The case for the occurence of algorithmic vote flipping

[RonRules]

BTW, there are plenty of elections contests that flatline in Riverside. Mostly Democrats but one Republican, Duncan Hunter, ex 2008 Presidential Candidate. Is Duncan Hunter not part of the "establishment"? Why is he not enjoying the benefit of vote flipping like many other Republicans?

Duncan Hunter:

Some Democrats:

 

[RonRules]

There were 189087 total votes cast in Riverside. Their 1% mandatory recount only amounted to recounting 0.00479 of the votes, less than half of 1%.

Clearly inadequate in my view.

Do your State require a partial manual recount of the votes? What percentage? How is the percentage allocated?

 

[bcreps85]

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/7659/82111.html

From BlackBoxVoting. Looks like people are already finding problems with the voting software at this link that was used in 2004 and 2008 elections, such as double and triple counting votes from certain precincts, etc etc.

 

[drummergirl]

Ahhh but you already know how they get around that. It's not 1% of votes cast; it's 1% of the precincts/races and they prefer the lower vote totals. And The Flipper knows this as well, which is why smaller precincts are not flipped (wouldn't want to get caught).

There were 189087 total votes cast in Riverside. Their 1% mandatory recount only amounted to recounting 0.00479 of the votes, less than half of 1%.

Clearly inadequate in my view.

Do your State require a partial manual recount of the votes? What percentage? How is the percentage allocated?

 

[RonRules]

Riverside County gave me another 18 usable poll tapes from the DRE Voting Machines (the 13 others were zero verification). I personally took a picture of 9 other tapes on election day.

The DRE (Touch Screen) voting machines produce results BEFORE they are processed by the Central Tabulator. That's why I think this data is important.

Here is the original results from the 9 tapes: (Only 9 data points, therefore very coarse)

Here is the chart made with the data from 27 poll tapes:

The full DRE machine results (for 27 poll tapes ~300 votes) produce a 11.32% for Ron Paul.
The county results from the Central Tabulator is: 8.54%


The full county results are here:

 

[arsenius]

RonRules, great work on this once again. What percentage of the total votes for the county is represented in your new chart?

 

[RonRules]

RonRules, great work on this once again. What percentage of the total votes for the county is represented in your new chart?

There were a total of 189,087 votes cast in Riverside (22.19% turnout). Of those votes cast 83,351 were Republican votes towards the President. My above charts represent only 0.36% of the vote.

I just got some more tapes, another 18 and I'll add those to the chart.

Most people don't vote with DRE machines, but with paper ballots, which are then scanned in. I'm trying to get the raw scanner output files, but I don't know if they still have those.

 

[arsenius]

Most people don't vote with DRE machines, but with paper ballots, which are then scanned in. I'm trying to get the raw scanner output files, but I don't know if they still have those.

That would be convenient for them... Any idea when you'll find out?

 

[RonRules]

That would be convenient for them... Any idea when you'll find out?

I have requested that many times, but I think the scanner output, which then goes into the Central Tabulator is a temp file that may get deleted.

Here's my communication about the subject:
The precinct report you supplied in your letter is clearly an output of the WinEDS Central Tabulator. I don't trust such a report, because I'm trying to prove that the Central Tabulator flips the votes. When I refer to the "Raw output of the Optech 400C scanners", that would be a raw, unprocessed text file that the Central Tabulator uses as an input.

Those files are likely on the WinETP or WinEDS machines. I suspect that they are similar to the following files:
Directory of C:\Documents and Settings\WinEDS\Local Settings\Temp
05/23/2012 10:02 AM 2,444,418 tally1.txt
05/24/2012 04:08 PM 2,534,952 tally10.txt
05/24/2012 04:14 PM 2,534,952 tally11.txt
05/24/2012 04:21 PM 2,534,952 tally12.txt
05/24/2012 04:31 PM 2,534,952 tally13.txt
05/24/2012 04:40 PM 2,534,952 tally14.txt
....

These appear to be temporary files that the Central Tabulator reads in order to produce the precinct report that you showed as an example. Please check with your IT people. They may know what files are inputs to the Central Tabulator. That's what I need.


After they responded with a few more poll tapes, I wrote this:

Ms Spencer,

I've added the data from the poll tape results you submitted yesterday to those that I already had (June 5th, from the voting room).

I charted those results and Romney still flat-lines as expected. See attached.
Compare that with the results coming out of the central tabulator, also attached.

From the 300 votes that I now have to analyze, Romney gets 76.34% as opposed to 81.53 (full county results). Ron Paul gets 11.36% as opposed to 8.54% (full county results)

Although, this sample is still relatively small, it continues to indicate that there is a problem with the results coming out of the Central Tabulator.

To prove this conclusively, I will need the raw data that enters the Central Tabulator that I requested before plus the rest of the poll tapes we agreed on. Please speak to your IT people to find out what vote tally files are input to the WinETP/WinEDS before that software manipulates it. That's what I need.

This data is all part of the Digital Data Chain of Custody, as I like to describe it. Your office needs to have a full understanding of how that data is communicated through the electronic system, just like with physical ballots.

The physical Chain of Custody of the ballots and tapes seems to be well in control at your office, but I am concerned about the understanding and custody of digital data.

Also, I urge you to NOT certify the county results until this important anomaly is explained.

Sincerely,
xxx xxx


I then got this reply:

We will re-evaluate your request for raw data and provide a response.


Rebecca Spencer
Riverside County Registrar of Voters
Assistant Registrar of Voters
(951)486-7210 Fax (951)486-7272


It's really unfortunate at how electronic voting is such a black box and people in charge don't seem to know exactly what happens from the point votes are entered to when the vote results come out.

 

[drummergirl]

They are just upset because you are making them do extra work. Congratulations, you have bureaucrats.

I have requested that many times, but I think the scanner output, which then goes into the Central Tabulator is a temp file that may get deleted.


I then got this reply:

We will re-evaluate your request for raw data and provide a response.


Rebecca Spencer
Riverside County Registrar of Voters
Assistant Registrar of Voters
(951)486-7210 Fax (951)486-7272


It's really unfortunate at how electronic voting is such a black box and people in charge don't seem to know exactly what happens from the point votes are entered to when the vote results come out.

 

[RonRules]

Update from Riverside county.

I received a total of 45 poll tapes from the Registrar. (There should be 529, but I don't want to type all that anyway). I asked for tapes from the largest precincts, but all the ones I received had pretty low vote counts.

The tapes I got before the last submittal looked like this:

Everything was flat-lining fine as I showed on charts like this:

In the last batch of 18 "Poll Tapes", I got these Machine Reports instead of poll tape copies. The reports look like this, but should have the same data as on the poll tapes:

I added these "tapes" and charted the results. The chart now stated flipping!

I reviewed the numbers and found that one of those "tapes" looked anomalous. By removing that data point, the chart straightened up a lot:

Here's the data from all the tapes:

Look for machine: S/N # 42309. Ron Paul gets 0 votes and Romney gets 87. Of course, this could happen by chance. In fact I calculated that the chance of this happening is 1.85%. What the chart below shows is that Ron has an average result of 10.72% with a standard deviation of 5.74%. The likelihood of Ron getting 0 votes is less than 0.0185 or 1.85%

It's funny, but with all the charts and statistics I've done, these rare occurrences always happen at the detriment of Ron. I never see statistics that come out in his favor.

I don't know if those "Machine Reports" are twisted by the Central Tabulator. I'll certainly ask to see the original tape.

 

[RonRules]

Here's something that would probably freak out Bev Harris:

Some of the Poll Tapes I got (by mistake) were Zero Count proof tapes. A few of those tapes show a Zero Count made the day before!

Also, NONE of the tapes (Zero Count or Election Close count) I got were signed. I believe that all the poll tapes have to be signed by the precinct chairman and supervisor:

This does not indicate that any actual fraud was committed, but it does indicate a lackadaisical attitude from the election staff or lack of training of election workers. Because, none of the tapes are signed, anybody can now turn on a machine, set the date to June 5, 2012, enter votes and print out another tape and nobody will know. How can they certify the election with no signatures on the poll tapes?!

 

[drummergirl]

NO SIGNATURES!!!

That is a serious violation around here. Every poll tape has to be signed by the election judge at that precinct. And zeroes from the day before? No wonder they don't like you. They've been cutting corners left and right.

Here's something that would probably freak out Bev Harris:

Some of the Poll Tapes I got (by mistake) were Zero Count proof tapes. A few of those tapes show a Zero Count made the day before!

Also, NONE of the tapes (Zero Count or Election Close count) I got were signed. I believe that all the poll tapes have to be signed by the precinct chairman and supervisor:

This does not indicate that any actual fraud was committed, but it does indicate a lackadaisical attitude from the election staff or lack of training of election workers. Because, none of the tapes are signed, anybody can now turn on a machine, set the date to June 5, 2012, enter votes and print out another tape and nobody will know. How can they certify the election with no signatures on the poll tapes?!

 

[RonRules]

I made a chart of Temecula, CA, the town in Riverside Count from where that anomalous poll tape came from:

It's just regular flipping, nothing exceptional as I was hoping for. Yet a statistician would freak out looking at this chart:

 

[dr.k.research]

Welcome to the forum Anne and welcome to our vote flipping thread. Question for you, can you get pictures of the "Poll Tapes?"

Have already paid for/purchased all the voter rolls and ordered ALL the poll tapes for Travis County. So, no need for duplication.

 

[RonRules]

Riverside county has certified their results.

http://www.voteinfo.net/

With all the evidence and pleading I did to NOT certify the results, they went ahead and did it anyway.

We'll see about that.

 

[The Man]

RonRules clear you mailbox.

 

[arsenius]

Riverside county has certified their results.

http://www.voteinfo.net/

With all the evidence and pleading I did to NOT certify the results, they went ahead and did it anyway.

We'll see about that.

What can be done about it now? Does the state still need to certify? Can that be stopped?

 

[RonRules]

What can be done about it now? Does the state still need to certify? Can that be stopped?

I'm still in contact with the Registrar and today they just send me a few more poll tapes. I expected them to stop sending data with the results certified, but no, they are continuing to send stuff. That's good.

The problem is I just have statistics, good statistics, but not 100% proof.

What I really want is the raw data from the large Optech 400C scanners. Those things just read the ballots and feed the Central Tabulator. If I can get ALL that data, then I can account for every vote IN the Central Tabulator and see if it matches every vote OUT of the beast.

It's a big job and I don't know if they'll give me the data. Their response again today was: "We are still reviewing your request for “raw data”. I've had the same response about 3-4 times now.

The only reason they would want to hide things is to keep voter privacy in small precincts, which is California law. I told them they can simply randomize the precinct number and I'll just analyze the raw data.

If any of you can get that from your local county, please tell me. I'll analyze it. Remember, when Central Tabulators are not used, the results flat-line. I'm trying to chart the data with that thing out of the way.

 

[drummergirl]

You should be able to find the direct smoking gun between the poll tapes and the central tabulator reports. The central tabulator can give you a detailed report by precinct of exactly how many votes were cast for each candidate from each voting machine and from the optical scanner. Something like this

Precinct XXXX

Cand. A Cand. B Cand. C

DRE#22 5 10 6
DRE#17 12 18 9
DRE#25 7 10 10
SCANNER 25 42 30

If the numbers on the poll tapes and the direct scanner output do not exactly match this report from the central tabulator, then BINGO! You have a crime scene.

EDIT: sorry that looks awful, forum program is taking out my extra spaces.

I'm still in contact with the Registrar and today they just send me a few more poll tapes. I expected them to stop sending data with the results certified, but no, they are continuing to send stuff. That's good.

The problem is I just have statistics, good statistics, but not 100% proof.

What I really want is the raw data from the large Optech 400C scanners. Those things just read the ballots and feed the Central Tabulator. If I can get ALL that data, then I can account for every vote IN the Central Tabulator and see if it matches every vote OUT of the beast.

It's a big job and I don't know if they'll give me the data. Their response again today was: "We are still reviewing your request for “raw data”. I've had the same response about 3-4 times now.

The only reason they would want to hide things is to keep voter privacy in small precincts, which is California law. I told them they can simply randomize the precinct number and I'll just analyze the raw data.

If any of you can get that from your local county, please tell me. I'll analyze it. Remember, when Central Tabulators are not used, the results flat-line. I'm trying to chart the data with that thing out of the way.

And once you have evidence of a crime, call the local authorities (really your elections officer should know who they call in the event of fraud, but I wouldn't count on it with your crew in Riverside. They seem to have taken lessons in running a government office from the Keystone Cops.) Here in Texas, your first call would be to the county sheriff's office.