UC Berkeley Study Questions Florida E-Vote Count

[Milo_Bloom]

Research Team Calls for Immediate Investigation


BERKELEY, Calif., Nov. 18 /PRNewswire/ --
When: Thursday, November 18, 2004, 10:00 a.m. PST

Where: UC Berkeley campus, Survey Research Center Conference Room --
2538 Channing Way (intersection of Channing/Bowditch). Parking on Durant
near Telegraph.

What: A research team at UC Berkeley will report that irregularities
associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded
130,000 - 260,000 or more excess votes to President George W. Bush in
Florida in the 2004 presidential election. The study shows an unexplained
discrepancy between votes for President Bush in counties where electronic
voting machines were used versus counties using traditional voting
methods. Discrepancies this large or larger rarely arise by chance -- the
probability is less than 0.1 percent. The research team, led by Professor
Michael Hout, will formally disclose results of the study at the press
conference.


http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041118/sfth040_1.html

[DELUSIONAL]

1. This is a press release -- now will the MSM investigate?

MSM = Main stream Media

[corporatemedia]

3. what is mainstream about the media??? call it what it is -

CORPORATE MEDIA

[intheflow]

2. More MSM pickup!

Buried in Yahoo business news for some inexplicable reason, but there nonetheless. :bounce:

To bad we can't rate this story...

[Selteri]

8. Nah, but we can kick itup there

[satya]

4. Found it on PR Newswire

UC Berkeley Study Questions Florida E-Vote Count

[burn the bush]

5. wow, this looks pretty big to me

this isn't just a press release, but a press release announcing a press conference. I hope Bev and all out in the field see this

[regularjoe]

6. I hope this is true

It will do so much for the credibility of vote investigation.

[truthisfreedom]

7. yeah, well, i'm not going to hold my breath.

[Carolab]

9. Since it is a press release

let's see if the "press" shows up

[Timebound]

10. Yeah!

People, I know some of us who've been going non-stop since election day are very tired and have been on an emotional rollercoaster. But this isn't about Kerry anymore. It's about democracy. Sure, it's gonna be great if we can still get Kerry to his rightful office, but I really want to make sure our elections are fair.

So much is starting to move--the recounts, this press realease from UC Berkeley, Bev's Volusia county audit with BBV, and I just read a little while ago that the FBI has seized some computers from a company that works with Diebold for investigation:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=0&om=56&forum=DCForumID4122


We've just got to keep going, a little longer. We can do it.

Believe. Finally, I can. Maybe hope is still on the way. :)

[George_S]

12. Thanks, she says she needs some digging done...

"Here is what: We need an astute group of search experts, to find any, and every single tie the one and only CyberNET Ventures has with this issue because it leads straight to the top and back to the whitehouse. So far much information seems to be missing (blank pages) so experts who have background in information management, do your part! Search all the archives and find any and all reports and links of these companies together, linkes to ChoicePoint, links between each party and so on and get this rotton egg hard broiled!"

[George_S]

13. THIS CyberNet Ventures?

Court issues preliminary injunction against Cybernet Ventures, which operates an Age Verification Service, based on the use by web sites operated by third parties of various images in which plaintiff held the copyright, or featuring a model who had assigned her right of publicity to plaintiff.

Cybernet Ventures operates the Age Verification Service "Adult Check." Participating web sites put a script on their site which direct first time users to Cybernet, who sells them access to the Adult Check family of sites. The user is thereafter free to visit Adult Check sites for a set period of time. The fees generated by this user are paid to Cybernet, who splits them with the web site which sent the user to Cybernet. To assist the user in finding Adult Check sites to his liking, Cybernet provides both a series of links as well as a search engine. It also advertises its network.

http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case269.cfm

Is there another CyberNet Ventures?

[George_S]

14. ChoicePoint = Derek V. Smith

Terrorism - Terror And How Derek V. Smith Can Stop It

Xposed, May 2004
By
BRIAN BERGSTEIN

NEW YORK - Derek V. Smith sees bad people lurking everywhere: terrorists, sexual predators, quack doctors, identity thieves. And yet Smith colors himself an optimist, insisting that society can protect itself from such dicey characters, using information as a shield.


In Smith's view, if we did more to examine each other's digital footprints _ addresses, employment records, credit data, lawsuits, criminal files, professional licenses, vehicle registrations _ the world would be safer.

Not surprisingly, Smith can supply much of that information _ he heads ChoicePoint Inc., a leading electronic data warehouse regularly mined by companies and the government. ChoicePoint does 8 million background checks a year, serving more than half of the Fortune 500.

Database aggregators like ChoicePoint have quietly become powerful arbiters, whirring in the background when people seek jobs, get on airplanes, apply for insurance, commit a crime or fall victim to one. ChoicePoint's computers are packed with 19 billion public records.

http://www.xposed.com/gadgets/terrorism_-_terror_and_how_derek_v_smith_can_stop_it.aspx

[LosinIt]

134. If you go to all of the trouble of the graphic please spell ITS correctly

it's means it is, its is the possessive form of it.

[American liberal]

164. funny. I thought the same thing. It's the editor in me eom

[Carl Brennan]

175. Jeb Bush linked to Choicepoint

http://www.theyesmen.org/tryem/instructions.shtml


Google Choicepoint+Jeb

[Uber Llama]

178. Hold on. Don't you all know ChoicePoint?

They used to work for the FBI, but got sacked for bribery (presumably selling state secrets.) Then JEB hired them to make a list of black people that were not felons to take the right to vote away from. The bidding for the contract started at $5,400, and actually went UP to $4.2 million. They stole the FL votes in 2000.

[George_S]

15. Cybernet = Laith Alsarraf

Congress' latest attempt to censor online pornography, now being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union in a federal court in Philadelphia, is practically an endorsement of Adult Check, the L.A. Times said.

The law would require all commercial websites -- even those not in the pornography business -- to use Adult Check or another service like it to protect children from material deemed "harmful to minors."

Justice Department attorneys have even gone so far as to call Laith Alsarraf, the 20-year-old founder of Cybernet, as one of the lead witnesses in their efforts to uphold the law. If the law were to be upheld, Alsaraff acknowledges, "I think it's pretty obvious it would help our business."

To the company's critics, however, Cybernet contributes more to the problem than the solution.

"The government wants to shut down porn on the Net," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU attorney leading the effort to overturn the law on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. "And yet their main witness is this guy who makes his money urging more and more people to access porn on the Net."

http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/w021599a.html

[Bozos for Bush]

25. George, bring starroute in on the case

She's the best dirt digger I know.

Damn, I wish I didn't have to go to work - we need to move fast on this.

Explosive!

John

[George_S]

73. Request submitted.

[Catherine Vincent]

20. Hear Hear!

This is not about Kerry anymore!

[burn the bush]

11. looks real i guess but they didnt give the press much time to get there

I think this will open it up wide. This isn't just tin foil hatters by anyones definition.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Berkeley is IN the building!

Keep these articles coming!

[jbnow]

18. Cybernet was subject earlier

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1000054#1001410

I kept looking for more and I am glad I see it here! Bush/Cheney were in Grand Rapids so much I wondered at the tie when I read the first article and that CEO was a felon..
Their company connects with so many, worldwide.

http://thewhir.com/marketwatch/cyb111504.cfm
CyberNet Group Buys Ayala Data Center
November 15, 2004 -- (WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) -- Busines process outsourcing Firm the CyberNet Group (cybernet-usa.com) announced this week that it had acquired a 60 percent controlling interest in the AyalaPort Makati data center in the Philippines, taking over management of the facility, and renaming it CNG Global Data Hub.

Cybernet owner involved here to and quoted in the article

http://www.halcyonsoft.com/company.asp?s=4

Stryon Merger Creates Global Leader in Legacy Application Migration
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., June 18, 2002 -

Stryon Inc. (http://www.stryon.com ) a former division of CyberCo Holdings, has merged with Halcyon Software, Inc. forming a new company dedicated to the demands for high quality software development with a special focus on the migration of business applications written in legacy languages. Both companies have combined their global expertise to help businesses that wish to match the performance, functionality and value of their existing applications and systems to the fastest and most proficient technologies.

And if it might relate Styron had this issue:

www.securitytracker.com :
Stryon Instant ASP (iASP) Input Validation Flaw Discloses Files on the System to Remote Users. Read More

http://www.securitytracker.com/alerts/2002/Dec/1005809....
Category: Application (Generic) > iASP Vendors: Stryon
Stryon Instant ASP (iASP) Input Validation Flaw Discloses Files on the System to Remote Users

SecurityTracker Alert ID: 1005809
CVE Reference: GENERIC-MAP-NOMATCH (Links to External Site)
Date: Dec 13 2002

Impact: Disclosure of system information, Disclosure of user information

Exploit Included: Yes

Version(s): 1.0.9 and prior versions

Description: A file disclosure vulnerability was reported in Stryon's Instant ASP (iASP) in the Remote Console Applet. A remote user can view arbitrary files on the system.

Fate Research Laboratories reported that a remote user can connect to the applet on port 9095 and supply a URL containing '../' directory traversal characters to obtain files on the system.

A demonstration exploit URL is provided:

http://< ;hostname> 095/../../../../../../etc/passwd

The vendor has reportedly been notified.

Impact: A remote user can obtain files from the target user's server while the applet is running.

Solution: No solution was available at the time of this entry.

Vendor URL: www.stryon.com/products.asp?s=1 (Links to External Site)

Cause: Access control error, Input validation error
Underlying OS: Linux (Any), UNIX (Any), Windows (Any)
Reported By: "ph33r" <[e-mail] >

[Carl Brennan]

172. DU story on Cybernet

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2724986

[kristndem]

17. Kick

:kick:

[mulderig]

19. kick

[KeireG]

21. This is great.

The brilliant folks at UC Berkeley are now going to add a tremendous measure of credibility to the cause that we are pursuing. I can't wait to hear what all comes out at the press conference.

[ahyums]

22. That could effectively mean 260,000 -520,000 votes for Bush I think

forgive me if my maths is way out here, but if the machines awarded let's say 130,000 votes to Bush that could mean that those 130,000 votes should have been for Kerry in other words meaning that it increased Bush's margin by 260,000. If that's the case, this could easily be enough to flip the state in which case it's huge

[progressoid]

23. MSM will definitely ignore this

because it comes from Berkeley. I'd be shocked if they put any support behind this one. Berkeley is home to the quintessential liberal elite that the morality gestapo is bitching about.

[madrigal]

27. Olbermann is covering it

Scholars on the votes, Ohio Undervotes (Keith Olbermann)

SECURE UNDISCLOSED LOCATION - We return to Academic Dueling In Our Time, already in progress.

A UC Berkeley sociology professor, director of his school’s survey research center, is scheduled to conduct a news conference at 1 PM ET today at which his “research team” will report that “irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000-260,000 or more excess votes” to President Bush in Florida..................................


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

[progressoid]

42. Agreed

And I just emailed him to thank him. I hope he gets the credit he deserves when this finally breaks open.

[demosincebirth]

150. A UC Regent is also Ward Connerly (r/winger)...

the black mans Keyes.

[chiffon]

24. Berkeley Berkeley...Remember their activism during the 60's!

This would be fittingly apropos for their scholarly investigation to break this veiled headliner into MSM.

Oh yeah!

Peace-out...
~chiffon

[Demrock6]

26. Sweet!!

I have a friend of two our at UC Berkeley.

The best we could hope for is that it will take a second look at voter machines. According to CNN Bush lead Kerry in Florida by 377,216 votes. Subtract the 260,000 from that Kerry still looses by 117,216.

Ohio used mostly punch cards I think not voting machines. But perhaps with provisional ballots and electronic voting machines errors working together we could turn this thing around. Doubtful but think happy thoughts.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fouiZqRHXVgJ:www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/FL/P/00/+2004+elections+florida+results&hl=en

[ahyums]

31. yes but I think you don't just subtract those votes from Bush

you give them to Kerry which makes a huge difference obviously

[chiffon]

35. I totally agree

In looking at the CNN exit poll link, there has been a lot of reservation on their numbers after 1:00 (EST).

It appears they shifted sustantially from their exit polls reflected earlier that day that clearly indicated that Kerry was ahead in the majority of battleground states.

To date, I am not sure why.

:shrug:

[Eloriel]

67. No -- computerized as well

See this ElectionLine.org Interactive Map:
http://electionline.org/interactiveMap.jsp?page=Interactive+Map

and you can find this and many other helpful links, also news and developments here:

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#

VOTE FRAUD Links Compendium - Thread #2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x3223

ALSO SEE: VOTE FRAUD? What can we do? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2701028#

********SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND MEDIA TOO *********
Best Fraud Summary I've seen!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x57214
Link: http://www.bopnews.com

[daleo]

131. The news release said 130-260K extra for Bush

If I read this correctly, nearly that could mean 480K difference at the maximum (260 from Bush, that same 260 to Kerry.

[daleo]

168. After reviewing the paper, I have to say I was incorrect

They do say 130K possible extra Bush votes, possible 260K if all Bush votes were given to Kerry.

[phasev]

55. my alma mater n/t

[Jo March]

28. I've emailed this story to my fellow 'murcans

I am tired of being looked at as though I'm a kook. This stuff is coming out whether they want it to or not!

I've asked my friends to pass this along.

BIG FREAKING KICK!

[Roland99]

29. Big influx of voting problems today, eh?

[Jo March]

30. Yeah. How about that? Frankly I'm shocked! LOL! n/t

[Jo March]

32. Email this story out! Let people know!

There are people who don't even know of our efforts to get recounts. Email them!

I have just emailed some co-workers who are pro-Kerry to let them know. I want the world to know and I'll continue to keep emailing.

It's as good as a kick. It makes you feel good to spread hope.

Be the media!!

[pauldp]

33. Anyone calling us conspiracy wackos can STFU

:crazy:
Need a nationwide investigation.

...but maybe that team of researchers is just a bunch of tin foil hats who believe in evolution?

[Jo March]

37. No, just terrorists

Hope they stay safe. :(

[Eloriel]

71. Another great resource`

********SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND MEDIA TOO *********
Best Fraud Summary I've seen!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x57214
Link: http://www.bopnews.com


And lots more info here:

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#

VOTE FRAUD Links Compendium - Thread #2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x3223

ALSO SEE: VOTE FRAUD? What can we do? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2701028#

[Melissa G]

153. Kick!

[Pachamama]

82. It is critical for us to forward this info to all we know!

This is because most people with their busy schedules, even folks who don't watch TV and try to actually "read" the newspaper or read their news online, might not realize what is happening....I saw several people today that are "Green Party members" that didn't even realize that David Cobb had asked for a recount in Ohio....

Keep this info going until it finally has broken out as big news...the more people that are aware, following this and demanding that their elected representatives (both dems and Republicans) and that the media keep it aware, the more likely it is that we can make sure justice is served and democracy protected.

:kick:

[musette_sf]

34. kick!!

:kick:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Jo March]

38. Yep, you have a fitting username

It's been crappy having you visit.

Go away.

[Stainless]

41. The Loaded Diaper smells .............

like a disrupter! Why don't you just go back to freeper-land and take your smelly load with you?

[Sideways]

44. He Is Already Tombed

Thanks Mods you guys are GOOD!

[Jo March]

65. Wow. That was fast

That guy didn't even pretend to be anything other than a freep.

[Cobalt Violet]

51. Who the hell needs more "conservative views"?

Please!:puke::puke: :puke:

[Lerkfish]

56. enjoy your short vist to DU!

:hi:

[BlueDog2u]

77. Right on cue

Here they come... freep freep freeping their way into the hearts and minds of John and Jane Q Public, who just want to know: "what happened to my vote?"

[Tight_rope]

39. Yahoo...Goooo Berkley!

[understandinglife]

40. Related dKos diary....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/18/81044/392#71

Peace.

[markusd]

52. Another DU/Kossack Crossover artist

Understanding - I've also been bouncing back and forth between the two boards. I just posted the dial-in info over there. I'll post a comment here as well.

[Dora]

43. kick

[Chelsea Patriot]

45. KICK!!! For The Truth!!!

[jhain]

46. awesome

you mean I have NOT been having a four year long nightmare!?

[Robert Oak]

47. wow! we need to keep this study front and center

they bury everything in the news or the news cycle.

[jhain]

48. have sent it far and wide.

keep it going!

[leftchick]

50. Iran Has Nukes!!!!

I think that is all that is on the State Run Media today!

[donkeyotay]

49. The math will set you free!

These mathematicians will be falling all over themselves to prove that the statistical likelihood of the republican takeover of the country (that happens to coincide with the rise of republican computer vote counting) is about as likely as getting hit by an asteroid and winning the lottery on the same day.

Wahoo! Statistics! If they're good enough for insurance actuaries, they're good enough for me.

:toast:

[MojoRoad]

60. The Berkeley Paper http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/

[donkeyotay]

70. That was quick!

http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/

I have taken the liberty of a few excerpts from this study:

Excerpt from their summary:

The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections

Because many factors impact voting results, statistical tools are necessary to see the effect of touch-screen voting. Multiple- regression analysis is a statistical technique widely used in the social and physical sciences to distinguish the individual effects of many variables...

When one controls for these factors, the association between electronic voting and increased support for President Bush is impossible to overlook. The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush.


Snip from their working paper:

Working Paper: The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections

Michael Hout, Laura Mangels, Jennifer Carlson, Rachel Best With the assistance of the UC Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team

Essentially, net of other effects, electronic voting had the greatest positive effect on change in percent voting for Bush from 2000 to 2004 in democratic counties. (Tables 2 - 4) (Figure 1)

<<Now the bad news from their research:>>

We also examined the effect of electronic voting machines and baseline support for Bush on change in percent voting for Bush in Ohio. The OLS regression model used percent voting for Bush in 2004 by county as the dependent variable and baseline support for Bush and electronic voting as independent variables, as well as an interaction effect between baseline support for Bush and electronic voting. Without controlling for change in voter turnout, size, median income, Hispanic population, or percent voting for Dole in 1996, we found no effect of electronic voting on change 2004 in Ohio.

End>>

So it still seems like the Ohio question is, who were these new voters? I’ve also been looking into the notion that Evangelicals would somehow represent a straight GOP-voting block. A pre-election article by Cathleen Falsani tells us that while about 25% of voters are classified as evangelical, about 10% of those are moderate and 2.5% are liberal, leaving us to conclude that a national average of 17.5% are religious right. This varies widely by state, and I do not know yet what percentage Ohio was, but I’d guess it might be higher than average.

http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/falsani/cst-nws-fals22.html

[markusd]

53. HERE IS THE DIAL-IN INFO!

Here's the dial in number to listen to the actual conference: 302-709-8433, passcode: 44347114#. It should be starting any second now...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

54. what was the spread in Fl vote totals?...how much did * win by?

[understandinglife]

57. http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/

report now online

[pauldp]

58. I'm listening right now

He's explaining the statistical techniques used.

Basically they are calling for an investigation into e-voting in Florida.

[Merlin]

59. Unfortunately the FL Bush plurality was 368,302

So we need more votes than the outside estimate here.

[liam97]

61. That is not the point though

The point is that voting machine irregularities cannot be explained as mechanical problems if all the "excess" votes go to one candidate. If only a handful of votes showed this pattern then one can still claim a glitch, but 136,000 cannot show the exact same pattern by glitch or chance. They estimate the chance of this occuring "by chance" in 1 in 1000.

[Merlin]

63. True enough. If they can prove eVoting glitches, that would be great.

The more evidence of "voting machine irregularities" the more ammunition we have for VVPBs.

[demo dutch]

64. Overal total was 368,302 but not all counties used

electronic voting machines. I believe Bev Harris is concentrating on irregularities in other suspect counties with optical scanners.
Also I don't think that total includes absentees etc.

[janetle]

62. Quietly...

I want all of this to quietly proceed to the point where it will bite the Bush people in their behinds big time so badly that we create a climate where George is being asked to resign.

[mdb]

66. What if you take from Bush about 189,000 vote he should not have received

and give them to Kerry. That would give Kerry the lead. They should have went for Kerry instead of Bush correct?

[liam97]

68. Are you asking if the 189K should have gone for Kerry?

Probably. But the point is what kind of "glitch" makes the same mistake 189,000 times? This is what Bev is after....

[c-macdonald]

69. Not necessarily...

The study assumes that the 130,733 votes are "ghost" votes - meaning that they are votes that simply appeared out of nowhere and went towards Bush.

They also mentioned though that it is possible these votes were taken from Kerry and given to Bush, which results in 260,000 votes - essentially double the first number.

If the second scenario is correct, the final results would be:

KERRY: 3,714,277
BUSH: 3,833,789

Still a difference of 119,512 votes.

[lovuian]

116. No the point is Bush Cheated to win and is a Criminal He Loses!!!

Ya don't cheat in elections not even for two votes!!! if this is shown to go to the Republicans and Bush

then its out of Office!!! thats the point!!!

[Zorra]

72. kick it up

[PeaceProgProsp]

74. Here's my summary of the press conference:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1369138&mesg_id=1369138

[plasticsundance]

75. David Corn's take

I listened today to Radio Nation, and heard David Corn, journalist from the Nation speak very cynically about Greg Palast and others promoting voting right abuses in the 2004 election. It seems he puts it down to stoking the fires of conspiracy theories.

I am debating on firing off an angry email to him, because he was severely distorting Palast's take on it.

I hope with this study and other corresponding labor on the subject by the likes of Bev Harris and others, a case can be made, before this is all swept under the rug.

The program does not appear yet at the site for Radio Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/audioblog/

[Dora]

76. Here's Link to the Paper

I just posted it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x4322

[jwcomer]

78. Don't get your hopes up.

Folks,

I wouldn't start counting those eggs yet.

I've read the paper. Frankly, this is the kind of crap analysis that causes the rest of the scientific community to scowl at the social sciences. There are only two possible conclusions. The professor is willing to risk his reputation to grind a political axe, or the professor doesn't understand the tools he is trying to use. This paper is dog shit. I'm going to get flamed for saying that. But look, this paper will come back to haunt people as it is EASILY discredited. All it does is get people's hopes up over nothing. The claim of 1 in a 1000 is completely unsupported by the evidence presented and shows that the professor is, at the minimum, extremely irresponsible and possibly ignorant of statistics.

regrets,
Walton

[tomastom]

79. Walton is correct

This is kind of like the "we never went to the moon" rumors that people like to spread. Common sense SHOULD tell a person that THOUSANDS of people would have to be involved in a coverup to hide a lie about going to the moon, and any one of them could get MILLIONS for the book rights on how it was done! To date, there are no book deals because...... we went to the moon.

This is the same situation. There would have to be dozens or more people involved in programming, debugging software, loading, downloading, keeping communication lines open, etc. to accomplish this. Any single one of them could have blown this WIDE OPEN with a single call to the National Enquirer for a cool MILLION or so!

Sorry people; there is a reason the best political minds in the DNC told Kerry it was over.... because it was.

Now lets move a little right so we have a chance to WIN in 2008. This may mean we have to reassess our party issues, but it must be done!

One final point about Olberman and his show. This is ratings time. I think he may be doing this for a bump to his ratings.

[yowzayowzayowza]

81. You are obviously NOT a programmer.

A single programmer funnelled the inside info could have built an app to hack most of the GEMS systems VERY easily. Itz not rocket science, let alone a trip to the moon.

However, the rash of votes being displayed for the wrong candidate is more than likely a VERY WELL PLANNED SIDE-EFFECT error of some sort, esp. given the background in fraud of the programming crew.

[ima_sinnic]

83. "move a little right"--?? I don't think so, newbie

--and normally I am very hurt by people jumping on so-called newbies, but your true agenda seems to be sticking out like a sore thumb. you'd really like it if people would "move on" and forget about looking too closely at those strange votes, wouldn't you?

oh and by the way, Keith Olberman just may be covering this blatant vote fraud because he knows it's the right thing to do, not because of any "ratings" crap. see, some people are ethical and NOT driven by greed--can you relate to that at all??

[scotjohn]

84. This is a BRILLIANT multi-variate regression analysis!

This study is absolutely methodologically sound and statistically valid. Multivariate regression analysis is one of the top standard ways sociologists analyze data.

It shows a suspicious pattern of vote discrepancies that CANNOT be accounted for by the size of the county, the wealth of the county, the demographic makeup of the county, the percentage of Republican votes in the past, or any of the other usual arguments people make, because all of those variables have been included in the analysis. It demonstrates that the only accurate way to describe the patterns we're seeing is "something different is going on with the touch screen machines."

The stroke of genius here, to me, is the inclusion of an interaction effect between Bush's 2000 results and electronic voting. Here's what that might mean.

Consider: if you were going to hack the election and add votes to Bush's total, where would you put those extra votes? In Republican counties? No way, that'd just push Bush away from the 50% mark, up towards 100%, and people would notice and get suspicious. So you'd put those votes in the DEMOCRATIC counties, which would push Bush's numbers TOWARD the 50% mark! Far, far less likely to raise suspicion.

And that's just what they've found -- it shows that the amount the county supported Gore in 2000 is directly related to suspicious vote totals -- and because this effect shows up only for electronic voting areas, not for the optical scans, it bolsters the argument that this isn't just a random accident, deliberate vote tampering is a far better explanation.

Hats off to the Berkeley team!

[jwcomer]

95. Shame on the Berkley team!

If this was from a stats 101 course, then ok it might be acceptable work. But from a PhD it isn't anywhere near brilliant. This is some of the easiest stats out there and it is being misused. Let me offer why it is erroneous.

1) Bottom line: No error bars are given. Statistics without error bars isn't even worth reading. Any serious scientist will agree. They ought to say 130k +/- 200k, or whatever the actual 95% error bar is. I suspect that my fake error bar is generous and that the actual error bar would not be very convincing of fraud.

2) ANY error analysis assumes the model is correct in order to determine the uncertainty in the parameters. It is an assumption that no test can get around. If the model is wrong then the significance levels don't mean squat. So running around an yelling 1 in 1000 significance on a model with a .45 R^2 isn't going to impress anyone who knows the subject.

3) The analysis could just as easily be reversed. I could argue that the paper ballots are in error not the e-votes and I will get the exact same R^2 and significance levels. How to choose between the two? No support is given for e-fraud over optical scanner fraud.

4) The significance levels only indicate that there is some relationship. But correlation is not causation. This cannot be repeated enough. It doesn't imply fraud. It may simply imply that model doesn't have enough parameters. But with so few data points it isn't easy to account for enough factors to make a judgment. Nor is their attempt to remove that possibility remotely adequate. Some things they ought to look into are adding quadratic terms for income and education. What about religion and black population. We know that there are big demographic differences between counties using optical versus electronic machines, but no serious effort has been made to account for these differences. Their second model is a total joke.

Accusing someone of fraud is a serious matter and should not be done lightly by academics. They had better be damn well sure before spouting off in a news conference. From the analysis that I read, they have no basis for the claim.

[yowzayowzayowza]

96. Walton,

Precisely where in the study did you see them "accusing someone of fraud"?

[jwcomer]

100. A spade is a spade.

What else could they possibly be suggesting? Veiled though it may be, it is an accusation of fraud - just look at the other posts on the forum. The conclusion is pretty clear. They must know that that is the implication. To say, "well, gee maybe there is just some weird systematic glitch that only happened in Florida that just happened to swing things bushes way" is just covering their ass. What is the basis of doing the analysis to begin with if they weren't looking for foul play. Did they do this for all 50 states? If not, why not?

[yowzayowzayowza]

103. They have a voice.

"What else could they possibly be suggesting?"

SOOO... you're just putting words into their mouths.

In the interview they presented several possible reasons for the results, only one of which was fraud, another could be as simple as dirty touch screens. Hopefully, we shall get to the bottom of this.

[Peace Patriot]

144. Dirty touch screens...

...all for Bush. I like that.

[scotjohn]

107. A few things wrong with Walton's "few things wrong"

On error bars -- the point of their analysis is to demonstrate a relationship between voting technology and votes for Bush. They succeed in doing that. Their estimate of the size of the vote discrepancy is just a side note, the lack of error bars with that estimate doesn't invalidate their study.

On an incorrect model -- why exactly is this model incorrect?

On reversing the analysis -- no, it's not reversible. They also found an interaction effect between "support in 2000 for Gore" and "voting machine", for touch-screen machines only. If the argument was reversible, and optical scan machines had been under-counting instead, they wouldn't have found this interaction effect to be significant. But they did. So it's not reversible.

On correlation and variables -- of course correlation does not equal causation. But ANY social science study can have your arguments here hurled at it: "you forgot to include variable X" and "you should have run log(Y) instead of Y" and "Z should be a quadratic term." They can't just load every possible variable in the universe into their study, they'd have multicollinearity problems for sure. You never can look at every variable in the universe, you have to pick and choose. Their doing so does NOT invalidate their study.

You think this data can be explained by a variable they're missing? Fine, fire up your regression analysis program, put in your variables, and let's see what you come up with.

[jwcomer]

139. ughhh

On error bars -- This relationship is quadratic with three constants. The net effect of summing them for a county at 50% bush is to find a small margin in Bushes favor (1%). That 1% represents only 2%, 5%, and 10% to each term respectively. Hence, the 95% error margins are critical to knowing whether the net effect is even in bushes favor. The 130k votes is not tangential. It is the thrust of the public interest. It is the sole reason we are discussing this study.

On an incorrect model -- The model barely fits the data. I've repeated their regressions and the kindest thing I can say is they managed to find a model with low Pvalues. But those PValues are not stable to minor changes in the model. So if they are going to attribute any meaning to the Pvalues, they absolutely have to justify the model they are using as being the model which voter behavior is restricted to. Otherwise those Pvalues just do not have any meaning. If you are going to go modifying your model to get nice pvalues then you kinda have to take those pvalues with a grain of salt.

On reversing the analysis -- I cannot find any information on their website regarding "support in 2000 for Gore". Without looking at the analysis of that data I cannot judge its merits. They have something about Democratic support in 2000 vs 2004 but they have no analysis behind it. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the issue of reversibility as it is not incorporated in the present model. The reversibility is due to the fact that the two types of counties may be represented as linear combinations of the 3 terms multiplied by the evote and the three terms not being multiplied by the evote.

On correlation and variables -- by throwing the 99.9% likelihood of a glitch or foul play and calling for an investigation, the authors have implied causation. One need only look at their fit to know they may not have enough factors. One thing they could do is compare the evote binary variate with other demographic data in these counties and look for high correlations. And try highly correlated variates in the place of the evote factors.

On missing variables -- I've rolled up my sleeves and satisfied myself that their isn't anything to their analysis. Those pvalues just don't mean what the authors think they mean.

[lovuian]

120. Somebody sees that there is something rotten

this is the evidence!!!

[Protect The Vote]

137. Shame on *you*, jwcomer!

Here's my rebuttal of your points:

1) What kind of error bars do you propose adding to a least squares analysis?

2) The correlation coefficient (R^2) of 0.45 is not used in the authors' claim of 99.9% chance of results not happening by chance.

3) Yes, you can reverse X and Y values in any least squares regression and get the same R^2 value. The point the authors make is that there is a correlation between type of voting apparatus used and the level of support for Bush. That worries me no matter how you plot it.

4) The authors make no claim as to causation. With such a strong correlation, don't you agree that we should be investigating possible causes? Why do you suggest quadratic terms for income and education? We do *not* know whether there are big demographic differences between counties using optical versus electronic machines, especially taken on the average state-wide.

The authors have not accused anyone of fraud. However, they make a strong case of correlation that deserves further investigation.

PTV

[jwcomer]

146. I'm not the one raising a stink over nothing

1) Asymptotic standard error. However 95% CI on the SE would be better. The mechanism for this calculating is well understood and mainstream.

2) 99.9% chance is only meaningful if the model choice is correct. .45 R^2 indicates that the model choice leaves much to be desired. Ergo, that 99.9% should not be taken very seriously.

3) No you misunderstand the issue. This problem is unique to the model form they have chosen. Essentially the evote factor could be XOR'd and the parameter values under question would be sign reversed and have the same pvalues. You may verify this if you do not believe me. Also switching X and Y to get the same R^2 isn't meaningful in the context of a multivariate regression.

4) The authors are looking for dirt. Why else would they be looking solely at Ohio and Florida. They found something that made them smile and raised Cain. Of course fraud is the implication because it is the sole reason for the study from the outset. They went looking for it. I see no reason to pretend that this is not the implication or the intent. Call a spade a spade. BTW, the univariate correlation between the evote and the % bush difference is -.24, hardly significant!

I'm being rough on this study because it is sloppy and because it screws with the populaces expecations. How are average Joes going to look after supporting these these guys because they promissed 99.9% likelihood that something is amiss and then nothing turns up - pretty foolish. And of their peers, 50% will say damn liberal professors lieing again. And 50% will say conspiracy. I just don't think that that is helpful.

[jwcomer]

170. Follow up

As a follow up. I carried out he calculation for the confidenc interval and the 95% CI turns out to be better than I expected, +/- 90k. However that assumes the model is correct, which I don't believe to be the case. So the CI is more of an academic exercise than of any practical value.

[distantearlywarning]

148. Statistical Armchair Quarterbacks (or: "Write your own damn study!")

Correlation vs. Causation???

Give me a freakin' break! We all know that you can't imply causation using correlational data. This is the first thing we all learn in Research Methods 101.

But there comes a point where you have to just go with the likely hypothesis! I mean, ok, it's *possible* that aliens came down and changed all the Kerry votes to say "George Bush" in Miami-Dade county, right? You can't discount this possibility, because the data is "correlational". Do you think the Berkeley researchers should try to "add quadratic terms" for the alien hypothesis to their regression?

Religion? Black population? Both of these would theoretically suggest a greater swing to Democrat in urban (ETouch) Florida counties. Can you provide a sound argument as to why you think that either of these variables might account for the "ETouch vs. Bush" phenomenon?

Income - possibly, depending on whether you think rich or poor urban voters would vote for Bush (I've heard it both ways). Let's see your data on Miami-Dade and other ETouch counties showing that they significantly differ from non-ETouch counties in terms of income. And then let's see your theoretical argument backed up by some sociological data showing that your rich/poor urban voters might be more likely to vote Republican.

Same goes for education. Do you think the well-educated or non-well-educated urban ETouch voters might be more likely to vote for Bush? Let's see your cited studies supporting your argument!

Do you get my point here? How many variables do you think a researcher needs to put in a study before you accept the likely hypothesis? If you don't think they did it right, well, I noticed that they included their raw data on their page. You could probably run the study again yourself, including the data you clearly think would make a serious impact on the results of this study, and write it up with your citations showing your theoretical reasons as above.

Let us know when you get that done. I for one would be very interested in your critical analysis of this work.

Love,

Distant Early Warning

P.S. Don't forget to check for the "otherworldly visitor" factor! :-)

[AntiFederalstSociety]

157. JWCOMER welcome aboard

Hey,JWCOMER. The people on the ground said Kerry was going to win. The exit polls said Kerry was winning. The vote counters said Kerry wasn't winning. The post election statistical PhD.s said Kerry should have won.

Everybody said Kerry was going to win and did win except the Diebold vote counters with their "secret" GEMS proprietary "counting" technology.

Now, first of all, your 3rd point doesn't make any sense. No, you can't say, "The analysis could just as easily be reversed." Did you do your own statistical analysis and if so can you prove it?

Second, without doing any analysis at all, you claim "correlation is not causation." What are you a tobacco company lawyer now? The Berkely team proved e-voting is the single biggest driving force behind Bush's percentage gains by district in Florida and you say "correlation is not causation" ????

Yeah, try and tell that to somebody's poor old Grandad who smoked Marlboros all his life and coughed up his lungs on his deathbed. Are you with the tobacco people? Because I think I've heard this before.

AFS

[symphony]

163. you still here ???

Dang, go back to freeperland already.

One more thing, unless you are the king of all analysts and statisticians, I am going with the Berkley team, not your sorry a** pathetic attempts at analyzing this.

[mulethree]

123. OR

It indicates that they just haven't found the right variable to account for the discrepancy.

Suppose for instance, that these counties have been less effected by unemployment than other counties? Throw employment into the mix and everything could change. How about age? How about the percentage who are enlisted in the marines? If you did try 1000 other variables, then you would find some that eliminate the discrepancy. Does that mean they are correct? Ah they voted that way because of the increase in prosecutions of jaywalkers in their neighborhoods!

The important thing is that there is no paper trail. The fact remains that statistical analysis is the best way to audit these systems because there is no possibility of a real audit.

If you say this is a credible analysis and shows a problem, or if you acknowledge that it could have missed a valid explanation. Your elections department can't give a convincing reason why you should trust the tally over the analysis because the degree of certainty that the machines worked properly is relatively low due to the fact that they rely on unavailable proprietary code and have no audit trail. Will they point to the stringent testing required by federal law? No, because it's not stringent, it's biased towards the vendors and it's voluntary.

[ThePoodleBites]

87. Would it just kill you to wait a few weeks?

Thanks for comparing us to people who say "we never went to the moon." I was wondering what you thought of people who say "Gore won the 2000 presidential election." Conspiracy loonies?

Have you been following Ohio at all?

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/110077402787260.xml#continue

http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/1118undercount.html?UrAuth=aN%60NUObN\UbTTUWUXUUUZTZUbUWU^U%60UZU\UZUcTYWVVZV

Should we not fight this because it's hopeless? Does the slimmness of the chance of success mean the battle is not worth waging? Or should we not fight this because the prospect of appearing like a sore loser makes you personally uncomfortable?

[AP]

88. That's not what the study is even remotely about.

It doesn't explain WHY there's a difference, other than to correlate it to the e-voting.

The explanation could be an inadveratant glitch in the software, or a mechanical problem, or even the admitted problem that some of the machines count down once they reach capacity.

The professor makes no allegation of conspiracy. He only says that the statistics indicate a problem and that it's up to the 27 counties (and the three bad ones in particular) to figure out why there's a problem.

[Milo_Bloom]

115. Another Strawman bites the dust...

This is how debunking works... we all saw it a few days ago when some freep tried to attack Mouse's excellent analysis of North Carolina and here it is again.

They build something into the argument that either isn't there at all (such as them claiming fraud or claiming that Mouse based his analys on the fact that the North Carolina results were trending democratic) OR they leap on some point that is secondary to the actual fidings, usually something offered as anecdotal evidence, poke a hole in that and delcare the entire study invalid.

The clue was given in this one's first post when he simply declared that any scientiest would easily dismiss this and suggested that it was released because the professor has a political ax to grind. He offered no reasons WHY the study was invalid, but just declared it. Then his second post built and destroyed the strawmen that never existed in the first place.

[lovuian]

121. Boy Republicans got to be scared of this!!! Their worst Nightmare

to be proven thieves!!!

[theredpill]

98. A single programmer could have hacked the votes

I am a programmer and after analyzing the GEMS software, i found it would be rather easy to create a script that could be run on the databases since they are simple MS Access databases with no encryption of the votes in the database.

I think the DNC knows of the problems and wanted to save their ass in case the fraud theory proves incorrect. Remember the same fraud on a much lower scale was done in 2000. I knew that bush was going to win again because whats to stop him from stealing it a second time! I should have put up the website bushwins.org and explain how he was going to win again in 2004 about a month ago. I knew this was the plan when I saw that Florida rejected paper reciepts for our votes. I voted on one of those computer. Took longer, the lines were horrible, and who knows who you really voted for.

Ban electronic voting PERIOD!!!!

[AntiFederalstSociety]

112. This is more like CYA time for Repugs

And it appears to me we have a couple posting here.... Trying to compare this study to those who say we never went to the moon? Give me a break! I have never heard one person suggest we did not "go to the moon." What I have heard is that people on the ground in FL felt good about Kerry and also people on the ground in Ohio. That is not some wild "conspiracy theory" Walton/tomastom...

The study makes sense to me because I always felt that the Evote irregularities in the large counties were being shuffled off to the side by having every one pounce on the seemingly "easy to prove" irregularities with Opti-scan small counties up north. My thought was that Miami Dade/Broward E-voting has the real answers.

Maybe we are finally closing in on the BIG truth here! (& now the repub shrieking will begin in earnest...)

Get the word out there, DU!!!

AFS

[lovuian]

119. I know Scientists and Scietnists deal with FACTS

and this man is a Scietist with a reputation that would be endangering that if he was wrong!!!

So lets keep fighting here!!!

[jmowreader]

174. Moving right is a prescription for failure

We were able to pull it off with Clinton because it was Clinton. We will never have another Bill Clinton.

We can't become Republican Lite--we'll get stomped like we did this time.

The electorate is far more attuned to what our party used to be before the DLC people came in and decided to move the party rightward. America needs good jobs and fair labor-management relations; as the party of organized labor, this was our forte. America needs a good standing in the world. This was one of our strong points. America needs fair taxation; once again, that's our bailiwick. And more than anything, America needs a defense that makes sense for America, not for defense contractors.

The Republicans are for big business, the defense industry and the leisure class. They hold the religious right in the palm of their hand, but I think they would screw the RR in a second if the leisure class demanded it. We do not need to be like these people.

The RR is backing a guy whose whole life revolves around repudiating the teachings of Christ. Tell me what part of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" elimination of the capital gains tax falls under. Tell me what part of "thou shalt not commit murder"--the actual words of the commandment--allows him to try to wipe Fallujah off the map. And I think he's screwing Condi Rice, which kinda negates "thou shalt not commit adultery." Forget "thou shalt not bear false witness" because that's Republican SOP, and similarly forget "and whenst thou pray, pray in secret for your Father sees you and will reward you."

Our job is very complex: getting the Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity definition of a liberal out of the national dialogue. We simply must let America know what a liberal actually is; when they know that a liberal is NOT someone who thinks everyone should be able to sit on their asses and collect welfare checks for issuing child after child, but is something far different, many of them will realize they are liberals too.

Naive? Perhaps, but it's better than trying to out-conservative the GOP--a task that we can never accomplish, because no matter how far we run to the right, they can run farther--and they can take the "centrist" line with them. We could support executing women who have abortions, homosexuals, people who don't donate 50 percent of their incomes to Fred Phelps' church, and anyone whose family hasn't lived in this country for three generations--and they'd still figure out a way to call us liberals.

[AP]

86. Why is the method so incredibly accurate everywhere EXCEPT e-vote

counties?

If it's such a crap analysis, it should have been wrong everywhere.

[lovuian]

117. Get Hopes up folks cause we booted Nixon's butt out for less

than massive voting fraud this is the WORST FELONY OF THEM ALL

STEALING VOTES!!!

[daleo]

133. I will reserve judgment until I have read it

But I don't see any substantive criticisms (i.e. methodology) here. Are you certain that you aren't willing to risk your reputation with this post?

[Protect The Vote]

136. I am a member of the scientific community

with a Ph.D. in a physical science. I referee papers for publication in various journals, and I have reviewed this paper. There are some rough edges, but it is sound statistically. It's a far cry from "dog shit" as you so eloquently put it.

The data are there. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your statistical analysis?

Non-scowlingly yours,
PTV, Ph.D.

[jwcomer]

149. then you believe the finding?

Would you stake your reputation that there is a 99.9% likelihood that something is amiss in those 27 Florida counties? And that whatever it is it didn't happen in the other 40 counties in Florida or in Ohio? BTW, those pvalues are quite sensitive to their model choice.

I would not normally react so strongly to such a paper. But when it is thrown into the public domain without peer review and news conferences are held, peoples expectations get raised. There are several holes in the analysis and the conclusion is weak at best. Scientists have a responsibility to the public to not do what was just done.

The headline people will read is that there is a 99.9% certainty on this. Which there isn't.

[symphony]

162. my, my, all that freepering must be pretty hard

what the heck do you know about statistics?

bye, freepie :nuke:

[BreakForNews]

80. Audio Here of Berleley Vote Research Press Conference 18th Nov 2004

Here's raw audio of the Berleley Press Conference
by Prof Michael Hout on their election research findings.

A cleaned up version will be available
later today on http://www.BreakForNews.com

Listen Live mp3
http://www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/mrn/audio/InsideTrackNews041118.mp3

Download Zip & Listen Offline mp3
http://www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/mrn/audio/InsideTrackNews041118.zip

More on this in our regular news show.

Fintan Dunne, Editor
http://www.BreakForNews.com

[plasticsundance]

85. tomastom

You wrote:

"Sorry people; there is a reason the best political minds in the DNC told Kerry it was over.... because it was."

Are these the same ilk of "best political minds" that advised Gore only to have a recount in several counties, as opposed to the entire state of Florida. You do realize the result of that decision?

The warning that this recent election was vulnerable to rigging due to electronic voting machines was well established prior to the election, even by well-respected institutions like John Hopkins University at the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004.

Here is the paper from that Symposium:

http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf

Bottom line, if you do not have a way of verifying through empirical methods, i.e. a paper trail, and other security measures, you simply cannot expect a mathematical deductive process to prove anything.

I would also add that there probably wasn't one issue that ultimately made Kerry concede the election, but a culmination of various issues.

[AP]

89. Actually, the best political minds told Gore to aks for a statewide re-

count, and Gore ignored that advice. And, as the consortium recount proved, Gore would have won with a statewide recount.

It's in Jeffrey Toobin's book, Too Close to Call.

[liam97]

90. Also, the UCB analysis of today

which someone referred to as "crap" is quite the opposite. This is no abstract model - their model fits the data from the 3 counties perfectly EXCEPT for the 136K+ votes. This cannot be a random error but as our programmer friend mentioned - probably a PLANNED SIDE-EFFECT which is easy to program.

[mulethree]

127. doesn't have to be programmed

I mean there doesn't have to be lines in the program that switching votes or adding/deleting votes.

Suppose dozens of people poke this touchscreen. It gets dirty. The boxes they poke most often get dirtier sooner and start to mis-register. Votes for the most 'popular' guy start to register as someone else. Some people don't notice or are too embarrassed to ask for help in fixing it and the 'popular' guy looses those votes. Eventually someone demands that they fix it, and they come and clean the screen. By this point the 'popular' guy has lost several votes, but the 'unpopular' guy's 'box' never got dirty enough to misregister.

If you have an expectation of how the county will be voting, then you can arrange the ballot to take advantage of this. Put the 'box' for choosing your opponents in an area calculated to get dirty and make sure your friends boxes are always in 'cleaner' areas.

You could also tweak the hardware to make some parts of the screen less reliable than others and arrange the ballot around that.

But relying on the 'dirt' effect lets you pass many tests. The testers either start with clean hands or quickly wear the dirt off their voting finger. So the 'dirt' effect never shows up on the tests.

If you relied on 'built in weak spots' then you would need to ensure that test ballots avoided those spots.

[plasticsundance]

91. Thanks AP

I was not aware of that.

[scotjohn]

92. Salon's featuring this above-the-fold!

Their site (especially reporter Farhad Manjoo) have been debunking fraud arguments right and left since Nov. 2. But not now!

In "War Room" they're offering a very clear summary of the study's merits. No attempt to debunk at all -- then again, how could they? It's a brilliant, methodologically sound study.

Here we go -- first stop Salon, next stop the New York Times...

[liam97]

94. It can't be debunked

I am a Ph.d in econ myself - study is very "robust" as we say in our lingo

[buddysmellgood]

102. Robust... that's your term for "works under a wide range of variables"

Correct?

[berni_mccoy]

93. 99.9% certain that it could not be chance

That smells like FRAUD!

[Pachamama]

97. Has the AP, Reuters or anyone else in the MSM picked up the story yet?

Just wondering...hadn't seen it anywhere yet...I'm sure Randi Rhoades and Olbermann will talk about it though...

:kick:

[madrigal]

99. media coverage I've found so far

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/11/ana04028.html

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i22berkeley.htm

http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_15415.shtml

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041118/sfth066_1.html

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/11-18-2004/0002464301&EDATE=

http://www.mysan.de/international/article6094.html

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1118-14.htm

[Pachamama]

101. Excellent...lets all make sure we pass these along to everyone we know

It's our job to get the story and "news" out....the mainstream media can't ignore this if we are all seeing this and people are asking questions...

[demo dutch]

104. Add media coverage:

Michael Moore has posted it http://www.michaelmoore.com
and
http://www.rawstory.com
and
Randi is talking about it on AirAmerica Radio at this moment!

[demo dutch]

105. You gotta listen to Randi

also found it on

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

[Shalom]

106. LOCK DOWN BROWARD (ET. AL.) RIGHT NOW !!!

1. Since this study pointed out that Broward county appears to be one of the worst offenders, let us hope that someone RIGHT NOW is making sure that Broward and other prime suspects are being LOCKED DOWN and that all shredding and deletion of files and documents ceases IMMEDIATELY. Since Volusia was so arrogant about continuing their document scrub even after they knew Bev Harris was on their case, just imagine what's been going on in some of these counties RIGHT NOW.

2. Some DU'ers must have been infected by Reich-wing doublethink, since I've seen comment like "even if Kerry gets 260,000 more votes in Florida, he's still doesn't win the election". First of all, if Kerry got 260,000 more votes in Florida, it would be an EARTH-SHAKING event. It would cast doubt over the results not just in Florida, but all over the country. Furthermore, if this paper proves that 260,000 votes were taken from Kerry through one mechanism, it DOES NOT NECESSARILY RULE OUT other forms of fraud. Finally, the 260,000 number is provided with a certain degree of certainty, probably quite conservative. I'm sure the analysis allows for twice as much fraud with a smaller degree of certainty.

3. The AWOL cowardly cokehead commander-in-thief may be going down hard!

[deansyawp]

108. Florida Recount Possibilities?

Time is ticking down, and between what supposedly occurred in Volusia and today's report, it seems like an absolute necessity. Is Black Box Voting going to attempt to raise funds for it? Or Cobb, or Nader (both, I believe, were on the ballot there)?

Can something be initiated via DU? If the vote was already certified, that means there's just a week or so left, and we can guess that Kerry isn't going to touch his millions.

Perhaps someone with more experience and clout here than I have could get the ball rolling if it isn't already?

[demo dutch]

109. Both Nader and Cobb were on the ballot

Congressman Wexler tried to get a paper trail but failed. I forwarded all info to his office. Hopefully he'll zoom in. Olberman mentioned it in his blog he must be covering this tonight. I think media Coverage is essential to get the ball rolling.

[goodboy]

110. kick to the top for truth.....

:kick:

[darkism]

111. kick

:kick: for the love of democracy.

[manxkat]

113. kick

oh yeah.... keep this one going

[scotjohn]

114. kick

[terip64]

118. kick

[cornermouse]

122. One thought after reading all the posts about the

possibility of incorrect/misinterpreted data. Remember the "find" of Bush's National Guard record? Remember speculation that this was a set-up by Rove to end all investigation into Bush's AWOL status?

Is it possible you're being set up?

[liam97]

126. Is this a trap?

Could be - but here is the problem - in order to explain this away you would need to show that Bush really got these votes. With no paper trail, how do you do that? As the UCB reprot says right at the beginning, it can only be done with statistical testing - OR you would have to actually produce the people who cast those votes.
Which one of these can be done? I bet plenty of games will be played with statistical testing, and things will get "curiouser and curiouser", especially if Bev also keeps revealing her findings at the same time. Forged documents are a bit easier to plant than electoral data. But nything can happen.

[lovuian]

128. The law says he who has the most votes wins!!!

And Votes that don't have a paper trail unfortunately isn't physically proof!!!

So constitutionally the Black Box is screwed no matter what!!!

Now its doubly screwed in a RECOUNT

Because the law says a RECOUNT is permissable thats the point to show the PHYSICAL PROOF!!!

and the more the recounts come to light and there is NO PROOF to counter the arguments then Bush is truly screwed as well as the Republicans supporting a criminal worse than Nixon when its all said and done!!!

Motive to win the Presidency of the US
Evidence ...Election 2000

[Lizzie Borden]

124. Please keep this kicked!

:kick:

[leftist.]

125. motherfuckingsonofawhore!

Is anyone just fucking sick to their stomach that over and over and fucking over again it has to be some small entity that must push and push and push just to get the cnn's and the abc's to just fucking REPORT that something might be up.

That.Is.NOT.Amerika. jebus fucking christ!!! its like, if you want the micheal moores to stop stealing your market share then just fucking do SOMETHING, ANYTHING!!! Walk down the street for fucks sake, see what's up. You may find something.

god fuck it pisses me off.

[pauldp]

129. The Bastards Must Pay

:mad: :mad:

I can't believe how serious this situation is. I feel like I'm in the f*cking Twilight Zone, or maybe Invasion of the Body Snatchers or something where everyone else is just going along with the evil plan.

The evidence keeps mounting and the Media just keeps playing the same old shit. WE MUST SOMEHOW BUST THIS THING WIDE OPEN.

[AntiFederalstSociety]

140. There is a way - organize a protest

There is a way - organize a protest in Florida. How many of you all out there live in Florida? That is one way to attract attention to this thing. I know there was one being organized in Ohio last weekend but the FBI shut it down.

They don't want the story to get any "momentum" by the media. The organizer claims she was visited by the FBI and they planned to use the Patriot act to take away her rights as a citizen if she sent forward with her sit-in in Columbus.

She posted it and then retracted her post later, (remember seeing that anywhere?) but her website is still up.

You see, they know right where to cut these types of things off at the knees. Which is what they did last weekend.

http://www.freewebs.com/libertyordeath/index.htm

AFS

[understandinglife]

145. Please consider this citizen's suggestion

I have posted a call to action. It is inherently non-partisan, simple, and obvious.

It is called "Just Prove It - A National Campaign"

Alan Waldman, in the Orlando Weekly, today, reminds all of us that:

Quote - Election results are not final until electors vote on Dec. 12. There is still time to find the truth.

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/Story.asp?ID=4688

I am advocating a National Campaign: "Prove My Voted Was Counted, now."

For tersneness sake I reduce that to "Just Prove It"

Simple message:

American citizen, do you know if your vote was counted as you intended it to be.

American citizen, do you know that 30 % of you used a technology that has no verifiable record of how you intended to vote.

American citizen, would you put your money in a bank or use a credit card that didn't verify, penny by penny, the status of your account.

American citizen, pick up the phone and call your friends, your Congress representatives, your newspapers, your TV/radio stations, your President and ask `Prove to me my vote was counted the way I intended it to be; Just Prove it.'

Can we mobilize through the network of all other responsible blogs and organizations like MoveOn, Common Cause, etc., to broadcast that message -- "Just Prove It."

Encourage all those with skill and zeal and dedication to our Democracy to create ads, with appropriate imagery, and get them on the net. Encorage those who have the infrastructure to raise funds to do so with urgency so we can get the ads shown during 'prime time' and 'early morning radio.'

Call-email, Oprah and Larry King and Olbermann and.....and, request that they take 5 min during their program and ask those questions just once.

We an get the vote counted, verifiably, now.

We can, if we want to.

This Is Our Nation, remember; It's time we start acting like we mean it.

Thank you.

"It's about America" - the one on life support and in need of immediate, heroic, sustained treatment -- 911 ringing; whose responding?

[AntiFederalstSociety]

156. Call to arms

Yo. I'm still sitting here in Wisconsin, waiting to hear from anybody in Florida or Ohio. Wisconsin voted for Kerry. There is nothing for us to protest here. You guys (Florida & Ohio) have been agrieved. I know it for a fact - I read through the testimonials available from the day of the election from Florida and Ohio. Katherine Blackwell and Jeb Bush put a hurtin' on you but good. What are you going to do about it? We can't all fly down to Florida to get this thing going...

Where is the fighting spirit?

YOU WAS ROBBED!

Organize, organize, organize. I think anybody reading these posts has heard enough to make them want to vomit. The election was corrupted by partisan hacks that are supposed to be official referees on this thing. There is also the problem of the vote getting HACKED, but that is just a part of it (close to proven). Why aren't you guys getting pissed and organizing?

One story after another about the absentee ballots not getting sent out to college kids registered in Florida makes my head spin. They called repeatedly to the elections bureaus and got the shaft. Read about them at MichaelMoore.com All the illegal Repub shenanigans that cost votes. Any one of those acts, if proven, is ILLEGAL in this country!

Why, oh why don't you take things into your own hands?

Like I said, Wisconsin went for Kerry - there's not much we can get our community riled up about.

Think globally, act locally. PLEASE???

GET THE WORD OUT LOCALLY AND ORGANIZE AND ACT!

AFS

[AntiFederalstSociety]

142. sorry duplicate post

[JaneEyrez]

151. Yeah, what he said!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :argh: :hurts: :nuke:

[Cookie wookie]

130. Woo Hoo

This looks like it.

Also found on:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111904W.shtml

[MojoRoad]

132. Kickity

[mulderig]

135. kick

[CAcyclist]

138. kick

[understandinglife]

147. Kick

[peacetalksforall]

141. fyi...naysayers...there is a book being written about the moon landing

fraud...possibly funded by a nationwide name, but possibly not too scientific.

Another note to naysayers....it seems to be a little easy to detect the team affect of attacking a discussion by relatively new posters. There is nothing wrong with exploring theories - that is one of the things this forum is all about - the brainstormers, the reporters, the experts, the gut people, the victims....but to attack in a team in an attempt to debunk by sounding official without making a case is BORRRRRING!

[peacetalksforall]

143. fyi...naysayers...there is a book being written about the moon landing

fraud...possibly funded by a nationwide name, but possibly not too scientific.

Another note to naysayers....it seems to be a little easy to detect the team effect of attacking a discussion by relatively new posters. There is nothing wrong with exploring theories - that is one of the things this forum is all about - the brainstormers, the reporters, the experts, the gut people, the victims....but to attack as a team in an attempt to debunk by sounding official without making a case is BORRRRRING!

[4democracy]

152. Where is the competitive spirit of the msm? They should at least

be a little worried they are going to sit on the sidelines and miss the biggest story since Watergate.

[scotjohn]

154. It's a scandal--how can they resist?

Even for skeptics like jwcomer here, it's a scandal -- "it's scandalous that the #1 ranked sociology department in the country is calling this dog feces science!" ;)

[manxkat]

161. Maybe the MSM realizes that King George

will never be dethroned, no matter how many smoking guns we produce?

Don't get me wrong, I'd dearly love to see this turn into a HUGE SCANDAL 1000 times bigger than Watergate, and have the neocons thrown out of office, and eventually charged with war crimes.

BUT, what if Michael Ruppert is right? Here's his response in a recent interview, which can be found here: http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/content/issue19/features/ruppert.php

RUPPERT: The election was stolen. So what? That’s all the time it gets from me. There are a jillion stories on it circulating around the Internet right now. I won’t recap them here. I stopped believing in elections in 2000. The techniques for stealing elections did not originate in Saudi Arabia. The American electoral process is dead; and irretrievably so. When you have John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Donna Brazile and the DNC saying that the election was fair and balanced then it is sheer foolishness to believe that any challenge is worth the effort. The courts are rigged. Rehnquist is going out and Bush gets to pick maybe three more Supremes. That’s where an election challenge would go. So what’s the point?

Insanity is repeating the same actions over and over, expecting different results. People who want to know my feelings about the election should go to http://www.FromTheWilderness.com and read my editorial "Snap Out of It!"

[beetle2]

165. shrub could be dethroned

if a smoking gun is produced.

The problem is that the "proof" of fraud I keep seeing is detailed analysis of election numbers, for example citing zogby poll numbers and saying that they must be correct because zogby was close in 2000, and ignoring ALL the other polls which predicted the results within 1%. Another example is citing early and mid exit polls and claiming that they showed that Kerry won, then ignoring the late exit polls that showed the very shift toward shrub jr that the actual vote count shows.

If we cite exit polls in our case against the results, we must be prepared to except all of the exit polls, not just the ones that favor our side of the argument.

The problem is that our side's argument will never be taken serious if all we can do is quote statistics and predictions and the mathematical odds of this and that. We must find the proof that some one tampered with the machines.

Another mistake is that when we find examples of more votes than voters, we automatically assign those votes to shrub. We must be able to prove that the extra vote went to shrub, because the idiots on the right will just assume they went to Kerry, and if there is no proof, we can not win that argument.

[manxkat]

166. yes, King George SHOULD be dethroned

but, I'm so cynical now about him EVER being held accountable for anything. I mean, look at what he's gotten away with in the last 4 years!

I expect that Michael Ruppert is right. Think about it. The secretaries of state of both Ohio and Florida are Republican -- and, it won't matter how many organizations *demand* that Ken Blackwell recuse himself from the recount in Ohio. These people do whatever they like -- Blackwell will continue blatantly working to keep the vote in favor of Bush. Same with Glenda Hood in FL. If there's a dispute, who ya gonna call? Why, the Supremes of course. Anybody wanna hazard a guess how that'll turn out?

And who is going to impeach the great King who wears no clothes? Certainly not the Republican congress.

I'm all for continuing the push for a smoking gun (and I'm helping in the fight), but my gut tells me it's all for naught.

Just my cynicism showing its ugly head....

[imenja]

155. Someone please tell me what they mean by

"traditional voting methods"? Do they mean optic-scans? Didn't another analysis question the results in optic-scan counties and said they were more skewed toward Bush than the e-voting machines?

[peabody71]

158. kick

[DSperoRN]

159. A good analogy

A parable for people who say we don't need to recount these e-voting states:

Say you left somebody in a bank overnight and gave him the combination to the vault. And you had no video cameras, no security, no oversight of any kind. In the morning, you come back and the overnight guy is gone.

Question: would you check the vault to make sure the money is all there?
I don't think the votes are all there.
David

[consciousobjector]

160. Kick

:kick:

[Massachusetts]

167. "Besides sir we have no election."

"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come." - Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775 :kick:

[daleo]

169. After reading the study, I think it shows something was wrong

The electronic voting machine dummy variable definitely seems to show that the Bush vote increase is correlated with the presence of these machines in any given county. It is possible this could be a spurious correlation of course - for instance, counties with higher religiousity might have been more likely to have had these machines installed, and also have been more likely to have voted for Bush. The income variable has been put into the analysis to account for the more obvious effects of socio-economic status on voting, and the Hispanic population variable has been put in to try to account for ethnic voting patterns.

Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causality of course. As mentioned above, it could be a spurious association or the causality could go in the opposite direction (this would imply that voting machines were more likely to have been placed in counties that had potential to increase the Bush vote, I would say).

It would have been nice to have seen the standard error of the electronic voting variable. In fact, from the point of view of someone criticizing the Bush victory, it would then have been possible to make a statement like "somewhere between 50000 and 180000 votes could have been effected within a 95% confidence interval, with 13000 being the most likely number". The upper limit could have been used to show that there could have been enough votes effected to change the outcome.

I doubt whether multi-variate statistics will convince enough people of fraud to call the election result into question. They certainly are an indication that a recount is justified. But, since there is no paper trail, that is impossible. It is a strange position to be put in, and one that should have never arisen (no paper trail, I mean). This study helps establish how fundamental an error it was, to allow machines with no audit trail to be used to help pick the U.S. president.

[northamericancitizen]

171. kick

[pauldp]

176. Precisely

And who killed the legislation, HR 2239 that would have mandated a paper trail?

Hastert and Delay of course. At Bush's request. It was introduced back in the spring of '03 and they killed it in committee.

Does any rational person really think massive fraud is a a wacky theory?

Come On.

Volutia County
The Berkley Report
Dr. Freeman's Paper
The Exit Polls
The Massive Disenfranchisement of Minority Voters
The 2000 Election in Florida

Of course we are dealing with Republicans who have a large fundamentalist constituency that believes the earth is only 5,000 years old and dinosaur bones were put in the ground by Satan.

God wake me from this nightmare.

[Unforgiven]

173. Kick This Topic!

[stillcool]

177. What I don't understand

is this..I went to Link Crusader, and wow there's lots of info there, and its apparent that this has been going on a long time. That being the case, I would assume anybody who runs for office would be aware of it. Are the people in the government as blind as the people in the red states? I'm so tired of "Where's the Outrage?".

[jambojonusa]

179. 2004 Election Theft Broadsheet Available for Printout/Handout

Hello at DU

I see I really do need to update these broadsheets faster than I can offer them. THIS news needs to be included on them.

This posting is in response to Bev Harris's well very received post on Nov-07-04:

entitled: BBV: Help America Audit -- 5 Things You Can Do Immediately

...& is a response especially on her points about. ...Being Our Own Media.

I would have posted it more appropriately there, but that thread has been shut down for replies.

Then there were some pleas I have read from other DU postings, that some form of handout flier be made available to help cross the cyberbarrier where much of the growing evidence of election theft seems to be trapped. Thius seems like a good idea to me.

No doubt about it, we need to run the Media Blocade on Election Theft News and see it get into the hands of Americans.
The news simply isn't making it off the interent enough to alert America.

I have prepared a broadsheet for use.
(see graphics front and back below)

It hasn't been properly vetted yet by ya'all.
Any advise...constructive criticism would be...helpful...appreciated.
-------------------------------------------------
There are some known issues with the broadsheet:

1. The fraud info is amassing so fast thatby now there's probably better sources to
include.
Fix: I can keep making more updated versions

2. Its print thick (lotta links...lotta ink) That might throw people from printing it. I hope not too much. A broadsheet by definition is 2 full sides of a large page...i.e.it is NOT a flier.
Fix: None. Don't want a fix on this one. There's too much information that needs inclusion to shrink it down to flier size.

3. My graphics programs are not the best, nor is my skill levels at using them. It prints out quite legibly but can be improved upon.
Fix: I'm working on it. If anyone that has the Adobe Acrobat program that can make not just read documents
is willing to rework it, that would be great.
-------------------------------------------------
If AnyBody at all wishes to tackle any of the glitches and work through them...feel free.

What we need is a good working hard copy handout(s) that Any and EveryBody who wants to may use.

What I want is to fill a preceived need in this process of Being Our Own Media.

I can only hope and trust it will suit the need.

If it doesn't suit, say something...Feedback would be pretty darned useful about now.

In my area (San Diego at the moment) I've started a dissimination campaign.So far so good. Although its too early to comment much abouit how its going. But I am seeing that people really aren't that well informed and really know Election Theft is an issue.
&
Mainly people are intrested though. The elction is still fresh enough for this to be considered relevant news to them.
They want to know more about it. That translates over into them appreciating me handing them the broadsheet.

Which is heartening. Because in a month or less the public attention span will be much less foccussed on this issue
unless the buzz is kept up. Which is what fliers and broadsheets are good for in a case like this. To keep the buzz going.

I have started an Election Theft Resource Center where the broadsheet, including any new versions can be accessed and printed out. As well as a supporting structure for my own campaign to see this sheet dissiminated as widely as possible.

Hey, by the way, I'm pretty much a newcomer at DU...look at my number of postings. If you like what you see, maybe help me out...spread the link here on this DU posting of the b' sheet elsewhere.

I may be looped for an idiot but damned if I don't think that this sheet can be helpful in informing America.

Whatever you can do...many thanks.

cheers!

broadsheet link: http://www.vote-nobody.com/2004electiontheftpage.htm
-------------------------------------------------
Print Instructions:
This Broadsheet is intended to be printed out on both side of an 8"x 10" sheet of paper.

Click on either image and save the printable Election Theft 2004 Broadside's- Front and Back

Open them up in your graphics program and set up your two-sided print from there.

Front

Back

[symphony]

180. kick n/t

[struggle4progress]

181. kick

:kick: