Www.OregonVRC.org The Illusion of Democracy: An Urgent Call to Action for National Election Reform...

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

The Illusion of Democracy:The Illusion of Democracy:

An Urgent Call to Action for National Election Reform

An Urgent Call to Action for National Election Reform

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

Prepared byPrepared by

Oregon Voter Rights CoalitionOregon Voter Rights Coalition

www.OregonVRC.orgwww.OregonVRC.org

June 2006June 2006

www.OregonVRC.orgwww.OregonVRC.

org

Shaken Voter ConfidenceShaken Voter Confidence

In 2000, a post-election Harris Poll estimated that 20-30 million Americans did not trust the validity of the Presidential election results

Before the 2004 election, a poll by the legal website FindLaw.com found that 42% of voters already did not trust the new electronic touchscreen voting machines


org

A Jan. 2005 National Annenberg Election Survey interviewed 100,000 voters and found that 30% of American voters—representing over 36 million voters— were not confident that their vote had been counted accurately in 2004



org

The initial results of a May 2006 Zogby People’s poll of Pennsylvania voters, commissioned by OpEdNews, found that the majority of people who do not use Fox News as their primary news source believe that the 2004 presidential election was stolen


The analysis found “that except for viewers of right wing news show, Fox News, poll respondents believe that the 2004 presidential election was stolen”

Shaken Voter ConfidenceShaken Voter ConfidenceViewers (by Network) in PA Who Believe

the 2004 Election Was Stolen(May 2006 Zogby Poll)

70%

65%

64%

56%

56%

49%

0.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

FOX

NBC

OTHER

ABC

CBS

MSNBC

CNN

Pri

mar

y N

etw

ork

Wat

ched

Percent of Viewers Source: OpEdNews.com


org

with the right election commissioners, he could get the machines to sing “Home Sweet Home.”

He also wanted to be buried in Louisiana “so he could remain active in politics after his death”.

After the invention of lever voting machines, Dem. Gov. Earl Long of Louisianaonce boasted that,

Governor Earl Long

May His Voice Live On!

This Is NOT a Partisan IssueThis Is NOT a Partisan Issue


org

Other Election Rigging ExamplesOther Election Rigging Examples

1948: Democrat Lyndon Johnson’s U.S. Senate victory in Texas over Republican Coke Stevenson, earning him the name “Landslide Lyndon”

2000: Florida’s Republican Gov. Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ disenfranchising felon database

2003: Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Delay’s gerrymandering in Texas


org

The Founder’s IntentThe Founder’s Intent

When the American founders developed our democratic framework, one of the things they understood with absolute

clarity was that there are some things that We the People do for ourselves — where

We the People hold the rights

These things areknown as

The CommonsThe Commons


org


All of these things are currently under attack

by privatization

public schools

public lands

public roads

police/fire dept.

the water we drink

the air we breath

the internet

public airwaves

Examples include:


org

The most precious of all The Commons is


The vote is the beating heart of democracy!

In a healthy democracy, every citizen’s vote is

sacred


org

“In a democratic republican form of government such as ours, where

people place the political power in the hands of their representatives, voting is

the only legitimate way to transfer power from the people to the

government” *

* Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 667 (U.S., 1884)

Legitimate Transfer of PowerLegitimate Transfer of Power


org

Having an honest and transparent

election system for all American

citizens is therefore the cornerstone of

our government and our society

Legitimate Transfer of PowerLegitimate Transfer of Power


org

PurposePurpose

The purpose of this presentation is to sound an alarm that our elections and the electorate are no longer

under the control of the American people

Partisan politicians are privatizing our local and national election systems through the

2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA)

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

Brief Review of the 2000 Presidential Election

Brief Review of the 2000 Presidential Election


org

At 2:16 a.m. on Nov. 8, 2000, Fox News declared that the pivotal state of Florida

had gone for George W. Bush

Election Night, Nov. 7-8, 2000Election Night, Nov. 7-8, 2000


org

Minutes later, other news organizations joined Fox News in calling Florida for Bush

Election Night Nov. 7-8, 2000Election Night Nov. 7-8, 2000


org

At Fox News Network, the person at the helm of the election decision teamwas John Ellis

The election numbers he was working from were not official, but the viewers did not know that. Nor did theyknow that Ellis was G.W. Bush’s first cousin


John Ellis

Ellis was in phone contact

with cousin G.W. Bush throughout

election night


org

the networks were forced to retract the Florida call

for Bush

Two hours later,



org

The strategy was a complete success— creating a lasting impression that Bush

had already won the election

Election Strategy a SuccessElection Strategy a Success

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

Overview of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)

of 2002

Overview of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)

of 2002


org

On Oct. 29, 2002, President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act

The stated intent of HAVA was to correct

many of the problems that

occurred in the 2000 election

HAVA Signed by President BushHAVA Signed by President Bush


org

HAVA established the Election Assistance Commission, in part, to“establish a program to provide funds to

States to replace punch card voting systems”

As of Dec. 1, 2005, over $2.3 billion in payments had been distributed to states,

including $27.8 million to Oregon

EACEAC

U.S. Election Assistance Commission


org

don’t appear on the official list of eligible voters have their eligibility challenged by an election

official

HAVA introduced Provisional Ballots, a.k.a. Placebo Ballots

“Individuals shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot if they present themselves to vote at a polling place in an election for Federal office and either”:

Provisional BallotsProvisional Ballots


org

“Diebold paid some $275,000 to [Jack] Abramoff’s firm, Greenberg Traurig, with the apparent aim of keeping legislation requiring paper trails in the voting process from getting into HAVA. Conveniently, Abramoff pal [Rep.] Bob Ney

According to an April 2006 article in Rolling Stone Magazine:

No Paper Trails in HAVANo Paper Trails in HAVA

[R-OH], one of the HAVA architects, blocked every attempt to put paper trails into law.” Jack Abramoff

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

Election SystemsElection Systems


org

Registered voter records / database

Ballots

Ballot definition files (BDFs) for electronic systems

Voting systems

Vote counting systems

Components of Election SystemsComponents of Election Systems


org

Voting SystemsVoting Systems

Lever machines

Electronic voting (e-voting/DRE)

1 Paper ballot system

Hand-marked paper ballots1,2

Punch cards1

2 Includes optical scan systems


org

Vote Counting SystemsVote Counting Systems

Electronic tabulators* (centrally located, such as at the county elections office)

– includes optical scan systems

* Electronic election system

Hand-counting

Source: Verified Voting, http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5135

Electronic tabulators (centrally located) are used for optical scan, electronic voting, punch card, and lever machine systems

Voting Technologies Used in the 2004 ElectionVoting Technologies Used in the 2004 Election

Technology /

Characteristic

Optical Scan ElectronicVoting

Punch Card Lever Machine Paper Ballot

Expected use inNov. 2004

32% 29% 19% 13% <1%

Ballottechnolog

Paper

Labeledchoices on a

computerscreen

PaperLabeled

mechanicallevers

Paper

In-precinctcountingtechnology

Electronic Electronic ElectronicManual /Electronic

Manual

Central countingtechnology

Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic

Ballots can beverified by thevoter or manuallychecked during arecount or audit.

YesSome are

equipped withpaper ballots

Yes No Yes

Technology /

Characteristic

Optical Scan ElectronicVoting

Punch Card Lever Machine Paper Ballot


32% 29% 19% 13% <1%

Ballottechnolog

Paper

Labeledchoices on a

computerscreen

PaperLabeled

mechanicallevers

Paper


32% 29% 19% 13% <1%

Ballottechnolog

Paper

Labeledchoices on a

computerscreen

PaperLabeled

mechanicallevers

Paper



Manual





Manual




YesSome are


Yes No Yes


YesSome are


Yes No Yes

32% 29% 19% 13% <1%

Technology

Expected use in Nov. 2004

Optical Scan Electronic Voting

Punch Card Lever Machine

Paper Ballot

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5135




org

ALL electronic election systems, including e-voting (touchscreen/DRE) and optical scan systems, currently use proprietary, undisclosed software, i.e., secret vote counting

There is NO government or public examination of the software for inaccurate or malicious code

Voting TechnologiesVoting Technologies


org

Paper ballots with “fill in the oval” or similar type of voter-marked paper ballot system

Tabulated data is compiled on computer; the potential may exist for undetectable hacking and tampering with election results in database

Data transferred via disk or electronically

John JohnsonPete PetersonLars Larson

Contest 1

Your County

Sven Svenson

John JohnsonPete PetersonLars Larson

Contest 1

Your County

Sven Svenson

Optical Scan Voting SystemsOptical Scan Voting SystemsOptical Scan Machine reads the paper ballots using an electronic Ballot Definition File (BDF) and votes are tabulated using proprietary, trade secret software


org

Numerous studies and test demonstrations have shown that current electronic election systems, including paper ballot/optical scan

systems, can have serious security flaws and potential for error

Electronic Election SystemsElectronic Election Systems

So what’s the big controversy about these systems?


org

Computer scientists have been some of the primary activists leading the fight against electronic voting machines and tabulators

that use proprietary (trade secret) software

Dr. Avi Rubin

Technical Director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins

University

Dr. Rebecca Mercuri

Research Fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of

Government

Dr. David Dill

Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University

Who Opposes These Systems?Who Opposes These Systems?


org

Test Demo. Discovers FlawsTest Demo. Discovers Flaws

Recent News – Spring 2006:

Harri Hursti, a computer programming expert from Finland, working with Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, discov-ered a major security flaw in the Popular Diebold AccuVote TSx e-voting system

See Hursti’s reports at www.blackboxvoting.org

Harri Hursti

Finnish computer programming expert

http://brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/Executive%20Summary.pdf


org

The machines can be contaminated through:

network connections (wireless or otherwise)

PCMCIA cards

other peripheral devices

Hursti’s FindingsHursti’s Findings


org


There are several backdoors that pose security risks

each backdoor exists in 3 layers and allows the system to be modified in extremely flexible ways without even basic levels of security involved


org

The design allows someone to take over the computer motherboard and turn it into a zombie

Anyone with a screwdriver and a $20 electronic gadget bought at Fry’s can take control of the machines



org

“[T]hese attacks are permanent in nature, surviving through the election cycles. Therefore, the contamination can happen at any point of the device's life cycle and remain active and undetected from the point of contamination on through multiple election cycles and even soft-ware upgrade cycles.” ~ Harri Hursti


Source: Hursti, Harri. 2006. Diebold TSx Evaluation – SECURITY ALERT: May 11, 2006 Critical Security Issues with Diebold TSx; Black Box Voting, Inc. (www.blackboxvoting.org)



org

“What Mr. Hursti discovered in Utah is the most serious vulnerability that we've ever seen in a voting system. This particular vulnerability is serious enough that you

can affect multiple machines from a single attack. That's what makes it so

dangerous.”

~ David Jefferson, the Computer Scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who independently reviewed Hursti's work for

California's Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson

Comments on Hursti’s FindingsComments on Hursti’s Findings


org

“It is like the nuclear bomb for e-voting systems. It's the deal breaker. It really makes the security flaws that we

found (in prior years) look trivial.”~ Avi Rubin, computer science professor,

Johns Hopkins University

Comments on Hursti’s FindingsComments on Hursti’s Findings

Dr. Avi Rubin

Technical Director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University


org

Optical Scan Security FlawsOptical Scan Security Flaws

June 3, 2005, Leon County, Florida:

In a test demonstration done in conjunction with Black Box Voting and with the consent of Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho, Harri Hursti was able to hack into a Diebold optical scan system undetectably and change the results of a test election

-- known as the “Hursti Hack”

Harri Hursti



org

“The Diebold optical scan system uses a dangerous programming methodology, with an executable program living inside the [memory card of the] electronic ballot box. This method is the equivalent of having a little man living in the ballot box, holding an eraser and a pencil.”

Hursti Hack FindingsHursti Hack Findings

Source: OnLineJournal.com (www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/060305BBV/060305bbv.html)



org

The Black Box Voting team “proved that the Diebold optical scan program, housed on a chip inside the voting machine, places a call to a program living in the removable memory card during the election. (contd.)





org

(contd.) The demonstration also showed that the executable program on the memory card (ballot box) can easily be changed, and that checks and balances, required by FEC standards to catch unauthorized changes, were not implemented by Diebold—yet the system was certified anyway.”





org

Routine logic & accuracy tests — touted by election officials across the nation as being the gold standard for discovering problems — will not catch this type of manipulation


-- See Hursti’s reports at www.blackboxvoting.org

Harri Hursti




http://www.votersunite.org/


org

Brennan Center StudyBrennan Center Study

Latest News – June 27, 2006:

The Brennan Center for Justice, a non-partisan think tank at NY University

School of Law, released a report on its year-long study of vulnerabilities in

electronic election systems

Task force participants: internationally renowned government, academic, and private-sector scientists, voting machine experts and security professionals


org

The task force examined the 3 primary types of electronic election systems:

e-voting without a paper trail

e-voting with a voter-verified paper trail

precinct count optical scan systems

These systems account for 80% of the voting machines that will be used in Nov.'s election

Brennan Center StudyBrennan Center Study


org

ALL of these electronic election systems “have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities”

There are more than 120 security threats to these systems

Brennan Center Study FindingsBrennan Center Study Findings

Source: Brennan Center (http://brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/Executive%20Summary.pdf)


org

ALL of these systems “are equally vulnerable to an attack involving the insertion of corrupt software or other software attack programs designed to take over a voting machine”

Such attacks could threaten the integrity of a state or national election




org

Random, transparent audits of the paper records or ballots are necessary to enhance security




org

Electronic election systems are also prone to mechanical problems and error

Many, many such problems have been documented, some that have actually

changed the election outcome and were corrected only with a hand count

(For an extensive list of documented errors and problems, see Voters Unite’s website at www.votersunite.org/)

Other Documented ProblemsOther Documented Problems


org

Basic errors or outright manipulation with electronic election systems can affect tens of thousands of votes or more, rather than just the hundreds

that might be impacted by paper errors or manipulation

What’s the Impact?What’s the Impact?


org

“Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million

ballots were spoiled [in the 2004 election] by faulty voting equipment – roughly one

for every 100 cast.”~ Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Other Documented ProblemsOther Documented Problems

Source: Kennedy, Robert F., Jr. 2006. Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Rolling Stone Magazine, 6/1/06 (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen)Article also found at CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm)


org

Who would YOU rather believe about the security and accuracy of current electronic election systems —

private, for-profit vendors with close ties to a political party and/or a foreign government, or

computer scientists and computer security experts?

Who Would You Believe?Who Would You Believe?


org

Criticism of electronic election systems is NOT a criticism of our election officials

and workers, whose jobs are to ensure elections are conducted properly

The problems with the current e-election systems and processes are beyond their

control

Criticism Where DueCriticism Where Due

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

Electronic Election System Company Ownerships

Electronic Election System Company Ownerships


org

According to Spokesmen: According to Spokesmen:

there is NO federal agency with regulatory authority over the elections industry

there are NO government standards or restrictions on who can sell or service voting machines and systems

there is NO agency or organization that even has a complete list of voting machine companies in the U.S.

In other words, the vendors are policing themselvesIn other words, the vendors are policing themselves

Jorge MartinezUnited States Election Justice Department

Brian HancockUnited States Election Assistance Commission


org

Top 3 Companies in the U.S.Top 3 Companies in the U.S.

ES&S and Diebold together tabulate 80% of the votes in the U.S.

Sequoia has 1/3 of the electronic voting machines on the market

1.

2.

3.


org

1980: American Information Systems (AIS) was founded by brothers Bob and Ted Urosevich

1999: AIS became ES&S

Bob Urosevich

Ted Urosevich

ES&SES&S


org

Half of the company startup money for AIS came from millionaires William & Howard Ahmanson, Jr.

Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr.

Background of AIS / ES&SBackground of AIS / ES&S


org

A Christian Reconstructionist / Dominionist, he stated in the Orange County Register hisgoal of replacing constitutionallaw in the U.S. with Biblical law

Openly advocated a radical plan for the theocratic takeover of America

Who’s Howard Ahmanson, Jr. ?Who’s Howard Ahmanson, Jr. ?


org

Currently a member of the ultra-right wing Council for National Policy

Provides millions of dollars to causes that are designed to discredit and defeat the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution and the promotion of teaching “Intelligent Design”

Who’s Howard Ahmanson, Jr.? Who’s Howard Ahmanson, Jr.?


org

During the 2004

elections, the

companies run

by the Urosevich

brothers counted

an alarming 80%

of the votes

Urosevich Brothers’ Influence Urosevich Brothers’ Influence

DieboldPresident: Bob Urosevich

ES&SVice Pres.: Ted Urosevich


org

When Bob Urosevich

left ES&S for Diebold,

he was replaced at

ES&S by new CEO

Chuck Hagel

Chuck Hagel, New CEO at ES&S Chuck Hagel, New CEO at ES&S

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)


org

In 1995, Hagel was running the voting machine company that would count the votes in his 1996 bid for the U.S. Senate

He was trailing in the polls to his opponent, former Gov. Ben Nelson, 65% to 18%, yet Hagel amazingly came from behind to win with 56% of the vote

He was the first Republican Senate winner in the state in 24 years

In both the 1996 and 2002 elections, ES&S counted 85% of the votes in Nebraska



org

Senator Hagel retains a

$1 - $5 million ownership in

ES&S’s parent company,

McCarthy Group, as he

contemplates a run for the

Presidency in

2008



org

In the 2004 election, Dieboldcounted 50% of the votes in

30 states

Diebold’s Influence Diebold’s Influence


org

“I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”

In August 2003, Wally O’Dell, the CEO of Diebold and a major donor to the Bush campaign, invited 100 wealthy fellow partisans to a fundraiser at his mansion in suburban Canton, Ohio. His invitation stated:

Diebold’s CEO, Wally O’Dell Diebold’s CEO, Wally O’Dell

Wally O’Dell


org

Wally O’Dell

Diebold’s CEO, Wally O’Dell Diebold’s CEO, Wally O’Dell

O’Dell resigned his position in Dec. 2005 after whistleblower allegations that Diebold may have mishandled elections in Georgia and Ohio in 2004


org

Prior to the 2004 election, Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and software developers to help write central compiler computer code that counted the votes

Diebold’s Employees Diebold’s Employees


org

Prior to being hired by Diebold, Dean had been convicted on 23 counts of felony theft in the 1st degree

He had been convicted of planting back doors in his software using a “high degree of sophistication” to evade detection while stealing a half million dollars over a period of 2 years

One of those convicted felons was Jeff Dean, Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebold’s central compiler code


Jeff Dean


org

Turns out that Dean and Elder met in prison while Elder was serving a 5-year sentence for cocaine trafficking

Cedar Creek Correctional Facility

Elder went on to manage a Diebold division respon-sible for printing election ballots and punch cards

When word of Dean’s past began to surface, Diebold demoted him to a consultant status, replacing him with John Elder



org

Sequoia began as American Voting Machine under the control of

stockholders in Rockwell, a major defense contractor in the 1960’s

Sequoia Voting SystemsSequoia Voting Systems


org

Resigned in 1973 and later went to prison, after being indicted by NY Federal Grand Jury for bribing Buffalo, NY election officials

Lloyd DixonFounder & CEO

Convicted of bribing Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas

Louis WolfsonNext Owner

Convicted on charges related to bribing the Louisiana Commissioner of Elections, paying $8-10 million over a 10-year period

Phil FosterRegional Mgr.

Rocco RicciSoutheast Rep.

Sequoia’s EmployeesSequoia’s Employees


org

Sequoia’s parent company is now Smartmatic International Company

Sequoia’s Foreign TiesSequoia’s Foreign Ties


org

Discovering the ownership of Sequoia was difficult. According to Illinois officials

in April 2006, it took them tracing it through “four countries, two hemispheres

and three shell corporations.”



org

What they found was that Smartmatic International Company is owned by Venezuelans with close ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez


org

Triad is a smaller company but played a key role in the 2000 and 2004 elections in

Florida and Ohio

Owner Tod Rapp is a generous donor to the Republican Party as well as to

President George W. Bush’s campaign

TriadTriad


org

Rapp is also President of the Psephos Corp., a Triad affiliate, which supplied the notorious butterfly ballot used in Palm Beach County, Florida in the 2000presidential election

You can still order a commemorative butterfly ballot set from the Psephos website for just $59.95 Palm Beach Butterfly Ballot Set

TriadTriad


org

In the summer of 2003, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), while at a function on the White House lawn, was interviewed on film by Alexandra Pelosi for her documentary, Diary of a Political Tourist. King exalted, “It’s already over. The election’s over. We won.”

When asked by Pelosi how he knew that Bush would win, King answered, “It’s all over but the counting. And we’ll take care of the counting.”

Rep. King and President Bush on Air Force One

Prophetic StatementProphetic Statement


org

So why has Karl Rove so boldly predicted a Republican dynasty for the next 40 years?

Republican PredictionRepublican Prediction

Karl Rove (Senior Advisor and

Deputy Chief of Staff in the Bush Administration)


org

The entire state of Oregon now uses optical scan election systems

In 2004, 98% of Oregon’s votes were tabulated (counted) on machines

manufactured byAIS, BRC, ES&S, and Sequoia

Election Systems in OregonElection Systems in Oregon

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

Problems With the 2004 Federal Election

Problems With the 2004 Federal Election


org

Ohio Secretary of State during the 2004 elections

Co-Chair of Ohio’s 2004 Bush re-election campaign

Problems in OhioProblems in Ohio


org

Blackwell’s actions resulted in the suppression and disenfranchisement

of well over 100,000 voters in Ohio

Ohio – Sec. of State BlackwellOhio – Sec. of State Blackwell


org


On Sept. 7th, 2004, all county boards of elections were ordered to reject all voter registration forms not printed on white, uncoated paper of not less than 80 lb. text weight

Limited the use of provisional ballots, effectively disenfranchising over 100,000 citizens (according to Ohio’s Republican Gov. Bob Taft) by using a narrow interpretation of HAVA requirements


org

Provided insufficient voting machines in more minority, less affluent, and Democratic areas, causing tens of thousands of voters to wait in lines for up to 10 hours

(How many voters couldn’t afford to wait for several hours and gave up?)

Mark Duncan / Associated Press



org

On Nov 2nd (Election Day), he banned all press and exit pollsters from Ohio’s voting places

Arranged Ohio’s post-election recount schedule so as to leave no time for adequate recounts

Has yet to file a compliance report with the Government Services Administration, which had given him $41 million to enforce the Help America Vote Act in Ohio

Now a candidate for Ohio Governor



org

July 2, 2004 – consulting firm employed by the Ohio Democratic Party

Oct. 11, 2004 – Lucas County Democratic headquarters in Toledo

Ohio – Other Dirty TricksOhio – Other Dirty Tricks

The only items taken were computers containing highly sensitive campaign-related information and Democratic voter lists/strong Kerry supporters

Break-ins at Democratic campaign offices:


org

Bob Bennett, Republican Chair of the Cuyahoga Board of Elections (BOE) and Chair of the Ohio Republican Party, has confirmed that prior to the 2004 elections, his BOE eliminated — without public notice — a staggering 175,414 voters from the Cleveland-area voter registration rolls


Massive Voter Suppression:


org

The Republican Party used a technique called “caging,” where they sent registered letters to newly registered voters in minority and urban areas, and then challenged the voting eligibility of 35,000 individuals who refused to sign for the letter or if the mail came back undeliverable

Massive Voter Suppression:



org

The available data shows that “in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the over-whelming majority of them Democratic,

were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004”Source: Kennedy, Robert F., Jr. 2006. Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Rolling Stone Magazine, 6/1/06 (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen)Article also found at CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm)

Ohio – Summary of ProblemsOhio – Summary of Problems


org

In Ohio, the final machine tallies showed George W. Bush had 118,000 more votes than John Kerry — an average winning margin of less than 6 votes per precinct

Ohio – 2004 Election ResultsOhio – 2004 Election Results


org

Over 7 million Americans live and work abroad — a global bloc some call the 51st state

In addition to active and retired military, these citizens include a large number of professionals who are young, college-educated, multi-lingual, and progressive

Overseas VotesOverseas Votes


org

The Dept. of Defense is responsible for administering the overseas votes,

military and civilian, through the Federal Voting Assistance Program

(FVAP) and its website(www.fvap.gov)

Overseas Votes – D.o.D. TacticsOverseas Votes – D.o.D. Tactics

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld


org

The FVAP’s website makes ballots more accessible abroad and serves

as a clearinghouse for electoral requirements for all 50 states




org

A Zogby poll of active passport holders, released in August 2004,

found Kerry was favored over Bush 58% to 35%



org

On August 23, 2004, at the height of overseas voter registration requests, the

FVAP website suddenly shut down, becoming inaccessible to civilians using

several foreign internetservice providers from

25 countries.




org

According to the FVAP’s web manager, Susan Leader, access was blocked due to users constantly attempting to hack

these sites. “We do not expect theblock to be lifted.”

An Army officer involved in the admin-istration of the U.S. vote in Germany called this claim “patently ridiculous”




org

The website stayed down until Sept. 22nd, 6 weeks before Election Day, making it much more likely that absentee ballots mailed from oversees would arrive too

late to be counted in the election




org



Result of the website shutdown: Thousands of overseas voters

were disenfranchised


org

Summary of Problems in 2004Summary of Problems in 2004

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg of documented voter suppression and disenfranchisement dirty tricks used in Ohio — and several other states — in

the 2004 election


org


Nationwide, millions of legitimate voters were prevented from casting ballots and

approximately 3,600,380 ballots were cast but never counted

Source: Palast, Greg. 2006. Armed Madhouse. Penguin Group, New York; pp. 189-190.


org


One estimate is that Kerry won the popular vote by

8 million votes or more*

* According to Mark Crispin Miller, author of the book, Fooled Again, an in-depth study of the 2004 election, as stated in speeches and interviews

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

Exit PollsExit Polls


org

The official national election exit poll was conducted by Mitofsky International — an internationally known exit polling firm — and assisted by Edison Media Research

Mitofsky was hired by the NationalElection Pool (NEP), a consortium of the major news organizations — the Associated Press, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC

2004 Election Exit Poll2004 Election Exit Poll

Warren J. Mitofsky


org

Exit Poll ResultsExit Poll Results

In late afternoon of Election Day, exit polls in the presiden-tial election showed that Democratic candidate John Kerry

was winning by a landslide in electoral votes and was ahead by 3% in the popular votes nationwide

John F. Kerry


org

During the late evening/ early morning hours, the final machine tallies showed George Bush the victor in both the popular and electoral votes — a stunning last-minute turn-around

Final Machine Tally ResultsFinal Machine Tally Results

George W. Bushon Election Night 2004

Data in Presidential Race - Election Day 2004

4:00 pm 6:00 pm 8:00 pm 10:00 pm 12:00 am 2:00 am

2

4

6

8

10

Com

pariso

n of

Can

dida

tes'

Sta

ndin

g (P

erce

nt)

Approx. Time (ET)Nov. 2, 2004 Nov. 3, 2004

Legend

Exit Poll Data - BushExit Poll Data - Kerry

Machine-Tallied Count - Bush

election data at polling headquarters was down, reportedly due to malfunction

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

2

4

6

8

10

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

Machine-Tallied Count - Kerry

2

Total Exit Poll Respondents*

Posted National Exit Poll Data*

= 8,349

= 11,027

= 13,047

= 13,531 (+3.7%)

= 13,660 (+1%)

1 3 4 5

0 0

Graph 1. Candidates' Standing in Exit Polls & Machine Count by Time

5

1

2

3

4

Oregon Voter Rights Coalitionwww.oregonvrc.org

Developed by Beth E. Peterson 03/2005 rev.1a 12/2005

NEP data as released by CNN. The number of respondents represents the total number of

the projection estimates. (Source: <http://www.exitpollz.org>.)

*

Machine Tallies

Exit PollsKerry

Kerry

Bush

Bush

Server

Down5.5% Flip

in Results

+

-

Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush

Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry BushKerry Bush Kerry BushKerry Bush Kerry Bush

Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush Kerry Bush

Kerry Bush Kerry Bush

NOV. 2004 ELECTION

Graphs prepared by Beth E. Peterson

Exit Polls vs.Machine Tallies in

11 Battleground States

45

50

55

40

COLORADO

Exit Poll Machine Tally

Tallied vs. Exit Polls = Bush +3.4%

Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

45

50

55

40

MINNESOTA

Kerry BushExit Poll Machine Tally


Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

45

50

55

40

OHIO



Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

45

50

55

40

FLORIDA



Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

45

50

55

40

IOWA



Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

45

50

55

40

MICHIGAN

Source: CNN news network, as listed inThe Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy, by Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, Dec. 29, 2004; http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPoll.pdf



Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

45

50

55

40

NEW MEXICO



Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

45

50

55

40

NEW HAMPSHIRE



Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

45

50

55

40

NEVADA



Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

45

50

55

40

PENNSYLVANIA



Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

45

50

55

40

WISCONSIN


Tallied vs. Exit Polls = No Diff.

Per

cent

of T

ota

l Vot

es

Machine Tally

Results

Exit Polls

Correlating “Red Shift” with Electoral College Votes in the Top 10 Critical States

All Critical States

All Non-Critical StatesA

vera

ge P

erc

en

t of

Red

Sh

ift5 Critical States with the

Greatest “Red Shift” (NH, OH, PA, MN, FL)5 Critical States with the Least “Red Shift” (NV, NM, CO, IA, MI)

Tota

l Ele

cto

ral C

olleg

e V

ote

s

Source: Webb Mealy, Ph.D. http://www.selftest.net/redshift.htm

The 5 critical states with the greatest discrepancy between exit poll results and tabulated results also commanded nearly twice as many Electoral Votes as the other 5 critical states


org

Explanation for DiscrepancyExplanation for Discrepancy

by the media and political pundits was that the presidential exit polls

were flawed and exit polls in general are not accurate

The predominant explanation promoted


org

Historically, exit polls have proven to be very accurate, often to within

½ of 1% (0.005)

Discrepancies between exit polls and the final vote counts is solid evidence that something in the

election results is wrong

Proven Reliability of Exit PollsProven Reliability of Exit Polls


org

Even the Bush administration considers exit polls to be such a

reliable way to expose large-scale fraud that it has helped pay for

election exit polls in other countries

Example: Ukraine 2004



org


In Nov. 2004, John Tefft, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, pointed to such a discrepancy to argue that the presidential election in Ukraine had been stolen

Election protesters in Ukraine, Nov. 2004


org

The Ukrainians, after protesting en masse in sub-freezing temperatures, got a new presidential election — which resulted in a different winner

Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine



org

In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, the official explanation for the

discrepancy between the exit polls and the final machine tallies, as stated in the

Edison/Mitofsky report, was thatmore Kerry supporters participated in

the exit poll

Official ExplanationOfficial Explanation


org

However,

the technical section in the E/M report contradicted the conclusion that more Kerry supporters participated in the exit poll

the analysis made the assumption that the machine tallies were correct — it did not consider the possibility that the machine tallies were incorrect and the exit polls correct

Official ExplanationOfficial Explanation


org

To date, the official, final exit poll data has not been released to the public

Official Exit Poll DataOfficial Exit Poll Data


org

According to computer security expert Chuck Herrin,

Additional NoteAdditional Note

“the sudden unreliability of exit polls in the U.S. coincides with the use of paperless electronic

voting machines”


org

Discrepancies with substantial swings also occurred in as many as 7 U.S. Senate races —

all in favor of the Republican candidates

Mel Martinez (R-FL) Tom Coburn (R-OK) John Thune (R-SD) Arlen Specter (R-PA)

Jim Bunning (R-KY)

+13% swing

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

+9% swing

U.S. Senate Races - 2004U.S. Senate Races - 2004

Richard Burr (R-NC)

+9% swing


org

Note: Paperless electronic voting machines were used in the state

U.S. Senate Race - 2002U.S. Senate Race - 2002

Georgia

+12% swing for Chambliss over Cleland

Max Cleland (D)

Saxby Chambliss (R)


org

In 2003 in California, Republican Arnold Schwarzenneger defeated a popular Latino Democrat who substantially led in polls a week before the election in strongly Democratic California

Georgia 2002: Republican Sonny Perdue defeated incumbent Democratic Governor Roy Barnes after a suspicious 16% election-day swing in the vote

Gubernatorial Races – 2002, 2003Gubernatorial Races – 2002, 2003

Note: Paperless electronic voting machines were used in both states


org

There is no known information available on U.S. House races

regarding anomalies or discrepancies in the 2002 or 2004 elections

U.S. House RacesU.S. House Races


org

ConclusionConclusion

There is no basis for confidence in election results that were based on machine counts tallied with secret

software

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

Is It Voter Fraud or Election Fraud?

Is It Voter Fraud or Election Fraud?


org

Voter Fraud vs. Election FraudVoter Fraud vs. Election Fraud

Voter FraudVoter Fraud: fraud perpetrated by the : fraud perpetrated by the individual voter(s)individual voter(s)

Examples: voting more than once, voting Examples: voting more than once, voting when not legally allowed to vote (both when not legally allowed to vote (both felonies)felonies)

Small-scale fraudSmall-scale fraud

Touted remedy: Voter I.D. lawsTouted remedy: Voter I.D. laws


org

Election FraudElection Fraud – fraud perpetrated by – fraud perpetrated by others (i.e., candidates or political others (i.e., candidates or political parties) to rig an election, sometimes parties) to rig an election, sometimes with help from corrupt election officialswith help from corrupt election officials

Examples: voter suppression and Examples: voter suppression and disenfranchisement, stuffing of ballot boxdisenfranchisement, stuffing of ballot box

Often large-scale fraudOften large-scale fraud

Remedies: (Varies)Remedies: (Varies)



org

Which type of fraud do YOU think has been occurring?

HINT: Claims of widespread voter fraud are totally false


www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

What About the 2006 Mid-Term Elections?

What About the 2006 Mid-Term Elections?


org

A Solution or a Ruse?A Solution or a Ruse?

In the 2004 election, people felt calmed by the illusion that the problems of the 2000 election were being corrected — while

in fact the opposite was happening Voter Lines in Florida, 2004


org

A Sept. 2005 Report to Congress by the Government Accountability Office on electronic voting system security and

reliability identified a long list of vulnerabilities and problems

2005 GAO Report to Congress2005 GAO Report to Congress


org

Identified problems included: Weak security controls

System design flaws

Inadequate security testing

Poor security mgmt.

Incorrect system configuration

Inadequate system version controls

Vague and incomplete voting standards

2005 GAO Report to Congress2005 GAO Report to Congress


org

The 2005 GAO report states that, although the Election Assistance Commission has led efforts to address problems, changes have not been implemented. Therefore, there will be little improvement in the 2006 elections

over the 2004 elections.

2005 GAO Report Warning2005 GAO Report Warning


org

40% of all votes will be cast on paperless electronic voting machines (66 million voters)

More than 30.6 million voters will see new voting equipment

2006 Mid-Term Elections2006 Mid-Term Elections

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

Towards a SolutionTowards a Solution


org

ignore the strong evidence of systematic election fraud in the last 3 federal election cycles?

trust private companies like ES&S, Diebold and Sequoia to accurately count our votes?

ignore the estimated 36 million voters who were not confident that their vote in the 2004 election had been counted or counted accurately?

believe that the 2006, 2008, or 2010 elections will be any different if we do nothing to address problems?

Questions to Ask OurselvesQuestions to Ask Ourselves

Can WE THE PEOPLE afford to:


org

WE THE PEOPLE need to take action in order to reclaim our “common right” to

an open, transparent, and verifiable

Actions to TakeActions to Take

election — to reclaim our vote and our

democracy


org

Actions to TakeActions to Take

demand that corporations and politicians get out of counting our votes

develop open-source election software for transparency

use a scientifically designed election verification process

WE THE PEOPLE need to:


org

Ensuring Election IntegrityEnsuring Election Integrity

Methods of ensuring election integrity:

Logic and Accuracy Test

Audit of Precincts

Countywide or Statewide Verification

Recount


org

Methods of Ensuring Election Integrity Methods of Ensuring Election Integrity

Logic and Accuracy Test

Purpose: To test machine calibration

Method: Compares the machine count with a small test deck of paper ballots, e.g. 100 or 1,000 ballots


org


Audit of Precincts

Purpose: To determine if a pattern of machine errors occurred by checking the accuracy of results in a specified percentage of precincts*

Method: The machine count is compared with a hand-recount of paper ballots in a percentage of precincts; a pattern of discrepancies between the counts MAY trigger further investigation

* This method is NOT, in itself, designed to find countywide or statewide inaccuracies or to trigger a countywide or statewide recount


org


Countywide or Statewide Verification

Purpose: To ensure that the certified countywide or statewide results are accurate

Method: Compares the countywide or statewide machine count with a hand-counted, scientifically determined sample of paper ballots; a significant discrepancy between the sample results and the machine results will trigger a mandatory full hand-recount


org


Recount

Purpose: To determine the actual results

Method: Hand-recounting ALL of the paper ballots for the race(s) in doubt


org

Democracy Requires ActionDemocracy Requires Action

We as patriotic individuals need to:

support non-partisan election integrity efforts

become more informed about the FACTS

help raise awareness about the need for election reform

ask your elected officials to support election reform


org

don’t let another questionable election go unchallenged!

don’t let another questionable election go unchallenged!

Democracy Requires Action Democracy Requires Action

Most importantly,

www.OregonVRC.org

www.OregonVRC.org

For more information, visit

http://www.OregonVRC.org

For more information, visit

http://www.OregonVRC.org

“Either every vote is sacred,or democracy is a sham.”

~David Cobb, 2004 Green Party presidential candidate

“Either every vote is sacred,or democracy is a sham.”

~David Cobb, 2004 Green Party presidential candidate

Www.OregonVRC.org The Illusion of Democracy: An Urgent Call to Action for National Election Reform...

Documents

Transcript of Www.OregonVRC.org The Illusion of Democracy: An Urgent Call to Action for National Election Reform...