READER COMMENTS ON

"CASTLE DEFEATS O'DONNELL IN DELAWARE!"

(48 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... mark fonda said on 9/15/2010 @ 2:38 pm PT...





can't share your stories on facebook. The links just come up as the links, as in https://bradblog.com/?p=8073#more-8073. Sucks. Can you fix this?

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/15/2010 @ 3:35 pm PT...





Mark - Not sure why that would be, but kill everything from the # sign on, since it's not needed and places folks into the middle of the story instead of up at the top. See if that helps.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Shortbus said on 9/15/2010 @ 4:15 pm PT...





I've always had that problem. Would love it if it also added the Picture as a thumbnail.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 9/15/2010 @ 4:56 pm PT...





Brad, can you add a Facebook "share" button to your up-vote menu? I *think* that would automatically include your headline and a thumbnail when we want to re-post / circulate you.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Rvrctyrdnck said on 9/15/2010 @ 7:15 pm PT...





Hey Karl I guess you shouldn't have offed Connell so soon!

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/15/2010 @ 8:53 pm PT...





JD - Yes, Ive been intending to. Just need to find the time to get to it. Tryin...

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... karen said on 9/15/2010 @ 9:03 pm PT...





@rvr - too funny, great one...I do wonder why Karl went off AFTER her election, I can't think he really cares about her character, and she might have a chance to win if he wasn't repeating bad things about..wonder what tne rea; inside reason for him to keep trashing her

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... art guerrilla said on 9/15/2010 @ 10:11 pm PT...





WHEN power elites rig elections, they often will muddy the waters in as many ways as they can to make the analysis of the results problematic...

(see: coup 2000, florida; or coup 2004, ohio)

whether palin would have direct knowledge of any rigging is doubtful, BUT she could certainly be induced or swayed to make her endorsements close to the election, so there is one more 'reason' why the election did not follow the polling...

art guerrilla

aka ann archy

artguerrilla@windstream.net

eof

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Les Wiley said on 9/15/2010 @ 11:24 pm PT...





Verifiable Paper-Based Absentee Results: CASTLE: 54.7% - O'DONNELL: 45.3% Unverifiable Election Day E-Voting Machine Results:

CASTLE: 46.7% - O'DONNELL: 53.3% Interesting note. Castle paper 54.7% minus O'Donnell E-voting 53.3% = 1.4% Castle E-voting 46.7% minus O'Donnell paper 45.3% = 1.4%

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... mateo said on 9/16/2010 @ 2:12 am PT...





ahh yes, i see you're alluding to the ole one-two flip technique. very elegant. no fuss. elementary. I'm a layman, but I imagine it would be far simpler than installing pac man on a DRE. and it's infuriating that we'll never know - nothing's verifiable and there is no record. Brad, another fine piece here.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Ghostof911 said on 9/16/2010 @ 4:33 am PT...





If the tally of votes for the candidates is rigged, there is no reason to believe the total number of votes isn't also rigged. In other words, there is no way of knowing what the actual voter turnout was.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Ghostof911 said on 9/16/2010 @ 4:51 am PT...





@9 - The N (total number) of absentee votes is known. The actual N of the machine votes is not known with any certainty, so extrapolations of the sort that you suggest are not possible.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Benjamin said on 9/16/2010 @ 5:46 am PT...





I think true patriots at this point should be demanding NON PARTICIPATION IN ELECTIONS. We need "Keep Home the Vote" drives, with the message that voting in elections that can't be verified is an act of treason against democracy. We need people standing the required distance from voting stations shouting DON'T VOTE, IT'S RIGGED!

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 9/16/2010 @ 5:52 am PT...





Comment @11 "If the tally of votes for the candidates is rigged, there is no reason to believe the total number of votes isn't also rigged. In other words, there is no way of knowing what the actual voter turnout was." I know that in every election that I have worked and that I have cast a ballot, that we had to sign in before we were allowed to vote. All we had to do is count up the signatures, and we knew the turnout.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 9/16/2010 @ 6:01 am PT...





Comment #12 "@9 - The N (total number) of absentee votes is known. The actual N of the machine votes is not known with any certainty, so extrapolations of the sort that you suggest are not possible." Are you saying that no one has to check in to vote? People just come and go, cast a ballot on the machine without being checked as to if they are even registered to vote?

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Nobody U. Know said on 9/16/2010 @ 7:15 am PT...





While I definitely believe electronic voting is a serious problem, in this case I think that the humping O'Donnell has received from FOX Party headquarters could have accounted for this late surge.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 9/16/2010 @ 7:17 am PT...





Comment #8, "(see: coup 2000, florida; or coup 2004, ohio)" What are you taking about?

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Gabriel said on 9/16/2010 @ 9:30 am PT...





With the not too subtle hints from the 'baggers and their fave Amendment (#II), could the cries for "lock and load" be far behind the midterm elections should the machines pre-dispose the electorate back to sanity?

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... cdt3 said on 9/16/2010 @ 10:41 am PT...





Liberals have to wake up. These guys want you to NOT vote because of the stolen ballots. They have a chance to flip an election if it is close. When Obama won, it was not close, so they couldn't fix it. You have to vote. No matter if they steal your vote or not. We have no chance if you do not try. Liberals have always gone through the conservatives trying to keep liberals from voting, like women or minorities kept away. This is why the right to vote is so important no matter the conflict. We do have to keep trying to get rid of the unverifiable voting counts. But too many American liberal voters have been injured or even died to fix an election for conservatives.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Adam Fulford said on 9/16/2010 @ 11:16 am PT...





... cdt3 wrote... They have a chance to flip an election if it is close. When Obama won, it was not close, so they couldn't fix it. What? They haven't adjusted the algorithm yet?

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 9/16/2010 @ 12:30 pm PT...





Mark DA ~ "Are you saying that no one has to check in to vote? People just come and go, cast a ballot on the machine without being checked as to if they are even registered to vote?" I'm not surprised you're confused...again.

Others here are probably more capable (and willing)to school you on the history of botched math of electronic poll books / state databases, who meddles with them (usually the state or the vendor or both)and when, and why they're completely FUBAR as records of the veracity of any numbers associated with voter rolls. and "I know that in every election that I have worked and that I have cast a ballot, that we had to sign in before we were allowed to vote. All we had to do is count up the signatures, and we knew the turnout." Bully for you. Do you then do any follow-up to see if: the number of signatures in your pollbook matches the number of voters in your precinct in your county's "official results" ? Do you know what voting system you use? Who is the vendor? Do they also supply the software that handles your state's electronic voter database?

What is their record for accuracy in other elections? If so, then thank you and I mean that in all sincerity despite my wink/nudge superiority complex brought on by your comically self-assured stances on everything no matter how little you actually know.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 9/16/2010 @ 12:57 pm PT...





Benjamin @ 13 ~ Boycotting the vote is a counter-productive, destructive, uninformed idea that has been floated here more than once, and is never taken seriously for many, many, many, many reasons. Here are just a couple: 1.) Suggesting we abstain from voting as protest against the very people who *DON'T WANT US VOTING* is about the dumbest rollover suicide strategy I've ever heard of. 2) is ignorant of one of the only mathematical advantages we have in this fight:

TURN OUT. It's all we got. The now famous HURSTI hack (featured in HBO's emmy-award nominated doc HACKING DEMOCRACY) proves it. Only a small percentage of votes can be diverted electronically (or erased completely) without causing huge disparities in the voter turnout / vote ratio (something Mark Da isn't alone in being completely unaware of). Brad (and Bev Harris and a handful of other election integrity heros) have reported impossible numbers from election after election; machine "failures", and "glitches" that (regularly) produce more votes than voters, more voters than votes... and only a few of us ever seem to notice that impossible elections are happening right under our noses...printed as stolen in statistics in every newspaper and on every website...if only any one ever bothered to look. If we can get the voter turn out INCREASED, the chances are much greater that any manipulation of the results will be more widely recognized, even if it's NEVER reported by anyone but Brad. It's all very easy info to dismiss, because it's very hard to understand - until it's YOUR vote that disappears down the rabbit hole. 3) ...people have suffered and died, are dying, and *will* die for what's left of your right to vote. So get your ass off the couch and participate, once a year, in your democracy. It's a dire, most important civic duty because the road to it is paved in blood and stone and it's the least you can do for the residual spirits of the sacred American dead. 4.) If Brad (and others) can continue to tirelessly advocate for public oversight of our own elections, as the accuracy of our vote count is the right that comes before all others, then the least we can do is show up. ...doncha think? But I do agree that we need "people standing the required distance from voting stations with signs"...yes. Do that, won't you? WHILE telling folks why it matters to be there.

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/16/2010 @ 3:25 pm PT...





the following is a copy and paste from bev @ bbv....it is in response to mark da sharks statement that because every1 signs(used to be a poll book more than likely now is a card)..............

Consultants examining the Aug. 5 Shelby County election found 3,221 more votes than voters on documents provided by Shelby County elections officials pursuant to a court order. Most voterless votes were found in large Republican precincts, a non-random distribution. The inspection team sought and obtained documents in connection with a lawsuit filed by ten defeated candidates over irregularities in the election. FOUR KINDS OF INFORMATION ARE NEEDED TO AUTHENTICATE AN ELECTION:

1. Who can vote (the voter list)

2. Who did vote (the list of participating voters)

3. Were votes cast the real ones (chain of custody)

4. Was the counting accurate (public verification of the count) Shelby County admitted that they installed an invalid voter list in Election Day electronic poll books, altering #1 (WHO CAN VOTE). The list said thousands of people could not vote because they had already voted, even though they had not voted. Shelby County withheld the list of WHO DID VOTE (#2 ) until ordered by the court to produce it. When consultants analyzed the list of who did vote, they found names missing for 3,221 votes counted in the final certified results. Shelby County computer logs show uploaded invisible data from 16 polling places the day before the polls opened. The premature uploads were done out of public view, and no testing procedure or work order record matches documents the uploads of invisible votes into the central tally machine, raising questions on WHETHER VOTES COUNTED WERE THE REAL ONES(#3). #4, COUNTING OF THE VOTE: Shelby County declined to provide precinct results after the election and even after they certified the results; Elections Administrator Richard Holden stated in front of a court reporter on Aug. 16 that it was not possible to produce them, a misrepresentation to the court, but the inspection team discovered copies of precinct results reports sitting on Shelby County computers. The results had been there since Aug. 6. Shelby County precinct results ("Statement of Votes Cast" or "SOVC") do not match the list of participating voters.//////////////////////////////// the point is bev and team had to sue for the list of who voted and low and behold...there were more votes than voters...so just because peops sign on the line when they vote doesnt mean the "results" are accurate...it does not even mean the number of votes is accurate and bev and her crew can only be so many places at once.....what we need is an open,transperant system and the only way that can happen is with paper ballots counted at the precincts(on camera and streamed on the net preferably)

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/16/2010 @ 3:42 pm PT...





hmmm i have nevr seen the "waiting for moderator message before" if this is a repeated post please excuse the following is a copy and paste from bev @ bbv....it is in response to mark da sharks statement that because every1 signs(used to be a poll book more than likely now is a card)..............

Consultants examining the Aug. 5 Shelby County election found 3,221 more votes than voters on documents provided by Shelby County elections officials pursuant to a court order. Most voterless votes were found in large Republican precincts, a non-random distribution. The inspection team sought and obtained documents in connection with a lawsuit filed by ten defeated candidates over irregularities in the election.

//////////////////////////// 4, COUNTING OF THE VOTE: Shelby County declined to provide precinct results after the election and even after they certified the results; Elections Administrator Richard Holden stated in front of a court reporter on Aug. 16 that it was not possible to produce them, a misrepresentation to the court, but the inspection team discovered copies of precinct results reports sitting on Shelby County computers. The results had been there since Aug. 6. Shelby County precinct results ("Statement of Votes Cast" or "SOVC") do not match the list of participating voters.//////////////////////////////// the point is bev and team had to sue for the list of who voted and low and behold...there were more votes than voters...so just because peops sign on the line when they vote doesnt mean the "results" are accurate...it does not even mean the number of votes is accurate and bev and her crew can only be so many places at once.....what we need is an open,transperant system and the only way that can happen is with paper ballots counted at the precincts(on camera and streamed on the net preferably)

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 9/16/2010 @ 4:46 pm PT...





Video clip from TV Station WREG / Memphis coverage backs up KarenfromIllinois' above post: http://www.wreg.com/news...findings,0,4133902.story

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... MicMac said on 9/16/2010 @ 6:03 pm PT...





You ought to take a look at the recent Alaska vote for Joe Miller while you are at it. His campaign finance reports a hefty 'contribution' from a well known vote cager - Washington Intelligence Bureau "on behalf of" etc etc etc Then he threw a hissy fit when Murkowski and the GOP looked like they were going to challenge the vote count. It would appear to me that Miller was poised to do some voter disenfranchisement action himself, should the election have been closer.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 9/16/2010 @ 9:41 pm PT...





Comment #21 and #22. Jeannie Dean remarked "I'm not surprised you're confused...again." Do you really think that a smartassed remark is going to make your argument? Really??? The fact is, I am not confused now, nor have I ever been confused on this blog. On the other hand, I have had to correct others, including Brad, several times. "Others here are probably more capable (and willing)to school you on the history of botched math of electronic poll books..." The discussion is about Delaware. I can't find a single cite to support a claim that Delaware used electronic poll books. Do you have a cite? The only thing that I can find shows that they do not. "VRM in the States: Electronic Poll-books Electronic Poll-books •California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington currently use electronic poll-books in at least one county within the state." http://www.brennancenter...rm_electronic_poll-books "Bully for you. Do you then do any follow-up to see if: the number of signatures in your pollbook matches the number of voters in your precinct in your county's "official results" ?" Did *I*? No, it was not my job. Did the election officials whose job it was do so. Yes. "Do you know what voting system you use?" At the time that I worked the elections, we used punchcard ballots. Currently, the county that I live in uses DREs. And before you make a fool of yourself, I have already contacted my representatives asking them to outlaw these machines. "Who is the vendor?" Punchcards, I don't remember. Currently, ES&S. "Do they also supply the software that handles your state's electronic voter database? What is their record for accuracy in other elections?" You are preaching to the choir. "If so, then thank you and I mean that in all sincerity despite my wink/nudge superiority complex brought on by your comically self-assured stances on everything no matter how little you actually know." The only thing comical here is your attempt to once again hide behind a smartass remark. "Only a small percentage of votes can be diverted electronically (or erased completely) without causing huge disparities in the voter turnout / vote ratio (something Mark Da isn't alone in being completely unaware of)." Oh please. You don't have a clue to what I know and what I don't know.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 9/16/2010 @ 10:06 pm PT...





Comment #23 "it is in response to mark da sharks statement that because every1 signs(used to be a poll book more than likely now is a card)............." The topic here is the State of Delaware, not Shelby County, TN. I have not make a blanket argument that the whole county signs a poll book, or as you point out, signs a card. I compared Delaware to my county. My county does not use an electronic poll book. As I pointed out in #27, I am not aware that Delaware uses electronic poll books. The only cite that I can find shows that they do not. http://www.brennancenter...rm_electronic_poll-books If you have a cite that proves otherwise, please post it.

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 9/16/2010 @ 10:23 pm PT...





@ Mark: I mentioned electronic poll books AND state databases, genius. ALSO from the Brennan Center: "Thanks to a 2002 federal law, every state now has (or soon will have) a computerized statewide voter registration database capable of sharing information in some form with other government databases..." http://www.brennancenter...ion_modernization_states Christ on a stick, son.

I DO have a clue what you do and don't know, because I READ you. Tho' every time I do I think "there's a whole two and half seconds of living I'll never get back..." I'm a *professional* smart ass, MdS.

You're getting all these juicy jabs for free.

...don't spot yourself, now.

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 9/17/2010 @ 6:19 am PT...





Comment #29, Honey, it is a lttle too late for you to try to say face. You have already shown us that you do not know all the facts about the Delaware election system. I responded to this NARROW point, "In other words, there is no way of knowing what the actual voter turnout was." On the contrary, in Delaware, there is a PAPER TRAIL to prove just how many people vote. "Delaware code, § 4937 (b) If it appears that the voter is properly registered, an election officer shall hand to the voter a voter signature card which the voter shall sign." http://delcode.delaware....15/c049/sc02/index.shtml Apparently, you were not aware of this fact, thus you tried to move the discussion to "electronic poll books AND state databases". Neither subject has anything to do with the point raised by the original poster. "I DO have a clue what you do and don't know, because I READ you." Honey, this is the second time that you have shown me that you can't even keep up with the subject at hand. If you can't keep up with a simple discussion, I highly doubt that you can "read me". "I'm a *professional* smart ass, MdS.

You're getting all these juicy jabs for free.

...don't spot yourself, now." One of these days, you may understand that smartassed remarks can't replace smarts. Trying to cover up your lack of knowledge with a smartass remark doesn't make you look educated, it makes you look silly. Thanks for the spot.

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/17/2010 @ 8:40 am PT...





jeanie dean @ 25,

ty for the local news video,bev is doing great work in memphis mark @ 28,i don't get ur attitude,i did not say anything about electronic poll lists(altho they also are a danger to our democracy) i simply showed you an example of a current case whr peops have signed something,perhaps a card perhaps a poll book, and when bev sued to get the "official" list of those compiled signatures they were thousands of names short of the votes the machines had "reported" since no one has checked that in del,we have no reason to KNOW that that the turn out reported is the actual turn out from your exchange with jeanie, "Bully for you. Do you then do any follow-up to see if: the number of signatures in your pollbook matches the number of voters in your precinct in your county's "official results" ?" Did *I*? No, it was not my job. Did the election officials whose job it was do so. Yes. how do you KNOW that the local official did their job? is it a trust thing? do you have any proof?

i bet the peops of memphis expected their local officials to do their job too i want an election system whr i trust nothing but my own 2 eyes and the math is simple enough for a 4th grader to check

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/17/2010 @ 8:55 am PT...





another thing,with the new reporting programs(see bbv middleman series)i think they can flip elections that are not close at all,i suspect that sc was a test case for that it is still important we turn out in huge numbers but the mathmatic tags may have changed.......this is why i keep saying,start counting precincts now before the nov vote example,lets say some precinct has 400 houses but 1300 voters registered...

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/17/2010 @ 10:57 am PT...





karenfromillinois @32 wrote: i think they can flip elections that are not close at all Nothing new in that. We've known since 2004 when Clint Curtis revealed to Brad Friedman that, in advance of the Bush/Gore contest, Tom Feeney asked Curtis to design undetectable, vote-flipping software, that malicious code can be inserted that can predetermine the outcome based on percentages of the vote. If you want candidate "X" to receive 51% of the vote and 100 people all vote for candidate "Y"--i.e. a landslide for "Y", the system will still inform us that candidate "X" beat candidate "Y" 51 - 49. If you do not have access to the actual code used to flip the votes on election day, you cannot "prove" that the machines flipped the vote, though you could potentially canvas every one of the 100 voters to ascertain how they voted. When he challenged Feeney, Curtis tried the later method when the DREs called an election for Feeney, but Congress rejected that approach.

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/17/2010 @ 12:17 pm PT...





ernie,

ty for ur response..i should of clarified my thoughts...what i meant to say is...now (with the middleman software)they can flip even a landslide elections w/o a mathmatical tag showing in the sos reporting(or at least not such an obvious tag)

obvious tags we have seen ovr the years included more votes than voters,votes showing up in precincts that were delibrately empty(ex. a spillway,green between highway)huge undervote totals, or as brad showed with time slicing...vote totals going backwards afterall if it was just a flip all the illegal entries bev has found in memphis wouldn't be necessary would they? see the trouble is after the vote is flipped,they have to break down whr(precincts)the vote is reported and that gets trickier... from my observation this middleman software under reports in some areas and greatly increases reporting in other areas and it does it with in the mathmatical parameters,that part is new,and since the votes are reported from florida(whr the company is located),no local person has to be involved at all if illinois turns red it will be because several repub counties have purchased this software in the last couple years

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/17/2010 @ 12:23 pm PT...





http://www.soesoftware.com/ this is the company that reported sc and will report a large number of downstate illinois counties in nov

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 9/17/2010 @ 1:38 pm PT...





Karen #30. "mark @ 28,i don't get ur attitude," I give back exactly what I am given. If people want to act like an ass, I will treat them like an ass. If people mis-state what I have said, or try to make arguments that are not based in fact, I will call them on it. If they don't like it, tough. Don't expect me to go along with made up facts. I am not a sheep that can be lead around by people who have no clue. If that is called having an attitude, then so be it. "i did not say anything about electronic poll lists(altho they also are a danger to our democracy) i simply showed you an example of a current case whr peops have signed something,perhaps a card perhaps a poll book," Karen, this is false. Shelby County, TN is an electronic poll book county, thus you ARE talking about electronic poll books. The fact is, you did not show us where people "have signed something, perhaps a card perhaps a poll book", you showed us what is wrong with electronic poll books. In other words, my point about Delaware is correct. You and Jeannie are tying to deny the facts with a cite that is NOT on point, i.e. electronic poll books. Here is one cite that discusses Shelby County and those electronic poll books. "Early on Election Day, voters started getting turned away from the polls because they were told they had already voted, but they had not. The Commission told the press before noon that day they had identified the problem. The IT Director had inadvertently loaded the May early voting data into the electronic poll books for the August election." http://www.publicbroadca...ks.Forward.To.Court.Date. "how do you KNOW that the local official did their job? is it a trust thing? do you have any proof?" In the case where I worked the election, I watched what was going on. Yes, I know that they were doing their jobs. On the other hand, where I live today, considering that they are using DREs, I don't believe they are doing their jobs. Do you have any proof that when I was working these elections, that they were not doing their jobs?

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/17/2010 @ 2:46 pm PT...





mark,first of all if i was uncivil in anyway,i apoligize,i have reread my statement and dont see it but perhaps i am missing something...the original suggestion that we can not be sure if the votes cast number is accurate was what i was commenting on,the following is whr we started

Comment @11 "If the tally of votes for the candidates is rigged, there is no reason to believe the total number of votes isn't also rigged. In other words, there is no way of knowing what the actual voter turnout was." I know that in every election that I have worked and that I have cast a ballot, that we had to sign in before we were allowed to vote. All we had to do is count up the signatures, and we knew the turnout. to which i gave u an example of a current case whr the official list is missing several thousand names...if u are saying that a physical poll book is better than an electronic one,i couldnt agree more....but if u are saying because del may have a physical pollbook it is impossible that the number of voters is incorrect i think u r incorrect...there r 325 districts in del,even if some of the district captains did a good job and gave an accurate count of signatures there could always be a few that didnt purposely or otherwise or the number could be altered in the addition of district sig numbers...what i have found most often in my vote auditing is that they use the highest machine count from any race to determine the turn out..or many sos dont even report the turnout(perhaps because they have come up with more votes than voters a few times) i am glad that in the precinct you worked at you got to see the "official" do his job but in an open transparent democracy that should be the standard not the exception

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/17/2010 @ 3:12 pm PT...





its kinda funny that we are discussing wether the ballots cast number is accurate since as far as i can find the delaware sos doesnt give any numbers as to how many peops voted anywhr on their web page http://elections.delaware.gov/default.shtml which btw they have in common with tn(which is why bbv had to sue to get it)

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... Janette Brown said on 9/17/2010 @ 5:54 pm PT...





I am interested in how a state like California successfully abolished Diebold. It takes someone like Stephen Heller, and then a judge who is willing to stand up. My concern now is here in Seattle, we have a popular Senator and a not-so challenger, with Diebold counting. I have never felt so impotent. So, i send money to BlackBox Voting, Voter Action (PS Voter Action partnered with 2 or 3 other concerns and Obama's legal team, had such a sophisticated feedback setup during the Presidential Election, that voting irregularity calls were made and forwarded to either the Obama lawyers, or to the state dems who had someone go to the polling place). I think Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, et al, may have smelled felony (record of specific instance, date time, witness ... it was scarey, it was so efficient). Surely that's how the vote went Democratic. But other than back the pros to fight the machine fraud, I don't know what else can be done.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Mark da Shark said on 9/17/2010 @ 6:13 pm PT...





Comment #37, "mark,first of all if i was uncivil in anyway,i apoligize,i have reread my statement and dont see it but perhaps i am missing something" Karen, thank you for your gesture, but you were not uncivil. I objected to you misstating my argument (see #28). "to which i gave u an example of a current case whr the official list is missing several thousand names..." On an electronic poll book with no paper trail vs my point that Delaware uses cards. "if u are saying that a physical poll book is better than an electronic one,i couldnt agree more...." That is what my accounting background tells me. Paper trails are superior. "....but if u are saying because del may have a physical pollbook it is impossible that the number of voters is incorrect i think u r incorrect..." Impossible? No. Superior to electronic. Far. "there r 325 districts in del,even if some of the district captains did a good job and gave an accurate count of signatures there could always be a few that didnt purposely or otherwise or the number could be altered in the addition of district sig numbers..." That is a fair statement. We can't expect an imperfect human to give us a perfect election. People make mistakes. IF everyone does their job correctly, then we can count those signatures, we would know how many voters cast a ballot.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/17/2010 @ 7:26 pm PT...





IF everyone does their job correctly, then we can count those signatures, we would know how many voters cast a ballot. i think this is the whole point...i have no reason to think they counted the sigs since they do not report them..if u can find whr del does report how many peops voted i would be interested in seeing it

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... truthisall said on 9/20/2010 @ 10:33 am PT...





A lethal combination of low Democratic voter turnout (likely) AND election fraud (definite) is the only way that the GOP can win. http://richardcharnin.co...ectionForecastModels.htm 2010 Midterm House and Senate Forecast Models: RV/LV Polls, Undecided Voters and Election Fraud Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll) Sept. 18, 2010 The 2010 midterms Senate and House forecast models will be updated on a regular basis as new polling data becomes available. The models consider the difference between likely voter (LV) and registered voter (RV) polls. Since 2004, LV polls have accurately projected the recorded vote while RV polls (adjusted for undecided voters) closely matched the unadjusted and preliminary exit polls. Final RV polls (adjusted for undecided voter allocation) gave the Democrats a 2-4% higher vote share margin than the LV polls. Based on a mix of RV and LV polls, the Senate Forecast Simulation Model indicates that the Democratic majority will shrink to 53-45.

The LV poll projections indicate a 50-48 Democratic Senate.

There is a 12.5% probability that the GOP will gain control (at least 50 seats). Based on the latest 13 Generic RV polls (the GOP leads by 47.3-41.9%), the Generic Poll Forecasting Model projects a 233-202 GOP House majority.

The latest 7 LV polls (47.4-39.7%) project a 239-196 majority. So far in 2010 there have been 132 Generic polls: 50 LV and 79 RV, (3 adults)

The GOP leads the average RV poll by 45.2-43.6, a 1.6% margin.

The GOP leads the average LV poll by 45.2-38.2, a 7.0% margin.

The LV-RV margin differential is 5.4% in favor of the GOP. In 2006, 120 Generic polls were listed at polling report.com: 53 LV and 67 RV.

Only two (2) of the final 20 were RV polls. The Democrats led the average RV poll by 49.4-30.3, a 19.1% margin.

They led the average LV by 49.6-38.4, an 11.2% margin.

The LV-RV margin differential was 7.9% in favor of the GOP.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... truthisall said on 9/20/2010 @ 10:38 am PT...





Undecided Voters, Turnout and Election Fraud In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote shares. Projections based on the final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. Undecided voters typically break heavily for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challengers, but many pollsters did not allocate accordingly. Democratic voter turnout was underestimated by the pre-election LV polls (see 2004 Final Pre-election polls). Final exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote count (i.e. the final pre-election LV polls). The underlying assumption is that the recorded vote is correct (i.e. zero fraud). In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Polls required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (110% and 103%, respectivrely). In the 2004 Final (13660 respondents), the Bush vote shares were increased dramatically over the 12:22am Preliminary NEP (13047 respondents). The NEP media consortium of news outlets FOX, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC has suppressed the release of 2008 unadjusted state exit polls and unforced preliminary national exit polls. The secret vote count fraud process inhibits the possibility of state recounts. Only Oregon and Washington have mandatory hand recounts of machine tallies.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... truthisall said on 9/20/2010 @ 10:39 am PT...





Reference: 2004-2008 Pre-election polls Projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote shares.

Projections based on final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. The projected shares (in parenthesis) are based on the allocation of undecided voters (UVA).

Undecided voters typically break for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challenger. Final exit polls are always "forced" to match the recorded vote (i.e. the final LV polls).

In 2008, the Final National Exit Poll required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (103%) to match the fraudulent vote count.

In 2004, Bush vote shares from the 12:22am Preliminary National Exit Poll (1% MoE) had to be inflated in the Final NEP as well (110%). National pre-election polls 2004

Bush won the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3% (matched by the Final National Exit Poll). RCP

The final 51 national pre-election polls listed were all likely voter (LV) polls.

http://www.realclearpoli...s.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

The Oct.2 Newsweek poll was the latest RV poll listed. Kerry led by 47-45 (52-47 projected). Bush led the final RCP 15-poll average by 48.9-47.4-1.0 (2.7% were undecided).

RCP projected Bush would capture 50% of the undecided vote and win by 50.0-48.5, closely matching the recorded vote.

Gallup projected that Kerry, the challenger, would win 88% of the undecided vote; Zogby and Harris had 75-80%. TIA Election Model

Kerry led the average of 18 national polls (9 RV and 9 LV) by 47.2-46.9 (50.9-48.1 projected)

http://richardcharnin.com/2004RVLVPolls.htm State pre-election polls Bush led the unweighted average by 47.6-45.7%.

http://richardcharnin.co...004FinalStatePolling.htm The unweighted average is misleading.

State polls must be weighted by voting population to determine the overall national share.

Kerry led the 2004 Election Model weighted aggregate by 47.9-46.9% (51.1-47.9% projected). Battleground state pre-election polls LV polls

All final pre-election polls listed by RCP were likely voter polls.

http://www.realclearpoli.../bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html Bush led the final unweighted average by 47.3-46.9%

Kerry led the LV poll projection by 50.5-48.5% RV polls

Assuming Kerry did 1% better in the RV polls, he led by 51.5-47.5%

http://richardcharnin.co.../2004RCPBattleground.htm Gallup

28 RV and 28 LV polls: FL 6, IA 4, MN 2, OH 6, PA 5, WI 5

LV: Bush led by 48.5-46.7 (49.5-49.4% projected).

RV: Kerry led by 47.1-46.4 (50.9-47.7% projected).

http://richardcharnin.com/2004GallupPre.htm State and National Exit Polls

Kerry led the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate by 52-47%.

Kerry led the 12:22am National Exit Poll (13,047 respondents) by 50.8- 48.2%. The election was stolen. 2006 The Democrats won the recorded vote by 52-46% (matched by the Final National Exit Poll). House Generic Congressional Ballot In 2006, there were 120 Generic Polls, 67 RV and 53 LV.

The Democrats led the average RV poll by 49.4-30.3, a 19.1% margin.

They led the average LV by 49.6-38.4, an 11.2% margin.

Only two (2) of the final 20 Generic polls listed at pollingreport.com were RVs. RCP listed eight (8) final LV polls.

The Democrats led by 52.1-40.6 (56-42 projected).

http://www.realclearpoli...nal_ballot-22.html#polls The NBC/WSJ RV poll had the Democrats leading by 52-37 (58-40 projected).

The unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,251 respondents) had the Democrats winning 56.4-41.3. The Democratic Landslide was denied.

http://www.richardcharni...eDenied2008Rerun2006.htm 2008 Obama won the recorded vote by 52.9-45.6% (matched by the Final National Exit Poll). Obama led the final 15 LV polls by 52.1-44.5 (53-45 projected, matching the recorded vote).

http://www.realclearpoli...mccain_vs_obama-225.html The final 4 RV polls from Gallup, Pew and ABC/WP were not listed.

Obama led the RV average by 52.7-39.8 (57.2-41.3 projected). The Democratic Landslide was denied.

http://www.richardcharni...lectionAnalysisLinks.htm Unadjusted State and Preliminary National Exit polls have not been released. Conclusion If you believe that Kerry won in 2004 and that Democratic landslides were denied in 2006 and 2008, then you must also believe that the

a) Pre-election RV polls closely matched the True Vote

b) Pre-election LV polls underestimated the Democratic True Vote

c) Unadjusted exit polls closely matched the True Vote

d) Final National Exit Poll was impossible

e) Elections were fraudulent and resulted in a 4-5% reduction in the True Democratic share If you believe that Bush won fairly in 2004 and the Democratic landslides of 2006 and 2008 were not denied, then you must believe that the

a) Recorded vote matched the True Vote

b) Pre-election LV polls matched the recorded vote

c) Pre-election RV polls overstated the Democratic True vote

d) Unadjusted exit polls overstated the Democratic True vote

e) Final National Exit polls matched the recorded (True) vote even though an impossible number of returning Bush voters were required

f) Elections were fraud-free even though the votes were not and could not be verified

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... BetterThanNoSN said on 9/20/2010 @ 11:06 pm PT...





"Liberals have to wake up. These guys want you to NOT vote because of the stolen ballots. They have a chance to flip an election if it is close." Ohio got flipped to the tune of 5% when all was said and done. One wouldn't think that was such a close vote either so don't asssume any final vote is unflippable. There are some issues with this electronic vote flipping that i can't seem to understand. For example, the Virginia final vote was within thousands with millions of votes cast yet George Allen didn't contest it. They contest everything yet didn't here and i often wondered if by contesting this race they may have exposed fraud.

Another plausible explanation?

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... dgvb55 said on 9/23/2010 @ 2:46 am PT...





As I understand it, attaching a small printer to these machines to give the voter a "receipt" of how they voted is not exactly rocket science. In fact these same machines have been used in foreign countries in their elections and they printed out receipts there. These receipts were used as paper back-ups in case any recount was needed. If the receipt mis-printed, the voter would know it right then, and the problem would be fixed, or a paper ballot would be on hand-and NOT as a provisional ballot.

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... Roo said on 9/27/2010 @ 9:25 am PT...





Is this a joke?

ODonnell clearly won.

Not that it matters. Delaware is a corporate-run state and its people are zombies, regardless of party.

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/27/2010 @ 1:19 pm PT...

