The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
November 13, 2004
Irregularities | 11/13 Irregularities roundup

From 11/13’s “State election officials approve Nader recount”: State election officials agreed Friday to a last-minute recount of the presidential race requested by Ralph Nader. Nader asked for a recount in 11 wards last week…Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said the campaign would consider requesting additional recounts after reviewing the results of the initial 11. (A “ward” appears to correspond to a precinct or similar, not a county.)

From “Democrat wins council seat after election error corrected”:

A Democrat gained enough votes to bump a Republican from victory in a Franklin County Council race after a recount prompted by a computer glitch in optical-scan voting.

The glitch in the Fidlar Election Co. system had recorded straight-Democratic Party votes for Libertarians and vice versa.

…No programming problems were found in Fidlar’s optical scan Accuvote 2000 ES system, said Dana Pittman, an account manager for the Rock Island, Ill.-based company.

However, Fidlar also is verifying programming of its optical-scan equipment in Wisconsin and Michigan, which, like Indiana, have straight-party voting, Vern Paddock of Fidlar technical support told the Palladium-Item of Richmond.

The Franklin County problem does not call into question any results in Wisconsin or Michigan, Bill Barrett, national sales manager for Fidlar, told The Associated Press on Friday.

…Kate Shepherd, a spokeswoman for the Indiana secretary of state’s office, said the state Election Division was aware of the vote-counting problem in Franklin County. She said tests with Fidlar’s optical-scan equipment before the election found no problems.

And, from Fidlar admits election blip: …Fidlar officials went to Franklin County on Wednesday to assist in a recount and told Flaspohler a programming error was the culprit. After adjusting the program, the ballots were run again, and more than 600 votes that previously went to Libertarians were added to Democratic tallies…

This post contains several links about possible voting fraud from the 1980’s. That links to 11/9’s “Carteret ballots are gone forever”: The problem was blamed on misinformation supplied by the manufacturer. Unilect told elections officials that the early voting unit’s storage capacity was 10,500 votes when, in fact, the actual limit was 3,005. On Nov. 6, Carteret Board of Elections Chairman L.E. Pond said all early votes cast after No. 3,005 were lost… Pond also said the problem could have been avoided with a single keystroke of the county’s central computer, which would have increased the storage capacity. Elections officials attributed that mistake, too, to Unilect. UniLect, which acknowledged the problems, said this is the first time any of its customers has lost votes in an election - and, further, that the equipment operated just as it was set up to do…

11/9’s “Voter fraud uncovered in New Mexico” discussed several instances of double voting and other forms of fraud in Bernalillo County. On Friday, that county’s results were certified: …[after the certification] the president retains a statewide lead of 6,120 votes in an Associated Press unofficial tally late Friday that did not include final numbers from a few other counties.

To put some perspective on Howard Troxler’s “Internet post-election rumors missing one little thing: evidence” (also here as “‘Bush Stole Election’ Conspiracy Theories Debunked”), he’s also the author of July 25, 2004’s “Touch screen opponents are great at ignoring facts”. On the other side, see “Worst Voter Error Is Apathy Toward Irregularities”

On the completely unconfirmed and quite possibly wrong side, see: “Unofficial Audit of NC Election: Comprehensive Case for Fraud” and “Bush stole Ohio through absentee ballots”.

And, from Broward County 11/13: “Inquiry urged after 30 voters tried to cast ballot twice”

(Lonewacko comments: Anyone who attempts to completely dismiss the possibility of fraud committed through eVoting probably isn’t a computer programmer.)



Posted by Lonewacko at November 13, 2004 05:22 PM | TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)