Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Defeating a “Touch-Screen” Theft of the Election

By Ernest Partridge

Co-Editor, “The Crisis Papers.”

November 1, 2004

“The privilege of voting in favor of agents is the essential ideal by which every other right are secured. To remove this privilege is to diminish a man to servitude..”

Thomas Paine

The individuals who make tranquil insurgency unimaginable will make rough upheaval inescapable.

John F. Kennedy

Back to crisispapers.

Back to Homepage:

There has been mounting analysis among concerned natives and PC experts of the dependability and confirmability of paperless “contact screen” casting a ballot machines (“e-cast a ballot”). These machines, the faultfinders charge, present completely open doors for imperceptible race extortion.

In this way, if Kerry loses in a nearby race – specifically, if critical states with “e-casting a ballot” machines give the race to Bush – is it at all conceivable to decide whether “the fix was in”?

Maybe it tends to be done through a correlation of independent counts, first the votes on auditable casting a ballot machines, and next of the detailed votes on the paperless, subtly coded touch-screen machines.

In the event that the outcome is an approved avalanche for Kerry in the auditable machines, and triumph for Bush from a counterbalancing and mysterious avalanche in the GOP produced and coded “e-vote” machines, at that point our most exceedingly awful apprehensions will be affirmed: We the People of the United States have been had and, except if this wrongdoing is cured, our majority rule government will be done.

Luckily, race returns are open, open archives. All that is required to amass the different aggregates on the paperless e-casting a ballot machines (about 33% of the votes), and on the various casting a ballot gadgets, is time and work. In the event that the consequence of that review shows e-vote robbery, increasingly refined and convincing measurable investigation may pursue, as I will clarify underneath.


As far back as the basic “operations” of the e-vote machines have turned out to be broadly comprehended and acknowledged, there have been determined requests for autonomous and evident “review trails” of the votes cast on these machines. Remedial reactions to these requests have been few and therefore inadequate. While California has decertified the Diebold machines, and Nevada has required paper check of e-cast a ballot, authoritative cures, most remarkably by Congressman Rush Holt (D NJ), have kicked the bucket in the GOP controlled congressional advisory groups.

Thus, Californians and Nevadans excepted, the American individuals have been requested to depend on the “reliability” of the makers and code-authors. There won't be, on the grounds that there can't be, autonomous approval of their votes, if these votes are thrown on paperless touch-screen casting a ballot machines.

All things being equal, while approval of individual votes and individual machines are unthinkable (the Republicans have seen to that), measurable proof of the legitimacy of e-cast a ballot all in all are possible. I will clarify this without further ado. Above all, we should audit the protests to e-casting a ballot machines.

Since the machines deliver no autonomous paper record of the casting a ballot, it is difficult to approve the count with a describe.

The product that gathers, sums and records the votes is “restrictive” – i.e., mystery and the elite property of the makers of the machine. There is no free affirmation that the vote sums are not deliberately adjusted.

The machines can be effortlessly “hacked” – vote sums changed, leaving no proof of the altering. This isn't theoretical: a few exhibition “hackings” have been performed.

Computerized documents from the individual areas are then gathered in organizing focuses, where there are still further open doors for imperceptible factional messing with the profits.

The proprietors and supervisor of the three driving e-casting a ballot organizations – Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia – are on the whole divided Republicans.

For a progressively far reaching analysis of “e-casting a ballot,” see my “The Greatest Story Never Told.” A sizeable gathering of articles on the theme can be found at The Crisis Papers' “Discretionary Integrity” page. . In the event that you are as yet not persuaded, watch the film “Votergate.” This connection will take you straightforwardly to it. Cautioning: this film could cause some restless evenings among now and Tuesday.


Republican officials in the states and in the US Congress have blocked endeavors to require free reviewing and approval of e-cast a ballot. Regardless, while singular votes can not be approved, an aggregate evaluation of legitimacy of e-cast a ballot is as yet conceivable through measurable examination.

Exit Polling: This strategy, which was strangely and suspiciously relinquished from the get-go in the 2002 vote tallying, could be an early-cautioning of an e-casting a ballot “settle.” But it is critical that the leave surveys be contrasted and the votes cast on race day. As a result of the Democrats' legitimate doubts of touch screens, many have selected to keep away from e-casting a ballot by throwing early votes. In like manner, the decision day balloting will be skewed toward the Republicans. Correlation of leave surveys with aggregates including early votes would in this way solid a false caution.

The “down to business technique:” Very not long after the decision, an examination could be delivered of the Bush-Kerry vote split in the 30% e-casting a ballot states, areas and regions, from one perspective, and the split in the 70% of “other” returns. This technique would not be conclusive, for if the e-casting a ballot returns yielded forcefully higher rates for Bush, it could be guaranteed that these machines were in progressively Republican territories. In any case, sharp disparities between the profits of e-casting a ballot machines and all others would show a convincing case for a closer factual examination.

The September sixteenth version of focuses the way. There we locate an exceptionally accommodating shading guide of the United States, demonstrating the conveyance of the different casting a ballot strategies. A few states are totally dedicated to e-casting a ballot (Georgia, Nevada, New Jersey, Kentucky). Be that as it may, many are “interwoven” with e-casting a ballot among a few different strategies. Of these, the “battleground states” ought to be given close consideration. The in all probability contender for study, at that point, are Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and those most vital states, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

Refined Statistical Analysis. This strategy is designed after established factual investigations of the obstacle impact of the death penalty. They are essentially of two sorts: parallel and longitudinal.

In a parallel report, two states are chosen, alike as conceivable as far as financial and social elements, contrasting most strikingly in that State A has capital punishment and State B does not. In the event that death penalty is an obstacle, this would appear in lower murder rates in the state with capital punishment.

In a longitudinal report, a solitary express that has received, or then again has canceled, the death penalty is inspected. On the off chance that capital punishment hinders, murder rates will drop when the death penalty is received, and will rise when it is abrogated.

(Most examinations, parallel and longitudinal, have shown next to zero obstacle impact. Yet, how about we' avoid that debate. We have other fish to broil here).

Presently how about we apply these methods to the e-casting a ballot question.

Parallel: We select two groups of areas or districts which have fundamentally the same as financial and social profiles and which, before e-casting a ballot (ideally the 2000 race), had very much like race results. One group, “”the control,”” still utilizes auditable casting a ballot gear (punch cards, optical scanners, paper polls, and so on.). The other group utilizes paperless e-casting a ballot. Analyze the outcomes.

Longitudinal: Select area or province groups that utilized auditable techniques in 2000 and have received e-voting in favor of this race. Still better in the event that they were surveyed before the two races. There ought to likewise be an insignificant measure of move in the populace profiles in the resulting four years. At that point look at the outcomes.

Presently think about the accompanying situation: Counting just the 70% non e-casting a ballot returns, Kerry scores a 55-43 avalanche (2% for “”others””). The e-casting a ballot machines alone give Bush a twenty point advantage. Consolidating the two strategies, every applicant takes his separate “safe states,” and Bush successes, by the slimmest of edges, simply enough battleground states to top 270 appointive votes, and to take the decision. Kerry, similar to Gore in 2000, wins the well known vote.

Add to this, proceeding with occupation misfortunes, declining middle salary, taking off wellbeing and fuel costs, proceeding with deficiencies with counterbalancing ascends in interests rates, a recovery of the draft and mounting losses in remote wars, worldwide shunning – this the possible consequence of a second Bush organization and a President tenaciously “continuing through to the end.” How long would general society endure this, realizing it had been deceived in two back to back national races – that, in actuality, their majority rule government had been stolen from them?

All things considered, our own is a general public that has known opportunity and thriving for the white collar class.


On the off chance that the electronic e-vote settle is in, why try to cast a ballot on Tuesday?

Most importantly, we don't have the foggiest idea about this for certain. So it is astute to cast a ballot on the possibility that the strange, paperless casting a ballot machines are, for all that, alright.

Second, at whatever point conceivable, pick the paper vote as opposed to the e-vote machine. (We can do this in California. Apparently somewhere else too).

Third, in the event that your vote is auditable (not an e-vote), by all methods vote with the goal that we can pile on a substantial auditable Kerry dominant part. The bigger that greater part, the more obvious the extortion incorporated with the e-casting a ballot programming. The more obvious the extortion, the less genuine the stolen decision.

At long last, if the Diebold-ES&S-Sequoia con artists think little of the quality of the Kerry tide, their “fixes” probably won't withstand the surge of votes.

1 Stern2 Sterne3 Sterne4 Sterne5 Sterne (75 Ratings. Average: 4.67 von 5)