General Council to the NC BoE, responds to email

[Critical Thinker]

Here's the response I received from Don Wright, the GC to the NC BoE, when I directed his attention to the compelling analysis of our own ignatzmouse regarding oddities in the NC election returns.

First my letter, followed by Mr. Wright's response.

Mr. Wright:

I wish to bring your attention to a very significant, breaking story
regarding the possible widespread mistabulation of votes in the recent
NC general election.

A comprehensive examination of the NC canvassing data has documented a
disturbing disparity between early voting returns vis-a-vis ballots cast
on election day. By examining official statewide election returns, the
author of this study has decomposed the voting into early returns and
election day returns - what quickly becomes evident from the comparison
is the statistical incompatibility of the two sets of data.

Furthermore, the study reveals that, not only are the election day
returns statistically incongruous with the early voting returns, but
they are also misaligned with both early polling and exit polling. This
study seems to suggest that there may be further issues with electronic
voting (similar to the documented case in Carteret County) that may have
impacted election returns STATE-WIDE in North Carolina.

While this study first debuted within the "blogosphere", please don't
dismiss it out of hand - you may recall that the "Rather-gate" story
also originated online before it broke in the media. I have provided a
link below, please take a moment to review this material and consider it
for further investigation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=45003

Sincerely,
Mr. ________

Now for Mr. Wright's response:

Dear Mr. ________:

I am responding on behalf of the NC State Board of Elections as to your
e-mail alleging voter fraud. The allegations allege software tampering.
40 of or 100 counties in North Carolina use electronic voting machines,
60 do not. So it is not possible to " play with the software" as to the
vote in 60% of our counties. ( Only 2 of the 5 largest counties use
electronic machines). Also why would someone hack the presidential vote
just to give Bush a greater margin of victory, than the allegation you
may that he would have won NC anyhow. Also why hack the US senate race,
and leave the race for Governor alone? The Governor is the more
important post because it controls hundreds of political positions given
out top party loyalists. Also the Democrats gained solid control of the
State House from the Republicans, and increased their control in the
State Senate. These two houses control the money where it goes in the
State. If there was a act to alter the election, why would a pro-GOP
hacker be satisfied with the Senate race, and to increase the margin in
the presidential race, and allow the state government of North Carolina
become more strongly Democratic?

This agency see no merit in your allegations. If you feel strongly about
them, you might wish to share them with the Democratic Party who would
be in a better position to advocate the allegations.

Don Wright
General Counsel


So basically, what I read "between the lines" of Mr. Wright's response is that he never honestly examined the compelling analysis of ignatzmouse regarding the numerical inconsistencies of the NC election returns. Instead, Mr. Wright dismisses the possibility that election fraud could have occurred because, obviously, "If they were gonna steal something, why didn't they just steal everything?" (paraphrased).

Hoo-boy...

[crispini]

1. Find out what the central tab software is

in those 60% of counties. Is it Diebold? If it is, mail him the web page with the "how to hack Diebold central tab" that's been running around here.

Cool that he responded, actually, though.

[chomskysright]

28. some are Diebolt: look at NC DU thread

[Karenca]

2. what a jerk

he refers to "this agency" when he spoke for himself.
like you said, he didnt even review anthing you sent him.
much less even confer with anyone else about it.

[StephanieMarie]

3. My thoughts

I believe that there was voter fraud in every state. The repugs didn't just want the electoral vote this time, they wanted the popular vote as well. That's why you see Bush losing by less in states where polls showed he would lose anyway (like NH) and winning by more in states where polls showed he would win anyway (like NC). That vote tampering gave him the 3 million "extra" votes over Kerry that allow him to jump up and down crying "mandate" to the world!

[bullimiami]

5. stephanie i agree.

i think they worked everything they could. and you are right on about the popular vote and the so called mandate, they felt they needed it this time.
Im sure hoping NH gives us a smoking gun.

one response to the skeptic in control of NC. More hacking = more work and more time.
Time was limited. They did what they needed to do. They left indications of their haste in the blatant errors that left many thousands of votes in impossible places and voter turnouts over 100%.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Besides, a wider margin of victory would forestall any

automatic recounts being triggered -- where they won, they had to win solidly, and where they lost they had to lose by just enough.

[Demit]

4. You're right, he's being argumentative, thus avoiding having to talk about

the data you presented. He didn't really answer you substantively.

[BernieBear]

32. Important!

You are right he is being argumentative and not responding to what you actually asked. He has instead responded to something else, which is that the electronic voting was incorrect.

I've been reading a lot about the Hegelian dialect, etc. and I just recently read about the way the Repugs and Rovians deflect and diminish the Democrats and this fits exactly with what it said. And now for the life of me I can't remember where I read what I did. What you asked for him to do was look at some data and determine if the pre-election day data results looked different from the election day data results. You didn't (I don't think) even question the electronic voting. He's trying to draw attention to a whole different argument.

Don't go to his argument because he knows his is unprovable or he wouldn't have driven you there. You might restate that the two data sets are statistically significant and you are not implying HOW or WHY, but instead are suggesting that the ARE statistically inconsistent and that you would think he would be concerned about that. Good Luck.

[bullimiami]

6. OK ill go ahead and right mr wright

he is dead wrong.

[ParanoidPat]

7. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.......

.......You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think. :evilgrin:

[rodeodance]

8. send his comments to the local paper?? you might get some interesting

letters or comments.
It will certainly bring attention to the situation!!!!

[chomskysright]

29. Asheville paper is Gannet: I have been in correspond w/ others

I have, for the past 8 days, constantly moved information, most of it gathered off of DU threads, to Cecil Bothwell, Moutain xpress who has himself written about e-voting re: he being very worried about it; Sue Book, The Berne newspaper; Charlotte Observer. I have hammered on these people. They have probably 100 e mails from me re: cut and paste.

And I have this hearing on November 29th: Buncobme county: Asheville; please show up.

marsha hammond, phd: 404 964 5338: [e-mail]

[go west young man]

9. He does give us some important info though.

1)on how the Repubs may defend the allegations of fraud using the Governors race as a defense. 2)That he himself isn't aware the central tabulator could be the hacking point. 3) That most Republicans are crap when it comes to fact checking. (Which we already knew. But hey at least he responded. I am curious if any other DUers are drawing up early voting comparisons in other states. The NC one is brilliant.

[bullimiami]

10. OK I emailed Mr not quite Wright.

My Dear Mr Wright

You responded to a recent inquiry into the NC election with the following:

""I am responding on behalf of the NC State Board of Elections as to your
e-mail alleging voter fraud. The allegations allege software tampering.
40 of or 100 counties in North Carolina use electronic voting machines,
60 do not. So it is not possible to " play with the software" as to the
vote in 60% of our counties. ( Only 2 of the 5 largest counties use
electronic machines). Also why would someone hack the presidential vote
just to give Bush a greater margin of victory, than the allegation you
may that he would have won NC anyhow. Also why hack the US senate race,
and leave the race for Governor alone? The Governor is the more
important post because it controls hundreds of political positions given
out top party loyalists.""


I have to refute a number of your assumptions. The 60% of counties which you claim are immune to tampering use by a large majority, optical scanners. These systems and the tabulation computers are suspect and have been shown in the past to not be immune to tampering. The validity of these counties is easily verified by hand auditing the paper ballots and comparing with the reported totals. There are statistical anomalies in NC which seem to warrant an audit.

You said yourself "just to give bush a greater margin of victory". Does it seem implausable that someone willing to corrupt an election would not just want victory but a "mandate" (now where have I heard that recently??) shown by the popular vote. I remember what was said about Bush not taking the popular vote in 2000. I suggest you watch NH where some wards (optical scan by the way) are going to be audited by the Nader campaign. They may prove that opscan/tabulator counties have been tampered with.

Why modify some races and not others. Time and resources would be limited to the perpetrators of this fraud. They would have to pick the most crucial races and leave the rest. To those in power in Washington the Presidential, Senate and perhaps House races would be most important.

This may be just crazy conspiracy theory or tin foil hat madness, or it may not be. There are a lot of indications of very surprising anomalies in this election. Im not as confident as you seem to be.

Thank You
.......

[Straight Shooter]

21. Hint: don't feed the bushies phrases like "crazy conspiracy theory"

because that is precisely the phrase he will use when quoting you, and he will leave the rest of your arguments out.

[BernieBear]

33. Important #2

You just went to where he wanted to go and he knows you can't win that argument

The point was the data sets differed a statistically significant amount. How and why weren't your objective. Your objective was for him to agree the two data sets were statistically significantly "odd".

Now he's got you arguing what he wanted you to argue, which he knows makes you look like a :tinfoilhat:

It's like the prosecuter that tells the jury the defendant is obviously guilty because the defense doesn't show who did "do it".

It's like - what's that got to do with the original question.

Good Luck, BernieBear

[illuminaughty]

41. This is a great response

They are not used to responding to people who are using facts and logic. Of course, they skimmed and padded the vote all over just to get the mandate.

The governor issue is a whole other subject that I wish someone would do stats on. Why is it we have so many democratic governors in red states? Here in Kansas, female democratic governor.

Maybe because they don't care about power on a state level. They are bankrupting the states anyway. But the senate and house they have to control.

[Gracchi]

11. Or You Guys Are Just Wrong

That person is a Democrat, the entire BoE is controlled by Democrats. Several people pointed out serious flaws in the analysis of the NC vote and were flammed for it.

Erskine Bowles has the same numbers as you guys and thought nothing of it. John Kerry has the same numbers as you and thought nothing of it.

The simple fact is that fraud is not the most probably explanation for those turn of events. It's probably not even in the top three probably scenarios.

[Eloriel]

15. John Kerry and too many others in our "leadership" don't have a clue

Read this. It's heartbreaking (and scarey too):

Kerry Lawyer says they weren't trained to LOOK FOR FRAUD! Breaking!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=53645&mesg_id=53645
Link: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041114/OPINION04/111140009/-1/opinion

[Gracchi]

18. This isn't some random lawyer, it's the BoE

These people are professionals at analyzing election returns. That's all they do. If they thought that the party breakdown was odd, or that the result was out of the range of what they were expecting they wouldn't just reject the worry out of hand.

Remember, these people are professionals at what they do (not like random civil rights lawyers hired by the K/E campaign) and they are all Democrats.

At this point, is it not more likely that there just wasn't fraud in North Carolina?

[KnowerOfLogic]

23. Wasn't Katharine Harris Florida's Secretary of State? Just

because someone is in a high position, that hardly means that they could not possibly be a party hack. In fact, party-hacks in high positions have the ability to do the most harm.

[chomskysright]

30. the absentee/ early voting is sign diff fm 11.2 voting

go to the NC DU thread re: 'states' look there.

marsha hammond, phd

[bullimiami]

26. gracci. is fraud a less probable explanation than

A) Bush with 47% popularity and a rabid democratic turnout suddenly wooed the electorate to overwhelmingly support him.

and

B) Exit polls are wrong.


Sorry I think fraud is the more probable of these scenarios.

[harmonyguy]

12. Voter Fraud or Vote Fraud? Be careful what you call it..

Here's a thread from a few days ago. We need to be careful what we call it, or we get the brush off.

click here

HG

[chomskysright]

31. call it 'voting irregularity' which is the bigger picture anyway

[faithfull]

13. They couldnt hack the gov. race,

...Because Easly was winning by double digits in the polls.

i can see the headlines...

EASLY TAKES 65 POINT PLUNGE ON ELECTION DAY! DOESNT EVEN VOTE FOR HIMSELF!! BALLANTINE OVERCOMES THE ODDS AND EARNS 217% OF THE GLITCHLESS STATEWIDE VOTE!

:donut:

[Eloriel]

14. Point by point

The allegations allege software tampering.
40 of or 100 counties in North Carolina use electronic voting machines, 60 do not. So it is not possible to " play with the software" as to the vote in 60% of our counties. ( Only 2 of the 5 largest counties use electronic machines).

But it IS possible in those 40 counties.

(I am not that familiar with ignatzmouse's fine work -- I'm assuming there are some differences in results between these 2 sets of counties.)


Also why would someone hack the presidential vote just to give Bush a greater margin of victory, than the allegation you may that he would have won NC anyhow.

To help ensure a popular vote victory which in turn helps innoculate from suspicions or allegations of vote fraud. In fact, that argument has already been used, "But Bush won by 3.5 million votes."

Also why hack the US senate race, and leave the race for Governor alone? The Governor is the more important post because it controls hundreds of political positions given out top party loyalists.

Better control of the Senate, which is far more important than state races.

Also the Democrats gained solid control of the State House from the Republicans, and increased their control in the State Senate. These two houses control the money where it goes in the State. If there was a act to alter the election, why would a pro-GOP hacker be satisfied with the Senate race, and to increase the margin in the presidential race, and allow the state government of North Carolina become more strongly Democratic?

The "hacking" is likely done at a national level, not a state level. National political races of most import are the focus for now. But just wait -- they're still perfecting their techniques and soon enough will likely be able to concentrate on state races as well.

[YellowDoginthehouse]

17. Exactly right, Eloriel

It was hacked in Red states also, to produce the popular vote margin-the "mandate".

Wright doesn't know what he's talking about, basically.

[life_long_dem]

35. You wrote:

they're still perfecting their techniques and soon enough will likely be able to concentrate on state races as well.>


Pretty soon we won't even have to vote. The President will demand that every american vote for him.

[unpossibles]

16. am I correct...

..in remembering that the exit polls more closely matched the smaller races, that it was the Presidential "race" which was the most "biased?"

How does this happen? Granted, some people may vote for one party locally and another nationally. But how is this seeming contradiction explained by the media pundits? Or, like the moral mandate, is this just ignored?

I wish the raw poll data were still available.

[Kralizec]

19. This person is asleep or part of something

The matter of the fact is that she is asleep (aka willingly ignoring so as to not stir anything up, or self-cnesorship) or ordered to do the above. In either case, these are tough people to talk sense with.

[Straight Shooter]

20. Wright is general counsel? An attorney? He is illiterate.

"40 of or 100 counties in North Carolina"

"If there was a act"

"the allegation you may that he would have won"

"This agency see no merit"

Is illiteracy and incompetence of communication a requirement of bushies?

And I can answer his question in one succinct phrase, as to why hack the presidential race: "It's the mandate, stupid."

[ahimsa]

38. I think it's sloppy search and replace

by someone (their lawyer?) after the original email was written. For example, "This agency see no merit" probably was "I see no merit". Maybe they did a global search and replace for "I" and replaced it with "This agency". It might be possible to figure out the other changes too.

[BlueDog2u]

43. I noticed that also

Whatever political party he belongs to, he is not qualified for public office.

[berry]

24. My reaction to Mr. Wright's letter--it sounds like boilerplate.

Your letter never once used the word "fraud" and yet he claims you are "alleging voter fraud" (and saying "voter" instead of "vote" is significant here, too, as mentioned by another poster). He never addresses ignatzmouse's points, but is just generally defensive and quite rude.

It makes me wonder how many letters, emails, etc he is getting. A lot, I hope.

Also, someone on this thread said Mr. Wright is a Democrat. Ever since Theresa LePore designed the butterfly ballot, I've had a niggling worry. What if the GOP decided long ago to make sure that the voting machinery in this country was securely in their hands, and asked people to pretend to be Dems and to run for local election positions? Then there would be real Republicans in some districts and fake Democrats in others, but all would be in place for just such an election as we have now (and probably going back at least to 2000, and maybe farther). The Dixiecrat phenomenon would only make this easier to do, at least in the South. SoS Cox in Georgia also made me wonder about this. Naturally, they couldn't take over all local offices this way, but maybe more than one would think. Being an election supervisor has probably been a fairly thankless task, and might be one of the easier offices to infiltrate, up to now, anyway.

Yeah, I know. It's all speculation--no facts at all to go on. But I am SO appalled to hear of Democrats in responsible positions who seem not to care in the least about the potential (at the very least) for fraud. It seems so bizarre, in fact, that I have found it easier to wonder if they are moles.

Oh well.

[ignatzmouse]

25. Roving Eyes

Well, a full county by county analysis is coming, and it should shed some harsh light. The neat and incredibly difficult thing about the NC election is that it uses such a ridiculous variety of vendors and methods to tabulate the vote. But that just gives us a chance to compare them all side by side in the same election... ;-)

As far as the other statewide races go, it's the difference between national and local politics. Quite simply if there are plans to rig something nationally the people doing the rigging can't be overly greedy, or there's an obvious tip. I keep remembering the evading eyes of Karl Rove as he spoke to Russert after the election about how they needed to remind themselves to remain humble and not be greedy. I truly believe it was a subconscious slip of someone who thought he just got away with the world's greatest scam hoping that no one looked any closer.

[chomskysright]

27. I filed an Election Protest: meet with NC BOE: 11.29

I filed a protest with the NC BOE last Tuesday> Official; have moved all the information amongst reporters. Do so yourself. I have posted around re: NC>
.

Here we go: November 29th: Buncombe county> I am waiting on my letter in the mail.

marsha hammond,phd

[jdog]

34. Very exciting stuff. The polling books

and/or polling tapes seem to be important in verifying signatures against the voters voting.

[ignatzmouse]

37. Buncombe Syndrome

Buncombe uses Sequoia DRE's. I can tell you from working with the county data in trying to prepare a follow-up report that Sequoia counties seemed to have the worst correlation with the early vote on election day. I'll have more to add later, but right now something really smells.

[lilpnut]

36. Mr. Wright has

A lot of grammatical errors. He must have been a child who was left behind. : (

[LunaC]

39. Wait a minute, Mr. Wright - answer the damn questions!

Dear Mr Wright:

Thank you for your personal opinion and conjecture but you failed to provide any explanation whatsoever for the anomalies and discrepancies described in the research previously provided. Ignoring the issues won't make them go away. It would be far easier for you to dispel any factual errors now rather than explain your intentional disregard of voter's rights to the media and/or legal counsel later.

"The chief obstacle to discovery is the illustion of knowledge. " (Daniel Boorstin)

I anxiously await an informed reply!

Sincerely,

[Carolab]

40. This guy doesn't understand government very well

adding Senate seats at some level eliminates opposition altogether at the Federal level; what a dunce.

[leftchick]

42. NC: "has the worst election problem in the Country RIGHT NOW!

A Florida Style Nightmare - North Carolina Citizens
Demand Verified Voting Measures

North Carolina "has the worst election problem in the
country RIGHT NOW according to Dr. David Dill of
Stanford University. Election Officials bamboozled by
slick claims of voting machine salesmen, salesmen
failed to warn of flaws and limitations that caused
disaster on November 2

(PRWEB) November 17, 2004 -- "NC has the worst
election problem in the country RIGHT NOW." - November
11, 2004 Computer scientist Dr. David L. Dill of
Stanford University.

"A Florida-style nightmare has unfolded in North
Carolina in the days since Election Day, with
thousands of votes missing and the outcome of two
statewide races still up in the air." Steve Hartsoe,
AP Newswire, Nov 13, 2004

How can we trust our key decision-makers when they
ignore the seriousness of the problem?

"Except for the lost votes in Carteret County, Gary
Bartlett, executive director of the North Carolina
State Board of Elections, called the problems 'easily
remedied and lessons learned.' " AP Newswire, Nov 13,
2004. This is definitely a rosy view to an election
where citizens votes were lost, public totals were
mis-tabulated, thousands of provisional ballots were
generated, thousands of absentee and early ballots
were “misplaced“, and two state-wide races still
unresolved.

North Carolina’s election problems will not be so
easily remedied as Mr. Bartlett says. The degree and
severity of problems in North Carolina’s election
system indicates the need for serious study. Many of
the problems are compounded by the State’s reliance on
non-verifiable voting systems. Problems with voting
machines, central tabulators using outdated and secret
software, registration confusion, poll worker
training, provisional ballots and absentee ballots are
not easily remedied. The Board of Elections must
change its focus towards election management. If the
State insists on being dependent on electronic voting,
when it is clear that the officials know very little
or nothing about it.

Lost: 4,500 votes in Carteret County - this is the
consequence of e-voting without a proper paper trail.

Omitted: entire precinct of 1,209 votes in Gaston
County left out of Nov 2 Count.

Missing: 12,000 votes not reported by Diebold Software
in Gaston County.

Bamboozled: In 2003 Guilford County bought vote
tabulating software that used over a decade old
technology, it was already obsolete when purchased.
This software released presidential vote totals that
were off by 22,000 votes.

More votes than cast: Craven County reported 11,283
more votes for president than cast, voting software
same as in Guilford County.

In the past, the NC BOE has relied on the advice of
voting machine salesmen and turned a deaf ear to the
good advice and warning of thousands of computer
scientists across the country. The voting machine
vendors gain access to some of our election officials
via a private organization called The Election Center.
This is a private, non-profit whose “mission” is to
educate and inform election officials, yet this group
admits to accepting money from the voting machine
companies.

Just this August “The Election Center” hosted a
conference for election officials. The voting machine
salesmen wined and dined election officials from
across the country, giving them parties, prizes and a
dinner cruise on the Potomac. Gary Bartlett sits on
the Board of Directors of the Election Center, an
ethical situation that voting activists find
troubling.

Who are we trusting our democracy to?
In 2002, Tom Eschberger, then at Global Business
Systems accepted immunity in reward for his testimony
in the bribery kickback conviction of then SOS of
Arkansas, Bill McCuen.
Eshberger went on to be a key executive at the ES&S
Voting machinery company.

In 1999, two Sequoia (Voting Systems) executives, Phil
Foster and Pasquale Ricci, were indicted for paying
Louisiana Commissioner of Elections Jerry Fowler an $8
million bribe to buy their voting machines. Fowler, is
currently serving five years in prison. Voter advocate
Bev Harris alleged that managers of a subsidiary of
Diebold Inc. (voting machines), included a cocaine
trafficker, a man who conducted fraudulent stock
transactions, and a programmer jailed for falsifying
computer records, Jeffrey Dean, who served time in a
Washington correctional facility for stealing money
and tampering with computer files.

In March of this year, the BOE turned down the
opportunity to certify for state use a voting system
that did provide a Voter Verified Paper Ballot and
used the highly desirable open source operating
system.

Over 2000 technologists endorsed Verified Voting’s
resolution saying “Computerized voting equipment is
inherently subject to programming error, equipment
malfunction, and malicious tampering...”

The continued computer breakdowns and mis-counts prove
the need for a voter verified paper ballot. This is
not a receipt that we ask for, but a paper printout of
a ballot to be verified by the voter and kept by the
election officials in case of recount, audit or
computer breakdown. Any computerized voting systems
must have open source code that can be publicly
examined by computer scientists who have no financial
interest in our voting equipment. Funding from the
Help America Vote Act can be used to fund this
solution.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections can do the
right thing by consulting with recognized computer
scientists such as Dr. David Dill of Stanford
University, Dr. Rebecca Mercuri of the Harvard Kennedy
School of Government, Dan Wallach of Rice University,
Professor Doug Jones of the University of Iowa
Computer Science Department.

These computer scientists are world renown and have
availed themselves to election officials across the
nation in advisory capacities regarding electronic
voting.

The State can institute real requirements based on
these recommendations, including a VVPB, and allow
sufficient time for a thorough review,to ensure that
North Carolina’s voting system is the most secure and
trustworthy in America.

###

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/11/prwebxml178812.php

[americanwhothinks]

44. vote machines v. computers that tally---

doesn't Wrigh'ts "analysis" represent the common (mis-)understanding of "computer voting?" he says-- only 40% of NC voters used ECV's, so how could there be a big problem?

But the "computer vote" issue has been (systematically?) framed as the problem of the " electronic voting machines" (EVM's/electronic voting machines)

but a lot of numbers suggest that the *real problem*-- ie, where the hackers hacked-- is with the "computers that tally the final vote." (CTV's)

It seems that the media has done a good job of framing the problem this way: "the only "computer problem" would occur where there are TOUCHSCREEN VOTING MACHINES"

while all the evidence seems to suggest that it's the COMPUTERS THAT TALLY FINAL VOTE
that may be the (hacked) source of the biggest problem.

I mean, isn't that right?
And why wouldn't this offical guy KNOW this??

[americanwhothinks]

45. oops. ECV= EVM (My little acronym system

backfired.)

oops.