Saturday, October 11, 2003
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ENGAGED IN PRO-BUSH/CHENEY PROPAGANDA!
DoD's National Guard Bureau politicking for the GOP in Florida!
IS THE PENTAGON NOW IN COLLUSION WITH KARL ROVE?
Fake grass-roots "support" for Bush's war, which is killing US soldiers!
From a solid source in Washington:
Mark,
You've asked me to keep my eyes peeled for an obvious example of military propaganda for several years. Here is a very, very disturbing example. The example below was sent to me by a highly reliable source who is very pissed off at Bush's abandonment of US troops fighting and dying in Iraq and because of Bush's outrageous lies. The example below demonstrates how DoD has both the intent and capability to distort information and promote war.
The official Department of Defense (DoD) e-mail below contains two parts. The first part is a prime example of the DoD Propaganda Machine in action behind-the-scenes. The second part is a letter written by a soldier in Iraq to a newspaper in Florida. The soldier's letter invokes God and fear to promote Bush's Iraq War and Bush's 2004 campaign.
The first part of the e-mail was written by LTC Ron Tittle at DoD's National Guard Bureau (NGB) to commanders in the Florida Army National Guard. LTC Tittle's e-mail clearly promotes the further distribution of similar letters from soldiers supporting Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq.
LTC Tittle's e-mail is easy to verify. His name, e-mail, and phone number are all part of his e-mail. Therefore, any investigative journalist or major news outlet can quickly confirm his authorship.
LTC Tittle's e-mail is a one-sided propaganda effort because no one has found any evidence the NGB distributes letters from soldiers questioning or opposing the horrible carnage let loose by Bush in Iraq or supporting another candidate in 2004.
The NGB is promoting the soldier's letter, the war, and Bush in 2004, a potential violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (soldiers and officers must remain non-partisan when acting in their official capacity).
In Specialist Joshua Madsen's letter to the Florida Today newspaper, notice how he places people and events in a good/evil context, how he mentions God and freedom, and then he invokes fear, fear, fear? These are tried and true propaganda tactics to garner support for Bush's deadly policy of imperial war and conquest. LTC Tittle's e-mail and Specialist Madsen's letter ignore the fact that Bush lied to start the war by claiming Iraq posed a threat to the US. Both ignore the loss of freedom here in America -- not at the hands of terrorists, but at the hands of Bush.
In a disgraceful twist to all soldiers, the end of the Specialist Madsen's letter is a pure and simple pro-Republican partisan campaign pitch for votes for Bush for President in 2004. While the soldier's right to freedom of speech should be protected, the actions of LTC Tittle to promote the soldier's letter are an outrage.
What's the bottom line allegation: LTC Tittle widely distributed an official e-mail, with a tiny bit of window dressing, to promote Bush's war and Bush's 2004 campaign. This DoD propaganda is as disgusting as it is "over the top."
Someone in the press and Congress needs to investigate LTC Tittle's one-sided promotional e-mail.
Was the e-mail distribution sanctioned by LTC Tittle's chain of command?
Has Specialist Madsen been promoted or received any favors? Are there other examples of DoD or NGB promoting the war behind the scenes? Are there examples of DoD or NGB distributing letters from soldiers questioning the war or promoting another candidate? Is there any connection between the NGB, the Florida Army National Guard, and the Bush 2004 campaign?
The people have a right to know if there is an orchestrated official campaign to distort information about Bush's war against Iraq in an effort to sway voters in Florida.
Signed, Someone Who Knows
*******
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tittle, Ron E LtCol FL-ARNG"
To: "FLARNG, (ARMY) All Users"; "FLANG, (Air)
All Users"; "FLARNG, Command Section"
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: Article with letter from soldier -
https://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/opedstoryA14118A.htm
All Florida National Guard and Department of Military Affairs Personnel, Families and Friends,
This article was located from public affairs contracted media search and is distributed as command information. It does not reflect the official position of the Florida National Guard and Dept. of Military Affairs. It contains a letter from one of our soldiers in Iraq. We will post his letter to our website this week - "Letters from the Front."
Respectfully,
Ron Tittle
Ron Tittle, Lt Col, FLANG
Chief, Public Affairs
Florida National Guard
P.O. Box 1008, 82 Marine St
St Augustine, FL 32085-1008
DSN 860-7166/Fax 860-7112
Comm 904-823-0166/Fax 823-0112
Comm Mobile 904-814-7559
https://www.floridaguard.net/news
Sep 27, 6:04 PM
'I ask you to support our president'
FLORIDA TODAY Readers
Editor's note:
Nearly two months ago, a letter was published on this page from Army Specialist Joshua Madsen of D Company, 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry of the Florida National Guard, who is serving in Iraq.
Madsen -- a resident of Indian Harbour Beach and a Brevard County firefighter -- continues to patrol an area that is a stronghold of support for Saddam Hussein.
In these excerpts from a recent letter to his wife, Rachel, printed with her permission, the 25-year-old solider talks about escaping death in an ambush and his support for President Bush's policies.
Dear friends:
I wish I could send you some good news about my return home, but at this time there is still no word.
The days here have become quite hot. I'd have to say it now reaches about 135 degrees and feels much hotter in the urban areas. When the wind blows it feels like you've just opened an oven to check a cooking turkey.
The last week or two have been pretty quiet for our company. The word on the Ar Ramadi streets seems to be spreading that they shouldn't mess with us. Every day, more and more Iraqis are waving and appear to be a little happier to see us.
I guess they are really getting the picture that Iraq will never see Saddam Hussein in power again. Most of the local population have lived their entire lives in fear of Saddam and his evil dictatorship.
It's also now evident that those who are still on the warpath will at one time or another find themselves within our crosshairs. This fear of us has led to a small reduction in attacks over the past several weeks.
It is a welcome change. But nonetheless our tempo remains the same. We are given news just about every day of another attack here or soldiers killed there. I guess it's a constant reminder of just how real it is.
We continue to keep our minds focused and our guard up, and we are still conducting daily patrols and raiding areas where high-value targets exist. In recent days, it appears that rocket-propelled grenades have been a hot-ticket item.
Another weapon of choice is the newly famous Improvised Explosive Device. They can be easily made and placed just about anywhere and set off when U.S. troops pass by.
These devices are usually used in conjunction with an ambush that contains several Iraqis firing (automatic weapons) and rocket-propelled grenades.
I know firsthand what these explosive devices are capable of.
The second week I was in Ar Ramadi, the enemy detonated one right in front of my Humvee while I was the machine gunner in the turret.
Fortunately, the enemy detonated it about half a second too early. It blew up right in front of us, sending me flying back into the Humvee.
Everything went white and my whole body went numb. It felt like someone had pressed a reset button for all my nerves.
I quickly came back to reality the minute the Iraqis opened fire from both sides of the road. Our two Humvees quickly returned suppressive fire and cleared out of the enemy's war zone.
Most people don't survive enemy ambushes, but we did and I thank God every day for His presence in my life.
I'm wondering what happened to all the support for our president. All the headlines I see are all bashing him.
Don't blame the president for sending me away. I knew it was a possibility -- we all did. We all knew what could happen and the price that we may have to pay, as did many others before my time and your time.
With our great sacrifices we have given all of you the rights you have today. We've given you a safe place to raise your family and live, and we've given you the right to say what you think when you want to. But let me remind you the world is full of evil people who threaten our way of life, our freedoms and those around us.
I know right now that the president appears to be spreading the military throughout the world. However, he wouldn't be doing this without just cause. It's not just about being an American. It's about being human. We have the responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves.
I respectfully ask you to support our president, even if you don't personally agree with him. I respect him for standing up in the face of adversity and making decisions based on what's important and not just popular.
I'm sure he's reading the papers, too, and realizes that his chances for re-election aren't good, but he still continues to make wise choices for the American people whether they can see it or not.
I will vote for a man who is willing to do that because he has the guts to do what's right, not what's just popular.
-- Joshua Madsen, Iraq
DoD's National Guard Bureau politicking for the GOP in Florida!
IS THE PENTAGON NOW IN COLLUSION WITH KARL ROVE?
Fake grass-roots "support" for Bush's war, which is killing US soldiers!
From a solid source in Washington:
Mark,
You've asked me to keep my eyes peeled for an obvious example of military propaganda for several years. Here is a very, very disturbing example. The example below was sent to me by a highly reliable source who is very pissed off at Bush's abandonment of US troops fighting and dying in Iraq and because of Bush's outrageous lies. The example below demonstrates how DoD has both the intent and capability to distort information and promote war.
The official Department of Defense (DoD) e-mail below contains two parts. The first part is a prime example of the DoD Propaganda Machine in action behind-the-scenes. The second part is a letter written by a soldier in Iraq to a newspaper in Florida. The soldier's letter invokes God and fear to promote Bush's Iraq War and Bush's 2004 campaign.
The first part of the e-mail was written by LTC Ron Tittle at DoD's National Guard Bureau (NGB) to commanders in the Florida Army National Guard. LTC Tittle's e-mail clearly promotes the further distribution of similar letters from soldiers supporting Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq.
LTC Tittle's e-mail is easy to verify. His name, e-mail, and phone number are all part of his e-mail. Therefore, any investigative journalist or major news outlet can quickly confirm his authorship.
LTC Tittle's e-mail is a one-sided propaganda effort because no one has found any evidence the NGB distributes letters from soldiers questioning or opposing the horrible carnage let loose by Bush in Iraq or supporting another candidate in 2004.
The NGB is promoting the soldier's letter, the war, and Bush in 2004, a potential violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (soldiers and officers must remain non-partisan when acting in their official capacity).
In Specialist Joshua Madsen's letter to the Florida Today newspaper, notice how he places people and events in a good/evil context, how he mentions God and freedom, and then he invokes fear, fear, fear? These are tried and true propaganda tactics to garner support for Bush's deadly policy of imperial war and conquest. LTC Tittle's e-mail and Specialist Madsen's letter ignore the fact that Bush lied to start the war by claiming Iraq posed a threat to the US. Both ignore the loss of freedom here in America -- not at the hands of terrorists, but at the hands of Bush.
In a disgraceful twist to all soldiers, the end of the Specialist Madsen's letter is a pure and simple pro-Republican partisan campaign pitch for votes for Bush for President in 2004. While the soldier's right to freedom of speech should be protected, the actions of LTC Tittle to promote the soldier's letter are an outrage.
What's the bottom line allegation: LTC Tittle widely distributed an official e-mail, with a tiny bit of window dressing, to promote Bush's war and Bush's 2004 campaign. This DoD propaganda is as disgusting as it is "over the top."
Someone in the press and Congress needs to investigate LTC Tittle's one-sided promotional e-mail.
Was the e-mail distribution sanctioned by LTC Tittle's chain of command?
Has Specialist Madsen been promoted or received any favors? Are there other examples of DoD or NGB promoting the war behind the scenes? Are there examples of DoD or NGB distributing letters from soldiers questioning the war or promoting another candidate? Is there any connection between the NGB, the Florida Army National Guard, and the Bush 2004 campaign?
The people have a right to know if there is an orchestrated official campaign to distort information about Bush's war against Iraq in an effort to sway voters in Florida.
Signed, Someone Who Knows
*******
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tittle, Ron E LtCol FL-ARNG"
To: "FLARNG, (ARMY) All Users"
All Users"
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: Article with letter from soldier -
https://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/opedstoryA14118A.htm
All Florida National Guard and Department of Military Affairs Personnel, Families and Friends,
This article was located from public affairs contracted media search and is distributed as command information. It does not reflect the official position of the Florida National Guard and Dept. of Military Affairs. It contains a letter from one of our soldiers in Iraq. We will post his letter to our website this week - "Letters from the Front."
Respectfully,
Ron Tittle
Ron Tittle, Lt Col, FLANG
Chief, Public Affairs
Florida National Guard
P.O. Box 1008, 82 Marine St
St Augustine, FL 32085-1008
DSN 860-7166/Fax 860-7112
Comm 904-823-0166/Fax 823-0112
Comm Mobile 904-814-7559
https://www.floridaguard.net/news
Sep 27, 6:04 PM
'I ask you to support our president'
FLORIDA TODAY Readers
Editor's note:
Nearly two months ago, a letter was published on this page from Army Specialist Joshua Madsen of D Company, 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry of the Florida National Guard, who is serving in Iraq.
Madsen -- a resident of Indian Harbour Beach and a Brevard County firefighter -- continues to patrol an area that is a stronghold of support for Saddam Hussein.
In these excerpts from a recent letter to his wife, Rachel, printed with her permission, the 25-year-old solider talks about escaping death in an ambush and his support for President Bush's policies.
Dear friends:
I wish I could send you some good news about my return home, but at this time there is still no word.
The days here have become quite hot. I'd have to say it now reaches about 135 degrees and feels much hotter in the urban areas. When the wind blows it feels like you've just opened an oven to check a cooking turkey.
The last week or two have been pretty quiet for our company. The word on the Ar Ramadi streets seems to be spreading that they shouldn't mess with us. Every day, more and more Iraqis are waving and appear to be a little happier to see us.
I guess they are really getting the picture that Iraq will never see Saddam Hussein in power again. Most of the local population have lived their entire lives in fear of Saddam and his evil dictatorship.
It's also now evident that those who are still on the warpath will at one time or another find themselves within our crosshairs. This fear of us has led to a small reduction in attacks over the past several weeks.
It is a welcome change. But nonetheless our tempo remains the same. We are given news just about every day of another attack here or soldiers killed there. I guess it's a constant reminder of just how real it is.
We continue to keep our minds focused and our guard up, and we are still conducting daily patrols and raiding areas where high-value targets exist. In recent days, it appears that rocket-propelled grenades have been a hot-ticket item.
Another weapon of choice is the newly famous Improvised Explosive Device. They can be easily made and placed just about anywhere and set off when U.S. troops pass by.
These devices are usually used in conjunction with an ambush that contains several Iraqis firing (automatic weapons) and rocket-propelled grenades.
I know firsthand what these explosive devices are capable of.
The second week I was in Ar Ramadi, the enemy detonated one right in front of my Humvee while I was the machine gunner in the turret.
Fortunately, the enemy detonated it about half a second too early. It blew up right in front of us, sending me flying back into the Humvee.
Everything went white and my whole body went numb. It felt like someone had pressed a reset button for all my nerves.
I quickly came back to reality the minute the Iraqis opened fire from both sides of the road. Our two Humvees quickly returned suppressive fire and cleared out of the enemy's war zone.
Most people don't survive enemy ambushes, but we did and I thank God every day for His presence in my life.
I'm wondering what happened to all the support for our president. All the headlines I see are all bashing him.
Don't blame the president for sending me away. I knew it was a possibility -- we all did. We all knew what could happen and the price that we may have to pay, as did many others before my time and your time.
With our great sacrifices we have given all of you the rights you have today. We've given you a safe place to raise your family and live, and we've given you the right to say what you think when you want to. But let me remind you the world is full of evil people who threaten our way of life, our freedoms and those around us.
I know right now that the president appears to be spreading the military throughout the world. However, he wouldn't be doing this without just cause. It's not just about being an American. It's about being human. We have the responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves.
I respectfully ask you to support our president, even if you don't personally agree with him. I respect him for standing up in the face of adversity and making decisions based on what's important and not just popular.
I'm sure he's reading the papers, too, and realizes that his chances for re-election aren't good, but he still continues to make wise choices for the American people whether they can see it or not.
I will vote for a man who is willing to do that because he has the guts to do what's right, not what's just popular.
-- Joshua Madsen, Iraq
384,427 CALIFORNIA BALLOTS NOT RECOVERED!! NEARLY 4.6% OF TOTAL VOTES!
HALF OF MISSING VOTES ARE FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY—RIFE WITH DEMOCRATS!
Dr. Rebecca Mercuri works it out!
GUESS WHO MANUFACTURED THE MACHINES IN QUESTION?
From RISKS-LIST (Risks-Forum Digest Thursday 9 October 2003 Volume 22: Issue 94)
https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.94.html
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:10:04 -0400
From: "Peter G. Neumann"
Subject: Analysis of California recall data confirms voting system doubts
(from Rebecca Mercuri)
Following is based on information from Rebecca Mercuri.
[The words are hers, not mine, lightly edited for RISKS.]
Rebecca Mercuri has analyzed California's recall ballot data and reports
that it confirms numerous doubts about election systems. Her results
demonstrate that the style of voting system in use (punchcard, optically
scanned, or touchscreen) cannot be generically considered either "good or
bad". She asserts that the particular model of the system, as well as the
procedural controls in place in each county, along with the ballot layout,
may have considerably more impact on the reliability of the election results
than the type of system deployed.
The analysis revealed some shocking details. Of the 8,359,168 votes cast
statewide, some 384,427 (nearly 4.6%) were not recorded for the recall
question. Almost half of these missing votes (over 175,000) were in Los
Angeles, nearly 9% for that county. Yet the Datavote punchcards used in 14
other counties fared somewhat better, on average, than all of the optically
scanned and touchscreen systems, with the exception of only the ES&S Optech
Eagle (used in San Francisco and San Mateo counties) and the Diebold
Accu-Vote-TS (used in Alameda, though with some reports of equipment
malfunctions). The Sequoia Edge touchscreens, currently under litigation in
Riverside County, performed slightly worse than the Datavote punchcards.
The ES&S iVotronic touchscreens were ranked lowest of the three touchscreen
types in the state, and were outperformed by all other systems with the
exception of the Sequoia Optech optically scanned systems and the Pollstar
and Votomatic punchcards.
In earlier court battles prior to the recall election, the ACLU claimed that
voters using punchcards would be unfairly disenfranchised, as compared to
voters using optically scanned or touchscreen systems. As it turns out, the
counties using Datavote punchcards had residual vote rates that were better
than all but one of the optically scanned systems, and also lower than two
of the three touchscreen systems. At the other end of the scale, the
counties using Pollstar and Votomatic punchcards (which included
heavily-populated Los Angeles) had worse residual vote rates than any other
type of voting system in use in the state. Clearly it is not the punchcards
themselves that are to blame, since the Datavote systems demonstrate that
punchcards can be used successfully.
The residual vote technique was previously used by MIT/Caltech in their
studies following the 2000 Presidential Election. For the California
analysis, she performed her calculations by comparing the difference between
the total number of ballots cast, as reported by California Secretary of
State Kevin Shelley's office, with the total numbers of "yes" and "no" votes
on the recall question. It should be noted that the residual vote tally is
incapable of differentiating between a voter who deliberately or
accidentally did not make a selection on the recall question, and an
equipment failure (such as hanging chad) that could result in a cast vote
not being counted.
The rush to fully computerized ballot casting is misguided. Although
supplemental technologies are needed for disabled voters, there is no clear
evidence that touchscreen systems are substantially or consistently better
for use by the general population than other voting methods. The fact that
the touchscreens in California do not provide any way to perform an
independent recount [and no real assurance that votes are even handled
correctly in the absence of the voter-verified audit trail that Rebecca has
long been recommending -- PGN] should make them less desirable than the
paper-based systems that do have such capabilities. Counties, like San
Francisco, that are doing well with optically scanned ballots, and the
smaller ones that use punchcards effectively, should feel no pressure to
modernize.
For further information, contact Rebecca Mercuri via telephone at
1-609/895-1375 or 1-215/327-7105, email mercuri@acm.org and Internet at
https://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html
-- -- -- --
Supporting Data for California Recall Question, Rebecca Mercuri 7 Oct 2003
Numbers represent RESIDUAL VOTE RATE as percentage of total votes cast
according to type or model of machine:
Punchcard 6.24
Datavote 1.94
Pollstar 6.02
Votomatic 8.17
Optically Scanned 2.68
ES&S Eagle 1.87
Diebold Accu-Vote-OS 2.36
ES&S 550 and 560 2.42
Mark-A-Vote 3.04
Sequoia Optech 4.35
Touchscreen 1.49
Diebold Accu-Vote-TS 0.72
Sequoia Edge 2.01
ES&S iVotronic 3.49
Statewide 4.59
------------------------------
HALF OF MISSING VOTES ARE FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY—RIFE WITH DEMOCRATS!
Dr. Rebecca Mercuri works it out!
GUESS WHO MANUFACTURED THE MACHINES IN QUESTION?
From RISKS-LIST (Risks-Forum Digest Thursday 9 October 2003 Volume 22: Issue 94)
https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.94.html
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:10:04 -0400
From: "Peter G. Neumann"
Subject: Analysis of California recall data confirms voting system doubts
(from Rebecca Mercuri)
Following is based on information from Rebecca Mercuri.
[The words are hers, not mine, lightly edited for RISKS.]
Rebecca Mercuri has analyzed California's recall ballot data and reports
that it confirms numerous doubts about election systems. Her results
demonstrate that the style of voting system in use (punchcard, optically
scanned, or touchscreen) cannot be generically considered either "good or
bad". She asserts that the particular model of the system, as well as the
procedural controls in place in each county, along with the ballot layout,
may have considerably more impact on the reliability of the election results
than the type of system deployed.
The analysis revealed some shocking details. Of the 8,359,168 votes cast
statewide, some 384,427 (nearly 4.6%) were not recorded for the recall
question. Almost half of these missing votes (over 175,000) were in Los
Angeles, nearly 9% for that county. Yet the Datavote punchcards used in 14
other counties fared somewhat better, on average, than all of the optically
scanned and touchscreen systems, with the exception of only the ES&S Optech
Eagle (used in San Francisco and San Mateo counties) and the Diebold
Accu-Vote-TS (used in Alameda, though with some reports of equipment
malfunctions). The Sequoia Edge touchscreens, currently under litigation in
Riverside County, performed slightly worse than the Datavote punchcards.
The ES&S iVotronic touchscreens were ranked lowest of the three touchscreen
types in the state, and were outperformed by all other systems with the
exception of the Sequoia Optech optically scanned systems and the Pollstar
and Votomatic punchcards.
In earlier court battles prior to the recall election, the ACLU claimed that
voters using punchcards would be unfairly disenfranchised, as compared to
voters using optically scanned or touchscreen systems. As it turns out, the
counties using Datavote punchcards had residual vote rates that were better
than all but one of the optically scanned systems, and also lower than two
of the three touchscreen systems. At the other end of the scale, the
counties using Pollstar and Votomatic punchcards (which included
heavily-populated Los Angeles) had worse residual vote rates than any other
type of voting system in use in the state. Clearly it is not the punchcards
themselves that are to blame, since the Datavote systems demonstrate that
punchcards can be used successfully.
The residual vote technique was previously used by MIT/Caltech in their
studies following the 2000 Presidential Election. For the California
analysis, she performed her calculations by comparing the difference between
the total number of ballots cast, as reported by California Secretary of
State Kevin Shelley's office, with the total numbers of "yes" and "no" votes
on the recall question. It should be noted that the residual vote tally is
incapable of differentiating between a voter who deliberately or
accidentally did not make a selection on the recall question, and an
equipment failure (such as hanging chad) that could result in a cast vote
not being counted.
The rush to fully computerized ballot casting is misguided. Although
supplemental technologies are needed for disabled voters, there is no clear
evidence that touchscreen systems are substantially or consistently better
for use by the general population than other voting methods. The fact that
the touchscreens in California do not provide any way to perform an
independent recount [and no real assurance that votes are even handled
correctly in the absence of the voter-verified audit trail that Rebecca has
long been recommending -- PGN] should make them less desirable than the
paper-based systems that do have such capabilities. Counties, like San
Francisco, that are doing well with optically scanned ballots, and the
smaller ones that use punchcards effectively, should feel no pressure to
modernize.
For further information, contact Rebecca Mercuri via telephone at
1-609/895-1375 or 1-215/327-7105, email mercuri@acm.org and Internet at
https://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html
-- -- -- --
Supporting Data for California Recall Question, Rebecca Mercuri 7 Oct 2003
Numbers represent RESIDUAL VOTE RATE as percentage of total votes cast
according to type or model of machine:
Punchcard 6.24
Datavote 1.94
Pollstar 6.02
Votomatic 8.17
Optically Scanned 2.68
ES&S Eagle 1.87
Diebold Accu-Vote-OS 2.36
ES&S 550 and 560 2.42
Mark-A-Vote 3.04
Sequoia Optech 4.35
Touchscreen 1.49
Diebold Accu-Vote-TS 0.72
Sequoia Edge 2.01
ES&S iVotronic 3.49
Statewide 4.59
------------------------------
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
IRREGULARITIES IN CALIFORNIA RACE!!
Long-shot candidates do startlingly well in Tulare County
DIEBOLD MACHINES YIELD FISHY RESULTS!!
My friend in South Carolina writes:
I ran a number crunch of CA counties that use Diebold
machines to cast/count votes and found some weird
figures that show a skim of votes from top candidates
to people who were unlikely to affect the outcome. I
did my hand calculator work on the California election
results (from the secretary of state's site) when 96%
of precincts had reported. The website showed:
Counties using Diebold Touchscreens:
Alemeda, Plumas
Counties using Diebold Optiscan:
Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Placer, San
Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Trinity,
Tulare.
There were a total of 1,403,375 votes cast in these
counties combined. The CA total was 7,842,630 at this
stage of the count. Thus 17.89% of all the state votes
were cast/counted on Diebold equipment.
I had earlier noticed some lower order candidates
(ones who couldn't affect the result) were getting
unusually large numbers of votes in Tulare county. I
decided to test to see if the these and other 'fringe'
candidates might be used to receive skimmed votes in
other Diebold counties.
Method:
I added all the votes cast/counted on Diebold
equipment for each candidate and expressed it as a
percentage of their total votes cast state wide. The
following table lists: Candidate name, votes counted
for them in Diebold counties, CA state total votes
counted for that candidate and what percentage of that
candidate's total votes were counted in Diebold
counties.
It looks like, as one might expect, at the top of the
list as if there is a slight variance from an even
state wide distribution. However many 'lower ticket'
candidates have vote totals that ONLY correlate with
the use of Diebold equipment! I have included some
names chosen at random from the result list that show
that not all lower order candidates were used to
receive skimmed votes. Note that Diebold's counties
are spread geographically over the whole of
California.
I have checked background on the skewed result
candidates and they are not residents of the counties
where they got very high percentage results. In one
case, Palmieri, the candidate was surprised to hear
about Tulare county (I emailed him) and had not been
there nor had family or friends there. In fact, his
platform was "Don't vote for me." He described this
vote pattern as "strange."
State total 7,842,630.
Cast in Diebold counties 1,403,375
17.89% of the total votes cast.
Schwarzenegger 581,145 3,552,787 16.36%
Bustamante 447,008 2,379,740 18.78%
McLintock 186,923 979,234 19.08%
Camejo 39,199 207,270 18.9%
Huffington 7,498 42,131 17.79%
Ueberoth 3365 21378 15.74%
Flynt 2384 15010 15.88%
Coleman 1869 12443 15.02%
Simon 1351 7648 17.66%
Palmieri 2542 3717 68.3%
Louie 598 3198 18.7%
Kunzman 1957 2133 91.75%
Roscoe 325 1941 16.7%
Sprague 1026 1576 65.10%
Macaluso 592 1504 39.36%
Price 477 1011 47.18%
Quinn 220 433 50.8%
Martorana 165 420 39.28%
Gosse 60 419 14.3%
Conclusion
Based on the very unlikely distribution of votes for
some candidates (a meteor hit my car twice this week
sort of odds) a hand count of the affected counties to
compare with the machine reported count should be
done. This would show that the machines had been
tampered with to alter the results. As we already
know, it is not possible to audit touchscreen machines
because Diebold refuse to allow printing of a ballot
to be placed in a box as a back up for use in just
such an apparent tampering with votes.
For those who are unsure of figures:
California is huge and has a population similar to
many European nations. Lower order candidates had
little or no ability to spread any sort of message to
parts of the state beyond their own home and/or where
they have previously lived. One would expect some of
the 'fringe' candidates to do well in their home
county and then to have a very even distribution
across the rest of the state. That is not the case. In
Diebold counties (those who use machines made by
Diebold, a corporation that supports George Bush) the
results are skewed towards low scoring candidates by
unbelievably large amounts.
The probability of scoring twice the expected average
county % could charitably be construed as the upper
limit of the possible. Some candidates exceed that
figure in Diebold counties by a four or five fold
margin. If you have done statistics, you know that is
so far beyond what might be expected that you would
reject it as defective data. If it happened to one
candidate in this election, I would be surprised but
might accept it. There are a large number of
candidates who have this same systematic pattern of
receiving skimmed votes.
The California recall shows Diebold trying to affect
the election outcome by moving votes from high ranked
candidates to low ranked candidates.
By doing this, Diebold keep the total number of votes
cast constant but rob some candidate of their votes.
Before anyone makes this a partisan issue - it could
be a Republican victim next time.
Long-shot candidates do startlingly well in Tulare County
DIEBOLD MACHINES YIELD FISHY RESULTS!!
My friend in South Carolina writes:
I ran a number crunch of CA counties that use Diebold
machines to cast/count votes and found some weird
figures that show a skim of votes from top candidates
to people who were unlikely to affect the outcome. I
did my hand calculator work on the California election
results (from the secretary of state's site) when 96%
of precincts had reported. The website showed:
Counties using Diebold Touchscreens:
Alemeda, Plumas
Counties using Diebold Optiscan:
Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Placer, San
Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Trinity,
Tulare.
There were a total of 1,403,375 votes cast in these
counties combined. The CA total was 7,842,630 at this
stage of the count. Thus 17.89% of all the state votes
were cast/counted on Diebold equipment.
I had earlier noticed some lower order candidates
(ones who couldn't affect the result) were getting
unusually large numbers of votes in Tulare county. I
decided to test to see if the these and other 'fringe'
candidates might be used to receive skimmed votes in
other Diebold counties.
Method:
I added all the votes cast/counted on Diebold
equipment for each candidate and expressed it as a
percentage of their total votes cast state wide. The
following table lists: Candidate name, votes counted
for them in Diebold counties, CA state total votes
counted for that candidate and what percentage of that
candidate's total votes were counted in Diebold
counties.
It looks like, as one might expect, at the top of the
list as if there is a slight variance from an even
state wide distribution. However many 'lower ticket'
candidates have vote totals that ONLY correlate with
the use of Diebold equipment! I have included some
names chosen at random from the result list that show
that not all lower order candidates were used to
receive skimmed votes. Note that Diebold's counties
are spread geographically over the whole of
California.
I have checked background on the skewed result
candidates and they are not residents of the counties
where they got very high percentage results. In one
case, Palmieri, the candidate was surprised to hear
about Tulare county (I emailed him) and had not been
there nor had family or friends there. In fact, his
platform was "Don't vote for me." He described this
vote pattern as "strange."
State total 7,842,630.
Cast in Diebold counties 1,403,375
17.89% of the total votes cast.
Schwarzenegger 581,145 3,552,787 16.36%
Bustamante 447,008 2,379,740 18.78%
McLintock 186,923 979,234 19.08%
Camejo 39,199 207,270 18.9%
Huffington 7,498 42,131 17.79%
Ueberoth 3365 21378 15.74%
Flynt 2384 15010 15.88%
Coleman 1869 12443 15.02%
Simon 1351 7648 17.66%
Palmieri 2542 3717 68.3%
Louie 598 3198 18.7%
Kunzman 1957 2133 91.75%
Roscoe 325 1941 16.7%
Sprague 1026 1576 65.10%
Macaluso 592 1504 39.36%
Price 477 1011 47.18%
Quinn 220 433 50.8%
Martorana 165 420 39.28%
Gosse 60 419 14.3%
Conclusion
Based on the very unlikely distribution of votes for
some candidates (a meteor hit my car twice this week
sort of odds) a hand count of the affected counties to
compare with the machine reported count should be
done. This would show that the machines had been
tampered with to alter the results. As we already
know, it is not possible to audit touchscreen machines
because Diebold refuse to allow printing of a ballot
to be placed in a box as a back up for use in just
such an apparent tampering with votes.
For those who are unsure of figures:
California is huge and has a population similar to
many European nations. Lower order candidates had
little or no ability to spread any sort of message to
parts of the state beyond their own home and/or where
they have previously lived. One would expect some of
the 'fringe' candidates to do well in their home
county and then to have a very even distribution
across the rest of the state. That is not the case. In
Diebold counties (those who use machines made by
Diebold, a corporation that supports George Bush) the
results are skewed towards low scoring candidates by
unbelievably large amounts.
The probability of scoring twice the expected average
county % could charitably be construed as the upper
limit of the possible. Some candidates exceed that
figure in Diebold counties by a four or five fold
margin. If you have done statistics, you know that is
so far beyond what might be expected that you would
reject it as defective data. If it happened to one
candidate in this election, I would be surprised but
might accept it. There are a large number of
candidates who have this same systematic pattern of
receiving skimmed votes.
The California recall shows Diebold trying to affect
the election outcome by moving votes from high ranked
candidates to low ranked candidates.
By doing this, Diebold keep the total number of votes
cast constant but rob some candidate of their votes.
Before anyone makes this a partisan issue - it could
be a Republican victim next time.
