yep. we're boned.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Aaron Ruscetta <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:arxaaron@gmail.com">arxaaron@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
This story provides substantial evidence that one of the political<br>
parties has control over the zero evidence electronic vote counts<br>
from Diebold / ES&S DRE systems and is committing vote fraud<br>
on a massive scale to insure that competent and popular candidates<br>
of their opposition are eliminated in the primary election phase.<br>
Strong challenges to primary results are less likely than in general<br>
elections since they must be addressed by the Party authorities<br>
before they can be taken to the State.<br>
<br>
Explains a lot of the "results" of the past several election cycles.<br>
<br>
Remember that if you missed the window for getting your GA<br>
Absentee Paper Ballot, you can still vote with a Paper ballot<br>
by leaving your ID at home. When a voter cannot present<br>
photo ID, the polling place is required by law to provide a<br>
Paper Provisional Ballot. The voter can then fax or show<br>
their ID to the County Registrars office within 48 hours.<br>
A unique added benefit of this voting method is that the<br>
Regiatrar's office is also required by law to inform you<br>
with cause if your provisional ballot is not counted. Full<br>
details and Country Restistrar contact info lists can<br>
be found at <PaperCounts.org>.<br>
<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Garland Favorito <<a href="mailto:garlandf@msn.com">garlandf@msn.com</a>><br>
Date: Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:31 AM<br>
Subject: South Carolina Primary Proves Unverifiable Voting Cannot Be Trusted<br>
<br>
VoterGA Supporters,<br>
<br>
Mail-in paper ballot election results just received from each South Carolina<br>
county under Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests confirm that there<br>
were enough voting discrepancies in the recent U.S. Senate Democratic<br>
primary to have reversed the election outcome. That race had dramatic,<br>
inexplicable discrepancies between the verifiable mail-in absentee paper<br>
ballot results and the unverifiable electronic voting results recorded on<br>
Election Day, June 8. In that race, Alvin Greene was declared the winner<br>
based on a near landslide 60-40% margin in Election Day electronic voting<br>
results. However, certified mail-in paper ballot results received from the<br>
counties after a 15 business day response period allowed under South<br>
Carolina law, show that Vic Rawl actually won the verifiable mail-in paper<br>
ballot absentee voting by a solid 55-45% margin. The near 30% total point<br>
differential among the two candidates is unheard of in South Carolina<br>
election history and perhaps, nationally as well. Neither candidate<br>
emphasized absentee voting so there is no reasonable explanation for<br>
such a vast difference. VoterGA issued the FOIA requests because South<br>
Carolina counties do not report separate absentee totals for mail-in paper<br>
ballot votes and in-person electronic votes. While some of this information<br>
was previously known, here is what the official replies to the<br>
requests revealed:<br>
<br>
· In not one county did Alvin Greene win the absentee mail-in vote count<br>
and lose the Election Day vote count<br>
<br>
· In not one county did Vic Rawl win the Election Day vote count and lose<br>
the mail-in absentee vote count<br>
<br>
· In 41 of 46 counties, Alvin Greene’s Election Day vote percentage exceeded<br>
his mail-in paper ballot absentee percentage;<br>
<br>
· In 34 of those 41 counties, Alvin Greene’s Election Day electronic votes<br>
exceeded his mail-in paper ballot absentee votes by an abnormal margin of 15%<br>
<br>
· In no counties with more than 10 paper ballot casts did Vic Rawl have an<br>
abnormal margin of 15% or more (total for both candidates)<br>
<br>
The individual county results illustrate the differences between Election Day<br>
electronic voting results and mail-in paper ballot absentee voting results<br>
much more dramatically:<br>
<br>
· In Aiken County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40%<br>
but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 70% to 30%;<br>
<br>
· In Barnwell County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 63% to 37%<br>
but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 75% to 25%;<br>
<br>
· In Beaufort County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40%<br>
but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 82% to 18%;<br>
<br>
· In Dorchester County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40%<br>
but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 67% to 33%;<br>
<br>
· In Florence County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 70% to 30%<br>
but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 58% to 42%;<br>
<br>
· In Greenwood County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 76% to 24%<br>
but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 51% to 49%;<br>
<br>
· In Lancaster County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 59% to 41%<br>
but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 90% to 10%;<br>
<br>
· In Newberry County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 55% to 45%<br>
but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 84% to 16%;<br>
<br>
· In Spartanburg County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 61% to 39%<br>
but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%;<br>
<br>
The differences between absentee in person electronic voting and absentee<br>
paper mail-in voting are similarly dramatic:<br>
<br>
· In Spartanburg County, Alvin Greene won the [early voting]<br>
absentee electronic vote<br>
62% to 38% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%;<br>
<br>
· In Jasper County, Alvin Greene won the [early voting] absentee<br>
electronic vote<br>
56% to 44% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 76% to 24%;<br>
<br>
· In Orangeburg County, Alvin Greene won the [early voting] absentee<br>
electronic vote<br>
52% to 48% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%<br>
<br>
· In Chester County, Alvin Greene won the [early voting] absentee<br>
electronic vote<br>
71% to 29% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 55% to 45%;<br>
<br>
· In Coleton County, Alvin Greene won the [early voting] absentee<br>
electronic vote<br>
58% to 42% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 70% to 33%;<br>
<br>
· In Berkeley County, Alvin Greene won the [early voting] absentee<br>
electronic vote<br>
59% to 41% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 73% to 27%;<br>
<br>
A spreadsheet on the <a href="http://www.voterga.org" target="_blank">www.voterga.org</a> home page illustrates the discrepancies so<br>
that you can review them and make your own decision about the validity of this<br>
South Carolina election. However, the spreadsheet still does not take<br>
into account<br>
the extraordinary differences in the campaigns that were conducted. As you may<br>
already know Alvin Greene, an unemployed former military veteran who paid a<br>
$10,000 qualifying fee, did not even run a campaign. Greene held no<br>
fundraisers,<br>
ran no paid advertisements, made no campaign speeches, hired no campaign<br>
manager, conducted no state wide tours, attended no Democratic Party county<br>
events, printed no yard signs and did not even establish a web site.<br>
Vic Rawl, a<br>
county commissioner, former judge and four tern state representative,<br>
ran a normal,<br>
aggressive campaign as his campaign manager, Walter Ludwig, has explained.<br>
He personally campaigned in at least half of the counties made radio and TV<br>
appearances, attended the state convention, collected official endorsements,<br>
had 600 volunteers, printed 10,000 bumper stickers, established 180,000<br>
database contacts, created a 104,000 Email distribution list, had 3,300 Facebook<br>
Friends, sent out 300,000 Emails just prior to the election, received 20,000 web<br>
site hits on Election Day alone and was more active on Twitter than the other<br>
Democratic Party candidates.<br>
<br>
So how did this happen? All South Carolina elections are conducted on statewide<br>
unverifiable electronic voting equipment manufactured by [the new<br>
owner of Diebold,]<br>
Election Systems & Software (ES&S) . South Carolina’s voting machines have no<br>
independent audit trail of each vote cast. This is necessary to audit<br>
the accuracy of<br>
the vote recording mechanism that transfers the selections the voter sees on the<br>
screen to the vote storage areas. All precinct printouts, ballot<br>
images and any other<br>
forms of paper documents that can be printed are not created independently but<br>
produced internally from the machines after the vote was recorded and could have<br>
been corrupted. It is technically impossible for anyone in the state<br>
to claim that South<br>
Carolina’s Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines record<br>
accurately on<br>
Election Day since there is no mechanism such as a Voter Verified<br>
Paper Audit Trail<br>
[or other Paper Evidence] to independently audit the vote recording.<br>
No amount of<br>
pre-election testing can assure DRE recording accuracy. The Federal Election<br>
Assistance Commission’s (EAC) Technical Guidelines Development Committee<br>
concluded that: “The National Institute of Standards and Testing & EAC Security<br>
& Transparency Subcommittee do not know how to write testable requirements to<br>
satisfy that the software in a DRE is correct” The reason for such a<br>
conclusion is<br>
that many electronic voting machines, such as those used in South Carolina, can<br>
be programmed in a variety of ways to count differently on Election<br>
Day than during<br>
testing. As a result, South Carolina voters cannot verify that the<br>
selections they<br>
see on the screen were electronically recorded, election officials<br>
cannot audit the<br>
actual vote counts and there is no directly created evidence of voter<br>
intent that<br>
can be used in a recount.<br>
<br>
Vic Rawl understood this and filed an election protest to have his claims heard<br>
by the leadership of the South Carolina Democratic Party on June 17. Expert<br>
witnesses testified as to the improbability of such results and they<br>
methodically<br>
eliminated other false explanations for the discrepancies such as<br>
ballot positioning,<br>
Republican crossover voting and racial preferences. None of those excuses would<br>
explain the vast difference in absentee paper ballot results and<br>
electronic voting<br>
results. In addition, the office manager identified reports she had<br>
received from<br>
voters in a dozen different counties all of whom were impeded in some way from<br>
voting for Vic Rawl. One witness testified that Mr. Rawl was not on the ballot.<br>
Another witness testified that she successfully selected Vic Rawl in<br>
the race but<br>
Alvin Greene’s name on the confirmation screen. Still another witness<br>
testified that<br>
she received a confirmation screen indicating she had voted for Alvin<br>
Greene before<br>
she voted in the U.S. Senate race and immediately after she cast her<br>
vote in the<br>
governor’s race. Alvin Greene was not present and no evidence was presented<br>
to argue that the results were correct, the leadership denied Mr.<br>
Rawl’s request for<br>
new election by a count of 38-7. The entire hearing can be seen just<br>
by searching<br>
for Vic Rawl on Vimeo.com thanks to John Fortuin and Defenders of Democracy.<br>
<br>
The hearing revealed that Vic Rawl’s expert witness was denied access to the<br>
machines at the county level. In addition, the State Elections Commission denied<br>
a petition by State Senator Phil Leventis to impound the machines<br>
until they could<br>
be checked. The commission claimed that they needed the machines for<br>
the run-off.<br>
However, they would not have needed all of the machines for the run-of and they<br>
would not have needed to impound all of them to run statistically<br>
significant tests.<br>
A spokesperson for the State Elections Commission said that they have done all<br>
that they could do in terms of testing and that they are confident in<br>
the results. The<br>
commission also issued a statement asserting that the voting machines have<br>
always performed accurately and reliably, a claim that is technically impossible<br>
to establish since there is no way to independently audit the voting recording<br>
mechanism of the machine.<br>
<br>
[snip opinion item]<br>
<br>
I have sent a letter outlining the lack of credibility in this<br>
election to the State<br>
Elections Commission; the letter is available on the <a href="http://www.Voterga.org" target="_blank">www.Voterga.org</a> home page.<br>
South Carolina federal elections results could impact voters in every<br>
other state<br>
so even if you don’t live there, take a few minutes and do the same. The state<br>
elections commission can be contacted at <a href="mailto:elections@scvotes.org">elections@scvotes.org</a>.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Garland<br>
<br>
404 664-4044 CL<br>
<a href="http://www.voterga.org" target="_blank">www.voterga.org</a><br>
<br>
REPRINT AND POSTING PERMISSION GRANTED<br>
<br>
PS: This BradBlog link shows his interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olberman:<br>
<<a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890" target="_blank">http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890</a>><br>
Brad Friedman describes it as one of the most bizarre interviews ever<br>
seen on television.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>-- <br>James P. Kinney III<br>I would rather stumble along in freedom than walk effortlessly in chains.<br><br><br>