How substantial might the electronic election fraud be?

A couple of days ago, I was convinced that, bar a completely unexpected event, Obama could not lose the Presidential election. Even if the Republicans were largely successful with their attempts at voter suppression, I was sure Obama would win comfortably. However, after watching the October 22 edition of "Democracy now" I began to feel a lot more trepidation.

http://www.democracynow.org /2008/10/22/votes

 

On the show, Amy Goodman mentioned problems some voters were having in a few States, with electronic voting machines apparently changing their votes from Obama to another candidate. She then conducted an interview with a guy called Mark Crispin Miller, who has written 2 books on Republican election fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections. In particular, Miller talked about a guy named Stephen Spoonamore, who is a committed Republican and an expert in computer fraud having worked for major banks, foreign governments and the Secret Service. Spoonamore is convinced that the Republican party has committed election fraud in multiple elections since 2000, by manipulation of the vote numbers from electronic voting machines.

I was, like most people, already aware of the various ways by which the Bush team stole Florida and the Presidency in 2000, and also that there had been irregularities in the 2004 Ohio vote regarding the Diebold voting machines. However, I did not know many details about these voting machines and their deficiencies.

I decided to search for clips of Stephen Spoonamore on youtube and, amongst other interviews, found one (split into 10 youtube clips) from September 2008. I will post the links to this interview below, along with my summary of what Spoonamore said in the interview. One thing that Miller said about Spoonamore on "Democracy now" was:

"He knows personally the principal players in Bush-Cheney’s conspiracy to subvert our elections through electronic means since 2000, and he has named these principal players. Specifically, he has named a man named Mike Connell. Mike Connell, according to Spoonamore, is Karl Rove’s computer guru. This is the guy who has helped Bush-Cheney fix election results through computers since Florida 2000, in Ohio in 2004, also in the stolen re-election of Governor Don Siegelman in Alabama in 2002, also in the stolen re-election of Senator Max Cleland in Georgia in 2002."

However, Miller seems to have overstated the case when he said:

"Now, the scariest thing is that Connell told Spoonamore that the reason why he has helped Bush-Cheney steal these elections for the last eight years has been to save the babies. See? We have to understand that there’s a very powerful component of religious fanaticism at work in the election fraud conspiracy."

From what I could gather, Spoonamore doesn't know for certain whether Connell actually set up the machines to steal votes, although he might strongly suspect it. Connell doesn't appear to have confessed anything about election fraud to Spoonamore, although it does seem that he is a Christian pro-life fundamentalist. Apparently Connell works in some capacity on or with the McCain campaign and has just been subpoenaed in a case concerning the alleged 2004 election fraud, although he and his Republican party lawyers are trying to quash the subpoena.

Anyway, here are the youtube links and my summary of what Spoonamore said in the interview.

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=LyByZx5GEaw

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=YadsHqxid8I

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=mbxuXC4QlMk

Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=kOHkY7sJ4ZI

Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=1--KHOo8tkM

Part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=GJHmuG8d2bQ

Part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=4Z7DK3LgiOA

Part 8 http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=8WTe8ppEIic

Part 9 http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=1lrFkRHrRDI

Part 10 http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=s07oi2G_K4c

My Summary:

*Voting machines intrinsically can't be made secure because votes are meant to be anonymous, and for anonymity to occur the electronic information of who voted for each candidate cannot be recorded. This contrasts with (eg) bank transactions, where specific people are tied to each transaction. This makes it possible for the vote numbers for each candidate to be changed in an untraceable way.
*It is possible for many groups, including foreign governments, to hack the voting machines.
*Vote manipulation probably (usually) occurs at the stage of the process where vote numbers for each machine are tabulated.
*Whenever exit polls have disagreed with voting machine numbers over the last decade, it is virtually certain that the Republican candidate is favoured.
*The anomaly from Ohio electronic voting machines of an extremely liberal, relatively unknown, black judge way down-ticket getting more votes in her race than John Kerry did for president was statistically impossible without voter manipulation, and this was probably achieved at the tabulator level (through the tabulators transmitting the results to a private company, where numbers could be manipulated, on the way to the master tabulator at the Secretary of State's office) by changing approximately the number of Kerry votes to Bush votes in certain counties as would be required to give Bush victory in Ohio. Statistical anomalies of one tenth that extent for credit card transactions would have instantaneously triggered an investigation, as it would be clear someone was manipulating the numbers.
*Any time a functioning computer system has its hard drives stripped out in a banking investigation, the only reason is that the suspects are trying to eliminate the evidence of a crime. However, when the Green party demanded a recount in Ohio, all of a sudden a company called "Triad" came in and replaced the hard drives of some voting machine tabulators, falsely claiming that for the recount to work the tabulators needed "clean hard drives with clean programming".
*Every time Spoonamore has investigated a voting machine problem, the programmers have been fundamentalist Christians whose main political agenda is to have a Supreme Court which will overturn Roe v Wade in order to "save the babies".
*The only way to ensure this type of election fraud doesn't occur is to use paper ballots, even if it means every voter demands an absentee ballot.
*Not only have the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections been stolen, but certain other results, such as the 2002 election of Saxby Chambliss as a Senator for Georgia, were fraudulent.
*Spoonamore wouldn't be surprised to see McCain/Palin "win" by 3 electoral college votes in a shocking recovery.
 

Obviously I don't know if the Republicans could manage to manipulate the vote to such an extent and in enough States to swing the election (assuming Obama still has his current lead come election day). It is also unclear what the consequences would be if such a blatant fraud was undertaken. It is worth remembering though that it is not just the Presidential election that might come under attack, but also many House and Senate races. One thing seems sensible though, and that is to vote via paper ballot if at all possible, and to encourage other people to do likewise.

< Mugging of McCain Supporter - Story is a Hoax | Official McCain taking L's >
 Display:

This year, Obama has an organized effort to protect the integrity of the voting process, both legal and technical.  So the question is, who will be more successful - the hackers (presumably connected to the McCain campaign and/or Rove) trying to break into the voting computers, or the software engineers working tirelessly to protect these computers from being attacked?

This was identified early on as the single biggest obstacle the Obama campaign would face during this election.

Now, from what you know about Obama's advisors on the economy, foreign policy and other areas, who do you think he is going to choose to safeguard his election?  It is easier to attack than to defend, but there is an enormous difference in the skills of these religious fundamentalist hackers and the world-class computer security experts working for the Obama campaign.

by rbruck on 10/24/2008 04:35:33 PM EST


Graphic shows predominant voting equipment by county and overall breakdown in 2006 and 2008.

But Pennsylvania and Virginia could be stolen...

by cruzi on 10/24/2008 05:04:22 PM EST


One of my local radio stations out of Baltimore reported that there were problems with early voting with paper ballots in two states, one of them Georgia (I can't remember the other state), and one of the problems was that the ovals were too big to be read by the machines.

I could not find confirmation of this on the web. Is any of this true?

by Average Jill on 10/24/2008 07:21:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

In a routine test performed by software engineers volunteering for the Obama campaign, absentee ballots from Gwinnett County, Ga. had ovals too thick for the machines to read.  These test results were reported to the Gwinnett County officials.  The county has sent out about 19,000 replacement ballots, but 10,000 ballots have already been received.

The ballots that were misprinted will be counted manually.

In Tennessee, some voters received ballots for a district other than where they live.

In South Florida, it took an average of 5 hours and 30 minutes to vote today, and that is expected to increase significantly over the weekend.  The biggest problem is that each ballot must be individually printed.  By a law recently passed by the Republican legislature, each polling place is only allowed 2 printers.  Another new law only allows polling places to be open a total of 8 hours combined for Saturday and Sunday.  What this means is that people can get in line between 10 am and 2 pm, and it will likely take until between 3am and 5am the next morning for the last people in line to vote.

My plan is to get in line at 6am Sunday morning, four hours before the polls open - if the line isn't already too long.

Some voters at the polls in East Tennessee were given ballots for other districts.  This seems to be because of human error.

Military ballots (and other Federal mail-in ballots) without witness signatures are being rejected in Virginia and possibly some other states.

Some Washington, DC ballots were missing names of people running for some local offices.

by rbruck on 10/24/2008 08:18:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]

we would have addressed this by now?  I guess not, since the Corpo-Evangelicons have been in charge the last 8 years and have no motivation to change things.  Hopefully by next election we will have new machines that automatically choose Democrats.  Don't we have the geeks on our side?

I voted tonight, on paper, and will be dropping my ballot off tomorrow.  I don't understand why more states don't do this. 

by desertpear on 10/25/2008 01:12:11 AM EST



When Obama becomes President, he has the wonks and the geeks to thank for it.

The wonks, because they gave him solid policy when the nation was in financial crisis.

The geeks, because they are successfully thwarting the Republican/Rove Dirty Tricks Squad.

Hopefully, Obama will continue to use the wonks and geeks effectively after January 20.

by rbruck on 10/25/2008 08:41:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I would say the internet is a huge reason for his success and that of many other democrats this election. 

by desertpear on 10/25/2008 12:13:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: