[E-voting] Re: [European-evoting] Interesting ....

Catherine Ansbro cansbro at eircom.net
Mon Jan 21 15:58:17 GMT 2008

Good points, John.  It's important to get the facts first, before 
jumping to conclusions based on partial information.

To this I will add that for perhaps the first time, people on the ground 
are looking at the chain of custody of the ballots in a primary 
election.  What they are finding isn't pretty:

Boxes arriving at the counting centre with big slits in them
Boxes with "seals" that don't seal--that can be peeled off and reapplied 
like post-it notes
Boxes with crumpled, damaged "seals"
Boxes where you can remove the ballots out of the bottom, leaving the 
"seal" untouched (the bottom has no "seal" at all)
Boxes that have been used & reused and have multiple old labels and "seals"
Boxes that are supposed (by law) to be transported by state troopers, 
but in fact, year after year, are transported by "Hoppy" and 
"Butch"--and they don't even their real names.
Boxes that are supposed to go directly from the secure local polling 
stations to the central location for the recount, are driven instead to 
a mysterious rural crossroads rendezvous, at which, after a quick 
conversation, both parties drive off in different directions, aware that 
they are being videotapes
The few boxes that are metal can probably have the "seal" peeled off 
even more easily than the cardboard boxes
The formerly cooperative Secretary of State and other official in charge 
of the chain of custody of the ballots announce one schedule and 
protocol, then get very defensive and obstructive when observers want to 
observe (which they are legally allowed to do), and then the procedures 
are suddenly changed and ballots are left in an unsecured room instead 
of the secured vault that observers were originally shown

And I'm sure I'm omitting lots of gory details.  (Hints at connections 
to Boston mafia, which is quite close to NH and known to operate there. . .)
Oh yes, and all the state's voting machines--every one--is controlled, 
programmed, Logic &Accuracy tested (lip service), and maintained by one 
company, LHS associates.  That includes swapping in new memory cards in 
the middle of a live election.

It is not good, folks.  And NH is supposed to be really "clean" compared 
to other places.

Have a look for yourselves at this thread and some of the threads here: 

* And by the way, the big loophole in our own Irish voting system also 
happens to be the ballot transport stage.  It is supposed to be taken by 
Gardai.  However we should be pressing for the possibility of candidates 
or their observers to ride along.  There is no reason the Gardai should 
be given unsupervised access to ballot boxes. *   This is not to accuse 
any Gardai of wrongdoing.  It's just that this leap of faith should not 
be required at any stage of an election system.  It is asking for problems.


> Seeing patterns or coincidences in data sets without any rational 
> consideration of their likely correlation, or lack thereof, is pure 
> numerology. How can assertions like 'highly unusual' and 'remarkable' be 
> justified without some quantification of a chance occurrence?
> In any case, reporting stories many times removed from the original source 
> can lead to delays or distortion and indeed a check of the EDA website 
> shows that their data was updated a week ago and the so-called 
> 'remarkable' coincidence subsequently disappeared - more votes were 
> optically scanned than first thought.
> http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/new_hampshire_2008_primary_analysis

More information about the E-voting mailing list