Re: vote fraud ?

Diebold machines caught skimming votes in California
author: reposter 
The California recall shows Diebold trying to affect the election outcome by
moving votes from high ranked candidates to low ranked candidates. 
 
IRREGULARITIES IN CALIFORNIA RACE!! 

Long-shot candidates do startlingly well in Tulare County 

DIEBOLD MACHINES YIELD FISHY RESULTS!! 


My friend in South Carolina writes: 

I ran a number crunch of CA counties that use Diebold 
machines to cast/count votes and found some weird 
figures that show a skim of votes from top candidates 
to people who were unlikely to affect the outcome. I 
did my hand calculator work on the California election 
results (from the secretary of state's site) when 96% 
of precincts had reported. The website showed: 

Counties using Diebold Touchscreens: 
Alemeda, Plumas 

Counties using Diebold Optiscan: 
Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Placer, San 
Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Trinity, 
Tulare. 

There were a total of 1,403,375 votes cast in these 
counties combined. The CA total was 7,842,630 at this 
stage of the count. Thus 17.89% of all the state votes 
were cast/counted on Diebold equipment. 

I had earlier noticed some lower order candidates 
(ones who couldn't affect the result) were getting 
unusually large numbers of votes in Tulare county. I 
decided to test to see if the these and other 'fringe' 
candidates might be used to receive skimmed votes in 
other Diebold counties. 

Method: 
I added all the votes cast/counted on Diebold 
equipment for each candidate and expressed it as a 
percentage of their total votes cast state wide. The 
following table lists: Candidate name, votes counted 
for them in Diebold counties, CA state total votes 
counted for that candidate and what percentage of that 
candidate's total votes were counted in Diebold 
counties. 

It looks like, as one might expect, at the top of the 
list as if there is a slight variance from an even 
state wide distribution. However many 'lower ticket' 
candidates have vote totals that ONLY correlate with 
the use of Diebold equipment! I have included some 
names chosen at random from the result list that show 
that not all lower order candidates were used to 
receive skimmed votes. Note that Diebold's counties 
are spread geographically over the whole of 
California. 

I have checked background on the skewed result 
candidates and they are not residents of the counties 
where they got very high percentage results. In one 
case, Palmieri, the candidate was surprised to hear 
about Tulare county (I emailed him) and had not been 
there nor had family or friends there. In fact, his 
platform was "Don't vote for me." He described this 
vote pattern as "strange." 

State total 7,842,630. 
Cast in Diebold counties 1,403,375 
17.89% of the total votes cast. 

Schwarzenegger 581,145 3,552,787 16.36% 

Bustamante 447,008 2,379,740 18.78% 

McLintock 186,923 979,234 19.08% 

Camejo 39,199 207,270 18.9% 

Huffington 7,498 42,131 17.79% 

Ueberoth 3365 21378 15.74% 

Flynt 2384 15010 15.88% 

Coleman 1869 12443 15.02% 

Simon 1351 7648 17.66% 

Palmieri 2542 3717 68.3% 

Louie 598 3198 18.7% 

Kunzman 1957 2133 91.75% 

Roscoe 325 1941 16.7% 

Sprague 1026 1576 65.10% 

Macaluso 592 1504 39.36% 

Price 477 1011 47.18% 

Quinn 220 433 50.8% 

Martorana 165 420 39.28% 

Gosse 60 419 14.3% 

Conclusion 
Based on the very unlikely distribution of votes for 
some candidates (a meteor hit my car twice this week 
sort of odds) a hand count of the affected counties to 
compare with the machine reported count should be 
done. This would show that the machines had been 
tampered with to alter the results. As we already 
know, it is not possible to audit touchscreen machines 
because Diebold refuse to allow printing of a ballot 
to be placed in a box as a back up for use in just 
such an apparent tampering with votes. 

For those who are unsure of figures: 

California is huge and has a population similar to 
many European nations. Lower order candidates had 
little or no ability to spread any sort of message to 
parts of the state beyond their own home and/or where 
they have previously lived. One would expect some of 
the 'fringe' candidates to do well in their home 
county and then to have a very even distribution 
across the rest of the state. That is not the case. In 
Diebold counties (those who use machines made by 
Diebold, a corporation that supports George Bush) the 
results are skewed towards low scoring candidates by 
unbelievably large amounts. 

The probability of scoring twice the expected average 
county % could charitably be construed as the upper 
limit of the possible. Some candidates exceed that 
figure in Diebold counties by a four or five fold 
margin. If you have done statistics, you know that is 
so far beyond what might be expected that you would 
reject it as defective data. If it happened to one 
candidate in this election, I would be surprised but 
might accept it. There are a large number of 
candidates who have this same systematic pattern of 
receiving skimmed votes. 

The California recall shows Diebold trying to affect 
the election outcome by moving votes from high ranked 
candidates to low ranked candidates. 

By doing this, Diebold keep the total number of votes 
cast constant but rob some candidate of their votes. 
Before anyone makes this a partisan issue - it could 
be a Republican victim next time. 
 

 homepage:
http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2003_10_05_markcrispinmiller_arc
hive.html#106566910423273462