portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

election fraud

Vote Machine, how might I hack thee?

Evidence the 2004 election was stolen. The infrastructure to steal the 2008 election remains in place.
 http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hackthee.php?q=hackthee.php
Vote Machine, how might I hack thee?

Let me count the ways!

With Updated Proof of Stolen Election 2004

As a statistician and a scientist, I believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that the presidential election of 2004 was stolen.

Herein I give the proof.

Consider this page an overview of the issues surrounding electronic paperless voting machines, hacking voting machines and central tabulators, and statistical analyses of election data concerning the stolen presidential election 2004. Use this for the skeptics that say it can't happen here and if it did it would have been reported. Both are wrong. Link to it, copy it, spread it around as far as you can.

I will not be going into all the other ways the republicans stole the vote by disenfranchising black people, supplying too few machines to democratic precincts, etc. For that analysis I suggest a couple books and a bunch of websites at the end of this page.

Qualifications: My name is Greg Black. I am a statistical analyst by training and trade. I have 28 years of experience designing and developing statistical systems, and analyzing complex statistical data. I have also ran a small PC diagnostic and repair business for some years, so I know a little bit about the hardware inside these machines. And finally, I have programmed in a number of computer languages from COBOL to C++, so I know a bit about programming computers as well.

Three Questions

The three questions about the stolen election of 2004 now apply. To any that believe the issue is worth considering, contemplate these questions:

· Can an election be stolen here in the USA?

· Do we have smoking guns?

· What is the proof?

Could it happen here in the USA?

As a patriotic American, I would have said no, it cannot happen here. But there is a sad thing about facts. They are what they are, and no amount of belief can make them not facts.

I first became involved with this issue on November 5, 2004. I had been disappointed with Bush finally getting elected for the first time, but since the Supreme Court had not appointed him this time, I conceded that he was now finally an elected president, and therefore my president, like it or not.

But on November 5, 2004, I heard the first newspaper reports of votes being switched from Kerry to Bush on the voting screen, right there in front of the voters. I remember going into my boss's office exclaiming, "They're doing it again. They're stealing this election too!"

For the next month and a half, I and my fellow patriot Leann Innmon scoured the Internet researching the issues. This resulted in our first analysis of the stolen election published on WhatReallyHappened.com as "Protest Stolen Election 2004". On google, this is page is still #3 out of 2 million plus pages published on the subject (look for stolen election 2004).

So, when I first looked at this between November 5, 2004 and Mid-December, 2004, I knew that the election had been stolen by a combination of vote-swapping software and an outright changing of the vote totals. The anecdotal evidence combined with the statistical evidence was simply overwhelming.

But how? How could it be done? I knew it had been, but I wondered how?

In my mind at that time was the idea that in order to steal a national election like this would take a large group of people working in a number of states all colluding together to pervert the vote outcome. Such a huge conspiracy could not easily be maintained.

But I was wrong.

Due to all of the different ways you can hack these machines, all it takes is one person, or perhaps a handful of persons to pull off stealing a presidential election.

So now, two years later, I have the answer to "how". I had known that the election was stolen, but the nagging question of "how" was unanswered.

So, in the section entitled "Vote Machine: How might I hack thee" is the "how" that I was looking for. It is ridiculously easy to hack the machines in a wide variety of ways.

So, here is my original research published in 2004, appended with the "how". In the sections on smoking guns and on statistical proof, I include only data that were available in the period between November 5,2004 and mid-December, 2004. I do this to illustrate that all the data necessary to determine the election was stolen were available to the press at that time.

So, you wanna know how to hack them? Let's go!

Question 1: Can an election be stolen here in the USA?

The fact is that every independent organization that has looked at the issue of electronic paperless voting machines comes to the same conclusion, that the electronic voting machines are wide open to being hacked.

The GAO describes that machines can record votes for the wrong candidate, that access to a single machine allowed access to all machines of that type, and that it was possible to alter both individual votes and entire vote counts easily.  http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

These machines are so vulnerable that, according to U.S. News, "a single person could change the results of an election". So, it does not take a huge conspiracy, or even a group of people to steal the election. All it takes is a single person with knowledge to change the election results.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701451_pf.html

And here is the actual report:



 http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/SecurityExecSum7-3.pdf

Now, I know that none of you would want to hack the vote machines. Those of us who are patriots would never consider it. However, there are immoral or amoral (are the same to me) people out there that put party over country.

I see the attitude of "party over country" as rampant amongst republicans, even the Joe Blow Republican voters. Do you ever wonder who these 30% of people who still believe that Bush is doing a good job? They are the uninformed mass of Republicans that believe any kind of crap that Bush says, and attribute all bad things coming out of the white house to either the "Liberal Press" or "Partisan bickering". They get their news from Rush Limbaugh and Fox news to that they are never challenged with the reality that the rest of us live with. After talking to republicans for 6 or 7 years and asking them about being a republican, I have determined that you cannot convince a republican of any fact that is negative for the republican party, even when you have deficit numbers from the "President's Budget for 2006" to show them. They still believe it when FOX or Rush tells them that the deficit is going down.

But, if we are going to discuss the vote fraud that occurred, we have to consider what an evil person would do, not what a moral person would do.

Mr. Nefarious

Now, say you were a Nefarious Ner'Do'Wel who did not care about anything but power and greed, and you were willing to kill democracy itself to get what you want. We patriots have a hard time understanding that but the evidence is overwhelming that these foul creatures do exist.

Vote Machine, how Might I Hack Thee? Let me count the ways.

So, where would Mr. Loki Nefarious start?

Actually the easiest way, and one that has to be mentioned is to own the machines, allowing you to install malicious software right at the factory.

This is not an idle speculation. All three of the top voting machine companies have strong ties to the Republican Party. And the CEO of Diebold vowed to "deliver" Ohio to Bush well before the votes were cast. It's pretty easy to do if you own the machines.

Here is data on the ties to the Republican Party. The dollar contributions of the corporate devils that own these machines are at the bottom:

 http://cronus.com/electionfraud/

In addition, the voting machine companies claim that the programming they use is "proprietary", and that they do not have to show us the voters how they work. As the Daily Show described it, you vote, your vote goes into the machine where "things happen". And that is all we get to know as taxpayers and citizens. We are not allowed to see how our votes are counted.

 http://www.slate.com/id/2086455/

Even slot machines are regulated more than our vote machines. There, the government inspects the internal code, unlike the voting machines.

 http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Mar-27-Mon-2006/news/6527933.html



And, after you have sold the machines, and they have been ostensibly inspected, you can go by and install a "patch" to help your Republican buddies. And is it not by accident that felon Senator Bob Ney made sure there was no paper trail like there was in 2000. With a paper trail, we could prove the vote was hacked by actually counting the paper votes. No way, Jose! That would look too much like an actual democracy.



 link to www.rollingstone.com



So, assume that Mr. Nefarious has access to the vote machine, but only for a very short time.



Here, they show you that not only can you hack the machine if left alone for 1 minute, but you can upload a VIRUS that will infect all the other vote machines in similar nefarious ways. Oh, and don't worry about that key you need to open the machine. Any mini-bar key from a hotel room will open the lock:



 http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/SecurityExecSum7-3.pdf

And the easiest way of all to steal the election, just change the vote totals on the central machine. We also know that the software for all of this is based on the Microsoft Windows operating system, and by simply altering an ACESS database, you can change voter totals at will.

 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

And here is a fun demonstration with a serious discussion of the issues involved after.

 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00198.htm

 http://www.dcnet2000.com/~neural/Voting/VotingFraudExample.html

Blackbox voting has shown it can be hacked by inserting a pre-loaded memory card. About security, one expert exclaims: "It's not that they left the door open. There is no door. This system is 'open for business.'"

 http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/5921.html

Also, Open Voting consortium has found that the entire operating system of the Dieblod machines can be change with a simple switch on the motherboard.

 http://openvotingfoundation.org/tiki-index.php?page_ref_id=1

Then they talk about the voting machines that have wi-fi cards installed. Yep, think about that. Here you have a voting machine with a wi-fi card which connects it to the Internet. And this guy confirms my fears as to what that means.

All you need do to hack these machines is cruise down the street with a laptop that has wi-fi, and find the IP address of the machine. That's right. Any computer science major with said laptop can hack the election, and then install a virus if he wanted to infect all of the machines like that one.

This guy also gives a real good overview of the myriad of vulnerabilities from a theoretical level.

 http://www.arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ars

Oh, and did I tell you that these machines run a primitive version of WINDOWS that is vulnerable to all 75,000 known WINDOWS vulnerabilities. (Bless you BradBLog!) That's right, 75,000 ways to hack the machines.

Not only does BradBlog have that, he has posted the 200 page report on Diebold security problems in its entirety to his site. Mr Nefarious is getting happier all the time.

 http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3731

Security? We don't need no stinking security! Here are step by step instructions on how to get past the security.

 http://www.equalccw.com/dieboldtestnotes.html

A few keystrokes in ACCESS software, and you get to change election. Here are step by step instructions on how to change the vote totals using ACCESS. Remember, Diebold has two sets of access files (like two sets of books in accounting), so Mr. Nefarious has to change both sets of books.

 http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevotedemo.htm

Here is a description of the Diebold internal vote tally systems, complete with another set of instructions on hacking the access databases.

 http://www.equalccw.com/dieboldtestnotes.html

Here is a research project where the intent was to simulate the hacking of the vote. This is interesting from the theoretical standpoint.



 http://www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach/pub/hackavote2004.pdf



And you definitely want to read the historic Hursti reports From BlackBox Voting on hacking the machines. I liked it when he had the vote machine ask "Are we having fun yet?"

 http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVreport.pdf

 http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVtsxstudy-supp.pdf

 http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVtsxstudy.pdf

Ok, until 11/3/2006, when blackboxvoting.org published this, my favorite hack was driving around with a wi-fi laptop. But this is just too sweat! All you have to do to hack the Sequoia vote machine is push a yellow button in the back , touch the screen in a certain place, and you can vote as many times as you want.

 http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/44823.html

And, Diebold has installed three different sets of "books" and has installed backdoors in the software to allow machines to be hacked:

 http://whatreallyhappened.com/biggerthanwatergate.html

The Diebold machine is the poster child of insecure voting systems because they have been shown to be hackable in a number of different ways.

Here are some words that we should all bear in mind from Newsweek.



"If Diebold had set out to build a system as insecure as they possibly could, this would be it," says Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer-science professor and elections-security expert.



 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12888600/site/newsweek



But, of course, building an inherently hackable machine was exactly what Diebold intended to do.



Consider that Diebold makes ATM's that track every penny and are totally secure. These methods to hack the machines were put there purposely, so as to allow for some excuse other than factory installed malicious software to explain what happened to the machine vote counting software. These machines were designed to be hacked.



And Diebold is not alone. All of the machines have severe security flaws as described in the above references.

Yet the voting machines that they built can be hacked at least a dozen ways from sideways. These machines are less secure than slot machines. AND, there is no way that a company that makes ATM's can say they don't know any better.

 http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Mar-27-Mon-2006/news/6527933.html

Conclusion: It is not only possible, but actually easy to hack these voting machines in a variety of ways and steal the election.

A SINGLE PERSON CAN STEAL THE ELECTION!

See, this was the part that bothered me about the stolen election 2004. I thought it would take a massive number of people and that somebody would come forward.

But now we know that a very small group, yea, even a single person can hack the election and steal it. Does anybody else out there have a problem with our voting machines being wi-fi equipped?

A quick note: Everything in the article from here on down were known back in November and December of 2004. The reason that you never heard it was that the corporate media had and still has a blackout on the entire issue of the stolen election 2004. Again, I am limiting my data from here down to what was known at the time in order to demonstrate that you cannot trust the corporate media to tell you about the government that they own.

The corporate press is complicit in the stolen election 2004. Had they not had a media blackout on the issue, had they reported on the most sensational story of the century, the people of the United States would have risen up and demanded a new election. So, word to the wise. Read or watch the corporate media only to find out what news they are allowing the country to hear, but do not trust them to examine the government or do the muckraking that is the hallmark of functioning press in a democracy. The corporate media will only tell you what they want you to know.

Question #2: Do we have smoking guns?

Smoking Gun #1 Computer "glitches" change votes from Kerry to Bush

The first set of smoking guns are the computer "glitches".

Let me make something immediately clear. As a computer programmer that has programmed in a number of languages from COBOL to C++, I can assure you that computers do not do things that they are not told to do.

Computers do fail, get bad spots on the hard disc and such. However, to believe that a computer is going to do something other than what it was told to do by a programmer is ludicrous. Remember that. Computers do not do anything without being told to do it by a computer programmer.

A large number of people in a number of states reported seeing their votes change from Kerry to Bush right in front of their eyes! (Do we hear a similarity to the McKinney race here?).

In Broward County, Florida, the machines would choose Bush when you touched the Kerry button. I call this the "thug" configuration because the machine doesn't care if you know it stole your vote.

 https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapCounty&state=Florida&cat=02&tab=ED04&county=Broward

I went to the EIRS (Election Information Report System) hotline website and pulled the data for all problems that were "machine malfunction" into an excel spreadsheet. I then went through row by row to identify the cases where the votes were being switched right in front of the voter's eyes. I then tabulated them by State and County.

Now, the N of cases was pretty low in 2004, because most people were unaware of the machine problems and, more important, most people were not aware that there was a hotline you could report the problems to. (2006 data will be far richer, as tens of thousand of vote fraud activists have spread the word about the machines.) However, even with a low N of cases, the location of the supposedly "random glitches" are pretty tell tale. So, I pulled the data from the EIRS website based upon the report having "machine problem" (called "glitch" by the corporate media), classified them by the type of problem and came up with the following table:

State


Total


Kerry to Bush


Kerry to Other


Dem to Rep


Diff. Choice


Total Vote Switch


Default


Bad Ballot


Broke


Long Lines


No Vote


Bush to Kerry

Pennsylvania


208





2


7


24


33


1


6


157


2


9




New York


165


1


3


16


4


24





3


131


2


5




Ohio


149


6


4


2


13


25





6


99


19







Florida


145


15


3


2


34


54


3


1


71


10


5


1

California


75


1


1





11


13








60





2




Illinois


71


2








16


18





1


50





2




New Mexico


52





5


3


28


36


2





14










Louisiana


46











3


3





1


41


1







New Jersey


44





1


2


6


9








30


1


4




Texas


42


6


4


3


5


18








22


2







Virginia


33


1








1


2





1


29





1




Georgia


27


4





2


2


8








16


2


1




North Carolina


22











2


2





1


15


2


2




Arizona


21











1


1








20










Michigan


20














0








18





2




South Carolina


20





2


1


2


5








14


1







All Others


123


4


0


0


10


14


1


0


101


3


3


0

Total


1263


40


25


38


162


265


7


20


888


45


36


1

Note: 265 total vote switch is not included in row total above. That would be double counting.

I got 1460 cases, but I could only classify 1263 easily.

The column labels are pretty self explanatory, but I must point out that the "Rep to Dem" column includes cases where folks saw the vote machines switch their votes AND cases where the machine would only allow Republican votes. "Bad Ballot" refers to places where the machines wouldn' except ballots, ballots wouldn't line up, etc. "No vote" is where the machine would not allow the person to vote.

I would like to point out a couple things about this table.

There was 1, count it, 1 case where somebody reported that the "glitch" change the vote form Bush to Kerry. There were 0 cases of Bush to Other or Rep. to Dem. So, the theory that these are just "glitches"

AND, I must point out that 99.999% of the idiosyncratic, unexplained computer "glitches" that happened in the election was in one direction: benefiting G. W. Bush.

If these immense number of flaws, problems, etc. were truly random "glitches", you would expect a 50-50 split in the total effects of the "glitch". Instead, what you have is that 99.99% of EVERY SINGLE COMPUTER "GLITCH" that happened WAS IN THE DIRECTION OF BENEFITTING G. W. BUSH! As a statistician, it is pretty hard to swallow that purely random events went almost entirely in one direction.

And, let's look at where these "glitches occurred.

A huge number of "glitches occurred in Ohio and Florida. In order to steal the election, Bush had to steal both of these states. More on that below.

Back to the top.

The following is a short list of the non-vote swapping computer "glitches" for a sampling of the types of problems that occurred in 2004. I give only a sampling here, as anybody with a net connection can find thousands of pages of similar incidents. (At the end of this site will be a list of other websites that were and are prominent in keeping this issue alive.)

Smoking gun #2 - Computer "glitches" deliver more votes than voters

In this section, I am going to give a short list of some of the impossible numbers, like more votes than registered voters, more absentee votes than ballots, etc.

So here is a short list of impossible numbers. Note that this is just a sampling.

The data here can be verified in the Conyers report "What went wrong in Ohio" form the House Judiciary Committee.

Congressman (John Conyers), of the House Committee on the Judiciary, has detailed a number of questions about voter fraud to Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell. He has yet to see a response. Here is the report

 http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/files/Conyersreport.pdf

In his letter, he describes, among other things:

Precinct in Perry County: with fewer than 400 voters reporting 489 votes.

Precinct in Lexington County: with 350 voters reporting 434 votes.

Precinct in Monroe Township: with 266 voters reporting 393 votes.

Perry County has an incredibly high level of voter registration (91%). Of those, there is an extremely high percentage of registered voters with no voting activity before, and no signature on file. Of that group, an incredible 3100 registered on a single day in 1977!

There is a pattern of extremely high numbers of votes for third party candidates in democratic precincts. (See the table above with "Kerry to Other")

Franklin County had 638 voters and they recorded a whopping 4,258 votes for Bush!

Representative Conyers was too polite to point it out in his letter, but Franklin County reported 4,258 for bush and 260 for Kerry. That's pretty good turnout for Bush from 638 voters. Here is the MSNBC story about it:

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6418513/

Stepping out of the "It was known in 2004 mode", I must interject two minor facts here about Ohio.

First, on election night of 2004, Secretary of State Blackwell's office redirected the vote counting and reporting from servers in the secretary of state's office to servers run by republican operatives using software developed by republican operatives. That way, they controlled not only the counting of the votes, but also the reporting of the votes to the public.

The only motivation for doing the would be so that they could alter the vote counts.

Does running our election results and the reporting thereof on hardware and software owned by republican operatives even come close to passing the smell test? If it were democrats doing this, the republicans would scream bloody murder!

 http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2553

The second fact that could not have been known at the time 55 of the 88 counties in Ohio have now "accidently" or "mistakenly" destroyed the voting records even though the records were supposed to be preserved due to several lawsuits, and state and federal law. That's right, a full 62.5% of the Ohio counties have destroyed the voting records ACCIDENTALY!

 http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2730

Back to what was known in 2004.

Another quick fact that does not pass the smell test, and was known in 2004: On election night, 2004, Warren County announce they had received a message from the FBI detailing a terrorist threat, and then proceeded to take the voting materials to an undisclosed location to be counted in secret. The only problem is, there never was an FBI warning. Why would they claim an FBI warning that didn't occur in order to change the vote counting location and count the votes in secret? I can only think of one reason to count the votes secretly under these conditions, and that is to change the vote totals.

Smoking gun # 3 - Computer "glitches" deliver NEGATIVE votes

And, my personal favorite computer "glitch", how about a machine that reports a NEGATIVE 25 million votes for Kerry. That's right, a negative 25 million votes.

 http://mediamatters.org/items/200411120011

The machine was in Mahoning County, Ohio, where there were also reports of vote switching as well. The following link has a good summary of various vote machine problems elsewhere as well.

 http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

From the EIRS data I analyzed above, Mahoning county had by far the greatest number of vote switching reports in Ohio:

Ohio County


Total


Kerry to Bush


Kerry to Other


Dem to Rep


Diff. Choice


Default


Bad Ballot


Broke


Long Lines


No Vote


Bush to Kerry

Cuyahoga


52











1





4


42


5







Franklin


30





1





2





2


20


5







Mahoning


29


5


2


1


10








6


5







Lucas


23




















21


2







Hamilton


4





1














3










Summit


4




















3


1







Clark


1




















1










Dayton


1








1






















Knox


1























1







Mahoney


1


1




























portage


1




















1










Stark


1




















1










Volusia


1




















1










And, so you can do your own research, here is what the county data for Florida looked like:

Florida County


Total


Kerry to Bush


Kerry to Other


Dem to Rep


Diff. Choice


Default


Bad Ballot


Broke


Long Lines


No Vote


Bush to Kerry

Broward


32


7


3





18








3








1

Miami-Dade


23


2





1


4


1





10


5







Palm Beach County


21


3








9


1





7





1




Hillsboro


18


1








2








12


3







Leon


14




















14










Orange


5




















5










Pinellas


5


2








1








2










Volusia


5




















4





1




Duval


4




















2





2




Seminole


4

















1


2


1







Brevard


3




















3










Polk


2




















2










Unknown


2








1











1










Bravard


1




















1










Gadsden


1




















1










Marrion


1




















1










Millsborough


1


























1




Orlando


1























1







Putnam


1




















1










WEST PALM BEACH


1














1
















And here is the actual raw data as I pulled it from EIRS so you can read the individual case reports themselves.

LINK HERE

Not all of the impossible numbers described above show a pro-Bush lean (who knows for sure who got the extra votes in those precincts with too many votes?), but they do demonstrate the impossibility factor pretty well. And, as I said before, every "glitch" that has a definable direction was in favor of Bush.

Back to the top.

My conclusion in 2004 was: I believe that what we are seeing is a variety of voter fraud strategies, ranging from changing individual votes on the machines to simply changing the vote totals on the central machine. The fact is the GOP got greedy. They not only wanted to steal the election at the Electoral College level, they wanted to change the vote totals enough so that it appeared that Bush actually got a majority. The GOP's operatives simply got greedy.

Add to that the normal amount of human error that occurs in these situations. If you have people who are installing and setting parameters on vote switching software, you will come up with glitches like the impossible numbers above. Some people are just going to set it up wrong (I mean, 25 million negative votes? Someone screwed up that vote switching installation big time!)

Not to mention Broward County, FL, and all the other places where the voters could actually see their votes being switched. This is an example where the person configuring the software forgot to turn off the display command in the software, allowing the voters to actually witness their votes being switched.

Smoking Gun #4: Ok, so here is a guy who has a sworn affidavit that he wrote the vote switching software for Republican Representative Feeny:

 http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2004/Dec/EEN41b5f8f70cbf8.html

Smoking Gun #5: Here, Bev Harris of Black Box Voting describes a county in Florida that attempted to give her a set of election tapes that were run on November 15th while throwing out the original signed tapes from November 2nd. If you don't have anything to hide, what are you covering up? Sure enough, there were differences between the two data sets:

 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm

Here are a couple of reports detailing the money that paid for fake technicians to rig voting machines:

 http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/112504Madsen/112504madsen.html

 http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120104Madsen/120104madsen.html

So, we have vote changing software, and easily hacked vote totals at the central tabulators. We also have vast evidence that vote totals have been changed.

Back to the top.

So, when they try to say it was just a "glitch", remember that. Remember that computers do nothing that they were not told to do by a programmer. When they say it's "just a minor glitch, and it didn't affect the election," remember that 99% of the "glitches" were in one direction, for Bush. Also remember that the "glitches" are where somebody screwed up the vote swapping/vote shaving software enough for the effects to be noticed. What about all of the machines where the vote swapping software was configured right? All we have is weird things like democratic precincts going for Bush (see below).

THE VOTE FAIRY?

Ok, if it was not nefarious vote switching software or vote total changing software or people, I have another theory.

There was a Vote Fairy that came down and performed the impossible, like more votes than voters and such. Hey, it's as believable as a computer performing a function it was not called upon to do.

STATISTICALLY IMPROBABLE NUMBERS

In this section, I will describe a number of studies of voting patterns that simply do not make statistical sense, like majority democrat counties going for Bush, turnout statistics in democratic counties/precincts being incredibly low, while republican turnout is incredibly high, etc.


Here is one of the main problems, a bunch of democratic counties all of a sudden voting for Bush. Here in an election year where the main thrust of the Democratic is ABB, "Anybody But Bush!", and the main mover for democrats is not pro-Kerry, but anti-Bush. Yet in these democratic county strongholds, Bush is getting up to 74% of the vote! I don't believe that, do you?

A couple of examples:

In Lafayette County, 83% of voters are Democrats, but Diebold said 74% of the county voted for Bush.

In Liberty County, 88% of voters are Democrats, but Diebold said 64% voted for Bush.

Here are the sites:

 http://www.solarbus.org/election/articles/summary-anonymous.html

 http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=321

Here is where two precincts were co-located, and if you voted on the wrong machine, you ended up casting a vote for the wrong person. Incredibly high votes for libertarian and constitution parties resulted. These were votes probably intended for Kerry:

 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=320643&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Here is an analysis of turnout where the official turnout reported looks way too high in Bush precincts (too high to believe) and incredibly low in Kerry precincts. This site has very good data.

 http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/979

You will find an analysis of voting patterns which demonstrates weird patterns. 30 precincts with unbelievably low turnout: and some precincts in Miami with 97%, 98% turnout:

 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0412/S00167.htm

And this is JUST A SAMPLE. See my favorite links on the stolen election 2004 at the bottom and the reference to a 797 page book detailing the enormous amount of evidence that proves that the election was stolen.

Back to the top.

So, we know it can be done. What evidence do we have that it was done other than the incredibly unbelievable vote totals themselves?

Question #3: What is the proof?

Exit polls are all of a sudden wrong!

The exit polling data is all of a sudden wrong for the first time in decades.

Yes, those pesky exit polls. A little about political polling: This is a science, not an art. The methodology of stratified sampling and weighting that is done has been refined for decades. All polling is done with a scientific precision where there is a possible margin of error of +/- 4%.

The three thresholds of statistical significance that we use in social sciences are 5%, 1%, and when you really have a strong relationship, 0.1%. So, to be considered "true" in social sciences, you must have a relationship that is statistically significant at 5% (5 out of 100) to 0.1% (1 out of 1000). A social science researcher that gets a 0.1% significance feels like he has hit the jackpot, statistically speaking.

With these polls, the standard of error is plus or minus 4%. To be statistically significantly wrong here is to say that reality is more different than the 4% margin of error.

International observers of elections who observe elections in other countries (like Ukraine) use exit polls to judge whether or not the election has been stolen after the ballots were cast. When they see official results that are different than the election exit polls, like in Ukraine in late 2004, they know that the voting results were highjacked.

Now, according to the corporate media, the polling data is all of a sudden wrong.

So, at this point, we have two competing hypotheses.

1. The scientific exit polls were right, the official vote totals were manipulated, and Kerry was, in fact elected president.

2. The scientific exit polls were wrong for the first time in decades, and the official vote totals are correct.

Well, having read through how easy it is to hack the machines, and mountains of evidence that they were hacked, I have to lean towards the first hypothesis. I have far more trust in scientific exit polls than I do in machines that report more votes than voters and negative votes.

But back to those exit polls that were ostensibly wrong for the first time in decades.

But the polls are only wrong here in the USA, not in the Ukraine!

Not only that, but exactly where the polls went "wrong" is very telling.

The exit polls were correct for any non swing state presidential race, and all the swing state Senate races.

The "wrong" exit poll results occurred only in swing states, and there the polls were ­wrong only for the presidential race.

That's right. The only places where the exit polls were wrong were in the swing states. And here it gets real good. The only two states where the exit polls in the state went for one candidate and the official vote total went for the other were:

You guessed it, Florida and Ohio.

Losing either of these states tosses the race to Kerry, so the voter fraud is absolutely necessary to succeed in these two states in order to steal the presidency.

And it appears that widespread voter fraud did occur in these states. In fact there are far more reports form these two states than elsewhere of computer "gliches".

Here are the comparisons, state by state, of the poll results compared to the reported vote totals. Note especially the third graphic, a table of presidential results for the swing states. Note that Florida and Ohio are the two states that went for Kerry in the exit polls and went for Bush in the reported vote.

 http://www.oilempire.us/exitpolls.html

And here is another analysis of the exit poll data:

 http://residentbush.com/Aftermath-2004_Elsis.html

The media financed exit poll data from 2004 still has not been released it to statisticians to look at. What, I wonder, might the media be hiding? Could it be that they are hiding their own duplicity and complicity in stealing the election by hiding the reports? As a statistician and scientist, I guarantee I would have my fingers in that exit poll data immediately, as would scientists from all over earth. The cover up of the stolen election could no longer be maintained at that point.

It is statistically impossible for the exit polls to be off by the amounts that the reported vote totals would imply. Looking at New Hampshire (polls are off by 16%) and Minnesota (polls off by 7%) alone would provide enough statistical evidence that something is very wrong. Combining the amount of error in the polls for all swing states produces such an incredible low probability of the polls being wrong that the only conclusion is that the vote totals were changed after the voting stopped.

Looking only at Florida and Ohio, and the unrealistic vote numbers makes this particularly compelling.

Remember the three levels of statistical significance that range from 5 out of 100 to, if you have a really strong relationship, 1 out of 1000? What do you figure is the likelihood that the Ohio and Florida exit polls could be off as much as they supposedly were?

1 in 662,000.

That's right; 1 in 662,000. This is so statistically significant that the number to describe it is enormous.

See:

 http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=20483&ntpid=1

And, although it is oriented more to the statisticians among us, this researcher explains exactly how the probability is ascertained. According to this researcher (and others who have run the numbers), the chances that Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio exit polls could have been off as much as they were is 1 in 250,000,000. That's right, one in 250 million.

 http://truthout.org/unexplainedexitpoll.pdf

There is no other reasonable, logical, and statistically sound explanation for these "erroneous" exit polls than that the official vote totals were changed, and do not reflect the true vote that occurred in the swing states.

If you assume the opposite, that the polls were somehow faked or purposely done wrong, what, I wonder, would be the motivation? The theory here is that mainstream corporate media paid for the pollsters to purposely get it wrong in order to discourage Republicans from going to the polls and thereby help Kerry win. Is a Kerry win going to benefit the corporate media in some way that Bush would not?

The answer is no. Kerry has gone on record against allowing any further consolidation of the media industry, and favors making the media "more diverse".

 http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=1671

The Democratic Party is also on record against allowing any more media consolidation:

 http://nopc.antares-dev.com/yabbse/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=8457

In contrast, Bush appointees to the FCC attempted to loosen the rules and allow more media consolidation. They were blocked by Congress after hundreds of thousands of people protested the new rules (including major conservative groups like the National Rifle Association):

 link to www.washingtonpost.com

So, the argument is that the media conglomerates are going to pay the polling firm to purposely slant the polls toward Kerry in order to help him get elected, even though he is directly opposed to the policies that they want, and Bush has pushed to give them exactly what they want.

This theory makes absolutely no sense. The corporate media has been pressing for rules to allow them to own ever more increasing amounts of media, and the Republican Party has been solidly behind them. Bush's appointees to the FCC attempted to pass rules allowing even more consolidation, but were beat back by literally hundreds of thousands of negative comments, and some valiant Congressmen and Congresswomen.

So, the corporate media is going to have the polls faked so they can put in the man that is directly against their own interests? I don't think so.

And the motivation for the other theory, that voter fraud occurred? Pretty clear here, it is to put your man in the white house through heinous means.

So which do you believe: faked exit polls (and only in selected races and states, paid for by corporations who want the opposite result), or faked vote totals from Republican officials and operatives that worked on Bush's campaign.

Conclusion

So, remember the two competing hypotheses?

1. The scientific exit polls were right, the official vote totals were manipulated, and Kerry was, in fact elected president.

2. The scientific exit polls were wrong for the first time in decades, and the official vote totals are correct.

So, we know that the machines are so easily hacked that a single person or a small group could steal the election. We furthermore have vast amounts of evidence that the machines were switching votes, reporting more votes than voters, reporting negative votes, reporting incredibly unbelievable totals where democrats in certain counties voted for Bush in overwhelming amounts, and machines reporting incredibly low turnout in Democratic areas and incredibly high turnout in republican areas.

And we know that the chances of the exit polls being off by as much as they are purported to be are from 1 in 662,000 to 1 in 250 million. That is so far past statistically significant it counts as absolute proof.

So, what conclusion can a fair minded person come to when confronted with all of the above facts?

The election was stolen. And the media and the democrats know it and have done nothing about it (excepting Conyers and associated representatives). You cannot tell me that hundreds of Democratic representatives and senators are totally unaware of this data that has been out for over two years. Will they do something now that they have control of congress? Conyers is head of Judiciary. Will he use his subpoena power to put Blackwell and the rest of the criminals under oath? So far, it has not happened.

My only goal is to restore democracy to America, the land that I love. Use this page as a reference to pass the word around to all the people that do not know this yet. The Internet is the only true news these days outside of the Daily Show and Colbert Report. Use the Internet to pass this data to everyone you can. Copy it, link to it, send it everywhere. There is a copyright waiver for you to do all of this at the bottom of the page.

For those of you who linked to my other web page from November 7, 2006 with this same title, or my first page entitled "Protest Stolen Election 2004" that was published on WhatReallyHappened.com in December 2004, please re-link to this page.

It has almost all of the data that I gathered in November and December of 2004, PLUS a whole new section on how they stole the election.

My favorite Stolen Election Sites:

First off, a couple of books:

Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election by Fitrakis, Rosenfeld, and Wasserman is an excellent reference, full of anecdotal evidence, pictures of the actual official letters and memos, and original statistical studies, This book is absolutely wonderful.

Fooled Again: How the Right stole the 2004 election and Why they will steal the next one too. By Miller. I'm sorry, but I couldn't get through this. He rambles around too much and takes too long to get to the point. However, it is entertaining reading unless you are in a hurry.

And now I have heard about the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy", but not having HBO, I have not seen it.

Ok, usful sites:
Here are my favorite write-ups of the issue:

The Silent Scream of Numbers



The 2004 election was stolen — will someone please tell the media?

Without a doubt, What Really Happened.com vote fraud archives is my favorite. Around 80% of what I have here came from them (Full Disclosure means I must say they posted my website called "Protest Stolen Election 2004" in late December, 2004 and my earlier unedited version of this page.)

 http://whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vote_fraud.html

Here is black box voting.org, with Bev Harris, who has worked up some deliciously wonderful demonstrations.

 http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
Election Protection folks:
ElectionProtection.org
Jeez, I can't forget Bradblog. Thank God for BradBlog:
Bradblog.com
 http://www.opednews.com/keefer_111504_readings.htm

 http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1318

www.CommonDreams.org

www.Truthout.org

Greg Palast wrote a book called The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, and articles on the stolen election BEFORE it was stolen:

 http://www.thedubyareport.com/palast-democracy.html

www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php



 http://commonwonders.com/archives/col290.htm



No Paper Trail Left Behind: the Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election*

By Dennis Loo, Ph.D.



 http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html



Voting Fraud in the 2004 Presidential Election
Article by Will Pitt

 http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm

LIST OF OTHER USEFUL SITES (from the original 2004 page):

Votergate 30 minute movie:

 http://www.votermarch.org/

Olberman

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Look at the second blog entry; he mentions lots of what you need, including a link to this:

Pinpointing precincts with errors

 http://uscountvotes.org/

 http://democracymeansyou.blogspot.com/2004/11/demand-recounts-now.html

 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

This is what I found

 http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/

Shows the Florida data

Bob Fritakis at Free Press

Found here:

 http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/985

 http://www.oilempire.us/exitpolls.html

Search on election fraud 2004 or stolen election 2004

How to organize protests:

 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1129-26.htm

It looks like there is a judge in Ohio who is not inclined to let third parties carry a challenge on their own. That is why it is more important than ever to tell Mr. Kerry what we the people want him to do. Here is a one click page where you can send your personal message to him, the DNC and the GAO, all at the same time

 http://www.thepen.us/e-fraud.html

We know we are having an impact because the GAO is ready to launch an investigation based on the people who have appealed to them already. Now is the time to crank it up to the next level. Please post this link everywhere you can to everyone you know.

News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government November 25, 2004 --

 http://www.legitgov.org/

 http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Wyoming: 106% Turnout of Registered Voters in 2004 General Elections --According to the 'Profile of Wyoming's Voters - Voter Registration and Voter Turnout' on the Wyoming Secretary of State's website, Wyoming had a turnout of 106% registered voters on November 2, 2004.

Wyoming had 232,396 registered voters - 62% of eligible voters for the 2004 General Elections; turnout of registered voters was 245,789, or 106% of registered voters.

 http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=321

You will find 250 links (!!!!) here:

 http://www.linkcrusader.com/vote_machines.htm

You will also find bunches of links here:

 http://www.pamrotella.com/polhist/elections2004.html

 http://whatreallyhappened.com/04votefraud.html

 http://vote2004.eriposte.com/

 http://stolenelection2004.com/

 http://vote2004.eriposte.com/swingstates/ohio.htm

 http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php

 http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book109h.htm

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

 http://www.opednews.com/keefer_111504_readings.htm

 http://www.electoral-vote.com

 http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/

 http://democracymeansyou.blogspot.com/2004/11/demand-recounts-now.html

 http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/983

Back to the top.

ALMOST UNLIMITED PERMISSION TO USE:

I give ANYBODY permission to reprint or reuse this information, post it to another site, etc. as long as long as you do not change any of my writing. In fact, post this everywhere you can find that will take it.

I make these claims with the assistance and encouragement of my fellow patriot, Lee Ann Innmon of Dillo Web Designs, whose services I whole-heartedly endorse as the only individual or corporate entity I trust to present my views to the public in general.

Back to the top.

Web page design and maintenance done By: Dillo Web Designs ™



Copyright © 2007 WhatReallyHappened.com