I think FL op-scan tabulators were hacked - not touch-screens (GRAPHS)

[scottxyz]

Rove is usually one step ahead of us. While we were all keeping our eyes on the touch-screens - could it be that it was the good ole-fashioned op-scans that got hacked? (According to BlackBoxVoting.org, that's easy to do because the vote "tabulator" for op-scans is a Windows desktop computer which can be easily hacked by anyone who knows the right dialup number.)

Check out these 2 graphs, showing that 'actual' results in op-scan Florida counties were tipped way toward Bush versus projected results - while in touchscreen counties, both 'actual' and projected were in-synch.

Op-scan 'actual' (vs. projected) results favored Bush


Touchscreen 'actual' results were in-synch with projected results


Source:
http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm#FL

[hedda_foil]

1. WooHOO, Scotty! What a remarkable graph!

This is beautiful. Time to circulate it far and wide.

[LisaL]

2. Simply amazing.

[kerry2win]

3. bush won those 52 counties in 2000 by 250,000

but he won those same by 504,000 2004

[George_S]

17. Again, why put the op-scans there?

It is very strange the way Florida is divided by machine.

[peacetalksforall]

4. If Op-Scans were messed with in one state it would seem that they had

to be messed with in other states to keep that big turnout, lying to the exit poll takers, and moral values crap make sense across the board.

[tinrobot]

6. We have PAPER!!

The thing is - optical ballots have a PAPER RECORD OF THE VOTE.

How can we get a recount??

[PatsFan2004]

7. Yes, a paper trail!

If the SOS has posted each precinct totals, it should be easy for each precinct to verify their actual totals with the count. Surely, there is also a procedure to verify manually a random batch versus the machine count. We can only hope.

Actually, it seems stupid to hack a setup where there is a paper trail. Personally, I would choose to hack a system where there is no record of transactions at all.

[txindy]

14. We start with New Hampshire

Nader has requested a recount there. There is a solid paper trail in that state. It's a manageable size and the end results were exceptionally far from the exit polls. If we establish a pattern of 'miscounts' there, investigations into states with like machines will be requested. MHO, anyway.

[Eloriel]

19. Yes -- and please let people know about it

VOTE FRAUD? Tell everyone you know -- details
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1337662

[txindy]

20. Oh, no worries there! I've been emailing my fingers off for 2 days, now

Right now, I'm concentrating on print media, wire services, the BBC and the CBC. Also, Rather and Olbermann. Someone was going to find links for the foreign press, too. I think the rest of our television talking heads are quite hopeless. Print is our best bet. There are still journalists out there.

[7th_Sephiroth]

5. makes sense

according to the official vote cout for escambia, and the registered voters, it says about 90% of repubs voted but only 45% of dems voted

[Guava Jelly]

8. I heard somewhere that if you used certain ink pens that they couldnt be

read on an optical scanner
i voted early and used a optical ballot
could republicans replaced some of these pens in dem precincts?

[ROH]

9. Check out the link scottxyz gave...

http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm#FL

Plenty of other interesting information there.

[Guava Jelly]

11. wholly shit

i subtracted the voter turnout from the votes cast for president in just florida alone
and got 192,005
now if these were subtracted from bush and added to kerry
bush
3,953,890
-192005
3,761,835

kerry
3,572,93
+192005
3,764,993

[enough]

10. kick

thank you

[goclark]

12. Bev needs all of these graphics and everything else

These are excellent!

They have stolen our country and it is up to us to take it back!

[shuffnew]

13. Are Voting Tabulars Different between Op-Scan v Touch Screen?

It would seem that all input would go to a central tabulator database.
If Op-Scan is the primary problem it seems that would isolate some of the 'audit' focus on machine v tabulalor v code in a central tabulator and then puts the machine votes, crunches the vote totals, and then spits out final output code with Election Fraud Totals! Is Op-Scan included as part of the "black box voting" focus?

It may not be the same in each state and country and precinct though. Much of the data thusfar being reported comes from corruptness in primarily the Democrat leaning precincts.

We really need to change our terminology and stop using "Voter Fraud". It really is not those of us that voted who committed fraud pre-se. It is "Election Fraud" and we know who owns that fraud - not the voters. A voter could commit fraud by illegally voting more than once (for instance), but they don't control the code that takes input from all voting sources and tabulating them in their database and spitting out incorrect voter counts.

[txindy]

15. From Bev Harris' work, I understood that op-scan was the focus

There are central tabulating computers for many op-scan machines and those tabulators are simple, easily-hacked PCs. Bev demonstrated how to easily change the votes once on TV with Howard Dean.

Agreed about the focus being primarily Democratic precints. We can't find a single instance of a 'mistake' going to Kerry. It's all going to B*sh. What. A. Shock.

[scottxyz]

16. "Voter fraud" is not the term used - "vote fraud" is used

If the term "voter fraud" were being used, then, yes, I think it can be misleading.

But the term I usually hear is "vote fraud". This is quite clear, similar to the term "election fraud" you suggested.

Thank you for the feedback!

[shelley806]

18. This has already been posted...Isn't that why we have one thread for all

posts of this nature? You're taking up space and wasting our time.