RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Finally, the major for-profit media is approaching consensus that it's easy to hack U.S. political elections. Even candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are raising unprecedented doubts - from very different directions - about the reliability of the upcoming vote count. Ultimately, there is just one solution: universal hand-counted paper ballots, with carefully protected voter registration rolls, and a transparent chain of custody."

Andre Witcher, of Detroit, casts his ballot at the Wayne County Community College Northwest Campus. (photo: AP)
Andre Witcher, of Detroit, casts his ballot at the Wayne County Community College Northwest Campus. (photo: AP)


Distrust of 2016's Hackable Election Is a Media Landslide With Just One Solution: Hand-Counted Paper Ballots

By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Reader Supported News

07 September 16

 

inally, the major for-profit media is approaching consensus that it’s easy to hack U.S. political elections. Even candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are raising unprecedented doubts – from very different directions – about the reliability of the upcoming vote count.

Ultimately, there is just one solution: universal hand-counted paper ballots, with carefully protected voter registration rolls, and a transparent chain of custody.

The corporate media and the Democrats are obsessed with the “Russians.” Donald Trump rants about a mythological army of voters voting multiple times.

But the real threat to our election system comes from private for-profit corporations that register voters, control voter databases, then count and report the vote with secret proprietary software and zero transparency, accountability, or recourse.

After ignoring or attacking the reportage since Florida 2000 of Bev Harris, Greg Palast, freepress.org and numerous others, the corporate media seems finally to be getting the message: under the current system, any American election – even the one for president – can be stripped and flipped by a tiny handful of electronic hackers working anywhere from the Kremlin to a party HQ to a state governor’s office to a teenager’s garage.

Here is some of what the mainstream media is finally admitting. In an article posted on July 28, 2016, NBC News pointed out that our elections are vulnerable to hacking because they “are not part of the vast ‘critical infrastructure protection’ safety net set up by the Department of Homeland Security.”

CBS News wrote August 10, 2016, about “the hackers at Symantec Security Response” who demonstrated how “Election Day results could be manipulated by an affordable device you can find online.”

Former national coordinator for counter-terrorism Richard Clarke, reporting for ABC News on August 19, 2016, analyzed the particular security problems related to battleground states like Ohio and Florida: “In 2000 and 2004, there were only a handful of battleground states that determined which presidential candidate had enough Electoral College votes to win. A slight alteration of the vote in some swing precincts in swing states might not raise suspicion. Smart malware can be programmed to switch only a small percentage of votes from what the voters intended. That may be all that is needed, and that malware can also be programmed to erase itself after it does its job, so there might be no trace it ever happened.” Clarke was on the White House National Security Council during both Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s administrations.

Zeynep Tufekci, an associate professor at the North Carolina School of Information and Library Science, in his August 12, 2016 New York Times op-ed “The Election Won’t Be Rigged but It Could Be Hacked,” wrote: “The mere existence of this discussion is cause for alarm. The United States needs to return, as soon as possible, to a paper-based, auditable voting system in all jurisdictions that still use electronic-only, unverifiable voting machines.”

On August 30, 2016, the Washington Post wrote: “Deleting or altering data on voter rolls could cause mayhem on Election Day disenfranchising some voters. Many voting machines themselves also are vulnerable, especially touch-screen systems that do not create a paper record as a guard against fraud or manipulation.” The Post also supplied a list of the 15 states with the most vulnerable voting systems.

The list of those now admitting the obvious includes the Boston Globe, The Atlantic, USA Today, The Guardian, Mother Jones, and Politico, some of which have previously mocked those of us reporting on this issue. Most important has been the highly influential The Hill, which weighed in on May 2, 2016 with “Election fraud feared as hackers target voter records.” The lede was straightforward: “A series of data breaches overseas are spurring concerns that hackers could manipulate elections in the United States.”

Trump advisor Roger Stone wrote a column in The Hill with the headline: “Can the 2016 Elections Be Rigged? You Bet.” He also referred to our latest summary volume, “The Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election Theft,” as “a must-read book on the strip and flip techniques used to rig these machines.”

But in the 2016 primary election, there are other must-reads as well. Perhaps the most important is Election Justice USA’s report entitled “Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries.” This report cites six major areas of election irregularities in this year’s 26 primary elections:

  1. Targeting voter suppression

  2. Registration tampering

  3. Illegal voter purges

  4. Exit poll discrepancies

  5. Evidence for voting machine tampering

  6. The security (or lack thereof) of various voting machines types.

In their 96-page report, Election Justice researchers documented how Hillary Clinton’s campaign benefited from these “various types of fraud.” Their conclusion: “Based on this work, Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud.”

Election Justice’s well-documented estimate that Sanders lost 184 delegates means that if the election had been conducted fairly, the Senator from Vermont would now be the Democratic nominee.

Another document essential to understanding election irregularities that allowed Hillary Clinton to capture the Democratic Party nomination is a paper co-authored by Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in the Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University. Their analysis found that primary election results in states with the most vulnerable and hackable voting machines and without a paper trail overwhelmingly favored Hillary Clinton 65 percent to 35 percent. Sanders led Clinton 51 percent to 49 percent in states where the vote count could be verified with a paper trail.

The correlation between the increased Clinton vote and the increased vulnerability of the voting machines has been avoided like the plague by the corporate media.

Equally important to read is mathematician Richard Charnin’s blog. Charnin is a man the mainstream media often attacks – but not with mathematical formulas to rebut Charnin’s detailed analysis. Rather they attack him because, like the vast majority of Americans, he believes that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman. In 2016, official Democratic primary vote counts compared to exit poll results were significantly outside the margin of error in 12 of 26 states. Charnin concluded that the probability of those official vote tallies being correct are one in 78 billion. There were no such discrepancies in this year’s Republican primaries.

Now 16 years after the theft of the presidency in Florida 2000, and a dozen since it was done again in Ohio 2004, the corporate media are approaching consensus that it is indeed very easy to strip millions of legitimate citizens from the voting rolls, and then to hack electronic voting machines and computerized central tabulators to flip the official final outcome.

The threat to this year’s election does not come from non-existent armies of mythological hordes voting multiple times. It comes from the private partisan companies with their secret proprietary software that control the voter rolls, the electronic machines, and ultimately the final outcome at all levels of government. The mega-corporations are the ones that flipped George W. Bush into the White House and Hillary Clinton into the Democratic nomination, not to mention manipulating countless Senate, House, and state and local elections along the way.

For a hopelessly vulnerable electronic election system which is flawed, hackable and riggable from top to bottom, there is just one solution: transparent unhackable voter rolls, and universal hand-counted paper ballots open to public scrutiny from the precinct level to the final official tallies, as dutifully reported by our slowly awakening corporate media.



Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of The Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election Theft, available at www.freepress.org and www.solartopia.org, where Bob’s Fitrakis Files and Harvey’s Solartopia! can also be found.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+66 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-07 12:26
Thank you Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman!

THIS ARTICLE ABSOLUTELY NAILS THE CURRENT SITUATION, THE SORDID HISTORY OF OUR FAKE "ELECTIONS" FOR THE PAST 16 YEARS AND THE ONLY SOLUTION GOING FORWARD.

There is no issue more important today than fixing the scandal that is called American elections.

Both Fitrakis and Wasserman have been trying to get the attention of the American people to this absolute theft of our freedom since early in the Bush administration (not Bush the first…but Bush the worst!)
A treasure trove of their writings on this subject can be found on their website at
www.freepress.org
I had the honor of hosting Bob Fitrakis for an event regarding election theft some years ago at the Grand Lake Theater.
We all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude as well to other pioneers who tirelessly researched and were ridiculed for trying to expose this national disgrace…

THANK YOU:

Bev Harris www.blackboxvoting.org
Brad Friedman www.bradblog.com
Mark Crispin Miller www.markcrispinmiller.com
Greg Palast www.gregpalast.com

Until we have free and absolutely verifiable elections we can never succeed in the progressive change that this country so desperately needs!
 
 
+50 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-07 12:43
It is unfortunate that any possible fix of the problem is too late for Bernie Sanders.

Bernie clearly was the favored candidate and I will believe until the day I die that he won in a landslide!

Any politician who would stoop so low as to accept a "win" that was the result of election theft deserves to spend the rest of his/her life in prison!
 
 
+43 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-07 12:49
…and because it can never be said enough…

HILLARY CLINTON IS NO MORE THE LEGITIMATE NOMINEE…

THAN

GEORGE W BUSH WAS A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT!
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-09-08 14:10
Quoting grandlakeguy:
…and because it can never be said enough…

HILLARY CLINTON IS NO MORE THE LEGITIMATE NOMINEE…

THAN

GEORGE W BUSH WAS A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT!

TRUMP AND JILL RAN UP A HILL TO FETCH A U-S- PRESIDENCY

TRUMP FELL DOWN AND BROKE HIS CROWN

AND JILL CAME BUMBLING AFTER
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-09-08 14:49
Quoting grandlakeguy:
…and because it can never be said enough…

HILLARY CLINTON IS NO MORE THE LEGITIMATE NOMINEE…

THAN

GEORGE W BUSH WAS A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT!

TRUMP AND JILL RAN UP A HILL TO FETCH A U.S. PRESIDENCY

TRUMP FELL DOWN AND BROKE HIS CROWN

AND JIOLL CAME BUMBLING AFTER
 
 
+34 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-07 13:08
However…IF WikiLeaks can find the Email evidence from the DNC and the Clintons that fully exposes the theft of the primary elections that robbed Bernie of the nomination then there is still a chance that Hillary Clinton could be forced to step down by enormous public pressure.
That turn of events would save the Democratic party from a very possible defeat of their coronated queen by Donald Trump.
Every day Hillary's unfavorables seem to rise!
 
 
+33 # LionMousePudding 2016-09-07 17:37
I believe that even if the mainstream and DNC and Democratic party and Obama all knew without a doubt that Hillary had completely stolen the primary, they would keep her as Democratic candidate; and would still treat her as a queen.
 
 
+17 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-07 17:59
I sincerely hope that you are wrong.

Perhaps worldwide ridicule would weigh in on that decision!
 
 
+7 # BlueMorpho 2016-09-08 02:17
@glg,
No. Unfortunate and outrageous though it would be, no. I doubt LMP is wrong.

Remember, they already know.
 
 
+8 # MainStreetMentor 2016-09-08 11:49
It’s true: Hand-counted, paper ballots are the only way to assure non-electronic vote tampering, along with up-to-date, accurate voter registration files. The latter brings up a very important issue, which needs to be immediately resolved. That issue is: Voter registration files are TOTALLY inaccurate, probably in the majority of states. Money provided to campaigns go to the candidates’ election funds – NOT to the up-keep and administration of political party records, and that includes voter registration files. Many of those files have never been updated to reflect voters who have passed away YEARS ago! Many political party “administrators ” are volunteers – who never get paid, and don’t have an incentive to help assure accuracy or timeliness. Death certificates are never married to voter registration files. Scheduled updates, at the state level, ONLY include new voters coming onto the voting/election process for the first time. Now, with the conservative legislators/gov ernors passing Voter ID laws (read voter suppression laws here!) the voter files are in an even bigger mess. Political parties MUST be required to update and maintain accuracy for all voter files every year if we are to have any chance at all in eliminating voter/election problems.
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-09-08 16:46
I don't think that political parties should have the power to maintain voter rolls. The two "major" parties are corrupt to the core. Just look at what they did in New York earlier this year. Even Mayor de Blasio stated the 130,000 registered Democrats scrubbed from the roll in just King County alone were "targeted," and not randomly deleted.

I think independent consortiums with government oversight should be responsible.
 
 
+3 # Patriot 2016-09-10 02:16
Mentor, to the best of my knowledge, county--a branch of state government--cou nty employees register voters and maintain voter rolls; political parties do not have anything to do with that. Political parties don't scrub voters, or verify registration, or anything like that.

County or state employees (in my state, that's Election Commission employees) do the scrubbing, at the direction of Secretary of (each) State or Election Commissioner--a lthough I am not so naive as to doubt that the parties put a fist on the scale from time to time. cough cough
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-09-10 16:22
States vary, but in New York and Illinois, it was DNC and RNC leaders who scrubbed the voter rolls.
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2016-09-10 16:30
"Many political party “administrators ” are volunteers – who never get paid, and don’t have an incentive to help assure accuracy or timeliness":

On the contrary, # MainStreetMento r.

From 30 years experience working with fellow Democratic precinct officers, I can assure you that volunteers ARE volunteers because of their passion for getting elections right.

It's the folks who get do politics for money that I would worry most about.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2016-09-10 22:25
I don't see how clinton could possibly steal the election WITHOUT the collusion of the DNC, MSM and DP.
 
 
-18 # Thomas0008 2016-09-07 19:26
I wish I could believe Bernie was for real. I do not. How can he support the criminal hillary, after all that happened, and still be real? It makes no sense... He just gave up, kinda like gore... Again, how can he give up in the face of such blatant criminality?
 
 
-2 # Dave_s Not Here 2016-09-07 20:09
Somebody made him an offer he couldn't refuse?
 
 
+8 # kundrol 2016-09-07 20:22
Right like the CIA took him in the back room and told him what would happen if he didn't support the DNC's fraudulent choice.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-09-08 16:48
Let's ask Seth Rich if he knows anything about that sort of thing.
 
 
+26 # maindrains 2016-09-07 21:22
Look what happened when Trump said the elections were rigged; he was treated to un limited scorn/conspirac y theory assessment etc etc... Turns out however that he was right. Bernie, if he had quibbled with the result of the primaries without proof would just have been dismissed as a sore loser. Now there seems to be proof... will the MSM pick up on it?
 
 
+16 # lfeuille 2016-09-07 23:27
There isn't proof at this point. There is ample reason for an investigation, but the Justice Dept. won't undertake it.
 
 
+11 # lfeuille 2016-09-07 23:25
Simple. He's more afraid of Trump than he is of her. I don't agree, but you have to admit trump gives people plenty of reason to worry.
 
 
-3 # Thomas0008 2016-09-08 16:33
Yay, I did it again. I spurred the itch in a few of the bernie deniers. Not surprising considering all the obama deniers pretty much did and do the same thing. Gotta keep spurring the itch, ifin we are ever going to get thru this mess !!!
 
 
+24 # economagic 2016-09-07 19:23
"Until we have free and absolutely verifiable elections we can never succeed in the progressive change that this country so desperately needs!"

And of course that is the reason that our elected representatives , and the people they actually represent, will continue making every effort to stonewall until they have a better system in place. It was Boss Tweed of Tamany Hall, the most pervasive and most powerful political machine from the mid-19th century almost until World War II, who said something to the effect of, "I count the votes. What are you going to do about it?"
 
 
+12 # Headzzzup 2016-09-08 07:18
The paperless trail voting machines are ALL owned and controlled by the Koch brothers.
Thanks to Robert Greenwald’s film Koch Brothers Exposed and Jane Mayer’s book Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, we now know a lot more about them, but not enough.
 
 
+5 # wrknight 2016-09-08 08:29
I'm going to be very unpopular with this one, but sobeit. As an election officer, which I have been for the past 10 years, I am very familiar with the election process here in Virginia. (I won't try to speak for other states, but I will defend our process here.) While it's possible to hack computers anywhere in the universe, the claims that our voting process is rigged is grossly exaggerated. It is not infallible, but it is relatively safe from significant amounts of tampering and/or fraud.

We have a paper ballot system with electronic scanners that count the votes. But if challenged ballots will be recounted manually by groups of people from both major parties and overseen by observers from both parties. Our ballot machines CANNOT be hacked by anyone because they are totally isolated and not connected to any network of any kind. They are fully tested by testers from both major parties before each election to ensure accuracy in counting votes. At the end of election day, election officers called the voting results into the election office by phone before the machines are removed from the polling place. The election results for each precinct are recorded and can be reviewed by anyone who suspects any kind of tampering. We have poll watchers from both parties at every step of the process who are more than willing to report any observed discrepancy. There is no step in the process that is not monitored by observers from both parties.
 
 
+9 # wrknight 2016-09-08 08:52
In addition to the above, I have never seen, nor have I ever met another election officer who has ever seen or known of anyone attempting to cast a vote fraudulently. I know that mistakes are made, and I know that it is impossible to completely avoid fraud. But I still believe the problem is grossly exaggerated.

Now I will go a step further and really piss off a bunch of readers.

From an election officer's point of view and that of an observer of American elections I find that voting fraud is a minor problem compared with the problem of the voting electorate that either fails to vote or blindly votes without vetting the candidates or issues.

In most elections, the majority of voters don't vote at all. Here in Virginia we have 2 elections every year and only once in 4 years will we see more than 50% (and not much more than that) come out and vote. (That's one election in 8.)

Over 90% of voters have a low approval rating of Congress, but re-elect their Congressmen year after year after year. Seldom is a Congressman defeated and that happens more often in the primaries than in the general election.

This year, we nominated two of the most unpopular candidates for president in history. Why? Because too many people didn't vote in the primary elections and those who did didn't effectively vet the candidates or didn't bother to think.

When it comes to elections, American voters are their own worst enemy.
 
 
+1 # wjkellpro@aol.com 2016-09-08 14:25
Also, media is undermining the legitimacy of US elections w/ misinformation abt Evoting Machine Security
http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/
 
 
+5 # Douglas Jack 2016-09-08 10:25
wrknight, RE: "no-step-in-the -process-that-i s-not-monitored -by-observers-f rom-both-partie s." The step-in-the-pro cess, which you are not grasping is "Proprietary-so ftware". Without verification access to public software programs, they can't be certified as tamper-free. Many levels destroy the validity of mock elections.

Proof that voting machines can be flipped Harvey Wasserman on Electronic Voting Machines without verification interviewed by Democracy-Now Amy Goodman 23Feb’16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvF213popIA
Video Transcript: http://justicegazette.org/bernie-defrauded-in-ca.html
TrustVoteDotOrg Lawsuit 6Jun’16 Voting manipulation evidence Bob Fitrakis PhD JD, Cliff Arnebeck JD & Lori Grace, Institute for American Democracy at Sunrise Center, Corte Madera, CA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IAJ5fAm3Cs
CA Poll Workers Being Misinformed. Video of poll worker Ashley Beck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW0bfSsdRbY
Lee Camp & Bob Fitrakis /c Cliff Arnebeck Lawsuit May Prove Election Fraud 9Jun’16 This Lawsuit Might End Hillary's Run & Prove Election Fraud! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibK4de85IKw
Bev Harris, Andy Stephenson, Kathleen Wynne Hacking Democracy, Diebold Pres. Robert Urosevitch, Sequoia, ESS, http://www.blackboxvoting.org 16Feb’12, Dr. Avi Rubin Technical Director, Information Security Institute, John Hopkins University Feb’03, 1h22m , Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D.Ohio), Senator Barbara Boxer https://youtu.be/eFJeVsOy5Xo
 
 
0 # wrknight 2016-09-08 11:09
I'm sorry Doug, but you obviously have not participated in the process. The software is checked and double checked for accuracy in tabulating the vote count by county employees from both major political parties before the machines are delivered to the polling places. Sample testing is performed after the election to make sure that manual counts are the same as the machine counts. The paper ballots are retained for manual re-counting if anyone suspects a discrepancy. Official poll results are compared with exit polls by both parties and anyone who believes there is a problem can request a re-count. In no known instance has a manual re-count differed from the machine count.

Bottom line of this is that armchair critics should investigate the facts instead of speculating or listening to rumors.
 
 
+3 # wrknight 2016-09-08 11:23
Furthermore, Doug, if you still don't believe me, here's my offer. I invite you to come and observe the process as a poll watcher from beginning to end including testing before and after elections as well as the voting process itself on election day. (Plan to spend about two weeks.) In addition, if you can find and prove any serious discrepancy whatsoever, I will cheerfully refund reasonable travel expenses including air fare, accommodations and meals.
 
 
+4 # Douglas Jack 2016-09-08 13:42
wrknight, I've been an election worker in various positions of responsibility for 6 Canadian municipal, provincial & federal elections over my 63 years. Of course most Canadian elections have reverted to verifiable paper ballots.

I recognize the great diversity in recent times for electoral processes including computerized voting. I appreciate that the processes in your electoral districts may meet some standards, but with the crisis of mostly unverifiable voting processes, I suggest your electoral district employ Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis or others who have found many procedural & system flaws. Any electoral district should be willing to have the results of such 3rd party research, published.
 
 
-4 # wrknight 2016-09-08 15:47
I don't think we need to employ anybody because I am confident enough that we do enough to ensure the integrity of our system. You are the doubter. So you come and prove me wrong. My offer still stands.
 
 
+5 # Douglas Jack 2016-09-09 07:53
wrknight, RE: "we do enough to ensure the integrity of our system."
Frighteningly large statement if you're talking about all US electoral processes. Above I give video-web-links to multiple tests of electoral systems, voting machines finding it criminally impaired.

Between state comparison based on 2016 used voting procedures (Sanders-Clinto n & 2008 (Obama-Clinton) Democratic Party Primary for Presidency of USA, 7Jun’16 Axel Geijsel, Tilburg University,Neth erlands, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, Stanford University – U.S.A. 1st, we show that it's possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing states that have hard paper evidence of all placed votes to states that don’t have this hard paper evidence. 2nd, we compare final results in 2016 to discrepant exit polls. 3rd, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. In states wherein voting fraud has highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0/view?pref=2&pli=1

Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1/77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies Applying various statistical models to subsets of 2016 primary voting data 18Jun’16 http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-hillary-won-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/
 
 
+5 # Douglas Jack 2016-09-09 08:12
Continued Stanford Voting Discrepancy Studies

Stanford Study Shows Serious Voting Discrepancies Alexandra Jacobo 10Jul’16 In Louisiana, Clinton performed 12% better than pre-election polls showed. Republican primary didn’t show deviation. http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/07/10/new-stanford-study-shows-serious-voting-discrepancies-favor-clinton/

Guccifer 2.0 Leak Reveals How DNC Rigged Primaries for Hillary Clinton didn’t win Democratic primaries through democratic means, Michael Sainato • 17Jun’16 http://observer.com/2016/06/guccifer-2-0-leak-reveals-how-dnc-rigged-primaries-for-clinton/
 
 
0 # Patriot 2016-09-10 02:27
Douglas, he was tlking about Virginia elections; I have written the same thing about elections in Fayette County, KY--don't know about any other place.
 
 
0 # wjkellpro@aol.com 2016-09-08 14:27
All misinformation abt Evoting Machine Security!
US courts have ruled NOT insecure U need 2 read more:
http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/
 
 
-3 # wjkellpro@aol.com 2016-09-08 14:32
Don't believe the BUNK! US courts have ruled scary testimony abt Evoting Machine Security is misinformation
http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/
 
 
+32 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-07 15:43
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT FOR LOCAL RSN READERS IN THE BAY AREA:

Tonight, Wednesday Sept 7 the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, Ca. is proud to host the Bay Area premiere of Greg Palast's new film:
The Best Democracy That Money Can Buy
followed by a Q & A with Greg Palast

All proceeds will be applied to benefit KPFA and the production costs of the film.
The theater space has been donated for this event.

Details can be found at www.grandlaketheater.com
 
 
+3 # Thomas0008 2016-09-07 19:29
Why did they advertise this showing, with RFK Jr. being there to also speak? I just learned about three hours before start time, that RFK Jr. will not be there. Yet they advertised it, with him being one of the speakers.
 
 
+14 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-08 00:57
RFK Jr. did not make it but no one seemed to mind.(He was in the film, perhaps that is what you heard. I did not ever hear that he was coming to the event.)
It was a fantastic sold out event with over 600 in the audience and many more turned away for lack of seating.
The film was preceded with a short appearance By Dennis Bernstein host of FLASHPOINTS on Pacifica Radio, and then a funny routine by Will Durst.

The movie was fantastic and Greg Palast received a standing ovation at the end.

Be sure to see it when you get the chance if you care about your right to vote.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-09-08 17:12
I'm thrilled your showing was a success, but very disappointed I wasn't able to make it myself.

Thank you again for all you've done, and are still doing for progressive change.
 
 
+18 # Anonymot 2016-09-07 17:45
A crystal clear article that disgraces both parties and a nation too slothful to clean up the mess.

On the Democratic side, if it wasn't Sanders who cheated, who was it? Oh, maybe the Russians did it.
 
 
+18 # jimallyn 2016-09-07 21:28
I'll tell you who it was that cheated. It was Hillary Clinton and her little poodle dog Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
 
 
+8 # Annette Saint John Lawrence 2016-09-08 03:47
Quoting jimallyn:
I'll tell you who it was that cheated. It was Hillary Clinton and her little poodle dog Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Quoting jimallyn:
I'll tell you who it was that cheated. It was Hillary Clinton and her little poodle dog Debbie Wasserman Schultz.


How right you are. Hillary & Debbie were in cahoots on the shunning of Bernie. America sell itself as the best, richest, free society, etc. What America sell is pure Propaganda.
 
 
+32 # seakat 2016-09-07 17:46
I work at a state institution, we have what is known as records retention for out documents and even email correspondence.

It offends me to think that ballots aren't protected by this some sort of records retention rules.
 
 
+6 # seakat 2016-09-07 17:47
Failed proof reading, should read 'our documents'.
 
 
+16 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-07 17:57
Hi seakat, it is very easy to correct, add or change your comment on this website.
Just click back onto the pad and pen icon and you cam make the correction.
No one else can access your comments but you.
 
 
+22 # economagic 2016-09-07 19:25
At least it OCCURRED to you to proof read, making you a member of an elite minority!
 
 
+33 # Lolanne 2016-09-07 18:15
AT LAST! Some of us have been screaming about these damn voting machines since they first came out, as well as the systematic disenfranchisem ent that has been happening since. There were WAY too many reports, especially in swing states, of voting anomalies that put Dumbya in the White House - not once but twice! Why oh why did it take the media this long to wake up to what has been happening???? Oh, never mind - I know: it's because their corporate owners wouldn't let them wake up! "Follow the money" has never been more true.
And it is NOT too late to correct this mess for this year's election! I know it won't happen, but it certainly COULD happen if the political will were there to make it happen. I so wish there were a way to put enough pressure on gov't to force it to change this abysmal situation before Nov. Any ideas out there?
 
 
+30 # Radscal 2016-09-07 18:19
Why did the Democratic Party do nothing? Many of us have been pleading with them for years.

And obviously, it's already "too late to correct this mess for this year's election!"

Unless, as GLG notes, the public forces the DNC to admit that Sanders won the nomination and gives us a chance to vote for the legitimate candidate who would cream Drumpf, and sweep the most progressive candidates down ticket into office on his coat tails.
 
 
-8 # ericlipps 2016-09-08 05:06
Quoting Radscal:
Why did the Democratic Party do nothing? Many of us have been pleading with them for years.

And obviously, it's already "too late to correct this mess for this year's election!"

Oh, and about "creaming" Trump: despite the latest heart-flutter among Hillary-haters about one poll which shows Trump ahead of Clinton for the moment (and which is considered an outlier), election analysts state that Clinton is far ahead in electoral-colle ge delegates

Unless, as GLG notes, the public forces the DNC to admit that Sanders won the nomination and gives us a chance to vote for the legitimate candidate who would cream Drumpf, and sweep the most progressive candidates down ticket into office on his coat tails.

I hate to have to keep saying this, but even Sanders' wife acknowledges that whatever problems there may have been, Bernie lost fair and square.

And as far as "creaming" Trump is concerned, despite the latest heart-flutter on right ad left alike over a single poll showing Trump ahead in popularity, most election analysts note that if the election were held today Hillary would win in an electoral-colle ge blowout.

That must be terrible news to those who want the Democrats whipped to their knees for not anointing Bernie Sanders as their nominee.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-09-08 16:37
Yes, I know that Bernie has refused to support investigations into the election fraud, and Jane has dismissed it. Many of us were quite concerned during the Primaries that he wasn't challenging, or even mentioning almost any of it.

I also know that neither you, nor any of the HRC supporters I've ever met has actually examined the evidence and provided any viable explanation.
 
 
+12 # Littlebird 2016-09-08 03:05
I don't know if it is too late, but if those voters who want a paper ballot, will write to their governors and voice their demands that paper ballots be used in the presidential election; we may be able to cause enough public outcry that it will have to be done in order to assure a legitimate vote count. It will take many, many protest and enough media coverage not to be ignored. Give it a try, what do we have to lose? We know the problem, we need to do something about it.
 
 
-6 # wjkellpro@aol.com 2016-09-08 14:30
US courts have ruled scary testimony abt Evoting Machine Security is misinformation
http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/
 
 
+15 # Douglas Jack 2016-09-07 19:09
Thanks for itemizing issues & providing web links to election fraud, vote rigging etc. There's no democracy without voter paper-trail receipt & verification procedures.

We suffer a long line of colonial dysfunctional trickle-down submission to hierarchy, rigged to be systematic. European economic-ecolog ical refugees in obeisance to aristocrat oligarchs, destroyed 1st Nation balanced ecological Sylvalization (L 'sylva' = 'tree') resources & ECONOMIC-DEMOCR ACY cultivated over 10s of 1000s of years & shared so willingly with ragtag Europeans.

Some recognized how they're being milked & manipulated by hierarchies & joined as mixed-race with 1st Nations. By 1700 most settlers across the Americas were using Wampum & Quipu (South-America) forms of stringshell as their main economic value system. In panic oligarchs orchestrated a hemisphere wide burning of Wampum, Quipu records of Aztec Tenochtitlan, Inca Cuzco, Mayan, Mississippi Mound-City libraries etc. covering 1000s of years.

Intentional system & vote rigging for oligarch financial advantage won't change by passing laws. Citizens need to recapture their power from the tree-roots, through natural collective strengths in the Multihome-Dwell ing-Complexes where 70% of us presently live as well as organizing multistakeholde r participatory business account, investing time, resources, expertise, money, goods, services & other natural assets. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/8-economic-democracy
 
 
+30 # Dave_s Not Here 2016-09-07 20:06
"Ultimately, there is just one solution: universal hand-counted paper ballots, with carefully protected voter registration rolls, and a transparent chain of custody."

That seems to be working just fine for we Canadians.
 
 
+19 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-08 00:52
You are absolutely correct and there is still PLENTY OF TIME to print paper ballots!
 
 
+10 # Anonymot 2016-09-08 01:47
Remember Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland and co-author of the Patriot Act? He appointed a new Director of the TSA, who promptly signed a contract for the new full-body scanners Chertoff was selling. Chertoff immediately resigned, fat commission in hand. At the time there were rumblings about fraud, conflict of interest, etc., but nothing happened and TSA has bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of the scanners from Chertoff who now has a "security" lobbying company of his own in DC selling scanners to the world's airports.

The hi-tech voting machines probably have some Chertofflike ex-government employees selling their wares on the state level. It's more profitable than being a salesman for a printing company.
 
 
+7 # Dred Pierce 2016-09-08 03:56
That the MSM could know all the details of our corrupt electoral system and keep it quiet is grounds for their arrest and prosecution. The 'land of the free' is such a LIE. They should all be in prison from the top down. When the people's tribunals begin, the MSM will all rat each other out in a heartbeat. What a bunch of cowards who intentionally lie and mislead in the disguise of bringing the NEWS. The news really is that it is time for these fascist pigs to rot in some isolation cell in maximum security. The MSM is probably the greatest security risk we face.
 
 
+5 # ericlipps 2016-09-08 05:05
Voting machines were introduced in the first place because paper ballots were notoriously vulnerable to fraud (boxes of ballots disappearing is only one issue). If such machines are used, they should be carefully monitored; private companies refusing to allow examinations of these devices and their computer code should raise a red flag.
 
 
+11 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-08 09:53
The red flags have been waving since the machines were put into place. They exist for one reason only and that is election theft.
Every European country that bought those devices have long since JUNKED THEM!
 
 
+9 # futhark 2016-09-08 07:15
A major source of the problem of substituting paper ballots for electronically counted votes is the perceived demand that the election results be made known in the shortest possible time. It is far more important that the results are accurately reported than that they are available within a few minutes after the polls close. In a presidential contest, the popular votes don't have to be counted for well over a month. What's the rush?
 
 
+12 # grandlakeguy 2016-09-08 09:54
Countries that use hand counted paper votes have results within a day!
 
 
-3 # RobertMStahl 2016-09-08 07:20
Accounting is a first-person paradigm, changing!
 
 
0 # wjkellpro@aol.com 2016-09-08 13:53
Get the whole story - The media is undermining the legitimacy of US elections w/ misinformation about Security of Evoting Machines
http://internetvotingforall.blogspot.com/
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
 
 
-2 # Robbee 2016-09-08 16:05
do we sense a concensus here on rsn?
 
 
-3 # csbrudy 2016-09-09 10:05
The only way: Universal registration, over four feet tall or ID. Vote only in precinct on election day, with absentees restricted as they were in the 50s. Vote on paper ballots placed in ballot box. Immediately after the polls close, open polling place to the public, ballots counted in the polling room.
Bingo, the precinct members themselves guarantee an honest count. Video tape everything.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-09-09 18:13
Not everyone can make it to a polling station on one specific day during open hours. A 4-day weekend of polling would solve most of those problems, plus it would reduce the issue of election results on the East Coast being released before voters on the West Coast have voted.
 
 
-2 # Votekeeper 2016-09-09 12:19
As an accredited election administrator, and a member of several election integrity advocacy groups,I agree that we should keep up the drumbeat for transparency in vote counting and voter list maintenance. The authors are correct that the only way to know the true vote count is by manually counting votes on paper ballots, as is the practice of Canada, the UK, and most of Europe. However, I am shocked that the authors would buy into the amateurish research and invalid conclusions published in the two studies cited. Correlation is not causation, and every political scientist should know this. Although the machines are vulnerable to tampering,for anyone to expect a massive nationwide conspiracy to succeed is just unrealistic. Somebody always talks. That happened in 2004. So far nothing similar has happened in 2016. In the "Election Justice USA" report, the first part is an inventory of voter complaints about the appalling practices in many states that are still violating the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act. Due to lack of enforcement of these laws, these same voter complaints are repeated, election after election, in reports from the National Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The second part presents charts of discrepancies between the Edison exit polling data and the vote counts. But the authors are avowed Sanders partisans and fail to advance or properly test an objective scientific hypothesis.
 
 
+4 # PCPrincess 2016-09-10 09:59
The discrepancies in the exit polls alone is enough for ANYONE, whether they had a personal preference or not, to determine there was a major problem with the democratic party nominating process; ANYONE who is able to be honest with themselves, that is. You have seen those exit polls, yes?

Not only that, but the exit polls were so far from what is acceptable that the 'networks' suddenly, and without notice, decided to do away with exit polls for California and I believe eight or so other states that voted on the same day.

I'm a college graduate with a B.S.; I took my chem and physics classes, and I know quite well about being impartial with respect to scientific results. But, really? If we need to bend over backwards to say that we can't make some assumptions based on exit poll discrepancies skewed as much as those in the democratic primaries, then it appears that science is being used as a cover for what any reasonable person can determine.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-09-10 18:01
And in those 11 States in which HRC "won" despite exit polls being well beyond the margin of error compared to official results, the Republican votes, held in the same polling stations had NO discrepancies.
 
 
0 # tomslockett 2016-09-10 15:58
As a former Commissioner of Elections for 36 years now retired I agree with the need for paper ballots. I'd suggest amending your proposal to hand countable paper ballots, for many reasons.

The majority of poll workers are quite old. Many eyes are poor, hands shaky, stamina on the wane and they are slow. We found hand counting--even when limited to hand counting one race only--to be far more accurate with today's scanners than hand counting. Placing each candidate's votes in piles of ten and cross hatching the piles did not make it possible for these dedicated and hard working folks to reliably get the same number twice. The scanners were right on the money and when they weren't terribly marked ballots could be found for which poll workers were uncertain for whom the voter intended to cast their ballot.

The count for the large number of candidates and ballot measure on U.S. ballots would be terribly slow. Even if only Presidential Candidate ballots were counted we also have multiple party, nonparty political organization candidates and candidates nominated by petition. So you can forget about election night returns if ballots are hand counted.

Practical reasons also complicate the picture. If voters cannot vote and at the end of the day turn on the TV and see the results voter interest would take a hit and our already terrible turnouts would be even worse. The biggest costs on Election Day, by far, are poll workers.
 
 
0 # tomslockett 2016-09-10 15:59
In Iowa, where the polls are open from 7am to 9pm to accommodate factory workers and farmers taking advantage available daylight or who need to go home and feed the kids, then take turns going to the polls while one spouse babysits. Many cannot afford addition child care expense on their already stretched budgets. Iowa has on-day-registra tion requiring one or more ID's depending on whether they have a picture I.D. with an expiration date, early voting for 40 days, and provisional ballot laws. Half the voters now vote early. Early voters who have been notified of errors on required forms invalidating their ballot by not providing required signatures on oaths or they did seal their ballot so that it could not have been altered or voted by someone else after it left their hands, and if they have not taken care of the problem can as a last resort turn their ballot in and vote at the polls. If the dog ate it they can sign additional oathes and vote a provisional ballot. But it cannot be counted until it is verified that their original ballot did not arrive in the mail, they did not vote at a satellite site or turn in their voted ballot there, their spouse did not mail it or turn it in and they did not vote at the polls. As a last resort they can vote at the polls like everyone else if they turn in their spoiled or unvoted ballot, or if not taken oaths, signed appropriately and sealed it to be processed after checks have been made to insure no voter can vote twice.
 
 
0 # tomslockett 2016-09-10 17:23
Poll workers arrive early and stay late to meet legal requirements documenting seals on ballots and equipment to account for every single ballot that arrived at the polls and each one that was returned to the office. As a result most of these mostly elderly poll workers put in a 17 hour day by the time they leave polling places.

Why hire the elderly? For one reason only. Extensive efforts to recruit younger people from high schools, two and four year colleges and universities and at workplaces via mail, media, and word of mouth often ended in desperate last minute media appeals for additional poll workers. It's not that we don't want to hire the elderly. But we try to hire a more representative age group but were unable to do so. Precincts, by Iowa law can not be out of balance by party by more than one. This significantly reduces the pool of available poll workers in election jurisdictions with heavily blue or red voters and limits the ability to use the best workers. So the poll workers at your precinct are the stand-up citizens who are willing and able take the time to devote to training for all these tasks, and more. Although oftentimes slower than younger poll workers we found them to be significantly more reliable. We could invariably count on them to show up and stay on the job. They also learned to document tamper proof seals on voting equipment, ballots, and ballot transportation containers, and to quickly set up multiple computers, printers and ballot scanners.
 
 
0 # tomslockett 2016-09-10 17:31
A separate system with a headset provided a verbal ballot and the ability to utilize a sipping device for those who can't use their hands or feet, vote, then receive their own secret ballot. Some people don't want their spouse to assist them and know how they voted. Imagine that :) They can verify that their ballot was printed & voted as intended, if able, or have a person of their choice or two poll workers, one from each party, verify it for them, all documented by forms proving they requested assistance. The voter can then put the ballot in the scanner like everyone else or have their assistant do it. Multiple laptops are used as an electronic poll book to process voters, print the needed forms required by each individual voter from the myriad of them required by law to be made available to them. Operation of an extensive laptop software program must be learned to do these things as well make sure each voter gets the correct ballot. Many precincts have voters that require a ballot with different candidates and/or ballot question(s) depending on the district for their address. If even one of these tasks is not done properly and the vote is close enough, they will read about it on the front page of newspapers and see themselves on breaking news screens in their election jurisdiction and possibly nationwide if a congressional race or the presidential race is close enough. They had to sometimes deal with rude or difficult people and be able to function in stressful situations.
 
 
0 # tomslockett 2016-09-10 17:51
Hand counting ballots in a large precinct would require elderly workers to work through the night and into the morning light of the next day. This would be a physical impossibility for many and qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. And the accuracy of the hand count under these conditions? From experience I can tell you unlike with machine counts the same result could not be produced twice.

This would significantly increase the already enormous costs of the election for local governments with tight budgets and strained resources, whether in additional hours worked, hiring and training additional workers, or some combination of the two.

Another aspect of no longer having election night returns is the voters would never stand for it and legislators pay attention to poll workers. It goes without saying it is a near certainty that these voters will actually vote.

Then there is the cliche that a politician should never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. Take the election night returns away from the newspapers and media, the folks with the satellite trucks lining the streets. As my dad said about the army, they can't make you do anything but they can sure make you sorry you did it.

Voting is nothing like it used to be when hand counts were ubiquitous before the lever voting machines began replacing them more than 100 years ago. And for good reason. We're never going back nor should we.
 
 
0 # tomslockett 2016-09-10 18:19
But happily there is a solution almost as good that is totally doable and it is already operating in many places, and it is very close to having hand counted ballots. That is requiring the use of hand **countable** ballots preserved for an appropriate amount of time. Federal law already requires them to be preserved for 22 months for federal elections.

If the ballots are hand countable the incentive to corrupt election results is considerably diminished because they could be hand counted over a considerable period of time if procedures to do so are initiated or if ordered by a judge. this significantly increases the risk of being caught. Some local citizens pay close attention to and are familiar with election returns as well as local, state, and national media. If the numbers have been jimmied they will catch it and you can be certain a hand count would be invoked.

This is especially so because, remember, the vote totals are not known until after the polls close. So any scheme to manipulate the numbers enough to guarantee that a candidate wins would have to change the results significantly. Someone taking that much risk is likely to err on the side of changing them more in order to succeed than less and take the risk of both being caught plus the risk of failing to change the results. And whether they have actually been changed or not, the hand countable ballots can be hand counted and concerns can resolved as to what was the case.
 
 
0 # tomslockett 2016-09-10 18:54
My apologies for the long winded posts on this important topic of the integrity of the voting process. I believe the public is looking for ways to reform the process. Let's not waste the opportunity on good intentions that will likely backfire by providing opponents with the necessary ammunition to defeat the legislation that would be required and discourage those taking an interest and making the effort to accomplish something important.

I have tried dispel any naive notion that changes in election law will be easy and to point out that elections reform is not a no brainer and there are special interest opponents of reform out there whose motives are a far cry from those of the League of Women Voters.

Finally, appreciate your underpaid poll workers who have stepped up to the plate and are providing terrific public service in difficult circumstances. I loudly thank mine for the job they are doing after going to the polls and the face of every poll worker lights up. If you think you could do better there is a good chance you are right, and you are highly likely to get the chance to prove it. Check with your local election jurisdiction to find out how to apply. Most have applications on their web sites.
 
 
0 # tomslockett 2016-09-10 20:03
I'd like to conclude by daring to mention the third rail of elections administration: internet voting. It's simply not true that it can not be done securely, safely, accurately, and at enormous savings to the taxpayer while significantly lowering barriers to voting and making the process much more convenient.

Why hasn't it been adopted? Because the public is against it. That is not by coincidence. Recall I said earlier that elections are enormously expensive. The vendors produce and sell paper, ballot materials, print ballots, envelopes and postage, sophisticated and expensive voting machines and computer systems supplying and equipping elections offices, satellite voting locations and polling places nationwide. Their ubiquitous sales staffs have a presence, a voice and they make campaign contributions at the local, state, and national levels. The profits of newspapers, the media, and elections vendors are similarly threatened by the public's ever increasing preference for the convenience of Internet solutions.

Internet voting has not been stopped due to the tired old dodge of the purported lack of a technological solution for ballot integrity and security, a problem long resolved. Rather Internet voting has been blocked solely due to a lack of political will.
 
 
+2 # ralphlopez 2016-09-10 22:49
The time has come to hand count the ballots, in public, with observers! From the website:

http://HandCountTheBallots.blogspot.com

How to get a Hand Count the Ballots Law Passed in Your State

1. Get support. Get one or two other people to sign a letter saying HAND COUNT THE BALLOTS IN 2016 AND BEYOND. RESTORE REAL DEMOCRACY. Detail what you want: A law that mandates that in your state, ballots are always all counted by hand on election night, in public with public inspectors authorized to watch close and recount tallies, for as long as it takes to get a true count. We don't trust the machines anymore. Make an information packet (below) with all the key information. The state reps etc. respect it when you walk in looking like you've got your act together.

2. Once you've got a couple of other people to sign your letter (example below), you call to make an appointment. Send your packet to him/her by email in advance (the receptionist can give you an address.) Tell them you don't want to talk to some intern but the real guy. A state rep should not be too busy to meet with a constituent.

3. Ask him to circulate a letter to his colleagues, that is, all the other state reps, asking them to support such a law. That gets the ball rolling. The "Letter to Colleagues" is the work-horse of legislative politics. When you see you've got a few dozen signatures, tell them to put it to a vote. READ MORE AT HAND COUNT THE BALLOTS! http://HandCountTheBallots.blogspot.com
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN