Tag Archives: Leftists fraud

Doug Hoffman race, Sequoia voting machine, Election fraud?, NY District 23, Beta test, Pilot program, Leftists fraud, Princeton University study, Voting machine fraud

“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

Early in the 2008 election cycle there was widespread concern about voter fraud and intimidation. It is believed by many, including myself, that Obama and his thugs stole the Democratic primaries and caucuses. There has been much discussion about the 2010 elections and continued voter fraud and suspect voting machines. Earlier today the Citizen Wells blog reported on more suspicion about the NY District 23 congressional race, narrowly lost by Doug Hoffman.

“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.”
Sequoia voting machines suspect

From American Thinker, August 16, 2009.

“Do you really believe that the next elections in 2010 and particularly 2012 will be the solution to the current socialist infestation?  Do you think that people who are as addicted to power as Obama, Emmanuel, and Axelrod will passively accept their ouster in a fair general election?  After fighting the good fight, will they gracefully withdraw from power?”

“Leftists do not see election fraud or other dirty tactics as illegal, immoral, or unethical.  This is because the socialist agenda is for the good of the nation, a noble cause to promote and protect at any cost.  In other words, the ends justify the means.  In the final analysis, it is difficult to predict what they are capable of.  The rules don’t apply to them.  We can only study the actions of other socialist leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Chavez, and make assumptions.”

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/beware_the_counterrevolution.html

Voting machine fraud was not my highest priority early in 2008, but it was a concern. From some email exchanges:

Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:46 PM

“Have you investigated the companies and software engineers that
provide voting machines and support in this country?
Wells”

Response.
Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Haven’t taken a look at them, truthfully… I am worried that the companies tend not to open source their software, though, as scrutiny should drive out bugs in software and demonstrate transparency and honesty in the system.

From another person.

Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:13 AM

“and that several of the voting machine companies have very deep Muslim and Venezuelan ties.”

Notice how well informed and ahead of the curve these great CW commenters are:

Submitted on 2009/07/23 at 10:28am   Nancy

“The electronic voting machines are ‘Sequoia’. They are used in NJ. Princeton Univ. did some tests & found they could be easily hacked into within a few minutes to change voting results.”

Submitted on 2009/11/03 at 9:43am   Linda from NY

“Coming Elections: At least 20 states will be using electronic Sequoia voting systems (A Venezuelan company with strong ties to Hugo Chavez) at polling stations”

Submitted on 2009/11/05 at 9:12am   Truth Now

“C.W.
Please investigate
http://www.repubx.com
2 articles on Sequoia software,Venz.company,Hugo Chavez connections.
In 8 states now more to come,used in many New York voting machines
Can alter votes in 5 minutes.
Is this why Hoffman lost?
Used also in Last yrs.Presidential elections
Needs to be exposed
All COPY AND PRINT ARTICLES AND NEEDS INVESTIGATING ASAP”

Submitted on 2009/11/16 at 10:33am   Patriot Dreamer

“I do not have a Facebook account (and have no interest in getting one), but the following excert was posted on Doug

Hoffman’s Facebook page:

“Our Campaign Is Not Over Yet!

So many people have written hoping we continue the fight, count every ballot and make sure no one steals this election.

Acorn and the unions did their best to try and say that the conservative movement was a sham. Rest assured they will not succeed. On Election Night the information we received was far different from what we received this week. They will not silence our voice that easily!

There is also the fact that NY is using the Sequoia Voting Systems machines. Princeton University

(http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/) cited them as having been susceptible to voter fraud in the past. There’s a reason why the State of California BANNED them. Yet we must now prepare for this possibility as well.

We are working to get the message out that this election is far from over! Our campaign and the New York Conservative Party is watching this recount and preparing for our next course of action. On Friday Doug appeared on Cavuto on FoxNews and will appear on Glen Beck’s radio show on Monday. It is a call-to-arms for conservatives. Help however you can; post blogs, comment on websites and donate to help us mount a challenge if need be!”

h/t:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2387250/posts

Submitted on 2009/11/16 at 1:01pm   bob strauss
“Glennmcgahee, I read a story a while back about the voting machines in Honduras. They were preloaded with enough votes to guarantee Zelaya’s victory.
The voting machines were Sequoia software also, and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela company designed that software.”

Submitted on 2009/11/19 at 7:01pm   John Charlton

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/virus-introduced-into-sequoia-voting-machines-in-ny-23/

“Virus in voting machines: analysis of salient facts points to Dominion/Sequoia”

Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University

“Insecurities and Inaccuracies of the
Sequoia AVC Advantage 9.00H DRE Voting Machine

by Andrew W. Appel1, Maia Ginsburg1, Harri Hursti,
Brian W. Kernighan1, Christopher D. Richards1, and Gang Tan2.
1Princeton University     2Lehigh University

The AVC Advantage voting machine is made by Sequoia Voting Systems and has been used in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and other states. Pursuant to a Court Order in New Jersey Superior Court, we examined this voting machine as well as its computer program code. On October 17, 2008 the Court permitted us to release to the public a redacted version of our report.

Public Report: Insecurities and Inaccuracies of the Sequoia AVC Advantage 9.00H DRE Voting Machine (click here)
This report was originally submitted to the Court on September 2 in the form of an expert-witness report by Andrew W. Appel. The Court has released this redacted version to the public. The version we release here, linked in boldface above, is the same as the Court’s redacted version, but with a few introductory paragraphs about the court case, Gusciora v. Corzine.

Videos: click here. We can now release the 90-minute evidentiary video that we submitted to the Court on September 2nd. We are seeking the Court’s permission to release a much shorter video which demonstrates the most important points much more succinctly.

Frequently Asked Questions (“Why are you releasing this just 3 weeks before the election?” etc.)

What you need to know:

The AVC Advantage contains a computer. If someone installs a different computer program for that computer to run, it can deliberately add up the votes wrong. It’s easy to make a computer program that steals votes from one party’s candidates, and gives them to another, while taking care to make the total number of votes come out right. It’s easy to make this program take care to cheat only on election day when hundreds of ballots are cast, and not cheat when the machine is being tested for accuracy. This kind of fraudulent computer program can modify every electronic “audit trail” in the computer. Without voter-verified paper ballots, it’s extremely hard to know whether a voting machine (such as the AVC Advantage) is running the right program.

It takes about 7 minutes, using simple tools, to replace the computer program in the AVC Advantage with a fraudulent program that cheats. We demonstrate this on the video.

Even when it’s not hacked to deliberately steal votes, the AVC Advantage has a few user-interface flaws. Therefore, sometimes the AVC Advantage does not properly record the intent of the voter. All known voting technologies have imperfect user interfaces, although some are worse than others. The public should beware of the argument that some people make, that “we should not replace the AVC Advantage with voting method X, because X is imperfect.” The AVC Advantage’s susceptibility to installation of a fraudulent vote-counting program is far more than an imperfection: it is a fatal flaw.

What should be done? Most technology experts who study the security of voting methods recommend precinct-count optical-scan voting, with by-hand audits of the optical-scan ballots from randomly selected precincts. We agree with this consensus. In fact, most states are moving in the right direction: 32 states now vote with voter-verified paper ballots (mostly optical-scan, some with DRE+VVPAT). Only a minority of states are still using paperless DRE voting machines such as the AVC Advantage. We recommend that those states adopt precinct-count optical scan.

Executive Summary of the Report

I. The AVC Advantage 9.00 is easily “hacked,” by the installation of fraudulent firmware. This is done by prying just one ROM chip from its socket and pushing a new one in, or by replacement of the Z80 processor chip. We have demonstrated that this “hack” takes just 7 minutes to perform.

The fraudulent firmware can steal votes during an election, just as its criminal designer programs it to do. The fraud cannot practically be detected. There is no paper audit trail on this machine; all electronic records of the votes are under control of the firmware, which can manipulate them all simultaneously.

II. Without even touching a single AVC Advantage, an attacker can install fraudulent firmware into many AVC Advantage machines by viral propagation through audio-ballot cartridges. The virus can steal the votes of blind voters, can cause AVC Advantages in targeted precincts to fail to operate; or can cause WinEDS software to tally votes inaccurately. (WinEDS is the program, sold by Sequoia, that each County’s Board of Elections uses to add up votes from all the different precincts.)

III. Design flaws in the user interface of the AVC Advantage disenfranchise voters, or violate voter privacy, by causing votes not to be counted, and by allowing pollworkers to commit fraud.

IV. AVC Advantage Results Cartridges can be easily manipulated to change votes, after the polls are closed but before results from different precincts are cumulated together.

V. Sequoia’s sloppy software practices can lead to error and insecurity. Wyle’s ITA reports are not rigorous, and are inadequate to detect security vulnerabilities. Programming errors that slip through these processes can miscount votes and permit fraud.

VI. Anomalies noticed by County Clerks in the New Jersey 2008 Presidential Primary were caused by two different programming errors on the part of Sequoia, and had the effect of disenfranchising voters.

VII. The AVC Advantage has been produced in many versions. The fact that one version may have been examined for certification does not give grounds for confidence in the security and accuracy of a different version. New Jersey should not use any version of the AVC Advantage that it has not actually examined with the assistance of skilled computer-security experts.

VIII. The AVC Advantage is too insecure to use in New Jersey. New Jersey should immediately implement the 2005 law passed by the Legislature, requiring an individual voter-verified record of each vote cast, by adopting precinct-count optical-scan voting equipment.”

Read more:

http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/