South Carolina vote-count problems with DREs

Screwy Election in South Carolina,
Primary for US Senator

	DRE vs Hard Paper Ballots
	VoterGA Supporters, On Tuesday June 15, U.S. Senate candidate, Vic Rawl, a former judge and four term state representative filed an election protest concerning the controversial June 9 South Carolina Democratic primary. That primary and all South Carolina elections are conducted on statewide unverifiable electronic voting equipment manufactured by Election Systems & Software (ES&S). Mr. Rawl’s claims were heard by the Democratic Party of South Carolina on Thursday June 17. As you already know this is the primary race where Alvin Greene, an unemployed former military veteran, won a 59%-41% victory and will challenge Republican Senator Jim DeMint in November. Greene who paid a $10,000 qualifying fee, held no fundraisers, ran no paid advertisements, made no campaign speeches, had no established platform, hired no campaign manager, conducted no state wide tours, attended no Democratic Party events, printed no yard signs and did not even establish a web site. This BradBlog link shows his interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olberman: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890 . Brad Friedman describes it as one of the most bizarre interviews ever seen on television. But Mr. Greene’s campaign really had nothing to do with election protest and neither he nor his attorney were present at the hearing. Mathematicians, technology professionals and witnesses who experienced irregularities testified or submitted documents on behalf of the Vic Rawl’s protest. The protest focused particularly on the huge discrepancy in the verifiable absentee ballot voting percentages when compared to the statewide unverifiable electronic voting percentages. A spreadsheet illustrating the differences that you can review and use to make your own decision is on the home page of www.voterga.org web site. I submitted this spreadsheet and cover letter to the state party officials a day before the hearing. After all was said and done, the chairs of the South Carolina Democratic Party voted to deny the protest. To understand the magnitude of this decision, here are some specific examples of the astounding, inexplicable discrepancies between the unverifiable total vote count and the mostly verifiable absentee vote count: · In Aiken County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 58% to 42% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 63% to 37%; · In Barnwell County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 62% to 38% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 66% to 33%; · In Beaufort County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 63% to 37%; · In Berkeley County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 67% to 33% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 54% to 46%; · In Dorchester County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 62% to 38%; · In Florence County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 67% to 33% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 56% to 44%; · In Greenwood County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 74% to 26% but won the absentee balloting by only 51% to 49%; · In Lancaster County, Vic Rawl won the total vote 52% to 48% but won the absentee balloting by 86% to 14%; · In Newberry County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 53% to 47% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 69% to 41%; · In Lee County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 62% to38% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 56% to 44%; · In Marion County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 65% to35% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 51% to 49%; · In Oconee County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 58% to 42% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 59% to 41%; That is probably enough already to convince most anyone that something was wrong with the election results but there is more: · In 42 of 46 counties, Alvin Greene’s percentage of total votes exceeded his percentage of absentee votes while in only 4 counties did Vic Rawl’s absentee percentage of votes exceed his total percentage of votes; · In 20 of 46 counties, Alvin Greene’s percentage of total votes exceeded his percentage of absentee votes by a total of 20+ candidate percentage points or more while Vic Rawl’s percentage decreased by the same amount; · In not one county did Alvin Greene win the absentee vote count and lose the total vote count and in not one county did Vic Rawl lose the absentee vote count and win the total vote count; · In all, there is an average of a 17.7% total difference in the Election Day unverifiable electronic vote count and the absentee vote count, nearly the exact margin of Alvin Greene’s 59-41% victory: · In addition, the statewide undervote in the race was also extraordinarily high, stretching from a minimum of just under 7% to a maximum of nearly 35% for the U.S. Senate race; For those still not convinced there is even more. About half of the absentee votes were in-person votes that are recorded on the electronic voting machines. The other half were actual physical ballots that were mailed into the elections offices. Therefore, the total percentage difference between mail in absentee votes and all other electronic votes must be about twice as great to compensate for the in-person absentee electronic votes embedded within the absentee vote totals. If the actual mail in ballots were counted, South Carolinians would likely find that the total difference between the verifiable and unverifiable votes would increase by another 18% or so, meaning that Vic Rawl may have actually won the verifiable vote count by about the same 59-41% margin that Alvin Greene allegedly won the election. Now here is the kicker. South Carolina does not report mail-in absentee ballot votes separately from in-person electronic absentee votes even though those votes are recorded and counted separately before being totaled together and reported. So there is no way for the public to know at this time exactly how many votes of each kind were recorded for the two candidates. The decision by the South Carolina Democratic Party chairs will likely prevent those votes from ever being reported individually. Therefore, the people of South Carolina may never get to see all of the evidence that could indicate election rigging or major calibration errors were present. State Senator Phil Leventis petitioned the State Election Commission to impound voting machines used in the statewide election but the State Elections Commission and counties are resisting. The State Elections Commission issued a statement claiming that the voting machines have always performed accurately and reliably, a claim that is technically impossible to establish since there is no way to independently audit the voting recording mechanism of the machine. www.scvotes.org. The Charleston Channel 2 news media outlet, “counton2.com” even went so far as to show precinct reports produced internally by the machines and claim their audience that the reports are “independent” audit trails. Ironically, South Carolina Democratic Party chairwoman, Carol Fowler, began attacking her own candidate, Alvin Greene, immediately after his victory. She claimed he may be charged for a crime in the future and asked him to withdraw. That would have conveniently gotten around the question of whether or not the machines counted correctly. Naturally, most of the local and national media picked up her personal attack on Alvin Greene and ignored the evidence of vote fraud and errors. Greene rightfully won the contest according to the procedures that South Carolina has used for the last six years and the Rawl campaign has made it clear that they do not condone any such personal attacks. Vic Rawl rightfully contends that the election discrepancies warrant a new election in which he may or may not participate. But the biggest losers in this debacle are the people of South Carolina. Their elections, their public officials and some of their news media have been shown to lack credibility. The South Carolina “Democratic” Party, and I use that term loosely, has done as much as they could in this situation to help their Republican teammates and saddle South Carolinians with a one party, elitist political system. The people of South Carolina now face a tremendous uphill battle if they ever hope to have their vote protected through the use of voter verifiable, auditable voting equipment. Garland 404 664-4044 CL read more here: www.voterga.org
	'Staggering' disparities seen between Alvin Greene's Election Day touch-screen results and paper-based absentee vote Will corporate MSM have courage to 'go there'?...(read more)
	The South Carolina Democratic Party Executive Board rejected Judge Vic Rawl's official protest to the results of last week's U.S. Senate primary, despite no evidence presented that the results were accurate, and despite Alvin Greene having not even shown up to the protest hearing. Rawl had originally filed his protest based, in large part, on the "well-documented unreliability and unverifiability of the voting machines used in South Carolina." (read more)
	After Diebold Purchase, Canadian E-Vote Firm Acquires Chavez-tied Sequoia, Lies About It New U.S. e-voting Goliath quietly born; Election official revolving door spins... (read more)

	More information about problems with Direct-Electronic "Computer" Voting

Learn how to Steal Votes with This Machine:

Stealing Votes


	In Georgia, SOS candidates - Angela Moore and Gary Horlacher in the Democratic primary are 2 of very few candidates who have promised to work for verifiable voting. Libertarian David Chastain also supports paper trails. Seven Democrat and Republican primary candidates are vying to join Libertarian David Chastain on the ballot in the November 2010 elections for the position of Georgia Secretary of State (SOS). Ironically, only one of them actually has a proven track record of campaigning for statewide verifiable voting since the initiation of their campaign. Several of the primary candidates seem perfectly content to continue using Georgia’s “no evidence” voting systems indefinitely and at least two have adamantly opposed a return to verifiable voting in Georgia. On the Republican side, current Secretary of State Brian Kemp, an otherwise mild mannered, likeable man, opposed Tim Bearden’s HB1215 election integrity bill this year. That bill would have replaced our current “no evidence” voting machines with auditable optical scan equipment, established precinct level audit procedures and required hand recounts to ensure original vote totals were correct. Just a month earlier, in February 2010, when discussing the possibility that state legislators may want to return to verifiable voting machines he told hundreds of people at a Georgia Christian Alliance debate: “Now If they want to, I would be ready to lead the charge” At that same debate, Kemp’s primary opponent, Doug MacGinnitie, told the audience: “I have a plan that makes a lot of sense. I think we need to put in place a way to audit the systems. I have talked to some technology folks and some election lawyers. There is a cost effective way to prove or disprove once and for all if these machines count accurately or not.” But when I immediately pressed him to explain his plan he was unwilling and unable to even discuss it. Had he actually talked to me or any other competent technology professional we would have told him that it is technically impossible to audit the vote recording mechanisms of the current machines since they have no Voter Verified Paper Ballot Audit Trail. Of the five candidates on the Democratic side of the SOS primaries, only Angela Moore has an established, historical track record of consistently supporting verifiable voting. This dates back to her 2006 campaign for the SOS office when she supported the SB591 vote count bill. Ever since then she has consistently carried the message of restoring integrity to Georgia elections. One of her opponents, newcomer Michael Mills, articulately touts that he was once a legislative aide for Lewis Massey, the voting machine vendor lobbyist who profited from bringing unverifiable voting to Georgia. No wonder he doesn’t show much interest in verifiable voting. Need I say more. Another newcomer, Gary Horlacher, is honestly and creatively trying to solve the ethics problems in Georgia by challenging his opponents to take a polygraph test like he did. I appreciate his recent pledge to correct Georgia’s voting machine problems and I respect his willingness to visit every Georgia county before the elections. . . . Still a third newcomer in the race is Representative Georganna SInkfield. She has never co-sponsored any verifiable voting legislation and most of her legislative initiatives have nothing to do with Secretary of State functions. To her credit, she voted in 2006 for Karla Drenner’s SB500 amendment that would have required audit trails on voting machines used throughout the state. But she entered the race on or about the last day of qualifying just ten weeks prior to primary Election Day while her opponents have been running established campaigns for a year. Now just six weeks away, she still has no platform and no website, or Email address posted at the Secretary of State’s office. Her actions are so bizarre that they demand more scrutiny. Rep. Sinkfield qualified just after Darryl Hicks had wisely decided to withdraw from the Secretary of State race to run for the Labor Commission post that Michael Thurmond will vacate in his bid for the U.S. Senate. Hicks is more suited to that position and has a better chance of winning that primary. But why would Georganna Sinkfield bother to incur the qualification and campaign costs to make such a feeble run for the SOS office? Well, it may help to know that Darryl Hicks, Georganna Sinkfield, and Angela Moore are all of African American descent (please forgive me for using that hyphenated term because we are all Americans). Angela Moore believes that Georganna’s role is to keep the black vote split and I have to agree. However, I think those voters will see through that ploy. But who would benefit if Georganna Sinkfield siphons off enough voters to prevent Angela Moore from consolidating the black vote and becoming a legitimate favorite to win the Democratic primary? The beneficiary just happens to be Gail Buckner, Georganna Sinkfield’s former fellow legislator from a neighboring district and the 2006 SOS Democratic primary winner who is also running for the office again in 2010. Gail Buckner, a current state senator, is well aware of the “no evidence” voting issues that plague Georgia since many of us spent lots of time supplying her with a variety of information and reference material on the issue in support of our 2006 volunteer lobbying efforts. In spite of that, she has never sponsored any legislation to rectify the statewide problems, never offered any kind help to us and actually opposed all of our initiatives. She is the only legislator in the entire General Assembly who is on public record as opposing all 2006 statewide vote audit legislation. Specifically, as a representative: n She opposed the HB 790 audit procedure bill in the House Government Affairs committee; n She opposed SB 500 audit provisions in the House Government Affairs committee; n She voted on the House floor against Karla Drenner’s SB500 amendment that would have required audit trails on voting machines used throughout the state; n She ridiculed Angela Moore in the 2006 Democratic primary for supporting the SB591 vote count bill. No other legislator opposed more than one of these initiatives but Rep. Buckner opposed all of them and even took on her on fellow Democrats in doing so. Her actions so infuriated some Democrats that several of them signed a letter that they sent to the leadership in 2006 asking her to be replaced in the Secretary of State contest. Nevertheless, she is back again even though she has alienated many grass roots Democratic Party members. While she may be qualified for other positions, the question for the Democratic Party leadership is: “Why would you want to place a candidate on the ballot in this race who cannot even unite the members of your own party?” Perhaps the answer to that question is that the state leadership of the Democratic Party is still just as determined as the state leadership of the Republican Party to keep “no evidence” voting here in Georgia. Are they continuing their blockade against verifiable voting in expectation that one day they can use “no evidence” elections to their benefit if they have not already? It will take a highly supportive, grass roots nominee like Angela Moore to win the 2010 primary or the hopes of the people to restore the integrity of Georgia elections in 2010 may rest solely on the shoulders of Libertarian David Chastain. Garland Favorito Elections Director GA Constitution Party PERMISSION TO REPRINT GRANTED 404 664-4044 CL

	All Georgian voters can (and maybe they all should) use an absentee ballot to vote in the July 20th election. Why? Because a few weeks ago, electronic voting equipment (like ours here in Georgia) gave an unbelievably screwy result in South Carolina where a virtually unknown and inarticulate person, Alvin Greene, won a US Senate Primary after running no campaign (no meetings, no fundraising, no signs, no TV nor radio nor newspaper advertising) against a popular SC Representative, Vic Rawl. There was an enormous discrepancy between the absentee ballot results and the electronic vote totals. For example, in Lancaster County, Rawl won the verifiable (absentee-paper) ballot count by 86% to 14% while Greene won the unverifiable (direct-electronic) vote count by about 58% to 41%. This smells like stinky flip-flop to me. Can anyone explain how someone who essentially ran no campaign at all could win a statewide race against a popular candidate? Could it be direct-electronic ballot error and/or fraud? South Carolina uses 100% unverifiable electronic voting equipment manufactured by Election Systems & Software. This is the same company that now owns the unverifiable electronic voting equipment that is used in all Georgia elections. So, to make sure your next vote is verifiable, in Georgia, you will need to vote by absentee ballot. To get an absentee ballot, registered voters must submit an absentee application to your County Board of Elections. This can be done in person, or by mail, or by faxing a form available on the Internet in most states.


	More information about problems with Direct-Electronic "Computer" Voting

Back to:
www.macon-bibb.com/vote