger than the exit poll 3%, and the electronic vote tabulators had to be pre-programmed to certain percentages (and not be too obvious). Ohio was part of Plan B: how to deal with a BIG Kerry win. I think he--and we, the antiwar grass roots majority in this country--won by more like 4% to 5%, if all votes had been counted and no same-day vote suppression had occurred, and even bigger, if no purging of minority voters from the voting rolls, and shredding of Dem voter registrations, had occurred, prior to the election. We won by maybe as much as 10% (as some believe). The exit polls only count those voters who made it to the voting booth.

The key question that arises in many peoples' minds is: How could the Dems let them get away with this? On the surface, it appears insane and suicidal on the part of Dem leaders. Scratch below the surface, and you find Dem election officials at the state/local level corrupted by the new electronic voting boondoggle, lavish lobbying and "revolving door" employment--and now in positions of tremendous power over Dem elected representatives, AND over the voters, as they spout their esoteric goggle-de-gook about electronic voting. (Connie McCormack, in Los Angeles, is a good example.) We also find higher ups like Sen Christopher Dodd in collusion on electronic voting (--who apparently advised John Kerry on the matter). And finally we have a number of Dem leaders who like Bush's war, who approve of a huge US military presence in the Middle East for the foreseeable future, and who did not want a president who would have been beholden to the grass roots antiwar majority. All of this worked together to prevent any objection by the Dems to this utterly fraudulent election SYSTEM.

We need a BIG BROOM--and the Republicans are not the only ones who need their house cleaned!

-----------------

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW! (--along with your copies of the NYT.)

re the GAO report, the old letter I'm holding and the question,
"Is it a story yet?"

As they watch their subscriptions tank.

not making any efforts to even mention it, let alone DO something about it. Joe citizen is not going to take to the streets if his 'leader' is either willfully ignorant or winking & nodding his way through office. If it were not for alternative media, this would all be swept under the rug completely, no one the wiser -which is the state of 90% of the electorate.

anything to keep their dirty little secrets. Hmmmmm that reminds me of another administration.

The ruling class is surprisingly hesitant to call "foul" on each other.

Meanwhile, our kids are targets, our jobs go away and we squabble among ourselves. If I shake my head any more, it may come off. lol

use some uniting it seems.

The following is an excerpt from an address he gave at Harvard University, during which he condemned the Western world as being morally bankrupt. The passage is from his biography by Joseph Pearce:

"Solzhenitsyn singled out the media for particular scorn.... (snip) Having been misrepresented himself on numerous occasions, he seemed to relish the opportunity to strike back against media distortion: 'Hastiness and superficiality - these are the psychic diseases of the twentieth century, and more than anywhere else this is represented in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press; it is contrary to its nature. The press merely pick out sensational formulas'. The media he maintained had become 'the greatest power within the Western countries, exceeding that of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary'. Yet its power was deeply undemocratic: 'According to what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible?' (Indeed, Alexander, we have been ruminating on precisely these lines).

However, the Neocons must be his ultimate nightmare, because they represent both the soulless and mindless materialism of all totalitarian regimes, while claiming Christian allegiance, thereby simultaneously denuding the Christian faith of all meaning.

Greatest page. If you look at the "greatest page now" your thread is listed.

If you look at the bottom left of your original post, there is a link that people can click to "nominate".

Welcome to DU. :)

Thank you. :D

That the Dems have legislation put forward to make sure we have a paper trail, but the Repubs won't allow it to come forward.

This certainly makes them look suspect. Why, oh why, would they no want a record of votes that could be counted?

OK I'm being sarcastic too. I sure hope we don't have to wait till 06 when we take back the house & senate to get justice.

It might not be a bad idea to compile a list of legislation stuck in Thug controlled committees. A big fat public list!

Who would know how to do that? I don't but would be willing to take pointers.

Because the media is part of the cover-up! If anyone really looks into this, the media are Busted too! I understand our newspapers are hurting right now. If they want to pick up subsribers, they should start reporting the truth! People are hungry for the truth! Let's send this article to every newspaper, every media outlet!

Found the article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051201/cm_huffpost/011483_200512011335

But is there a direct link to the report? Thanks!

access to pdf: http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-05-956

text only: http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05956.html

-------

Also interesting: Bob Koehler's recent column on the Ohio election reform initiatives, which got Diebolded big-time. Four election reform initiatives had a 60/40 preelection prediction and ended up on election day with a 60/40 LOSS--the most audacious vote-flipping yet.

http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1824

--------

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

The issue isn't whether fraud occurred, or whether it would have changed the outcome, but that the reported results are highly suspicious and can't be verified. The question isn't whether fraud can be proved, but whether the results can be proved accurate - they can't. That alone should be grounds for investigating.

Because the process for recording and tabulating votes was concealed from public observation and inspection, no one can say with certainty whether or not the results were accurate, save the highly partisan individuals, some with felony criminal convictions, who had access to the proprietary software.

This situation screams for investigation, and that the media and our elected officials can blithely look the other way, mumbling that there's no proof, is distressing to say the least. We need to keep the pressure on. Even if they feel powerless to get anything done about it they should at least be talking about it and raising awareness.

framed but I see your point. :)

where ordinary people have more potential influence. HAVA (Congress' bill) did NOT mandate electronic voting. See "Myth Breakers" at : www.votersunite. What it did was PUSH electronic voting with a $4 billion boondoggle that went right into the pockets of Bushite voting machines companies, who peddled their shoddy, hackable, not-ready-for-prime-time wares to the states. Both Dems and Repubs bought into it.

We can reverse this probably much more easily at the state/local level, than the federal level--despite corruption at this level (and all levels, on electronic voting). But it's a long and complex slog through each state's election system process. If we get a War Democrat in office in the WH (the only kind of Democrat that our corporate rulers will permit), and make at least some gains in Congress (due to Americans' overwhelming revulsion at Bushites), we might be able to achieve something nationally--probably not getting rid of the machines, but at least better verification, on a national basis--but there are perils along this route (federalization of elections--no more paper option in the states--which future fascists could seize power over, ending our democracy once and for all). (The variety in the states is a strength.)

We need...

1. Paper ballots hand-counted at the precinct level (--Canada does it in one day, although speed should not even be a consideration, just accuracy and verifiability)

or, at the least...

2. Paper ballot (not "paper trail") backup of all electronic voting, a 10% automatic recount (AT LEAST), very strict security, and NO SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code! (...jeez!).

.

Is it because Amerikkka hates democracy but claims the opposite?

Gyre

Anyone disagree with my prediction? :shrug:

I refuse to wring my hands & say I'm beat before I get started.

Technically, Bush is president, because the states' presidential electors (who have no idea how our votes are tabulated), verified the reports of the secretaries of state (who have no idea how our votes were tabulated), and reported them to Congress (one third of which was 'elected' in 2002 by voters who had no idea how their votes were tabulated), and Congress agreed to accept the results of these mysteriously 'elected' states' presidential electors.

And those electors, in winner-takes-all elections, were "elected" by voters almost ALL of whom had no idea how their votes were tabulated.

The war profiteering corporate news monopolies had confirmed that OPAQUE result by FALSIFYING their own exit polls to match it--and HIDING evidence to the contrary.

And, despite the fact that this entire process was completely OPAQUE, the end result is supposedly okay, because it is TECHNICALLY correct. Bush's Congress confirmed the results of Bushite voting machine companies (which tabulated the votes in secret), which was confirmed by the news monopolies (whose numbers were also fiddled in secret).

If there ever was case for the "spirit of the law" as opposed to mere technical compliance, it is this, the most important thing we do in a democracy: elect the president and our other representatives. Technical compliance--in this case, the mere form of compliance with NO SUBSTANCE--cannot make an election valid. To be valid, an election must be TRANSPARENT. Otherwise, it is tyranny!

The reason that the Bushites got away with this is that the Democratic Party hierarchy enforced a no-challenge position (as they had done in 2000), which only a few courageous Democrats defied in 2004 (among them, John Conyers and Barbara Boxer). For some of the reasons behind the Democratic Party leadership's apparent insanity on Bushites owning and controlling our election system, see my post # 35, above.

Granted, the Dem leaders and candidate Kerry had a very hostile Congress, a very hostile press, and a very hostile Supreme Court to buck. The odds against a challenge, at the point of Nov. 2004, were immensely bad. But their challenge SHOULD HAVE occurred long before that, back in 2002-2003, when HAVA (the $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle) was passed with completely inadequate controls (no paper trail required, for instance), and an underfunded monitoring agency (the EAC).

Why didn't they challenge it THEN? --is the question that Dem leaders need to answer.

"Myth Breakers": www.votersunite.org

For a project for statistical monitoring and challenges in '06 and '08, see:
www.UScountvotes.org

We need "parallel elections," vigilant monitoring, INDEPENDENT EXIT POLLS, and other verification tools in '06 and '08, and apparently we have to do this on our own, with little or no help from the Dem Party. The Dem Party has called for transparent voting systems, but they don't seem to be doing much of anything to achieve them.

***This would be a good pressure point--demand that Dem leaders and the party apparatus devote RESOURCES to monitoring these elections. Funding independent exit polls would be a good place to start. In truth, they SHOULD call for a total paper ballot election in '06, while electronic systems are stringently investigated.***

------------

For Bob Koehler's article on Diebold's flipover of the recent election reform inititatives in Ohio, from a predicted 60/40 win to a 60/40 LOSS (!), see
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1824

Use this with Dems!

:kick:

Does anyone have access to results when the vote from these Diebold (pro bush) Machines are "thrown out"?

How about results that compare the vote count on each type of voting machine.
(ie. Diebold: Bush 55% Kerry 45% - Other: Kerry 52%-Bush 48%)

Any websites that have this information. That information in itself would be pretty damming.

Dap

electon reform at DU:

wise up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5516027

to frank rich, re GAO report
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x177412

petition mcpherson against Diebold in Calif--SIGN IT!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5513129&mesg_id=5513129