"over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush"

I see this repeated here constantly. So I decided to look for myself. I went to EIRS https://voteprotect.org and downloaded the list of 42696 incidents. Then I started looking through them. It seems like the "98%" is a total myth. From what I have seen, maybe 2-3% of the incidents "favored Bush", if that.

443 incidents contained the word "Bush". This included incidents like these:

"Voter received phone call from Bush/Cheney local headquarters telling voter that ballot wouldn't count b/c signatures didn't match. Voter is not a registered Republican."

"Sample ballot & absentee ballot had Kerry as 6th on list & Bush on 4. Other precincts had same. His ballot looked different. Bush was 2d, Kerry was 4th, blank was 6th"

"Requested & rec'd absentee ballot. Stample connecting the ballot to the envelope. Choice for President punched b/c of the staple & Kerry was punched there. She wanted to vote for Bush. She won't use her absentee ballow now. Very disappointed since this is her first election"

"Voter went to vote early (Sat.) at county office in Reston. Filled out absentee ballot application and then voted on-site. First time he received a summary report the machine said he voted for Bush. He had not. He voted for Kerry. States pretty anal guy and the buttons are not that close together. Told workers on-site of problem, but they were convinced it was his fault. He was able to correct the problem, but in doing so had to push the Kerry button several times. The new/final summary report showed he voted for Kerry and not Bush, but his concern is that there is a problem with the machine and is concerned about tabulation. Voter reports it was a 10th District machine.

"

"When he went to turn in his absentee ballot the postmaster was wearing a red white and blue George Bush for Pres. hat. Can this government official wear campaign paraphanelia? This happened in pioneertown post office."

"Caller very concerned about voting problems she had heard about in the media--Diebold voting machines, Broward losing 58,000 absentee ballots, etc. Kept insisting that Jeb Bush was trying to steal the election and that we should throw him in jail."

"Holes on Absentee Ballot are Reversed from Holes on voting booth ballot. Absentee 7 = Bush; on the machine 7 = Kerry. "

552 incidents contained the word "Kerry". This included incidents like these:

"Sample ballot & absentee ballot had Kerry as 6th on list & Bush on 4. Other precincts had same. His ballot looked different. Bush was 2d, Kerry was 4th, blank was 6th"

"Poll worker reports of absentee ballots without John Kerry's name on it."

"The gentlemen voted by absentee ballot and was able to confirm that his vote was counted but wanted to know if he had a right to confirm that his vote was cast for Kerry. I told him that this information was private once submitted so he did not have the right to confirm his vote was cast for a particular candidate"

"people purporting to be from the Kerry campaign are going door-to-door handing out absentee ballots, and asking voters to fill them out, and then taking the ballots from them. One voter who was approached in this way is identified below."

etc.

did a random spot check - just took random reports in:

"Wanted instructions on how to use electronic voting machine"

"First-time voter registered to vote a month ago but has not received his voter registration card."

"Voter (registered as independent or democrat) was going to polling station during primary elections with intent to vote democratic ballot and was handed only a republican ballot and felt people there were intimidating her into voting Republican."

"White female called to inquire what types of voter irregularities she should look for on election day and who she should call to report same."

"Voter will turn 18 on November 25, and pre-registered to vote. She wanted to know if she would be able to vote in the upcoming presidential election."

"Does Maryland have early voting? How to get an absentee ballot if not."

"Electioneering in polls"

"Can I vote online?"

"Couple voted for Kerry -- when confirmed vote, came out Bush. Called in eleciton poll supervisor, who got same result. Continued to use machine."

"voter could not locate polling place; inquired as to need for identification"

"Demanded ID, when not necessary. They say they would not let her vote without ID. She was ok. She had ID but is concerned about other people. Head of polling center demanding from everyone."

You're welcome to look for yourself. The file that contains all the 40K+ incidents is only 10M.

Why don't you do a "search" of this DU forum using "EIRS" to find them. As I remember, both berniew1 and BillBored (maybe it was wilms) have done analyses that are much more comprehensive than yours and that confirm the pro-Bush "glitches". Remember, not all "pro-Bush" glitches meant a switch of a vote to Bush -- they could also involve a switch of a vote from Kerry to any other candidate or an erasure of a Kerry vote. Those would also have functioned as a "pro-Bush" result.

BTW, there are more documented vote-switching incidents in the Ohio EIRS reports alone than you found in your cursory EIRS analysis, and similar "pro-Bush" incidents have been recorded in approximately 20 states. These incidents were not only recorded by the EIRS but by Common Cause, which received four times as many phone complaints about voting problems as the EIRS system.

The Common Cause database is also accessible for analysis, but since I am posting this from DC (and not from home in Tennessee), I can't give you the links now.

take 5 minutes, download the whole database, load it up in Excel and just do a random spot check. You will find that for more than 90% (I would say more than 99%) of the entries you cannot tell whom it "favors" (or whether it "favors" anyone at all). Why rely on someone else - do the check yourself.

And you will find that 86 of 88 touchscreen voting machine incidents (or was it 87-91) turned Kerry votes to Bush votes.

Do you know how to figure the odds of that?
I already did - weeks back.
Its ONE in 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
1 in 79 sextillion.

Any comments?

As far as your statement that only 2-3% mentioned Bush, well, I'll do a screen later on my database to see if that is true.

"over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush"

This is an exact quote froom your post, I did not make it up.

Since EIRS has 42K or so incidents, and not 50K, and a huge majority of them are of the type:

"Wanted to know how late polling place was open."

"moved from Queens to Brooklyn"

"Moved in 10/03 and now lives in Gloucester County. Is registered in Cumberland. The Election Board in Gloucester County hung up on her. She voted in 2000. Was not aware she had to re-register."

"Don't know where registered"

"Was confused, almost left without voting, but EP team helped her find correct precinct."

"Needed polling location"

"Called to register complaint. Was directed to multiple polling places before being allowed to vote. Poll workers apparently didn't know proper polling place."


Please explain where you are getting your information about the "98% of 50,000 incidents".

if you did, i must have missed it.

"98% out of 50,000" statement that you keep repeating?

The filter is not the best. When I put in Dem or Rep, I get more than when I put in Democrat or Republican. I went and looked st some of the ones I got and I couldn't even find the word in their complaint. Some of those complaints didn't even list if they were democratic or republican.

I don't think the intent of the data base was to sort out Dems and Reps, it was to list by area how many complaints. For that it is a very useful tool. It shows where most of the complaints came from which is very interesting especially if you know anything about those precincts.

I tried to do the same thing you did when the system first came on line and the complaints were only at about 15,000. I gave it up because the complaint information is not uniform or uniformly put into the data base. It's a good attempt to manage these sometimes emotional complaints. But it is not designed to see which party had the most complaints.

which one gave you the idea that "98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush".

I already gave you the probability.
You figure out the percent.

And you can go through the links.
I got them for you.

Knock yourself out.

You know, there once was a kid named Sawyer who whitewashed fences.

"over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush".

Are you now officially changing your statement from 50,000 to 88?

Keep your gloves on.

You will surely need them later.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000123.html


January 06, 2005
The Status of Ohio's Electoral Votes
It's nice to have a senator:

We, a member of the House of Representatives and a United States Senator object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they are not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.

Signed,

Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH, email)
State of Ohio

Barbara Boxer (D-CA, email)
State of California


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

...we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.... The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters... in Franklin County, 27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush... six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry... decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters... departed from past Ohio law on provisional ballots... preelection "caging" tactics.... The Third Circuit found these activities to be illegaland in direct violation of consent decrees barring the Republican Party from targeting minority voters for poll challenges.... Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis from being able to receive provisional ballots... 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be inspected... two precincts in Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of over 25% each accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who stood in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for president

Did Barbara Boxer claim, as you did, that "over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush"? I don't think she did.

Why do you keep evading a simple, direct question? Please give your source for the ""over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush" statement.

"Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis from being able to receive provisional ballots... 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was...."

Does a spoiled ballot qualify as an incident to you?
Or don't you care?

the source of your "over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush" statement. It's a simple request. When you write stuff like that you should be ready to back it up.

.

when asked to back up one of your statements, your answer is "Bye"?

Wow. What a great way to convince people.

Unfortunately, on this subject you have to go back and verify almost any claim you hear.

On a more general level, for the Ohio 2004 election, I got the following breakdown:

       Absentee	                205 	6%
       Criminal	                  16 	0%
       Disability	          77 	2%
       Early Close	           9 	0%           
       Identification	         111 	3%
       Insufficient Ballots	  32 	1%
       Late Open	          35 	1%
       Long Lines	         401 	12%
       Machine Problem	         270 	8%
       Non-English Language       8 	0%
       Other	                 377 	11%
       Other Ballot	         112 	3%
       Other Polling Place	 262 	8%
       Polling Place Inquiry	 289 	9%
       Student Status	           1 	0%
       Provisional Ballot       189 	6%
       Registration	         738 	22%
       Ballot Unreadable         14 	0%
       Voter Intimidation       225 	7%
       Total	               3,371 	100%

Now any one of those categories might contain examples of manipulation. But reading the individual reports, it sounds like the kind of things that go on every election.

These were the tabs that mattered.

The key were the records from Toledo--the machines were reported to switch K to B. I think in the whole database there were two reports, (from the Carolinas?) of switches from B to K. But I do not recall there being 50,000 of these.

Mike

I wish there was a list of only those that suggested fraud. Specifics are more important than gross numbers.

Not all states have touchscreens, and not all voters know to report it, or where. What the number of incidents show are specific locations where the problem existed, and may reflect issues at the precinct, the BOE, or the SOS. The key is the pattern was not random, and appears in battleground states. My memory is that there was an association between the counties with long lines and reports of the switching. I want to say that there were reports from Florida--Palm Beach or Volusia.

Mike

partly because multiple reports may be about the same machine. (That's one reason you can't assign a probability to it without more information.) Partly because some reports may not be hacking, for example, the touchscreen monitor itself might have had problems. And partly because not all incidents get reported.

A fellow DUer with a background in epidemiology claims that even for diseases which must be reported by law, the compliance rate is often something like 1-2%. So it could be a bigger issue than it looks.

I have to admit that it seems like a lousy way to hack a machine, because the error is right in the voter's face. Much better either to leave the screen indicating Kerry and change only the internal counting. Or change the totals before or after voting.

But those machines should definitely be investigated. With all the attention, money, and activism that's gone into this issue, I can't believe it hasn't gotten any further. I really don't know the ropes in this area, but some people do.

I keep getting the two mixed up. Apologies.

Mike

:popcorn:

...one thing, WHERE the incidents were reported FROM is vital information, as to a pattern of election fraud incidents. Secondly, the EIRs you are referring to are only the officially reported incidents. There are masses of pro-Bush incidents reflected in other statistics (which TIA tried to point out to you).

I suggest you review the material in TIA's google link, and respond to it. Here's one item, written by statistical experts:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/

A quote:

"The exit polls themselves are a strong indicator of a corrupted election. Moreover, the exit poll discrepancy must be interpreted in the context of more than 100,000 officially logged reports of irregularities during Election Day 2004. For many Americans, if not most, mass-scale fraud in a U.S. presidential election is an unthinkable possibility. But taken together, the allegations, the subsequently documented irregularities, systematic vulnerabilities, and implausible numbers suggest a coherent story of fraud and deceit.

"What's more, the exit poll disparity doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't count those voters who were disenfranchised before they even got to the polls. The voting machine shortages in Democratic districts, the fraudulent felony purges of voter rolls, the barriers to registration, and the unmailed, lost, or cavalierly rejected absentee ballots all represent distortions to the vote count above and beyond what is measured by the exit poll disparity. The exit polls, by design, sample only those voters who have already overcome these hurdles."

I think you don't belong here. Your focus on this one statistical item seems like deliberate blindness to me--especially since it is a quite defensible statement. In fact, there were far more election fraud incidents than 50,000, reported in various venues.

that ""over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush". Either he can back it up or he has made it up out of thin air.

Pointing at http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/ in no way constitutes a "source" for that statement. Nowhere in the article is there anything about "50,000 election incidents" or "98% of them favoring Bush".

If my "cursory look" at the EIRS is not convincing for you, why don't you look yourself. You will find something like half of the "incidents" are of the "where is my precinct" variety, with a big portion of "I got an absentee ballot in the mail, can I still go vote" mixed in.

P.S. From your P.S. above I see that you really don't seem to care about the veracity of the statements made by TIA, as long as they sound good. Apparently your position is "if you dare to check whether the statements of people who post here are true or not, you don't belong here".

However, I'd hate to lose TIA as a statistician. We need all the help we can get. I suspect he might have to qualify his statement something like this: "In those cases where election incidents favored one side or the other, 98% favored Bush." Even that, might be hard to find hard evidence for, but I don't believe there's any question that most of these incidents favored Bush, and probably a large majority of them. I wouldn't be surprised at 98%.

But your point is very well taken I think.

The main point of all our work here on this site (mine anyway) is that it's not possible to have a democracy unless the vote counting is transparent and subject to required random audits for every election. Unless there's a paper ballot, that's not possible. How can you have a democracy when the vote is counted in secret by partisans of one side or the other, where the results either can't be questioned or where it's so difficult to question the results that in point of fact the results are accepted without audit or recount or any question at all?

We don't now have a democracy and we need to keep working like the devil to regain some semblance of one. I'm thankful constantly for all the people on DU and anywhere else (people of any party in fact) who are working to achieve democracy in the US.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

please give the source of your "over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush" statement. Don't really understand why such a simple request flusters you so much.

Internut, sum up the incidents N which favored Bush (B) or Kerry (K).
Then calculate the ratio B/N, where N is the total number of incidents and N= B+K

For example, assume B= 390 and N= 400
Then P (probability of an incident favoring Bush)= B/N = 97.5%

Given P and N:
What is the probability PB that for M =50,000 incidents, the number favoring Bush will exceed 48,750, or 97.5%?

So your homework for tonight is:
Find B and N.

I will calculate PB.

Do we have a deal?





What is the probability that e have the B/N, which we can assume is a random sample of 50,000 incidents.


If 98% of a sufficient subset of incidents X favored Bush, such as the touchscreens, et al, then assuming it was a random sample, we can make the statistical statement that to a certain probability, over 98% of X incidents favored Bush.

"over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush".

Note: it was not "if I extrapolate from 88 to 50,000 cases, it is my guess that over 98% of the 50,000 election incidents favored Bush". That is not what you said. You stated a "fact" that does not exist.

I only ask of you what I would expect to be asked of myself or anyone else who made a statement like that.

It is utterly ridiculous to state that "if 86 out of 88 touch screen incidents favored Bush, then 98% of 50,000 incidents would favor Bush as well". Why are you being so modest? 50,000? Why not 100,000,000? Just think how much more impressive your statement would be if you did that:

"Over 98% of 100,000,000 election incidents favored Bush". No one can argue with that, can they?

And there you go again "assuming it was a random sample". Do you have any idea whether it was? If I "assume" that my grandmother had wheels, then I guess that is "proof" that she was a wagon.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

please give the source of your "over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush" statement. Don't really understand why such a simple request flusters you so much.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It was derived from a full-scale analysis done by "TimeforChange" and the EIRS reporting database, which shows a very different story.

https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapNation&cat=02&start_time=00%3A00&start_date=11%2F2%2F2004&end_time=23%3A00&end_date=5%2F5%2F2005&search=&go=Apply+filter

http://www.votersunite.org/info/previousmessups.asp

Not surprisingly, he fails to also awcknowledge the facts each time which show over 90% of machine malfunctions favored Bush, not "election incidents" as he keeps parroting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x376182#376356

"over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush"

Again, if you look at the EIRS database, you will find out that for more than 90% (I would say more than 99%) of the entries you cannot tell whom it "favors" (or whether it "favors" anyone at all).

truth. I pointed out a repeated statement that was untrue. After much hamming and hawing the statement was finally acknowledged as untrue. I hope it will not be repeated again.

go have a dialog with OnTheOtherHand or Time for change. Are you one of their supporters?

"over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush" statement got deleted. Maybe he should post it again.

the forum rules. In any case, even the retraction does not get posted again, I certainly hope we've seen the last of this "98% out of 50,000" myth.

Maybe a little misunderstanding up thread.

"# Slang. A person who is regarded as dull, rigidly conventional, and out of touch with current trends." OR

"v. intr. To agree or conform: a story that doesn't square with the facts." (with square implying honesty) OR

on edit, my favorite
adv.

1. Mathematics. At right angles.
2. In a square shape.
3. In a solid manner; firmly.
4. Directly; straight: ran square into each other.
5. In an honest, straightforward manner.



Deep huh or as the man says "It's whatever."

:hi:

I have seen inferred embellishment from TIA's words, not numbers. I give that to passion, not to intentional disinformation. The OP shows a pattern of getting in TIA's face which, "in my opinion", his methodology isn't honest and it's personal. Not saying the 98% is accurate, but I am saying TIA is not dishonest.

...he's a square guy. "Passion" is so hard to avoid on this issue. The online dictionary is our "little friend." Thanks for the reply. auto

"Truth you can't handle the truth", or you would have been more honest with that eye catching title. I have read TIA stats till brain hurt and my eyes bled. He's square.

Peace.

almost 400,000 signatures

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"There is no "percentage of incidents" favoring Bush"

By your own data:

https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapNation&tab=ALL&cat=ALL&start_time=00%3A00&start_date=11%2F2%2F2004&end_time=23%3A00&end_date=11%2F3%2F2004&search=switch&go=Apply+filter

https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapNation&cat=ALL&start_time=00%3A00&start_date=11%2F2%2F2004&end_time=23%3A00&end_date=11%2F3%2F2004&search=switched&go=Apply+filter

https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapNation&cat=ALL&start_time=00%3A00&start_date=11%2F2%2F2004&end_time=23%3A00&end_date=5%2F5%2F2005&search=switched&go=Apply+filter

Over 98% of touch-screen switching incidents favored Bush, found in the very EIRS reports right here. And someone named TimeForChange also has the full statistical reports for the switches and graphs.

Even though freepers have since hacked the website, the entire "WORD DOCUMENTS" are still immediately available for download, if you simply ask him. In fact, they take the composite of the entire E.I.R.S. You can't erase that evidence, inter"nuts".

How many touch screen incidents were there? 50,000? Or 88?

I don't know what you are referring to...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=371211

Basically, I came up with 94 incidents that favored one or the other candidate, 87 favoring Bush, 7 favoring Kerry. As I point out in the discussion, I think that it is the ratio that is important, not the total number of reports. Certainly the great majority of incidents would not have been reported. So what fraction of the total the 94 reports represents nobody can say at this time.

of the data gathering. For example, it is my impression from the pre-election chatter that there was a concerted effort among Democrats before the elections to publicise EIRS efforts in order to have people volunteer as data gatherers and in order to spread the data-collection telephone numbers. I am not sure if there was an equivalent effort among Republicans. If a big majority of the data-gathering volunteers were from one side of the political spectrum, and the phone numbers were better known to one kind of voter than the other, I would not be surprised at the one-sidedness of the data itself.

But I would be surprised if it was so great as to result in a 13:1 ratio.

Also, I find the fact that almost half of the total episodes were reported from the three Democratic stronghold counties of SE Florida to be suspicious.

And this testimony by Clint Curtis gives the whole thing more validity, I think:
http://www.rawstory.com/images/pdfs/CC_Affidavit_120604.pdf

"86 of 88" or "87 of 94" aren't meaningful ratios as they compare apples to bananas (some of the reports represent individual voters, others report phenomena affecting unknown multitudes of people, and one even reports what AM radio was reporting). Furthermore, examining binomial distributions of a non-random, non-dichotomous set of anecdotes belies a misapplication of statistics. And yes, most anecdotes were self-selected by volunteers specifically concerned with fairness, which would tend to rule out Florida republicans.

With that said, if 22 of 22 Kerry-related AVC Edge anecdotes by different people across the country describe nearly identical programmatic behavior, one has an improbably serendipitous bug, or a testament to "the customer is always right" (by today's reckoning, there's 24 Kerry+AVC+"Machine Problem" anecdotes in total; #23 describes a broken machine, and #24 describes a pre-selected ballot (i.e., the previous voter didn't hit OK), and the rest are here):

(massive copy paste)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39721 Florida Hillsborough Oak Grove Church of God 6830 N. Habana "Nov. 2, 2004 approx. 10:30-11:00 am" 2004-11-02 12:14:00 PST Machine problem " ""I stood one hour in line to go in and vote; I went in to vote; when I reached that machine, the very first thing I hit was Kerry democrat and out came Bush republican; I called the poll lady and said I don't vote this way; she said just do it again; b No 12 57 FL Hillsborough http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17826 Florida Palm Beach 2004-10-30 09:33:37 PST Machine problem "Caller voted for a presidential candidate, but when recap showed up it showed the incorrect presidential vote (she voted for Kerry and it showed up as Bush). She got a volunteer to help her, but wanted to file a comlaint. " 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31377 Florida Palm Beach 2004-11-02 06:42:20 PST Machine problem "Couple voted for Kerry -- when confirmed vote, came out Bush. Called in eleciton poll supervisor, who got same result. Continued to use machine." 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43856 Florida Palm Beach Southwind Golf Course; Boca Raton 2004-11-02 14:41:34 PST Machine problem "Caller said when he went to vote, the ballot was repeatedly pre-selected for Kerry. " 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52639 Florida Palm Beach Wells Recreation Center 2-Nov 2004-11-04 12:51:51 PST Machine problem Person is reporting that someone he knows voted for Kerry using touch schrren machine but the summary of the vote showed that he voted for Bush. 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55454 Florida Palm Beach Boyton Beach St. John's Baptist Church 11/2/04 5pm 2004-11-11 08:12:29 PST Machine problem "Caller has difficulty reading, so she invited me to accompanyher into the voting booth. Three times she touched the Kerry/Edwards frame on her screen and the machine did not highlight her selection. She was only able to correct this on the final screen t 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55458 Florida Palm Beach 345 S Congress 10/31/2004 14:00 2004-11-11 08:22:41 PST Machine problem Went to vote for Kerry and Bush popped up immediately. I called for help. Woman/precinct worker told him to touch screen for Bush and it popped up again for Kerry. Successfully voted for Kerry on second time trying. No 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55477 Florida Palm Beach 2004-11-11 08:45:50 PST Registration-related problem; Machine problem "1. Wanted to vote for refunds - came up as against refunds{cr}{newline}2. Daughter was registered as newly registered, not 18 until 11/28/04.{cr}{newline}3. Husband voted for Kerry came up for next person not Bush - was ask to change it{cr}{newline}

" 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55485 Florida Palm Beach Banyon Creek Elem. School "11/2/04, 1:10pm" 2004-11-11 08:59:53 PST Machine problem "Selected John Kerry/ green check came up in George Bush's name. Called over poll worker and they got creen to read John Kerry. She stated ""it made me wonder if the machines are rigged.""" No 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55637 Florida Palm Beach 900 N Seacrest 2 Nov at 10:30 AM 2004-11-11 12:27:35 PST Machine problem "While voting for Presidential candidate Kerry - had problems with accessing his name. Bush's name kept popping and taking ""priority"". On the review however it showed Kerry so voter completed vote." No 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55842 Florida Palm Beach First Christian Church 11/2/2005 17:30 2004-11-12 06:29:56 PST Machine problem "Voter touched ""Kerry"" and Bush's name registered. I called poll worker and she told me how to erase Bush's name. We know of three today - maybe more!" 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55860 Florida Palm Beach 345 S. Congress 10/31/04 2:00 p.m. 2004-11-12 06:54:46 PST Machine problem Went to vote for Kerry and Bush popped up. Immediately called for help. Woman/precinct worker told him to touch screen on Bush and it popped up again for Kerry. Sucessfully voted for Kerry on second time. No 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62068 Florida Palm Beach 2005-02-10 11:27:34 PST Machine problem "Voter clicked on Kerry, but the machine flashed ""Bush"". Polling place emplowyeeds voided ballot and she startd over." 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63818 Florida Palm Beach 11/1 (voted early) 2005-04-04 14:47:02 PST Machine problem "When he voted, he had to hit touch screen machine 4-5 times before Kerry's name would register. No similar problem w/any other candidate's name. Friend had a similar problem: she would hit Kerry's name & Costco's name would light up" 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63847 Florida Palm Beach "Lantana Recreation Center, Lantana, FL" 2005-04-05 05:43:00 PST Machine problem Touch screen ??? machine - would not accept Kerry vote at first. Had to press two or three times. Other offices worked normally 12 99 FL Palm Beach http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33258 Florida Pinellas "Countryside Rec Center, Sable Springs Circle" 9:30am 2004-11-02 07:41:01 PST Machine problem "Move-on Volunteer, touch screen voting machinse are defaulting to Bush/Cheney, 3 voters have said tried to change to Kerry, kept going back to Bush. Finally succeeded, but don't feel confident." 12 103 FL Pinellas http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39531 Florida Pinellas 11/2/4 - 10 am 2004-11-02 11:37:45 PST Machine problem Voter selected Kerry and the voting machine showed that they had selected Bush - it took her many tried to correct. 12 103 FL Pinellas http://election.dos.state.fl.us/votemeth/systems/countysys.asp September, 2004 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge Release 3.1,WinEds 2.6.220 4.od n

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37481 Georgia Douglas Bright Star Church 11/2/2005 11:20 2004-11-02 10:29:01 PST Machine problem "Every time hit ""John Kerry"" name ""x"" would jump to ""George Bush"" happened two times" 13 97 NV Douglas Media reports 20041005 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37666 Georgia Douglas "Bright Star Methodist Church, 3715 Bright Star Road, Douglasville" 11/2/2004 2004-11-02 10:37:52 PST Machine problem "Pushed Kerry Edwards, the x went to Bush/Cheney, she tried this three times, went to next page, went back to Kerry page, then re-entered Kerry and the X went to Kerry. Also, message says need picture ID. " 13 97 NV Douglas Media reports 20041005 E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39275 Washington Snohomish Gold Bar Elementary School "Nov. 2, ~8AM" 2004-11-02 11:43:07 PST Machine problem caller calling for sister. contact information is for sister who experienced problem. polling place uses automated voting machine. voter selected kerry on ballot and reviewed results; showed a vote for bush. repeated at least 3 times before reults reflect 53 61 WA Snohomish Carolyn Diepenbrock, Election Manager (425) 388-3444 http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/votingsystems.aspx 4-Oct E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41871 Washington Snohomish "189th St. & 60th Ave., Lynnwood, WA" 11/2/2004 2004-11-02 13:14:40 PST Machine problem "Both caller and her husband said when they pulled up their electronic ballots, Bush was already checked. When they tried to switch it to vote for Kerry, had very difficult time unchecking the Bush box. Ultimately were successful." 53 61 WA Snohomish Carolyn Diepenbrock, Election Manager (425) 388-3444 http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/votingsystems.aspx 4-Oct E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47757 Washington Snohomish Discovery Elementary School 11/2 at 7 AM 2004-11-02 16:44:49 PST Machine problem Machine would enter incorrect candidates repeatedly. Kerry votes changed to Bush and others. Other voters reported similar problem. No 53 61 WA Snohomish Carolyn Diepenbrock, Election Manager (425) 388-3444 http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/votingsystems.aspx 4-Oct E-Voting: Touchscreen Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. AVC Edge

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

"Three times she touched the Kerry/Edwards frame on her screen and the machine did not highlight her selection"

"would not accept Kerry vote at first. Had to press two or three times."

"Pushed Kerry Edwards, the x went to Bush/Cheney, she tried this three times, went to next page"

And non-Kerry-related AVC machines doing the "three times":

Voter selected ""yes"" for referenda questions THREE times and screen showed ""no.""

When voter went in the machine button on the Republican ticket was stuck. She hit the button three times before it cleared.

but I have worked with them extensively, and for touch panels that see heavy use, it is not uncommon to malfunction in a way that would look like the problems above - that is, a touch not registering or a touch in one place registering as a touch in another place.

It is really stupid (IMO) to put touch panels on voting machines. This technology is just not reliable enough for the extremely heavy use that it gets in those 12-14 hours of voting. Levers, or simple electrical buttons, or just filling in the oval on paper and optical scanning - that is much more reliable.

I agree that calibration errors are inherently one-sided. That the one-sidedness would overwhelmingly favor one candidate, in the same counties that were verifiably rigged in 2000 (Palm Beach's Buchanan Butterfly ballot, Broward's everything-and-the-kitchen-sink disenfranchisement) seems worthy of much scrutiny, if not a raging New York Post headline yet.

"Over 98% of 50,000 election incidents favored Bush".

I'd like a straight answer out of you. Is that statement true or not? And if it is true, what do you have to back it up?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x373210

Note that the unsubstantiated factoid won 55% of the vote.

Funny, somebody keeps asking for the gender weight demographic which proves them wrong. But when I point it out to them, he simply looks the other way and says "You are still going in circles." :eyes: :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=373210&mesg_id=375439

can you imagine, if there were 40,000 reports of problems when voting and 38,800 of them were ones that favored Bush. That would be absolutely ridiculous and obvious evidence of fraud - if true.

I am just baffled at the low number. Since from some posts it is clear that this statement was derived from 88 reported incidents, I am not really sure why the poster didn't go to "47% of 1,000,000 incidents". It would be even more impressive.

Cut out of article

"Miami-Dade County, Florida. May, 2005. ES&S iVotronic.
New evidence shows both phantom votes and lost votes in the November election.
The number of voters reported by election workers didn't match the number of ballots cast in 260 (35%) of Miami-Dade's 749 polling places. Some showed more votes than voters ("phantom votes"); others showed significantly more voters than ballots cast.*

While some of the discrepancies can be traced to sloppy procedures and training, others are evidence of problems not yet explained: "


Phantom votes: precinct with a major difference was Precinct 362, which recorded 583 votes and 859 signatures. A review of that precinct's signature log found 580 signatures.
Phantom votes: in Precinct 41 there were 910 votes and 844 signatures, a difference of 62.

Lost votes: At combined Precinct 117/166, the ballots totaled 995 and the signatures numbered 1,276.

Phantom votes ... then more phantom votes: For Precinct 816, in the Church of the Ascension at 11201 SW 160th St., a Review inspection of the voter log showed 945 signatures, while the iVotronic computer tape showed a count of 1,032. But the individual machine counts are listed on the tape as well, and they add up to 945. But the number certified by the canvassing board came in at 1,116 votes.

In this case, the discrepancy may have been due to an iVotronic machine malfunction. Lynn Kaplan, a volunteer observer for the reform coalition who was at that polling place on Nov. 2, said in an interview that as a poll worker was closing down one of the iVotronic machines at the end of the day, an error message popped up on the machine's digital screen saying: "Internal malfunction/unit closed to save data/vote data corrupted."

... said the situation in Precinct 816 highlights the need for better procedures and training for reconciling signature and ballot totals. She also stressed that the county must investigate discrepancies to see if they resulted from fraud or equipment malfunction.


The Secretary of State's office has refused to get involved.

Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, said the issue of reconciling signature totals and machine counts was a local one and is not the concern of her office. "Each supervisor has their own process for how they reconcile the numbers," Nash said.

* Elections Discrepancies found in 35 percent of Miami-Dade precincts. Daily Business Review. May 06, 2005 By: Jessica M. Walker; http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/news.html?news_id=34733 (subscription only)"

http://www.votersunite.org/info/content/newmessup-17.asp

http://www.votersunite.org/info/previousmessups.asp

The exit polls were correct for Florida. How many other states, under state by state exit polls, can be proven correct as well?

The pesky facts have a habit of emerging the lower the maximum leader's approval ratings go. People will want an excuse or explanation and there will be much more of this, IMHO.

Thanks for the great post.

Contact the DNC and Give 'em Hell About NOT Acting on Election Fraud

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY