Posted for "Land Shark": Snohomish Pro-Rossi Irregularities Exposed

The following is an executive summary of a report that will be released tonight. The authors will have a copy of the report and supporting information available for download from Votersunite, tomorrow, 5 Jan 2005.

Link is: www.votersunite.org

"Land Shark" does not have posting privileges, as yet, at DU but he can respond to comments and you will note that he has posted comments in other threads dealing with irregularities in Snohomish County, WA State.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Counties such as Snohomish County Washington that run parallel voting technologies on Election day over the same precincts and the same races are useful for isolating any effect voting technology may have on patterns of voting.

Touch screen systems, controversial for their proprietary counting software that can not be verified, claim as a positive “product feature” the reduction or elimination of undervotes, or persons not voting for any candidate in a race.

Evidence from New Mexico suggests that undervoting, at least in heavily minority districts, was very high, an average of four times higher than national averages with undervoting for President exceeding 9% in many minority precincts.

This strongly suggests that either electronic machines do not actually reduce undervoting substantially, or else something is wrong with the machines in New Mexico, or both.

Undervoting rates in Snohomish County were quite low, but numerous persons reported that touch screens would appear pre-voted, or else would select the Republican box when the Democratic candidate’s box was pressed either with a finger or the stylus provided.

Problems of switched voting or machines freezing up appeared in over 50 polling locations out of approximately 148 total.

Statistical analysis shows high correlations between reported voting irregularities and high Republican voting results.

Statistical analysis of machines that recently had their CPUs repaired shows a propensity for Republican voting that is present but weak on the individual level but strong at the polling location where the machines were placed.

Sequoia touch screens are required to have their power cords daisy chained, forming a de facto network that third parties can use to tap into the machines or have the machines communicate among each other.

Snohomish county had the highest election day increase in vote for Republican governor candidate Dino Rossi relative to absentee voters, while other nearby counties had either smaller increases or election day actually favored the Democrat Christine Gregoire.

Election day voting in Snohomish County is not like paper voting for Republicans and Democrats which forms a bell curve with noise, but instead forms a smooth twin peak curve, suggesting different forces acted on the electronic vote relative to the paper vote.

Simple mechanisms exist for multiple voting or hacking the Sequoia touch screen machines by single individuals, and they are further identified in the paper.

Machines with repair histories within two weeks of the election or exhibiting problems on election day with observed vote switching, prevoted ballots, or freezing up performed better than the average Republican gain in the governor’s race on election day (of just under 5%) in 46 out of 58 polling locations, and did better than the absentee results for the same precincts in 56 out of 58 polling locations. In the remaining two instances, electronic results were roughly equal to absentee results.

The average of the 58 polling places reporting vote switching, freeze-ups, or repairs within two weeks of the election was 11.58% more favorable to Republican Dino Rossi than absentee voters did, and averaged 10.8% more votes than Gregoire on election day, while Rossi’s overall spread among all electronic voters at all polling locations was under 5%.

Similar anomalous precincts were also found for the Presidential race, coinciding with numerous reports of Kerry votes switching to Bush in Snohomish County that were reported on election day by KING5 TV.

Given the coincidence of observed vote switching behavior doing this very thing with actual precinct results reporting enhanced Republican outcomes relative to absentee paper ballots, the probability is that Democratic votes and/or undervotes are being assigned improperly to Republican candidates and contrary to at least some voters’ intent, and forensic analysis of the machines along with their impoundment is necessary to rule this out.

Even though evidence of fraud exists here, the parallel voting technologies and record keeping are unusually good in Washington state, making investigation somewhat easier.

Citizens should not have the burden of proving fraud, it is our government that has the burden of proving the election was transparent, fair and clean from the perspective even of the loser, because the continued vitality of democratic government depends upon the election loser’s acceptance that the loss occurred through a fair and democratic process.

The security of our elections should be an important part of protecting democracy and our country, yet no one has an incentive to identify risks and problems with our elections so that they can be corrected.

Sequoia machines similar to those in Snohomish County, Washington were used in all of Nevada, almost all of New Mexico, and four counties in Florida. Problems similar in nature to those discussed here were reported on electronic machines in Ohio.

Although free and independent testing is badly needed, the authors of this paper have been told in writing that they will be allowed no testing of the Sequoia machines without Sequoia’s express permission.

From the article: 'Sequoia touch screens are required to have their power cords daisy chained, forming a de facto network that third parties can use to tap into the machines or have the machines communicate among each other.'

I'm not sure I understand this bit. Microprocessors require low voltage DC, so every piece of electronics that uses one--and this includes all touchscreen devices--have a power supply. There's no physical way to move bits through a power supply. It's a great hulking big rectifier+transformer--the constant-voltage DC coming out can't have any information content. Even if you tried sending signals OUT over the power lines--which is not practical--it's really not possible to recieve them.

See www.homeplug.org The FCC just this last fall approved a standard so that home entertainment pieces can talk to each other through home electrical grids, even though made by different manufacturers.
http://www.homeplug.org/news/press102104.html

When talking of using the electrical grid for ALL of our broadband internet (so the whole country would already be wired) it's called "powerline broadband".

http://www.homeplug.org/powerline/

It's possible--if you build that feature in, and it isn't real subtle. I don't think you could do this secretly for voting machines.

If you haven't read the paper, don't say the evidence isn't there.

once you finish using the power lines as a network, basically from the wall to the computer you would need a traditional network cord, but I could be off here haven't seen much detail on this-only know it fucks with low power radio by creating more interferance

:hi:

What does this bit mean?

"is present but weak on the individual level but strong at the polling location where the machines were placed."

how can it be both?

but an even stronger one at the polling location level, suggesting that votes are traded or shared among machines as one possibility.

....p*^%-one off :evilgrin:

And, "the irony; the sweet, sweet irony of WA State...." (some here will remember to what that references, both in posting here and at dKos).

A bit of advice Karl -- don't be soooo greedy if you ever get a 'next time.'

Peace.

"When Did Bush Know?"

I remember seeing those voters on King5 saying their votes had been switched from Kerry to Bush.
Funny how all the voting machine companies are so scared of someone examining or testing them.
And no surprise that Rossi keeps saying he thinks the machines are more "accurate" than paper ballots.

I WAS INVOLVED IN A TEST OF THE SEQUOIA MACHINES HERE IN FLA...I WAS ASKED BY LOCAL SEC CHAIR AND OUR NEW DEC CHAIR TO BE A VOLUNTEER TO TEST THE SEQUOIA MACHINES HERE IN PINELLAS FLA..I DID NOT KNOW IT AT THE TIME UNTIL IT CAME OUT IN THE PAPER THE FOLLOWING DAY THAT BEV HARRIS WAS THERE EARLY THAT MORNING BEFORE WE VOTING VOLUNTEERS GOT THERE...I DID NOT SEE HER...I DID NOT AT THE TIME KNOW WHO I WAS DOING THE TEST FOR, I WAS SIMPLY ASKED TO BE A VOLUNTEER AND THEY WANTED TO KEEP IS SECRET UNTIL IT WENT AHEAD SO I WAS ASKED TO DO IT AS I WAS A DELEGATE AND A POLL WATCHER AT LARGE FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION AND EARLY VOTING. i am good friends with the sec chair and dec chair and i am trained on the machines that is why i was asked to participate in the test.

sorry about the caps above....

but we did random testing ..the machines were randomly chosen ..and we were given stacks of phony vote papers with the votes marked on them..they were randomly placed in the piles next to the machines..they had been shuffled and placed in piles face down..we would pick a paper and vote that vote...there were two of us to a machine..one voting and one verifying that the proper vote was put into the machine that matched the paper vote
immediately the first 3 votes i had were kerry votes and betty castor (senate ) votes..
i voted the ppapers exactly as they were on the papers..the first vote it took 3 times that i put in kerry and the machine showed bush..3 times for the first vote paper...the second paper vote was also kerry ..that time it took 5 times for kerry to show up..each time i voted kerry.. bush came up...i had to void it 4 times and only on 5th time did it register kerry...at that point i asked the verifier to vote the 3rd paper...not knowing who the third paper was for...i have long fingernails and even though after the first votei used the stylist..i wanted to make sure it wasn't something i was doing that made the votes come up wrong...the thrid paper was a kerry vote as well..it took 9 times then for the kerry vote to register..8 times bush 's name came up when the verifier voted for kerry!!
after the first paper vote i demanded that it be filmed of which it was..and it was all then filmed..
the fourth paper was also done by the verifier..it was a bush vote..it went in perfectly!! first time no problem!!
there were no further problems after that..but 3 votes the first three were nothing but problems...
i was going away the next day on a cruise..so i did not talk to anyone after i was done..but the next morning at the airport i picked up the st pete times and it had an small article about the test, and the ppaper said the test was done and there were no problems..i was furious and almost choked!!
but i was told by one of the independant people running the test early the morning of the test that nothing can be shown without the codes for the tabulators, and that we will never get that from the private companies who developed the machines..

i fear we are screwed until it is a national law that those codes and tabulators are the propriety of all americans..
why should they not be..we paid for them..we own them...and yet we have no right to what we paid for??>
its all crap folks...
thats like buying the car and not getting the key to the ignition!!
you can bet i am frustrated and angry here in fla!
fly

that's really interesting.

When I touched Kerry, it went to Bush. I was able to change it back and when I reviewed my voting at the end it did say Kerry. The ENTIRE election, and everything on the ballot in every state, seems suspect to me. Here in Colorado, we passed EVERY school spending and environmental issue on the ballot, replace two Republicans with Democrats, one Senator, one Representative, both brothers, and STILL voted for Bush. I have had lots of Coloradoans tell me they think Colorado would do something like that, but the numbers still look F'd up to me. It is hard to imagine that almost everyone that voted for all the above ALSO voted for bush. I KNOW I didn't intend to vote for him and I also know there is a whole lot of other people who didn't intend to either. I can't vouch for everyone obviously, but it sure has felt strange around here since the election. Lots of people appear to be on autopilot and not talking to anyone.

I sure hope our Senators are ready to stand on Jan. 6th. I have seen more than enough to KNOW things aren't right.

These are often dismissed as "screen calibration problems", as if the screen if off by a half inch all around. But only for certain races... and only in one direction, so the "screen calibration" defense doesn't really hold up.

That was THE only time my vote jumped during the voting process. Funny it would be THE most important issue on the ballot to me. I also had poll workers whisper that I "looked determined" and they stood three feet away from me discussing previous voters that they said were illiterate and smelly and looked like street bums. I was very offended by their behavior. I also had an incident at the primaries with a poll worker who tried to tell me I couldn't vote because I was registered as Independent. I told her "bullshit, I've done this before, I just need to declare my affiliation." She did back down and let me vote. but only after saying "that other guy this morning was a Democrat too." I have no idea what she meant by this. Funny thing is I changed my affiliation to Democrat 7 or 8 years ago! I changed because I wanted to vote in the primaries at the time and had to declare at the polls. I have to remember to get that changed permanently and soon!

...votes jumped to Bush on these machines vs. how often they jumped to Kerry? That is, someone tried to vote for Kerry and got Bush whether they wanted to or not (sort of like the entire country)? Is this an answerable question yet?

Thanks and welcome to DU, by the way!
:hi:

There might even be some around used. Then we could get inside and analyze...

Maybe to teach college kids computer forensics?

"Citizens should not have the burden of proving fraud, it is our government that has the burden of proving the election was transparent, fair and clean from the perspective even of the loser, because the continued vitality of democratic government depends upon the election loser’s acceptance that the loss occurred through a fair and democratic process."

I wrote it myself but did note earlier today that Prof Avi Rubin expressed some similar sentiments in an article prior to the election. The correct perspective is that of the loser, yet I've heard some people whining that only the losers are claiming fraud. Like the winners are going to?? Well Kerry won Snohomish and Gregoire is Governor-elect, but I am still claiming there's evidence of fraud.

Some of the touchscreens in Snohomish County were defaulting from Kerry to Bush,
as in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, etc.

For documentation, see EIRS reports at www.voteprotect.org
maps/ Washington / Snohomish

lots of vote switching from Kerry to Bush

had a strong trend for favoring Bush. I found the pattern suspicious -- in the only 4 counties with Sequoias running WinEds 2.6.220 software, initial results showed that Kerry picked up 2%, 11%, 21%, and 26% more votes than Gore, but Bush picked up 14%, 21%, 29%, and 35% respectively.

This is a consistent 10% +/- 2% gain which is more easily explainable by vote skimming or by machine bias than by normal patterns of social behavior.



This machine type looks especially 'trendy' in comparison to the wide scatter present with other types of voting systems in Florida.



(Sorry to beat a dead horse for those that have seen this already; but just in case one more set of eyes would find it useful, I'm reposting the charts.)

but electronic voting results are smooth, as if created by machine... our graphs show this. (they are also twin peaked)

Communication thru the power grid.....would only have to plug into an outlet on a buildings power grid to hack the vote.

Throw out the damn machines and go to paper. At least then large scale fraud would require access and effort. Right now one person with a laptop sitting anywere in the world could pick the next president of the US.

I managed a warehouse for security systems. We got at least 15 returns of those a month, and we only sold 20.

:eyes:

"...yet no one has an incentive to identify risks and problems with our elections so that they can be corrected."





The Republicans have no wish to identify problems because they aren't problems, they worked exactly how they were supposed to. And their complaciantacy proves it.

Citizens should not have the burden of proving fraud, it is our government that has the burden of proving the election was transparent, fair and clean from the perspective even of the loser, because the continued vitality of democratic government depends upon the election loser’s acceptance that the loss occurred through a fair and democratic process.

We accept nothing they do with elections anymore...

I guess what I'm saying is that too many people accepted "moral values" mantra from the MSM, when if memory was even four years long we would immediately realize that (1) "moral values" was rated much higher in the 2000 election than this one, so it dropped a lot in 2004 and (2) no other poll has reproduced the same "moral values" findings and (3) this moral values result was from the same exit polling that no one in the MSM gives the time of day to, except to say it's flawed.

All I'm saying is there will always be an excuse given, the excuse has to be evaluated for what it's worth...

What I've noticed is the Establishment has kinda stopped with the moral values crap recently. Several really bad stories about * not coughing up the dough and not too much good news filtering out from the BFEE.

There will always be an excuse, there will always be a celebrity scandal, there will always be another Bin Laden Tape. I have been pleasantly surprised, however, by the people who have come up to me and told be they didn't think the election was fair. These are not DUers, they found out somehow, or had a feeling.

People are not stupid unless they want to be stupid.

Thanks for posting here. :)

3 stolen elections here in fla folks..i dont trust either party..we were begging for reform and screaming about these machines to our reps long long before this election!!..the answer we were given you ask?? ,,we need alot more voters for kerry than they have for bush , so it can't be stolen...yes the dems were either very naive, or they were in bed with this..you decide...but it didnt wash with me!! not long before the election, nor after, nor now!! all we seemed to get were bogus " shut us up" answers!!


fly:cry:

the election was fair etc. should be placed on the government.:-)

The govt should want to count my vote, without it there is no legitimacy.

Just got this from someone I know at Alliance for Democracy. Decided to just post here rather than start a new thread. Don't have a link but see author and contact info below. No wonder Rossi wants a revote.

Preliminary Analysis of Electronic Voting at Penny Creek Elem. School,
Snohomish County, Washington State: Rossi Does Twice as Well As Gregoire on Touch Screen Voting as on Paper Absentee and Provisional Ballots

Question: Based on the data presented below for the five precincts located at Penny Creek Elementary School in Snohomish County, Washington, why do Republicans do so much better on the electronic touch screen voting machines compared to both absentee and provisional ballots?

Snohomish County residents, like all Washington state residents, cast three different types of ballots: Electronic, absentee, and provisional ballots. Both provisional and absentee ballots are reported by the Snohomish County auditor as “absentee ballots” on its canvassing reports, and I confirmed with Elections Dept. staff that “election day” ballot totals consist solely of electronic balloting on Sequoia, Inc. voting systems, and not of any absentee ballots, even if dropped off at the actual precincts. Because Snohomish County has all Sequoia touch screen voting systems for use only on election day, and all absentee or “early” voting along with provisional balloting is handled via optical scanning of paper ballots, the two methods of tabulating vote totals are on distinct lines in the final canvass report, and we can isolate from the canvassing reports vote totals produced by touch screen methods versus vote totals produced by optical scanning of paper ballots.


(Note: While this paper examines differences in 5 precincts at one particular voting location and finds substantial differences in the touch screen voting, it does not follow that optical scanning of absentee ballots is foolproof, primarily because the central tabulation of those ballots is done on a single computer, so only one computer needs to be defective or altered to alter the result of the election substantially).


On Election Day, I was a volunteer attorney at the Penny Creek Elementary School, and my understanding was that it contained precincts that trended Democratic. During the day there, I observed provisional balloting rates of very close to 10% of the electronic ballots cast that day, and there were also 144 absentee ballots dropped off at the polling location. This means that in addition to the “election day” touch screen totals, there were about 91 provisional ballots from Election day and 144 absentee ballots from election day that were nevertheless reported as “absentee” ballots, and not as “election day” ballots, which consist solely of the touch screen electronic ballots. Thus, “paper ballots” subject to optical scan tabulation computers scanned close to a total of 235 paper ballots from Election day. (I say “close” because the provisional poll book number of signatures did not match the number of provisional ballots, so there is some uncertainty as to the exact number of provisional ballots). Thus, the total at Penny Creek Elementary School was close to 922 votes, based on the above 235 absentee and provisional ballots plus 687 votes recorded on the touch screen systems there, of which there were six.


With these totals in mind, we look at the results of the Presidential and Gubernatorial elections for the years 2000 and 2004: Note: when the term “absentees” is used below with regard to figures from official canvassing reports, it means BOTH absentee votes and provisional votes, regardless of where or when received, so long as postmarked by election day.


PRESIDENT: (Summary: Gore wins in 2000 817 to 748, but Bush wins 2004 over Kerry by a margin of 1060 versus 980).


In the five precincts located at Penny Creek Elementary School, Kerry is listed as having obtained 980 votes (versus 817 for Gore in 2000), split between 655 “absentees” and 325 Election Day votes. Meanwhile, Bush is listed as having received 1060 votes (versus only 748 in 2000), split between 702 absentees and 358 Election day votes. Put another way, Bush edged Kerry by 7.18% in the absentees, while Bush also edged Kerry by around the same amount or 10.15% in the election day voting. However, Bush’s improving over 2000 is more dramatic: Despite heavy turnout, the democratic presidential candidate managed only an increase from 817 votes to only 980 votes, an increase of 163 votes or 19.9% over 2000 performance, while the same Republican presidential candidate (Bush) went from 748 votes all the way up to 1060, an increase of 312 votes, or an increase of 41.7% compared to the last non-electronic voting presidential election PLUS a change in the overall winner in these five precincts.


GOVERNOR: (Summary: Locke beats Carlson 911 to 691, while Gregoire actually gets fewer votes than Locke at 878 and Rossi skyrockets to 1116 votes). Moreover, there is a large difference between canvassing totals for “absentees” and canvassing totals for Election Day electronic votes.


In the same five precincts located at Penny Creek Elementary School in Snohomish County, Washington, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire is listed as having obtained 878 votes (versus 911 for Locke in 2000), split between 599 absentees and 279 Election Day votes, meaning Democrat Gregoire got 33 FEWER votes than Democrat Locke despite heavy turnout, for a performance of - 3.8%. Meanwhile, Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is listed as having received 1116 votes (versus only 691 for Carlson in 2000), split between 726 absentees and 390 Election day votes, an increase of 425 votes for the Republican gubernatorial candidate, an increase of 38.1% over 2000 Republican gubernatorial performance. Put another way, Rossi’s total exceeded Gregoire’s by 21.20% in the absentees, but almost doubled that margin to exceed Gregoire by 39.78% in the election day (electronic only) voting.


In these precincts trending Democratic and still very tight when a Democrat runs against a heavily entrenched incumbent Republican (like the Cantwell/Sen. Gorton matchup) the Republican gubernatorial candidate in an open seat is walking away with a landslide 425 extra votes representing a 38.1% increase while the Democrats actually Lose votes for Governor relative to 2000, both percentage wise and on an absolute number of votes level.


ANALYSIS: Obvious errors tend to be caught, because they are very large and stick out, such as the Ohio machine that registered negative 25 million votes. However, moderate to slight errors (whether intentional or not) will tend not to be caught necessarily because it is hard to distinguish improper data from changes in the voter demographic or late-breaking changes in campaigns. Any such slight to moderate errors that exist would be susceptible of rational explanation by means other than their true cause (i.e. a Republican tide came in, changes in demographics, last minute attack ads, etc.). Thus, the only “errors” that will make it through will be moderate to subtle ones. Another way of putting this “rule” is that only relatively close elections can be “stolen”.


CONCLUSIONS: There are always going to be explanations that can be proffered to explain any set of numbers (weaker candidates, war, etc.). However, these explanations are not at all sufficient to explain why there is such a large difference in favor of Republicans ON THE ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES in precincts that Gore and Locke won in 2000, relative to the paper ballots. A simple “Republican tide” would not explain why the totals on electronic machines differ from “absentee” totals of absentee and provisional ballots by almost double. FOR SOME REASON, more Republican votes are recorded on the Sequoia machines. This could be due to a programming error, deliberate alteration of election day Sequoia data, or that Democrats avoided the touch screen systems in large numbers, by disproportionately voting early.


Note however, that any theory that suggests that latebreaking voters broke for Rossi suffers from the problem that there are 235 paper ballots that came in from the polling location on Election day but were reported in the canvass as “absentees”. If there was any late break for Rossi, 235 of the 920 late breaking ballots were placed in the “absentee” column, so the late break for Rossi would have to have been even larger than it appears from the numbers here. Thus, it does not appear very likely that latebreaking voters explains the continuing gap (doubling up from 21.2% to 39.8%) between Rossi and Gregoire on electronic voting relative to paper ballots scanned optically.


A working hypothesis is that something in the counting of the votes, whether it be a defective computer algorithm, an altered total, a hacking of the system, or defective math caused the Republican gain differential based on the type of voting technology used. It is also possible that Democrats disproportionately (and heavily so) used absentee ballots relative to electronic voting, either because they were more motivated to vote early compared to Republicans, or because they wished to avoid electronic machines in large numbers. If it is the former, and Democrats used absentee ballots much more than Republicans, it is a complete reversal of the general historical rule that Republicans are better at absentees, though this “rule” has admittedly eroded in recent years. But has it eroded to the point of democratic dominance of absentees? If it is the latter (namely that Democrats don’t trust the touch screen machines) then there is a serious problem of confidence in the electoral system that has to be addressed regardless of whether or not a computer defect is found, or even findable.

In any case, the discrepancies between both pre-electronic 2000 performance, and the discrepancies between absentee ballots and electronic voting both argue for more investigation into the general election of 2004, and the possibility that something is wrong regarding the touch screen electronic voting machines can not be ruled out.

Paul R. Lehto, Attorney at Law
LEHTO & PENFIELD, PLLC
2829 Rucker Avenue, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 1091
Everett, WA 98206-1091
425-257-2297 (voice)
425-258-5041 (fax)
Paul@lehtopenfield.com

Thank you.

....DU link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x229854

Peace.