Recipe for Vote Fraud: Global Internet Voting Firm Buys U.S. Election Results Reporting Firm

 

The Ability to Commit Vote Fraud is Becoming Push-Button

[Preface by Washington's Blog: This development comes at an interesting time, when Ron Paul supporters, progressives and the mainstream media are all discussing potential vote fraud.]

By Bev Harris, Black Box Voting

In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world’s dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA’s dominant election results reporting company.

When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.

As local election results funnel through SOE’s servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get “first look” at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.

This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won’t work (if SCYTL’s voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own “audit” by matching one number against the other.

These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.

Here is the link to the press release regarding SYCTL’s acquisition of SOE:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/scytl-acquires-soe-software-becoming-the-leading-election-software-provider-2012-01-11

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Kevin Phelan

    You’ve got to be kidding! Don’t you have a government electoral commission and electoral roll? Surely this is / can be linked to any internet voting system? Won’t be happening in Australia, I can tell you that now.

  • kaycee

    So you do “REALLY BELIEVE that the ELECTIONS are FAIR and are NOT RIGGED and that your Votes do Really Count”? Well think again? Ever wonder why the Jews refer to all Non-Jews as GOYISHE KUP or STUPID CATTLE?

    brasschecktv.com/page/325.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV6qAGigGYY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVTXbARGXso
    http://www.bollyn.com/index.php
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVTXbARGXso
    http://www.911missinglinks.com/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxnpujfanUM
    rawstory.com//news/2008/Cybersecurity_expert_raises_allegations_of_2004_0717.html
    youtube.com/watch?v=ky-YXvxYbck&feature=related
    judicial-inc.biz/Diebold.htm
    youtube.com/watch?v=qDqE-y3M1Qs&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=737VoCAm1O8&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJk79i64xQ&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8xgWjFe1cE&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTYY-wdWjnE&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDqE-y3M1Qs&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=737VoCAm1O8&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkKdJoWG3qQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-YXvxYbck&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV6qAGigGYY
    http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/364.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkKdJoWG3qQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-YXvxYbck&feature=related
    > You view this on your own and then think about the advice
    > that you posted on the messageboard.
    > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/364.html
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-YXvxYbck&feature=related
    > http://judicial-inc.biz/Diebold.htm
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPeXKlq3TQ
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0&feature=related
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JithuVAIb7Y&feature=related
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc&feature=related
    > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdw0Cxezb6s&NR=1
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk&feature=related
    > Ps: There was voter FRAUD and VOTE Rigging in all of the major states. One has to be a complete moron or a complete idiot to have not noticed it!
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJk79i64xQ&feature=related
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8xgWjFe1cE&feature=related
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTYY-wdWjnE&feature=related
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDqE-y3M1Qs&feature=related
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=737VoCAm1O8&feature=related
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkKdJoWG3qQ
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPeXKlq3TQ

    The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies The Iowa Caucus
    By Christopher Bollyn
    1-1-8

    The Iowa caucus is only a few days away and the nation’s attention will be directed to the results, which signify the beginning of the U.S. presidential race. But does anyone watch who tallies the results of the Iowa caucus?

    The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don’t expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American “democratic” election process.

    VOXEO

    In the summer of 2004, I first learned that a foreign and out-of-state company using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology tallied the Iowa caucus results.

    The system used to tally the 2004 Iowa caucus results was provided by a company called Voxeo, which was apparently based in Orlando, Florida. (Yellow flag goes up in the mind of those familiar with Orlando and electronic vote fraud history

    • Kevin Phelan

      Voting in Australia is carried out manually – there are no “voting machines” and no internet voting (although it is being considered). Votes are recorded on a piece of paper with a pencil. Amazing technology! Australia is not a State of the USA, it is an independent country. I thought you might have been aware of this.

      Voting in Australia is overseen by Electoral Commissions which are State or Federal agencies. Votes are counted manually and counting at polling booths is monitored by scrutineers appointed by the candidates. Most States (in Australia) have fairly complex voting systems with preferential and proportional representation voting systems. In spite of this, it is relatively easy for candidates and political parties to project likely voting outcomes from a combination of scrutineer reports on the ground and analysis of past results and trends. Any discrepancies therefore can generally be detected. Undoubtedly, some fraud occurs, but the opportunity for it is limited, because of the manual voting system and the provision for scrutineers to monitor the physical ballot counting process.

      Activists need to be wary of threats to their electoral system and take action to protect it. So here you go – BAN VOTING MACHINES!! REFORM THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM!! INSIST ON MANUAL VOTING and SCRUTINY OF MANUAL COUNTING!!

      Thanks for the heads up – I’ll be on the lookout for any moves to try to introduce such systems in Australia and will resist them. I note that Australia is mentioned as a country in which these systems operate – I will investigate further. If anyone has more specific information about SOE and SCYTL in Australia, please post here – I would like to know about it

      Next time, kaycee, before dishing out ignorant insults, read the post you are commneting on properly and consider that you might have something to learn from it.

      Have a nice day

      • Bev

        A good place to put International and State information is the following:

        http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/discus.cgi

        ELECTION INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE:

        Collect, upload & share information; Ask for advice, analyze results, data, documents

        NOTE: DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC AUTOMATIC E-MAILING OF NEW POSTS MAY BE DISABLED FROM TIME TO TIME TO AVOID SLOWDOWNS.

      • Ernest Sire

        Kevin, I agree with you. The U.S. should vote and count manually. We shouldn’t be in such a big hurry to see the results. If we can endure 2-year campaigns, surely we can wait to have votes counted properly.

  • PrissyPatriot

    It’s not “vote fraud”. It’s ELECTION FRAUD.

    • Bev

      Yes, so correct. It is ELECTION FRAUD.

  • Bev

    More from Bev Harris forum discussion about this article:

    http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/8/81816.html

    This update thanks to research by the impressive public citizen Joseph Holder. As he points out, this creates a monopoly.

    It creates a vertical monopoly, in that you have one provider providing each step of the system, and a horizontal monopoly, with one provider delivering results across the majority of the geographic spectrum.

    January 11, 2012 07:30 AM Eastern Time

    SCYTL Acquires SOE Software, Becoming the Leading Election Software Provider

    BALTIMORE & TAMPA, Fla.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–

    “This integration of our companies will allow us to offer even greater levels of service and functionality to both our existing US customer base as well as new domestic and international customers by being able to expand our existing product functionality on a global scale”.

    SCYTL is the global leader in online voting solutions with a presence in over twenty countries

    SOE Software is the leading software company for election management solutions in the United States

    The combination of the two companies creates the industry leader in election software with a strong market presence worldwide

    SCYTL, the global leader in secure electronic voting technologies, announced today the acquisition of 100% of SOE Software, the leading software provider of election management solutions in the United States. The integration of these two software companies creates the industry leader in the election software market with a full range of solutions covering from Internet voting to election night reporting and online pollworker training, and a strong market presence worldwide.

    SCYTL is currently the worldwide leader in the Internet voting space and the acquisition of SOE Software, with its Clarity election management software suite, significantly expands SCYTL’s product portfolio beyond electronic voting. Furthermore, SOE Software’s strong US presence with 900 jurisdictions as customers in 26 states, including 14 state-wide customers, complements very effectively SCYTL’s customer base in the United States and internationally with customers in over 20 different countries across 5 continents, including France, Spain, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Mexico, India and Australia.

    “We are very excited about joining forces with SOE Software because their solutions can address the needs for more efficiency and transparency in elections in many of the countries where we are currently working”, said Pere Valles, SCYTL’s CEO. “The high degree of customer satisfaction achieved by SOE Software in the United States demonstrates that their solutions and customer service are very effective in meeting those needs”.

    “This integration of our companies will allow us to offer even greater levels of service and functionality to both our existing US customer base as well as new domestic and international customers by being able to expand our existing product functionality on a global scale”, said Marc Fratello, CEO of SOE Software. “SCYTL’s position as an industry leader along with SOE Software’s core competencies and customer base will provide significant capabilities to the elections marketplace”.

    ABOUT SCYTL

    SCYTL is a technology company specializing in the development of secure electronic voting and election modernization solutions. Based in Barcelona and with offices in Baltimore, Toronto, New Delhi, Athens, Kiev and Singapore, SCYTL’s solutions have been used in public elections by governments from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia. SCYTL is a portfolio company of leading international VC funds Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker. More information is available at http://www.scytl.com.

    ABOUT SOE SOFTWARE

    SOE Software, based in Tampa, has developed Clarity, a suite of 8 software modules that allow election authorities to be more efficient and transparent in their management of elections and in their communications with citizens and media. Over 900 jurisdictions in 26 states across the United States, including 14 state-wide customers, currently use SOE Software solutions in their electoral processes. More information is available at http://www.soesoftware.com.

    Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/mmg.cgi?eid=50130065&lang=en

    Recent Stories from SCYTL

    Scytl Unveils Secure Voting on Tablet Computers
    December 19, 2011
    BALTIMORE–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Scytl has successfully tested and deployed its MOVE Act compliant electronic ballot delivery software to tablet PCs and has developed risk management techniques to ensur… more .

    Scytl conducts the first Internet elections in India
    May 22, 2011
    NEW DELHI–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Scytl successfully conducts the first Internet elections in India’s history which took place in the State of Gujarat and opens a new office in New Delhi more.

    ES&S and Scytl Announce Strategic Alliance to Provide BALLOTsafe – a Military and Overseas Electronic Voting Solution

    May 02, 2011
    OMAHA, Neb.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– ES&S & Scytl partner to provide BALLOTsafe, an online ballot delivery & marking system that allows military, overseas, absentee & disabled voters to cast ballots in a …

    …………

    more from forum

    It took 75 years to ban slavery for the first time (this was done 100 years before the USA banned it). This was not “economically feasible” in the global sugar trade. Still, public citizens kept at it till they got what they wanted.

    The story above is why I get annoyed at those who play partisan politics with the issue of public controls on elections. (Review again the quote at the end of the article, which is why I put it there.) It is exceptionally difficult, probably not possible, to get installed into office as either a Democrat or a Republican unless the real power super-elites find that person acceptable to their interests, which have a great deal to do with resource control on a global scale.

    It is a surprisingly small number of people worldwide who are meaningful players on the global corporate field. There are about 6,000 of them, and while they do include some heads of states, like “president of the United States”, by and large those are considered rotating pieces which are replaceable.

    Most real power is held by private corporate directors and the investment banking firms that move their money. There are really no global laws and there is no global enforcement mechanism, so these guys duck in and out of about 70 offshore secrecy havens like Jersey and the Cayman Islands, like Butch Cassidy setting up camp in the Waterpocket fold.

    Most of the power is controlled by western corporations, a large portion of them based in the United States, but they only base certain operations here, and create offshore entities whenever they want to dodge regulations or taxes.

    Now here’s the problem: These are very pragmatic men. Mostly men, a few women. These are not idealistic men, and they don’t give a hoot about what Thomas Jefferson thought or what the Declaration of Independence says. In fact, when your company depends on resources that are geographically dispersed, it can be doggone risky to let the people decide who governs the territory in which those resources (like oil, minerals, water) are found.

    As I say, these are tough, practical men who are used to solving problems, and public control of elections is a bit of a “problem” if you can’t exert enough control by influence over who can run for office (ballot access and campaign finance) or persuasion (mainstream TV media). If that influence fails, and the wrong guy gets nominated, and the public just wants to go out and vote for him anyway, that’s a problem.

    In that case, if you’re a practical and ruthless man, you need to control the mechanism of the election itself.

    And there you have it.

  • http://tinyurl.com/IV4All William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

    Hi Bev! If US “democracy” looses out to the corporations one reason will be that pro-democracy activists wasted their energy trying to preserve their paper security blankets. Internet voting is coming to the USA. Your choice is to be smart, and turn it to your advantage – ie, use it to make our election system more democratic – or, be foolish and cling to your paper security blanket.
    William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
    Author: Internet Voting Now!
    Twitter: wjkno1

  • Bev

    from
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8889

    Recommended #OWS Demand: Let ALL Citizens 18 and Older Vote, On Paper Ballots, Count Them in Public

    I offer the following simple “demand” for consideration by OWS, as this one likely underscores almost every other. Or, at least, without it, all other demands may ultimately be rendered moot.

    Here it is. One demand that seems simple enough — and is as non-partisan as can (be)— for your consideration:

    Every U.S. citizen 18 years of age or older who wishes to vote, gets to vote. Period. Those votes, on hand-marked paper ballots, will be counted publicly, by hand, on Election Night, at the precinct, in front of all observers and video cameras.

    Please help spread this to the Occupiers if you agree its important. For example, Tweet it (or a link to this article) like mad (with #ows in the text), and/or spread it via Facebook and/or print it out and take it to a General Assembly at an Occupation near you!

    Thanks!

  • http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com Anthony Migchels

    In this case we’re lucky the computers seem to favor Romney.

    Otherwise the Alternative Media would have had to explain why they would bring to power a Freemason pushing a Gold Standard with an austerity program that would be touted as an example by the IMF.

  • MICHAEL L. MESTER

    I agree that elections are influenced by “super-elites” who use campaign finance and TV media to accomplish this, and controlling the mechanism of the election itself is not beyond their wishes or abilities. However, at the grass-roots level there are magnetic tape records and other records that can be accessed for recounts, but recounts can be delayed and terminated by the judiciary.
    We have seen that large corporations donate to influence elections and newspapers are biased for certain candidates, so we know that Big Money affects elections. It is conceivable that self-centered people would attempt to rig elections.

  • http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

    Hi Bev! Oh, Oh! Bad News! Truth hurts!
    Paper Ballots PROVEN UNRELIABLE by Iowa! Difficult to read. Hard to count. Easy to loose. 8 precincts lost all ballots! Go Internet voting!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-santorum-finished-34-votes-ahead-of-romney-in-new-iowa-tally-votes-from-8-precincts-missing/2012/01/19/gIQAJGuRAQ_story.html?hpid=z1

    William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
    Twitter: wjkno1
    Internetvoting@gmail.com

  • Bev

    Physical evidence is the best standard of evidence versus the susceptible to man in the middle attacks on hidden and removed evidence done for a purpose.

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9078
    By Brad Friedman

    Iowa Finally Has Definitive Winner: The Voters

    Even the GOP establishment — which had long decided that Mitt Romney was their best hope to win back the White House in 2012 among those currently running — could not overcome the intent of the voters as transparently expressed on publicly hand-counted, hand-marked paper ballots.

    At the end of a January 3rd’s Caucus Night in Iowa, our headline, written initially when Rick Santorum was momentarily up over Romney by just 4 votes, was “Santorum ‘Wins’ Iowa, Everyone Else Doesn’t”. An hour or so after we’d called it a night, the Iowa GOP stepped forward to declare Romney, not Santorum, had actually “won” by a slim 8 votes out of some 122,000 cast.

    Finally today, the GOP has been forced to admit that Santorum was indeed the winner. Though our headline three Tuesday’s ago was just slightly more accurate than the GOP’s declaration for Romney that night. In truth, there was another winner in Iowa: The Voters.

    It took just over two weeks for the GOP to admit it, but the party’s final reported results from the hand-marked paper ballots cast on January 3rd, hand-counted in front of the public on Election Night (cast by voters who were not turned away for lack of a state-issued Photo ID) are there to tell the tail of who really won the all-important “First-in-the-Nation” Iowa Caucuses. The GOP couldn’t have successfully lied about it if they’d wanted to. Oh, they could have tried. In fact, they did as Iowa’s GOP chair Matthew Strawn announced just after 1p ET “Congratulations to Governor Mitt Romney, winner of the 2012 Iowa Caucuses.” And the corporate media would have gone along with them — and, in fact, they did, ever since the GOP’s attempted lie on Election Night — but the truth would have always been there for the public to see nonetheless.

    Nobody ever had to rest their faith on a single source, like a political party or a candidate or a voting machine company — though the media was all too happy to do so before moving on to New Hampshire. There was always a transparent, overseeable, system of checks and balances — just as our Constitution envisions for the nation’s governance as a whole — there to assure that self-governance had a fighting chance to be more than a bumper sticker slogan hauled out when convenient, ignored when not.

    Because the Iowa GOP allowed the people to oversee the counting of their own election, right then and there at the caucus sites, before ballots were moved anywhere, it was next to impossible for them to successfully game the system — just as Edward True had proven two nights after the Jan 3rd Caucuses.

    And speaking of Edward True, the Republican Party of Iowa owes this man, this patriot, this Ron Paul supporter a huge apology…

    After True stepped forward to point out that the Iowa GOP had a reporting error (not a counting error, but a reporting error) on the tally list they had by then posted on their website, a cowardly, unnamed party spokeswoman slimed him publicly in the media.

    “True is not a precinct captain and he’s not a county chairperson so he has no business talking about election results,” the unnamed spokeswoman reportedly told Des Moines’ KCCI NewsChannel 8.

    Chairman Strawn soon went on record to further slime Mr. True, suggesting his photographic evidence — which was soon confirmed as accurate by the GOP’s Appanoose County Chair and others who were actually there to oversee the public counting at the caucus that night — amounted to little more than “rumor” and “innuendo”.

    In truth, the only “rumor” and “innuendo” came from Strawn and the Iowa GOP establishment themselves when, in the early morning hours of January 4th, he proudly declared Romney as the “winner of the 2012 Iowa Caucuses.”

    Have we mentioned that the Iowa GOP owes Mr. True a huge apology?

    The party’s final “certified” totals put Rick Santorum atop the pack by 34 votes, though they say they were unable to certify results from 8 of the 1,774 precincts which held caucuses that night. With the contemporaneously reported — if not party “certified” — results from those 8 precincts included with the “certified” numbers, Santorum still wins the contest.

    Either way you slice it — barring any other witnesses to the actual counting on caucus night coming forward to prove otherwise, something they’d not be able to do were it not for the transparent public counting of hand-marked paper ballots — Santorum won Iowa.

    Because we know that. Because there is no way for the GOP to deny that, their initial denial this morning — reporting it not as a win but as a “split decision” — didn’t hold for long.

    Within an hour or so after that “split decision” announcement, and after Romney tried to call it a “virtual tie”, the party was was forced to concede that Santorum won, and shortly thereafter even Romney called the former Pennsylvania Senator to congratulate him and “concede victory”.

    No matter what the party might have wanted, the voters actually won here, by having their voice heard, even in the closest of close races, even where the party which ran the election might have liked a different outcome — and even tried, unsuccessfully, to fudge one.

    And, one last point to mention. As impossibly close as the results ultimately were, there has not been a single peep, to our knowledge, of anyone claiming “voter fraud” anywhere in the Hawkeye State. That, even as the Iowa GOP ignored their own insistence that the only way to avoid “voter fraud” in elections elsewhere (and even in Iowa) is to require polling place Photo ID restrictions for all voters before they are allowed to vote.

    When Iowa Republicans had the chance to set any rules they wanted for their own election — in Iowa, the GOP sets the caucus rules, not the state — they allowed all voters to vote without restriction, even those voters who chose to both register and vote on the very same day.

    That’s what democracy looks like, even despite the Iowa Republican Party’s attempts to undermine their own transparent model used in the Iowa GOP Caucuses, as based on Democracy’s Gold Standard.

    Congratulations Mr. Santorum. But, more so, congratulations Republican voters of Iowa. Hope you’ll fight in the future to ensure all Americans get to vote and count as transparently as you did on January 3rd, 2012.

    * * *

    UPDATE 1/21/12: Finding the need to clarify some confusion out there — and underscoring again what The BRAD BLOG has been reporting for some time — Iowa GOP officials issued a one sentence statement late last night, 18-minutes before midnight, on the eve of today’s South Carolina GOP Primary, declaring Rick Santorum of the 2012 Iowa Caucuses:
    In order to clarify conflicting reports and to affirm the results released January 18 by the Republican Party of Iowa, Chairman Matthew Strawn and the State Central Committee declared Senator Rick Santorum the winner of the 2012 Iowa Caucus.

    We’ve seen a number of misreports out there suggesting that the votes from 8 precincts were lost. That is untrue. What was missing at the time of the GOP’s previous announcement were the hard copy “Form E” documents from eight precincts which are the official certification of the election night results — results which had already been given to the GOP on election night.

    Without those 8 precincts included, Santorum was found to have won the race by 34 votes. With the Election Night totals included in the results, Santorum is found to have won by 69 votes, as AP notes today:
    Unofficial election night results from the eight missing precincts gave Santorum 81 votes and Romney 46. If those results had been certified to state party officials by Wednesday’s deadline, Santorum’s lead in the final tally would have been 69 votes.

    Des Moines Register has more on those precincts and what may have happened to the Form Es. But the point is, the Election Night results are now certified and published and if there are any concerns about any of them, citizens who were there that night, who were allowed, with their own eyes, to see the votes being tallied — many of whom took photos of the actual tally sheets at the caucus site — may come forward to point out any discrepancies. So far, to our knowledge, none have done so.

    If they do, that’s great. Nobody will have to take any single source’s word for anything, as thousands of eyeballs oversaw the entire process. That is a system that works and — short of the state GOP’s dumb (paranoia based) secretive “certification” process over the past two weeks — exactly what the entire nation needs in order to restore confidence in its election tabulation system.

  • Barbara Waters

    This is unacceptable and will not stand! America
    we must take our country back NOW!

  • harley decals

    Awesome blog! Do you have any hints for aspiring writers? I’m planning to start my own blog soon but I’m a little lost on everything. Would you suggest starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? There are so many options out there that I’m completely confused .. Any ideas? Thank you!

  • Bev

    http://electiondefensealliance.org/www.electiondefensealliance.org/papers/thebastilleline

    The Occupy Movement, Rigged Elections, and the
    Bastille Line: An Urgent Call To Action

    All revolutions, even peaceful ones, require a point of attack capable of breaking through the Wall erected by the Powers-That-Be. The Occupy movement, such a welcome and important revival of democracy, has great potential to “rattle the walls” and change our times. There’s great heat out in the winter cold all over America (and across much of the globe). Focusing all that Heat like an acetylene torch on restoring observable vote counting and honest elections may well be the best, if not the only, chance the Occupy movement has to break the chokehold of the 1%.

    ………

    http://electiondefensealliance.org/votinginthedark

    VOTING IN THE DARK: THE DANGER AND WHAT YOU CAN DO

    This video, Stealing Our Votes And Our Democracy, [www.youtube.com/user/electiondefense] presents just a few of the many computer experts and highly-respected academics who have demonstrated over and over again how easy it is to alter vote counts when electronic equipment is used to count our votes.

    To have election outcomes we can trust, the hand-marked paper ballots must be counted in public by human eyes before they leave the public sight.

    The transition back to hand-counting—the process we used here in America for more than 200 years—can begin by hand-counting the Federal races, of which there are never more than three: Representative, Senator and President. Then, when election officials see how manageable that is, we must add hand-counting of the State-wide races and State-wide referendum questions.

    In that way, we will gradually return to the “tried and true” method of hand-counting all the votes on our ballots. Yes, there has always been election fraud (precisely because elections are such high-stakes affairs) but the scale possible with electronic vote-counting is staggering. When votes are counted by hand, “stuffing the ballot boxes” is very labor-intensive; with concealed electronic counting, hundreds of thousands of votes can be changed electronically in seconds—and leave no trace. Put bluntly, elections can be stolen wholesale and the balance of political power shifted accordingly.

    As is said in the video, if we can’t know whether the election results reported by the machines are true and accurate, how can we have a democracy? And if the “inconvenience” of human counting is too much for us, we must ask, “Do we deserve a democracy?”

    SOLUTIONS:

    Here are some of the things you can do to help YOUR STATE recover ACCURATE VOTE COUNTING in our elections:

    1. Twitter or e-mail your State Senator and Representative the URL [www.youtube.com/user/electiondefense] for the film you just watched.
    a. Ask them to watch this film
    b. Tell them you feel they must act on this immediately
    c. Ask them to join with you (and other senators and representatives if possible) to meet with your Secretary of State (or whoever is responsible for elections in your state.)
    2. At the meeting, you must show and discuss with the Secretary of State how insecure your vote counting systems are.
    3. Emphasize that the burden of proof is on his/her office to show us that the counts can be trusted. (It is all backwards if they say it is up to the citizens to prove fraud.)
    4. Then ask to change to hand-counted paper ballots—for the Federal races—before the next election.
    5. You can assure your Secretary of State that there are efficient ways to hand count ballots.
    a. The counting is done in teams made up of members of opposing parties. Representatives of every party on the ballot must be permitted to observe each team during the counting process.
    b. An average polling precinct/ward has 500 to 1000 ballots. For three races (the maximum number of federal races in any election) counting should take approximately three hours with two teams.
    6. On election night when the polls close be at the place where your votes are counted. OBSERVE and DOCUMENT the counting process. Take photos or film the results and then check them against what is posted as the “official” results on your state’s election website.
    7. Recruit others to do the same.
    8. If the ballots are moved to a central location, film them being packed up, transported, unloaded and carried into the central location back into public view. Make clear notes about how many people were in the vehicle transporting them and if there were any stop made along the way.
    9. If the posted results are different from those you saw at the close of the counting at your site (and that you photographed), report it to Brad@BradBlog.com (or via Twitter at @TheBradBlog) and to Mike Ferriter at mikeferriter@hotmail.com .
    10. If you see (and film) anything that looks out of the ordinary, report that too.
    11. Help spread the word about how corruptible our elections are. Since the media has not been willing to cover this hugely-important issue, it is up to us to inform our fellow Americans.
    12. Learn more about this issue and join with others who are working on reforming our electoral system.
    a. Subscribe to Bradblog.com for daily news: b. Join the Election Defense Alliance email list for occasional updates: http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.com/join
    c. Join BlackBoxVoting.org for information on equipment, vendors, and voting mechanics, and to participate in their blog: http://www.blackboxvoting.org
    d. Find other information at http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org/resources including full-length films about our electoral system
    e. Find or start an election integrity group in your state, county or city.
    13. Check other websites for ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE to help TAKE BACK OUR ELECTIONS. Several appear on the Resource List referenced in 12(d) above.
    14. Finally, please help support this work. Thousands of hours have been donated by professionals who have given of their time and expertise, but there are operating expenses (e.g., materials; printing; travel; conferences; bulk e-mail service, website; postage) and special projects (independent professional polling, computerized fraud detection traps, etc.) that must be funded. Contributions to Election Defense Alliance are tax-deductible. http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.com/donate
    Our democracy is relying on all of us.

    Immediately below you’ll find various responses you can expect to hear from your Secretary of State, election officials, the media, etc, followed by the facts with which to answer these disingenuous government/corporate “talking points.” (supplied by BlackBox Voting and edited.)

    NB: “Chain of Custody” refers to who has control of and access to the ballots from the time they leave the public view on Election Night until they are recounted (or eventually discarded.) In the case of Early Voting or Absentee Voting, it means who has had control of and access to the ballots from the time they are received until Election Day when they are counted. Those of us interested in election integrity often point out when the Chain of Custody has been “broken” because the ballots have been out of public sight.

    TALKING POINT: What about the machines that have a paper backup, referred to as a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail?

    THE TRUTH: In some states the public is not allowed to examine the paper trail. Some machines produce a paper trail that is on very flimsy paper and is very difficult to read. Furthermore, the computer can print out whatever you might want to see and still do something completely different inside the machine. It is extremely rare that the paper trails are looked at by anyone.

    more

  • Linda

    Is there any truth to the commentary heard on talk radio that the company counting November’s Presidential votes was bought by George Soros; and the CEO of that company was a huge financial contributor to Obama’s 08 campaign?

  • http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

    America, get your head out of the sand! Learn about other countries.
    Search: Canada’s National Debate over Internet Voting

    Also, see how Internet voting, organized rightly, can get money out of US elections -
    http://cyberthevote.org/?p=686

    William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
    Author: Internet Voting Now
    @wjkno1
    Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000574486962 Larry M. O’Neal

    Centralizing power and control offers more than an opportunity.

 

 

Twitter