Sheldon Drobny
Votergate 2004; We Don't Need Paper to Prove Fraud
Thu Nov 11, 2004 23:43
64.140.158.15

Votergate 2004;

We Don't Need Paper to Prove Fraud, But We Do Need Money and Leadership, NOW.

http://www.opednews.com/drobny_110904_election_investigation.htm

Nov. 9, 2004
BY SHELDON DROBNY

Since last Tuesday there has been a justifiable uproar about the major differences between the exit polls in Ohio and Florida and the actual results. Democrats and Republicans, who both saw the same exit polls that showed an electoral landslide in favor of Kerry, have confirmed this. Investigative reporter Bob Parry confirmed from his sources that the Bush campaign was convinced they were going to lose. George H. W. Bush also confirmed this in an interview with The Today Show. So why have the exit polls been so wrong in the last two elections? It is clear that there must have been manipulation in the voting machines.

While there's been a lot of talk of problems with not having paper trails, computer fraud is uncovered most of the time without paper trails.

As a former C.P.A and auditor, I have used statistical sampling throughout my career with great confidence. With electronic record keeping, it's easy to create a program to falsify the books. But there are ways to uncover that. Auditors have developed statistical ways to cut right through corruption in companies. You don't even need a paper trail. These statistical approaches can be used with almost 100% accuracy to uncover fraud.

With the votergate 2004 it's a numbers game just like it is with corporate accounting, even easier. All you're talking about is one number-- total votes for each candidate.

There's a huge difference between polling what WILL happen and polling something that has already happened. The reliability of polling something that has already happened is highly reliable vs. predictive polls, like Gallup or Zogby, which is very risky. The reliability can be, not plus or minus 4 percent as we see with predictive poplls, but rather a much more reliable plus or minus one half or one tenth of one percent with exit polls, because those are based on asking people who already voted. I would even say that if the exit polling were done in the key precincts of Florida and Ohio, which it was, then these results should be practically "bullet proof."

It is important that people know how accurate random sampling of historical events can be in order for them to understand how unlikely it is that the exit polls were wrong. So if you want to fight the battle correctly, you must get more statisticians and forensic accountants involved as well as the lawyers. These statisticians can show with great credibility the probability of manipulation within the computer programs used for counting the ballots. They do this kind of work all the time to uncover fraud based upon computer manipulation in commercial and corporate activities. And these types of expert analyses are admissible in a court of law.

The problem with all of this is determining who is going to fund such an investigation. Where will the money come from?

Perhaps the Kerry/Edwards campaign fund has some surplus that can be used. It is possible that the DNC has some excess funds. How about the 527s and PACs who spent millions on ineffective political ads, coming up with a few million? In addition, who is going to lead the process of getting this done? This kind of an effort requires solidarity along with an organized coordinated effort. It's easy to come up with the forensic and technical people to get this done, but we need a strong leader and solidarity. Leadership and funding-- these are the two real challenges that must be dealt with in the coming days.

We have a Watergate story here that could give the media a post election explosive news story that could make the 2000 Florida vote debacle look like small potatoes. We need to get the media to see that votergate 2004 is huge news and we need to quickly fund the investigation and get Democratic leaders behind it.

Sheldon Drobny is CPA and Venture Capitalist and co-founder of Air America Radio; email at sdrobny@paradigmventure.com

=======================

The Case For Fraud

http://www.counterbias.com/152.html

November 3 2004
Counterbias.com
by Joseph Cannon

Ignore the rightist snickers. Ignore those who would straightjacket permissible thought. We have a right to ask difficult questions.

And the question of the moment concerns exit polls and electronic voting.

Some have criticized my pessimistic attitude toward this election, but I always heeded the warnings sounded by Bev Harris and others regarding computerized voting. If Kerry did not win handily, he could not win at all. A truly lopsided vote would have been impossible to hide, because oversized gaps between polls and election night counts would prove too suspicious.

Although the vote was tight, such gaps nevertheless exists. And although they are not massive, the pattern gives us every right to voice our suspicions.

Remember when networks used to trumpet the accuracy of exit polling? Last night, I saw on-air talking heads (especially on CNN) loudly deride these same exit polls as untrustworthy.

Perhaps the methodology has become sloppy. Perhaps respondents have learned to enjoy fibbing to pollsters. Or perhaps something in our current vote-tabulation system is fishier than an all-you-can-eat sushi bar.

Before proceeding, recall the commonly-heard axiom that Democrats tend to vote late, while Republicans tend to vote early. Many challenge that belief. Still, keep the notion in mind.

Exit polls published yesterday afternoon (by Slate and a number of blogs) gave this portrait of certain key results:

OHIO: Kerry 50, Bush 49. FLORIDA: Kerry 50, Bush 49. NEW MEXICO: Kerry 51, Bush 48.

At times, the poll data was even more favorable to Kerry in these three key states. See, for example, this screen capture of CNN data in Ohio. No exit poll showed a Bush lead in any of these states.

Here are grounds for suspicion. Electronic voting machines figured heavily in the final tabulation of the results in Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico. Moreover, in all three, paper audit trails do not exist.

These states therefore offered the best, safest opportunity for manipulation of the final count.

Question 1: Even if we grant the potential inaccuracy of exit polls, how likely is it that in all three cases the inaccuracy would show a "non-existent" Democratic advantage? Why doesn't the discrepancy ever work in the other direction?

Question 2: Why did problems afflict exit polling in three swing states that have widespread computerized voting with no paper trails?

In other states, the exit polling matched the final results rather well. In Nevada, Illinois, and New Hampshire, computer votes do have paper trails -- and in those instances, the exit polls tracked the final totals.

To recap: In three states with no paper trails, we have exit poll/final tally disagreement. In three states with paper trails, we have exit poll/final tally congruence.

Coincidence?

Let's return to the notion that Republicans vote earlier than Democrats. Many dispute that bit of folk wisdom. Even so, is it likely that the people waiting four, five or more hours in long lines, well into the cold of the night, underwent this endurance test to demand more of the same? Shouldn't the polls have showed Kerry's lead expanding as the night went on, instead of evaporating?

Intriguingly, CNN's exit poll results underwent a mysterious revision not explained by an increased number of respondents.

Black Box Voting plans to file the world's largest FOIA request to uncover the internals of the compu-vote. Don't presume that such an inquest will come up goose eggs:

Such a request filed in King County, Washington on Sept. 15, following the primary election six weeks ago, uncovered an internal audit log containing a three-hour deletion on election night; "trouble slips" revealing suspicious modem activity; and profound problems with security, including accidental disclosure of critically sensitive remote access information to poll workers, office personnel, and even, in a shocking blunder, to Black Box Voting activists.

Today's Boston Globe expands on some of the points I've made here:

Although some of John F. Kerry's leads in the state exit polls narrowed during the course of the day yesterday, there was a significant discrepancy between the actual vote total and the polling numbers, particularly in two states believed to be keys to the outcome.

While the exit data had Kerry winning Florida and Ohio by a narrow margin, the actual tabulated vote late last night had Bush carrying Florida by about five points and winning Ohio by two. In addition, a projected Kerry win of about five points in Wisconsin turned into a very tight contest, and what was projected as a close race in North Carolina turned into a double-digit win for Bush.

Again: Note the pattern. Why do the exit polls always go wrong in the same way? Pundits who assail these polls never address this question.

Logic tells us that about half the exit polls would show "false positives" for the Republican side. But in the past two presidential elections, they have almost always (should I strike out the word "almost"?) delivered "false positives" for Democrats only.

The simplest explanation: The Democratic "false positives" are not, in fact, false. The computerized tally is false.

Remember: If malign parties have tampered with the electronic result, then our first, best -- and perhaps only -- indication of fraud will be a conflict between the exit poll data and the "official" results.

As for what to do about it: May I at least suggest a visit to www.blackboxvoting.org ?
------------
Joseph Cannon is a writer and graphic designer in Los Angeles, California. He runs the Cannonfire weblog.