You Can't Count Your Change

[kster]

by Mark E. Smith
April 16, 2008

This is my response to those who don't think the use of tabulators to count votes would be a problem if all the results were posted at the polls so that when inconsistencies were found they could be settled with an immediate recount, and where those who rigged elections could be caught and punished:

And how do you propose those inconsistencies be found?

How would you know to look for inconsistencies before the machine totals were posted?

Once they're posted, they're transmitted to election central, to the Secretary of State and to Congress. At that point, if it is a Congressional candidate and they've flown to Washington, they can be sworn into office long before you discover any inconsistencies and long before the circuit clerks would start a hand count.

SNIP... To spot inconsistencies in a machine count, you need to be able to refer to the paper ballots, and you can't refer to the paper ballots unless you have already shown inconsistencies.

If we have a system that is open and honest, it doesn't have to be verified. If it is open and honest, it is verified as it is done, not afterwards when it is too late.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_e___080415_you_can_t_count_your.htm

ALSO... Mark E. Smith, responds to Joan Brunwasser below the article at this link

As long as a machine is used in an election, there will be secret or hidden data, such as the memory cards from the optical scanners or touch screen machines or the audit logs from the central tabulators.

When there is secret or hidden data and you claim discrepancies or irregularities, the elections officials just say, "Prove it!" while withholding the data that would allow you that proof.

Random sample handcounts at the precincts may not do what they are statistically supposed to do. If six or eight ballots out of 60,000 or 80,000 have been tampered with, which is all it takes to steal a federal election in most districts, the chances of a random sample finding those ballots aren't as good as the statisticians claim that they are. This is one area where common sense is a better indicator than mathematical formulas. Since the tampering is deliberate rather than random, and the formulas are predicated on a random sampling being able to find random tampering, the formulas fail.

But the important part is that by the time that anyone can put together enough evidence of discrepancies to obtain a recount, without actually having had a recount with which to document those discrepancies, it is much too late to prevent election fraud. Once the ballots have been fed into an optical scanner or have left the precinct, they are out of sight and it is impossible to know what is happening to them. Most of us are in the habit of counting our change when the bank teller or store clerk hands it to us. That way they can't call us liars or conspiracy theorists when we claim that we've been shortchanged. That's how elections should work also. The counting and recounting must be done by hand at the precincts in full public view so that nobody has any doubts and there is no hidden data or chain-of-custody problem.

Telling us that we've voted and if there's a problem we can find it later with recounts or audits, is no different from telling us that we can't count our change right then and there when it is handed to us. We would never accept that from banks or stores, so why should we accept it from elections officials?


by Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 22 quicklinks, 698 comments) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 at 7:52:37 AM

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_e___080415_you_can_t_count_your.htm

[BeFree]

1. So you're saying

That we can't depend on the machines to accurately tell us who won and who lost? So why do we still use the gawd damned things?

Hiya keest.

[kster]

2. Well, Um mm

Yes, thats exactly what I am saying. but everyone is focused on Obamas lapel pin or Clintons "bitter" diversion tactic to care.

It surely doesn't take much to distract us Democratic VOTERS!!

OUR VOTES ARE BEING COUNTED IN SECRET!!

YOU DAMN IDIOTS!!!

Maybe that will work, The politicians have distracted us, but the fact REMAINS,

OUR VOTES ARE BEING COUNTED IN SECRET!!

That should wake everyone up.

No matter who wins, in the end, as long as we allow our ballots to leave the polling place before they are Hand Counted by we the people , Obama, Clinton or McCain will still have a fantastic job with all benefits paid for by, We the People.

No wonder they REMAIN SILENT about the electronic vote count scam.

[magellan]

3. Hand counted paper ballots with count watchers

The most reliable way.