Tag Archives: Doug Hoffman

Doug Hoffman, GOP Tea Partiers Must Work Together, McLaughlin & Associates poll, Republicans, Hoffman deserves another chance, Republican ticket and Conservative line

From the National Journal, February 2, 2010.

“Hoffman: GOP, Tea Partiers Must Work Together”

“When Doug Hoffman, running on the Conservative Party line, was narrowly defeated by Democrat Bill Owens for New York’s 23rd Congressional District seat, some might have thought this was a fluke. But after Republican Scott Brown captured the Senate seat in Massachusetts, Hoffman’s near-win has been seen as a momentum-builder for conservatives and the Tea Party movement.”

“While he hasn’t announced his candidacy yet, a McLaughlin & Associates poll released last month showed 74 percent of Republicans in the district agreeing that Hoffman deserves another chance at the seat. NationalJournal.com caught up with Hoffman last week to ask him about his plans for November.
NJ: If you do decide to run, would you be running as a Conservative candidate or vying for the Republican nomination?
Hoffman: I’m going to try to get both of the tickets — the Republican ticket and the Conservative line.
NJ: One activist told me that the Tea Partiers are keeping the GOP “at arm’s length.” Given this attitude, do you think that running under the GOP umbrella might turn off some Tea Party voters or independent voters?
Hoffman: The people that supported me and came out to support me knew that I was a lifelong Republican and knew that I was fighting for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, so I don’t think it will turn it off. I think I can be the catalyst, especially in the 23rd District, to bring the two movements together and work effectively, not only for my campaign but for the other Republicans in the district.
NJ: How would you compare the reception that you’re getting from national Republican Party leaders this time around to that from last election?
Hoffman: 180 degrees. They’re very enthusiastic, receptive, and we’re going to work together to win in 2010.
NJ: Are you making plans to improve your ground game?
Hoffman: If I do make the announcement to run, I am certainly going to tap into the help that I received from the Tea Party organization. Now, I realize that across the country I won’t get the support I had the last time because they’re going to be busy in their own districts, but within my district we have a lot of volunteers that came from the Tea Party movement who are ready, willing and eager to get re-involved in my campaign.
NJ: While a lot of Tea Party groups agree on policy, there is some disagreement on how to meet those goals — whether it is forming their own party or taking over the GOP or just acting as a check on the GOP. What, in your mind, should be the goal of the Tea Party movement?

Hoffman: Well, I don’t think it’s a taking over of the Republican Party, I think it’s bringing them together, to work effectively together to achieve the common goal. … Not everybody running on the Conservative line can get 46 1/2 percent of the votes. In reality, we need to work together to win together.”

Read more:


Doug Hoffman, NY 23 election, New York Election Statutes, NY Law, Impossible numbers certified, Richard Hayes Phillips PhD, St. Lawrence County Board of Elections, Negative numbers, Phantom voters, Computerized voting

****  Important update below  ****

**** Correction by John Charlton, November 27, 2:30 PM ET ****

From The Gouverneur Times.

“Impossible Numbers Certified in NY-23

Written by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.   
Wednesday, 25 November 2009 15:32”

“The election results certified by the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections for New York’s 23rd Congressional District contain some numbers that are mathematically impossible.  These numbers were requested in person and transmitted by e-mail just hours before certification on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009.

For six election districts in St. Lawrence County (the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 7th districts in Canton, the 14th district in Massena, and the 2nd district in Oswegatchie) negative numbers appear in the column for “blank” ballots, known in other states as “undervotes.”

Blank vote counts are ballots in which the voter did not choose any candidate in a given election and are determined by subtracting the total number of votes cast for the candidates from the number of voters who completed ballots.  The remaining number would be those voters who didn’t cast a vote for that election.

In Canton’s 7th district, the certified results show a total of 148 ballots cast. The results of those votes were counted as 88 votes for Owens, 11 votes for Scozzafava, and 80 votes for Hoffman.  The problem is that these numbers add up to 179 votes counted for the candidates, and there were only 148 ballots cast;  St. Lawrence County certified these numbers to the state as accurate with the number of ‘blank’ ballots reported as -31.

The Board of Elections stated repeatedly that their numbers add up, and strictly speaking, they do.  But negative numbers should not be required to make this happen. 

Election analysts refer to this phenomenon as “phantom voters,” because they are apparitions.  They do not actually exist.  There can never be more votes counted for any office than the number of actual voters who cast ballots.  There could be one or two, if on occasion an actual voter forgot to sign the poll book, but never 31.”

“Fundamentally, the fault does not lie with the Board of Elections, although perhaps they should have noticed the negative numbers before certifying them.  The fault lies with computerized vote counting and our willingness to trust it.
It has already been reported that zero votes were incorrectly reported in numerous precincts in Jefferson, Madison, and Oswego Counties for one of the Congressional candidates, and that voting machine failures occurred in dozens of polling places in at least three different counties.
In St. Lawrence County, ballots from eight polling places had to be hand counted due to voting machine failure.  Machines in Louisville, Waddington, Clare, and Rossie “broke” early in the voting process on Election Day.  Republican Commissioner Deborah Pahler said that the machines kept “freezing up… like Windows does all the time”.  Machines in Hermon, Lawrence, Colton’s 2nd district, and Massena’s 1st and 2nd districts failed to print the results. Frank Hoar, an attorney for the Democratic Party, initially ordered the impoundment of malfunctioning machines but released the order on November 5th so that Bill Owens could be sworn in to Congress in time to vote on the House health bill on November 7th.
Electronic vote counting is much too vulnerable to failure and/or manipulation.  If a mechanical (lever-style) machine breaks down, the failure is visible, and only the one machine is affected.  With electronic vote counting, one person can change the outcome of an election and not leave a trace.  This has been shown over and over again in scientific studies, including those commissioned by the Secretaries of State in California and Ohio.
But more than that, how can we have a democracy if we cannot know if the vote count is accurate?  If election officials cannot know, and if the candidates cannot know, and if the voters cannot know that the official results are true and correct, why even have an election?  Why go through the motions?”

Read more:


Several days ago, as I am prone to do, I read the New York State Election statutes. Before the election in 2008 I read almost half of the 50 states election laws. Here are some of those statutes regarding voting irregularities. Read them and decide if any of them apply to the chicanery that has taken place.
” §  17-106.  Misconduct  of election officers. Any election officer who
  wilfully refuses to accord to any duly  accredited  watcher  or  to  any
  voter  or candidate any right given him by this chapter, or who wilfully
  violates any provision of the election law relative to the  registration
  of  electors or to the taking, recording, counting, canvassing, tallying
  or certifying of votes, or who wilfully neglects or refuses  to  perform
  any  duty  imposed  on  him  by  law,  or  is guilty of any fraud in the
  execution of the duties of his office,  or  connives  in  any  electoral
  fraud, or knowingly permits any such fraud to be practiced, is guilty of
  a felony.

§  17-108.  False  affidavits;  mutilation,  destruction  or  loss  of
  registry list or affidavits. 1. Any person who wilfully  loses,  alters,
  destroys or mutilates the list of voters or registration poll ledgers in
  any  election  district,  or  a  certified  copy thereof, is guilty of a
    2. An applicant for registration who shall make, incorporate or  cause
  to  be  incorporated  a  material  false statement in an application for
  registration, or in any challenge or other  affidavit  required  for  or
  made  or filed in connection with registration or voting, and any person
  who knowingly takes a  false  oath  before  a  board  of  inspectors  of
  election,  and  any  person  who  makes  a material false statement in a
  medical  certificate  or  an  affidavit  filed  in  connection  with  an
  application for registration, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    3. A person who shall wilfully suppress, mutilate or alter, or, except
  as  authorized  by  this chapter, shall destroy, any signed challenge or
  other affidavit required  for  or  made  or  filed  in  connection  with
  registration or voting, and any person who, except as authorized by this
  chapter,  shall  remove such an affidavit from the place of registration
  or polling place, is guilty of a felony.
    4. A person other than the applicant who, prior to the filing  of  the
  application,  shall  willfully suppress, mutilate, materially alter, or,
  except as authorized by this chapter, destroy a signed  application  for
  registration by mail, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

§  17-120.  Misconduct  in  relation  to certificate of nomination and
  official ballot. A person who:
    1. Falsely makes or makes oath to, or fraudulently defaces or destroys
  a certificate of nomination or any part thereof; or,
    2. Files or receives for filing a certifiate  of  nomination,  knowing
  that any part thereof was falsely made; or,
    3.  Suppresses  a certificate of nomination which has been duly filed,
  or any part thereof; or,
    4. Forges or falsely makes the official indorsement of any ballot; or,
    5. Having charge of official ballots, destroys, conceals or suppresses
  them, except as provided by the law. is guilty of a felony.

§  17-124.  Failure  to  deliver  official ballots. Any person who has
  undertaken to deliver official ballots to  any  city,  town  or  village
  clerk,  or  inspector  as  authorized  by  this chapter, and neglects or
  refuses to do so, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

§  17-128. Violations of election law by public officer or employee. A
  public officer or employee who knowingly and wilfully omits, refuses  or
  neglects  to  perform  any  act  required  of him by this chapter or who
  knowingly and wilfully refuses to permit the doing of any act authorized
  by this chapter or who knowingly  and  wilfully  hinders  or  delays  or
  attempts  to  hinder  or delay the performance of such an act is, if not
  otherwise provided by law, guilty of a felony.

§ 17-130. Misdemeanor in relation to elections. Any person who:
    1.  Acts  as  an  inspector  of election or as a clerk at an election,
  without being able to read or write the  English  language,  or  without
  being otherwise qualified to hold such office; or,
    2.  Being  an inspector of election, knowingly and wilfully permits or
  suffers any person to vote who is not entitled to vote thereat; or,
    3. Wilfully and unlawfully obstructs, hinders or delays,  or  aids  or
  assists  in  obstructing  or  delaying  any  elector  on  his  way  to a
  registration or polling place, or while he is attempting to register  or
  vote; or,
    4.  Electioneers on election day or on days of registration within one
  hundred feet, as defined herein, from a polling place. Said  prohibition
  shall  not  apply  to  a  building  or room that has been maintained for
  political purposes at  least  six  months  prior  to  said  election  or
  registration  days,  except  that  no  political  displays,  placards or
  posters shall be exhibited therefrom. For the purposes of this  section,
  the  one  hundred feet distance shall be deemed to include a one hundred
  foot radial measured from the entrances, designated by the inspectors of
  elections, to a building where the election  or  registration  is  being
    5. Removes any official ballot from a polling place before the closing
  of the polls; or,
    6.  Unlawfully  goes  within  the  guard-rail  of any polling place or
  unlawfully remains within such guard-rail after having been commanded to
  remove therefrom by any inspector of election; or,
    7. Enters a voting booth with any voter or remains in a  voting  booth
  while  it  is occupied by any voter, or opens the door of a voting booth
  when the same is occupied by a voter, with the intent to  watch  such  a
  voter  while  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  his  ballot,  except as
  authorized by this chapter; or,
    8. Being or claiming to be a voter, permits any other person to be  in
  a  voting booth with him while engaged in the preparation of his ballot,
  except as authorized by this chapter, without openly protesting  against
  and asking that such person be ejected; or,
    9.  Having  lawfully  entered  a  voting booth with a voter, requests,
  persuades or induces such voter to vote any particular ballot or for any
  particular candidate, or makes  or  keeps  any  memorandum  of  anything
  occurring  within  the  booth,  or  directly  or  indirectly, reveals to
  another the name of any candidate voted for by such voter; or,
    10. Shows his ballot after it is prepared for voting, to any person so
  as to reveal the contents, or solicits a voter to show the same; or,
    11. Places any mark  upon  his  ballot,  or  does  any  other  act  in
  connection  with his ballot with the intent that it may be identified as
  the one voted by him; or,
    12. Places any mark upon, or does any other act in connection  with  a
  ballot  or  paster  ballot,  with  the  intent that it may afterwards be
  identified as having been voted by any particular person; or,
    13. Receives an official ballot from any person other than one of  the
  clerks or inspectors having charge of the ballots; or,
    14.  Not being an inspector of election or clerk, delivers an official
  ballot to a voter; or,
    15. Not being an inspector of election,  receives  from  any  voter  a
  ballot prepared for voting; or,
    16.  Fails to return to the inspectors of election, before leaving the
  polling place or going outside the guard-rail, each ballot not voted  by
  him; or,
    17.  Wilfully  defaces,  injures,  mutilates, destroys or secretes any
  voting maching which belongs to any municipality or board  of  elections
  for use at elections, and any person who commits or attempts to commit a
  fraud in the use of any such voting machine during election; or,
    18.  Not  being  lawfully authorized, makes or has in his possession a
  key to a voting maching which has been  adopted  and  will  be  used  in
  elections; or,
    19.  Not  being  an inspector or clerk of election, handles a voted or
  unvoted ballot or stub thereof,  during  the  canvass  of  votes  at  an
  election; or,
    20.  Intentionally  opens an absentee voter’s envelope or examines the
  contents thereof after the receipt of  the  envelope  by  the  board  of
  elections and before the close of the polls at the election; or,
    21.  Wilfully  disobeys any lawful command of the board of inspectors,
  or any member thereof; or
    22. Induces or attempts to induce any poll clerk, election  inspector,
  election  coordinator,  or  officer,  clerk  or employee of the board of
  elections discharging any duty or performing any act  required  or  made
  necessary by the election law, to do any act in violation of his duty or
  in violation of the election law; or,
    23.  Not  having  been appointed or named an inspector of elections or
  clerk and not having taken the  oath  for  such  office  shall  wear  or
  display  any  button,  badge  or  emblem  identifying  or  purporting to
  identify such person as an inspector of election or clerk, is guilty  of
  a misdemeanor.

§   17-136.  False  returns;  unlawful  acts  respecting  returns.  An
  inspector or clerk of an election who intentionally makes,  or  attempts
  to  make,  a  false  canvass  of  the ballots cast thereat, or any false
  statement of the result of a canvass, though not signed by a majority of
  the inspectors, or any person who induces or attempts to induce any such
  inspector or clerk to do so, is guilty of a felony.

§  17-148.  Bribery  or intimidation of elector in military service of
  United States. Any person  who,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  bribery,
  menace  or  any other corrupt means, controls, or attempts to control an
  elector of this state enlisted in the military  service  of  the  United
  States, in the exercise of his rights under the election law, or annoys,
  injures or punishes him for the manner in which he exercises such right,
  is guilty of a misdemeanor.

 §  17-166.  Penalty.  Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under this
  article shall for a first offense be punished by  imprisonment  for  not
  more  than  one  year, or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars
  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  or  by  both  such  fine   and
  imprisonment.  Any  person  who,  having been convicted of a misdemeanor
  under this article, shall thereafter be convicted of another misdemeanor
  under this article, shall be guilty of a felony.

 § 17-168. Crimes against the elective franchise not otherwise provided
  for.  Any  person  who  knowingly and wilfully violates any provision of
  this chapter, which violation is not specifically covered by any of  the
  previous sections of this article, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

§  17-170.  Destroying  or  delaying  election  returns.  A  messenger
  appointed by authority of law to receive and carry a report, certificate
  or certified copy of  any  statement  relating  to  the  result  of  any
  election,   who  wilfully  mutilates,  tears,  defaces,  obliterates  or
  destroys the same, or does any other act which prevents the delivery  of
  it  as  required by law; and a person who takes away from such messenger
  any such report, certificate or certified copy, with intent  to  prevent
  its  delivery,  or  who  wilfully  does  any injury or other act in this
  section specified, is guilty of a felony.

 NY State Election Statutes:


****  Update  ****

John Charlton of The Post & Email has provided some important facts.

“15,620 Missing Votes are disturbing

Let’s take a look at each race, considering simply the total votes counted, and comparing this to the total votes in the Congressional race on the same ballot:

For the State Supreme Court race:  39, 969 votes

For the NY-23 Special Election: . . . . 24, 349 votes

For County Coroner: . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 664 votes

District Attorney: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 541 votes

These are the races which all used the same 102 voting machines.  Since the entire county voted for each race you’d expect nearly identical numbers, if there were identical interest in the different races.  And while that nearly never happens, the Owen-Hoffman-Scozzafava race was surely the most followed in the national and local press.

That 15,620 more votes were cast in the State Supreme Court Race than in the Congressional Race, seems simply unbelievable. That means that nearly 40% of the voters who voted, cast no vote in the Congressional Race! Unbelievable!”

Read more:



**** Correction by John Charlton, November 27, 2:30 PM ET ****

“4,200 Votes in the NY-23 race are questionable
Let’s take a look at each county-wide race, in St. Lawrence Country, considering simply the total votes counted, and comparing this to the total votes in the Congressional race on the same ballot:
For the NY-23 Special Election: . . . . . 24, 349 votes
For the State Supreme Court race:  39, 969 votes or potentially 19,986 votes*
District Attorney: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 541 votes
For County Coroner: . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 664 votes or potentially 14,832 votes*

These are the races which all used the same 102 voting machines.  Since the entire county voted for each race you’d expect nearly identical numbers, if there were identical interest in the different races.  And while that nearly never happens, the Owen-Hoffman-Scozzafava race was surely the most followed in the national and local press.”

Read more:



Doug Hoffman, No recount, Election over, Sequoia voting machines, Count errors, Voter fraud, Nancy Pelosi, NY district 23, Bill Owens broke 4 campaign promises

Doug Hoffman, who narrowly lost the congressional race in NY District 23 to Bill Owens, has declared that the election is over and there will be no recount. This comes after numerous errors were committed election night, Nancy Pelosi certifying Bill Owens the winner, before he was certified by the state of New York, in time to vote for the Health Care Bill, and known software bugs or tampering with of the controversial Sequoia voting machines.

Doug Hoffman, on one level this was your decision to make. However, we are in different times. This is not the country your parents knew.

We have entered a new world, a post Nazi takeover, Orwellian world where being polite or naively playing the gentleman card as Nevile Chamberlain did with the Germans, will result in catastrophe. On a higher level, Mr. Hoffman, this is the decision of New York residents and ultimately the American people. Regardless of your actions or your next move, this serious breach of the public trust, must be investigated. As I and others have stated, Barack Obama, the Obama camp and Obama thugs, including, but not limited to ACORN and SEIU, stole the Democratic primaries and caucuses through election fraud and intimidation. With warnings issued early in 2008 about voting machines and possible control of them by Chavez’s Venezuela or muslim countries, and now the evidence from the NY District 23 election, God only knows the extent that voting machines altered vote counts in 2008. We must protect our elections going forward.

We must have an investigation. 


Dear Friends,
Today, Tuesday, November 24, 2009, it is with a heavy heart that we declare this election over.  We will formally end this election and not ask for a recount.  This was a difficult choice to make because so many people have put their faith, hope and aspirations into our campaign.
 Yes, there seem to have been many vote counting problems, missed vote counts and, as was recently reported by the Gouvernour Times, software problems in the computerized voting machines. Despite these incidents, I do not believe the voters of NY-23, or New Yorkers in general, would be well-served by a disruptive and costly recount that would most likely not change the election outcome.
 I know many are disappointed and even angry. To those I say now is not the time to look back, but to focus on the future and ensure that next year we win back this district decidedly. Know this decision was not an easy one. I did not want to let down those who worked so hard, donated so much and shared their enthusiasm for retaking our country with common-sense conservative values.
And rest assured, our energies are now directed toward 2010. This election, in which a third party candidate narrowly lost, showed that principles do matter.  Special interests do have an Achilles’ heel, the American people. Main-street conservatism’s voice is now echoing through the government chambers and boardrooms that shape America. By most measures, this campaign was a success and I have you all to thank for this. And all of us have to thank the Conservative Party of New York State for nominating a candidacy like ours.
We take away lessons from this year’s campaign that will make us stronger and more competitive in the future. Next time we will be better prepared. Many people forget that our campaign only began in earnest three months ago. Most campaigns of this stature take at least a year to prepare. In three months, we almost toppled an entrenched political system and successfully defied the conventional thinking of the elite political punditry. Citizen government is making a comeback in America.
I thank everyone who participated in this campaign and urge each one of you to stand with me in the future. We have a calling that we must answer. My opponent in this race quickly abandoned the promises he made to his voters. Within the first hour of being sworn in by Nancy Pelosi, Bill Owens broke 4 campaign promises — so much for change in Washington. We must resoundingly defeat him next year and, with your help, I promise to help restore our nation’s faith in elected officials when we win.
But there is more to do than just win back NY-23 in 2010. We must work to help other like-minded citizen candidates win across the country.  We need to make time to help other candidates who are working for the principles we hold dear — other fiscal, common-sense conservatives.  Together we can successfully take back our great nation, one legislator and one member at a time. We need more than one common-sense conservative voice in the echo chamber of liberal, spend thrift cacophony if we are to redirect our great country.
I would also like to commend those election commission officials who worked tirelessly and may have taken offense to an unfortunate and poorly worded fundraising email that was sent out toward the end of our campaign.  As we tried to make sense of the false vote counts and stories of software viruses in the voting machines, we never intended to imply the election commissioners had somehow acted improperly. This was never our intention and, on the contrary, the election commissioners went above and beyond to uphold their duty to ensure a fair election took place. I owe them a debt of gratitude for all they have done.
So where to now? Full speed ahead to 2010. This gives us time to carefully articulate and communicate thoughtful positions on issues that impact the great people of our district and ensure that our campaign promises are NOT broken.  Best of all, it allows me to work hand-in-hand with the many supporters who shared their ideas, their concerns and their dreams with me.
We need to continue to stand united because we cannot spend our way out of recession or tax our way to prosperity. We must continue to fight to protect our liberties and protect those who are yet to be born.  We must protect our country against terrorists and protect the sanctity of marriage. We must fix our corrupt tax code, our immigration policy and our educational system.  Most of all, we must defend the free enterprise system that made America the greatest and most prosperous country in the world.  Although I’m conceding an election today, I do it with the certainty that we will win back this seat a year from now.  I am certain of this because our mission is too big, the country’s problems too dire and the American people are too smart.
Thank you for all you have done and will continue to do. “We the people” are retaking America.

Doug Hoffman, this is bigger than you or the election in NY. We are at a crucial point in the history of this country. The actions we take now will determine the security and pursuit of life, liberty and happiness that our descendants and ultimately the entire world will enjoy.

Mr. Hoffman, you have chosen to end the election. I urge you to not end the cause.


Doug Hoffman, NY district 23 election, Update, November 23, 2009, Voting machine failure, Virus, Ghost in the Machine, Sequoia/Dominion ImageCast voting machines, pilot program

The spectre of voting machine failure and voter fraud still lingers over the NY District 23 election between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens.

The Gouverneur Times is reporting today, November 23, 2009.

“Ghost in the Machine”

“John Conklin, Communications Director for the New York State Board of Elections issued a statement Friday evening alleging that an article published by our on-line newspaper, The Gouverneur Times, was factually incorrect. This statement was reported Friday in the Watertown Daily Times.

Mr. Conklin’s rebuke is a very misleading press release issued on the behalf of the NY SBoE.”

“Below is a brief review of the November 3rd, 2009 elections…

In Lewis, Schuyler and Seneca Counties, ImageCast ballot scanners failed.

In Broome County, hand counts revealed the ImageCast ballot scanners in five voting districts had miscounted votes. In some cases the machines rejected valid ballots.

In Cayuga County, again ImageCast ballot scanners crashed. Some rejected valid ballots that other machines accepted.

In Fulton County, ImageCast ballot scanners were impounded after it was found they were not working properly.

In Steuben County, the ImageCast ballot scanner in the first ward malfunctioned.

In Oneida County, at the Vernon polling place, none of the three ImageCast optical scanners would operate.

In Jefferson County, inspectors from four districts claim that “human error” resulted in their “mistakenly” entering 0 votes for Hoffman in several districts, resulting in Owens leading Jefferson County on election night though a recanvas of the computer counts showed that Hoffman was actually leading.

In St. Lawrence County, machines in Louisville, Waddington, Claire, and Rossie “broke” early in the voting process on Election Day.  Republican Commissioner Deborah Pahler said that the machines kept “freezing up… like Windows does all the time”. Frank Hoar, an attorney for the Democratic Party, initially ordered the impound of malfunctioning machines but released the order on Nov. 5th so that Bill Owens could be sworn in to Congress in time to vote on the House Health bill on November 7th.

Jude Seymour, a reporter for the Watertown Daily Times, declared the Gouverneur Times story on the ‘virus’ issue a ‘Hoax’. He referred  to a prior article he had authored on the 13th of November, where he quotes Anna E. Svizzero, the state’s Elections Operation Director in her claims that the state’s pilot program “was very successful.”

The State elections on November 3rd, using the Sequoia/Dominion ImageCast machines were a ‘pilot program’.

Mr.Lipari states that the corrective action applied was modification of the configuration file; but according to a technician for Dominion, the owners of the ImageCast system, “the insertion of a line of code, into the source code of the machines” was the corrective action taken.

Regarding what was done to correct the ‘memory’ problem just days immediately prior to the elections; pursuant to State Election Law 7-202.2, “When any change is made in the operation or material of any feature or component of any machine or system which has been approved pursuant to the provisions of this section, such machine or system must be submitted for re-examination and re-approval pursuant to the provisions of subdivision one of this section”

Subdivision one states that… “The state board of elections shall cause the machine or system to be examined and a report of the examination to be made and filed in the office of the state board. Such examination shall include a determination as to whether the machine or system meets the requirements of section 7-202 of this title and a thorough review and testing of any electronic or computerized features of the machine or system…. Any form of voting machine or system not so approved, cannot be used in any election.”

“Given the now known number of machine failures that occurred on election day, due in part to the ‘known bug’ in the software, it is apparent that a thorough review and testing of the ImageCast machines utilized throughout the 23rd congressional district and other districts throughout the State of New York was not accomplished according to the explicit requirements of New York State Election Law.”

We in the 23rd were the subject of a ‘beta test, pilot program’, in the midst of a very important election. There were many problems as a result of this ‘test’. The integrity, credibility and voter confidence in this election is severely challenged as a result. A manual hand count needs to be accomplished in order to assure the voters that the Sequoia/Dominion ImageCast machines worked and worked accurately. Not doing so will forever taint the results of this ‘beta test’ election as well as future elections.

It is not a matter of who won or who lost… it is a matter of our constitutional right to a fair, open and honest election process without vendors protecting their interests (Sequoia), or a State covering their collective <actions>… at the expense of the voting process itself.

“We the people…”;

One person, One vote.”

Read more:


John Charlton of the Post & Email provides some background on the voting machines.

 “Nathan Barker of The Gouverner Times has reported a series of facts which seemingly support Dough Hoffman’s allegations that there was massive Election fraud in the special election for the NY-23 House seat:

1. The software used in the voting machines is made by a company controlled by the Venezuelan dictator, Chavez;

2. A virus was found in the machines used in one district, only days before the election;

3. Other districts were not informed of the existence of the virus;

4. The voting machines lack security for introduction of multiple ballots at a time,

5. And election officials lack expertise to determine whether the company’s fix of the problems was done in a manner which returned the voting machines’ capacity to tally impartially election-night results.”

Read more:


I have been getting warnings about these voting machines, software and the ties to Chavez and Venezuela for at least a year.

We must demand an investigation.

Doug Hoffman, Virus in the voting machines, New York District 23, Congressional race, Bill Owens, Nancy Pelosi, Votes should be recounted

We already knew there were election night irregularities in the New York District 23 congressional race between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens and that Nancy Pelosi prematurely certified Owens as the winner. Now we find out that some of the voting machines had computer viruses.

From The Gouverneur Times, November 19, 2009.

“VIRUS in the VOTING MACHINES: Tainted Results in NY-23”

“GOUVERNEUR, NY – The computerized voting machines used by many voters in the 23rd district had a computer virus – tainting the results, not just from those machines known to have been infected, but casting doubt on the accuracy of counts retrieved from any of the machines.

Cathleen Rogers, the Democratic Elections Commissioner in Hamilton County stated that they discovered a problem with their voting machines the week prior to the election and that the “virus” was fixed by a Technical Support representative from Dominion, the manufacturer.  The Dominion/Sequoia Voting Systems representative “reprogrammed” their machines in time for them to use in the Nov. 3rd Special Election. None of the machines (from the same manufacturer) used in the other counties within the 23rd district were looked at nor were they recertified after the “reprogramming” that occurred in Hamilton County.

Republican Commissioner Judith Peck refused to speculate on whether the code that governs the counts could have been tampered with.  She indicated that “as far as I know, the machine in question was not functioning properly and was repaired” by the technician.

Commissioners in other counties have stated that they were not made aware of the virus issue in Hamilton County.  In Jefferson County, inspectors from four districts claim that “human error” resulted in their “mistakenly” entering 0 votes for Hoffman in several districts, resulting in Owens leading Jefferson County on election night though the recanvas of the computer counts now show that Hoffman is leading.  Jefferson County has not conducted a manual paper ballot recount. 



 St. Lawrence County, machines in Louisville, Waddington, Claire, and Rossie “broke” early in the voting process on election day.  Republican Commissioner Deborah Pahler said that the machines kept “freezing up… like Windows does all the time,” and that they experienced several paper jams as well.  The voted ballots that could not be scanned were placed in an Emergency Lock Box and re-scanned later at the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections.  Election officials in St. Lawrence County were given no advance knowledge of a potential virus in the system.

At least one County official thus far has raised concern that it’s possible that ALL of the machines used in the NY-23 election had the ‘virus’ but only a few malfunctioned as a result.  The counts from any district that used the ImageCast machines are suspect due to “the virus” discovered in Hamilton County, last-minute “reprogramming” by Dominion workers, and security flaws in the systems themselves.  A manual paper-ballot recount of the vote could resolve computer vote accuracy questions.”

Read more:


Thanks to commenter Greg Goss.

Doug Hoffman, Acorn voter fraud, Democrats and unions tampered with votes, New York 23rd Congressional District, Nancy Pelosi, Votes not certified

It does not take a rocket scientist to question the validity of the vote counts and procedural handling of the New York 23rd Congressional District race between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens. Nancy Pelosi conveniently certified Owens as the winner and then Owens voted for the House version of the Health Care Bill.

Now Hoffman is accusing ACORN, the Democrats and unions of tampering with the vote counts.

“Hoffman: ACORN, unions, Dems tampered with NY-23 election”

“With his prospect of winning the 23rd Congressional District race now almost zero, Conservative Party candidate Douglas L. Hoffman suggested Wednesday in a letter that “ACORN, the unions and the Democratic Party” “tampered” with results to deny him victory.

Mr. Hoffman provided no evidence to support his claims, but asked fellow conservatives to send donations his way to “ensure every vote is counted.”

Jerry O. Eaton, Jefferson County Republican elections commissioner, called Mr. Hoffman’s assertion “absolutely false.”

“No one has touched those ballots or has access to those ballots except board of elections staff – and in a bipartisan manner,” he said.

Mr. Hoffman trails Rep. William L. Owens, D-Plattsburgh, by 2,832 votes after 42.6 percent of absentee ballots districtwide were reported Wednesday. Officials are expected to count the 4,262 ballots remaining by Monday.

Mr. Hoffman told conservatives he was “forced to concede” on election night after learning he trailed by 5,335 votes and that he “barely won” his “stronghold in Oswego County.”

Oswego County did not have full results on election night because of what William W. Scriber, a Democratic elections commissioner there, called a “perfect storm” of problems. He said the elections board had assigned staffers to take results for specific districts, but the phone system redirected poll workers’ calls to the wrong people.

Mr. Scriber said the board decided to close its public reporting system early – with nine districts still unreported – as a safeguard.”

“Mr. Hoffman lead Oswego County by 500 votes when elections officials stopped taking results. When elections officials recanvassed the machine vote, the candidate’s lead was upgraded to 1,748.

Mr. Hoffman said the “phone system foul-up” and “inspectors who read numbers incorrectly when phoning in results” “sounds like a tactic right from the ACORN playbook.””

Read more: