[Voterescue] Fwd: Re: 1-20-08 Holt's emergency bill to assure secure elections is a FRAUD.

Sun Jan 20 12:45:45 CST 2008

Vickie,

Here's what The PEN sent back to me regarding my complaint about 
their campaign to have people support Holt's bill.

Jerry

>DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
>         d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
> 
>h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
>         bh=1p9Y0XCyrN9Xye7NMV9jBPj0Ttd8USeKaaP6UbSD5zw=;
> 
>b=ssIsAMyGxFlg/8OdR6UkjhJRt9vkt7zRz/T5b42OrP11A5qDGzlzTWV7nToHEn3GjJpRcCwaMheQhZ3E1h598tmPE1cvHaWIJYxbc2pvKhMCx8tbwJNFQkxOoMjIoAeZyab/0yIZeYMegUkGByS85zX18e/OkJXzGhMFYYHvN+U=
>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
>         d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
> 
>h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
> 
>b=eZlbMYM7BsqZfZrqGRAaZV71egE+2pAHLqP2c9DGON9JDcxmYioeaG2rcH8Dwm83TvwxT9E1t/4TEE4Hv+Bh/tfvEkLX9FY4KaW4jLWSZoI4Xb4dkb5M23465jeUEbgybyUptharTMbusi8vEuI+OYZbcZtN8c7aZm+w19AYAkM=
>Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:49:12 -0800
>From: "The P.E.N." <activist.thepen at gmail.com>
>To: "Jerry Lobdill" <lobdillj at charter.net>
>Subject: Re: 1-20-08 Holt's emergency bill to assure secure 
>elections is a FRAUD.
>
>dear Jerry,
>
>so nice to hear from you.
>
>of course there is merit in your argument, but yours is an 
>extremist, absolutist position.  what is your alternative?
>
>1) do nothing
>2) play defeatist
>3) heckle
>4) all of the above
>
>we are working to make things BETTER.  if there are flaws in the 
>bill then we demand amendments as well.  but a move in the correct 
>direction is not "worthless" by any stretch.
>
>thank you for your participation.
>
>peace,
>
>The PEN
>
>On Jan 20, 2008 6:49 AM, Jerry Lobdill 
><<mailto:lobdillj at charter.net>lobdillj at charter.net> wrote:
>>Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:47:31 -0600
>>To: <mailto:voterescue at voterescue.org>voterescue at voterescue.org, EI 
>>Legislation List 
>><<mailto:eileg at lists.sonic.net>eileg at lists.sonic.net>, "'Analysis 
>>EDA'" 
>><<mailto:analysis at electiondefensealliance.org>analysis at electiondefensealliance.org>, 
>>
>>From: Jerry Lobdill <<mailto:lobdillj at charter.net>lobdillj at charter.net>
>>Subject: 1-20-08  Holt's emergency bill to assure secure elections 
>>is a FRAUD.
>>Holt's emergency bill,
>>
>>
>>
>>H.R.5036
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 (Introduced 
>>in House) is totally inadequate to assure the integrity of an 
>>election. This bill is WORTHLESS. Here is the relevant language in the bill:
>>
>><http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/%7Ec1103UiRUC:e2303>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c1103UiRUC:e2303 
>>:
>>(c) Number of Ballots Counted Under Audit-
>>
>>(1) IN GENERAL- The hand counts of the paper ballots administered 
>>by the Election Auditor of a State, county, or equivalent location 
>>under this section with respect to an election shall occur in at 
>>least 3 percent of all precincts or equivalent locations (or 
>>alternative audit units used in accordance with the method provided 
>>for under paragraph (2)) in which ballots were cast in the election.
>>(2) USE OF ALTERNATIVE SAMPLING MECHANISM- Notwithstanding 
>>paragraph (1) (and subject to the completeness requirement set 
>>forth in subsection (b)(2)), a State, county, or equivalent 
>>location may adopt and apply an alternative sampling mechanism to 
>>determine the number of paper ballots which will be subject to hand 
>>counts in accordance with this section with respect to an election, 
>>so long as the alternative sampling mechanism uses the paper 
>>ballots verified by voters or paper ballot printouts verifiable by 
>>voters at the time the vote is cast to conduct the audit and the 
>>Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology or a 
>>panel of 3 independent statisticians appointed by the Election 
>>Auditor of the State, county, or equivalent jurisdiction determines 
>>that the alternative sampling mechanism will be at least as 
>>statistically effective in ensuring the accuracy of the election 
>>results as the sample size specified under paragraph (1).
>>
>>Dr. Holt, a physicist, knows precisely what the flaw in this 
>>language is. The question is, Why is he introducing a bill that he 
>>knows will not provide a definite and controllable probability of 
>>detection of vote fraud? The following does not even consider the 
>>damning facts that Holt's rescue bill permits the use of cash 
>>register thermal print "paper trail" records that do not bear any 
>>resemblance to the display screens a voter sees, and electronic 
>>ballot scanner/counters, which have demonstrated to be as 
>>vulnerable to fraud as the paperless voting machines.
>>Here's an example of what will occur under the provisions of this bill.
>>Suppose there are 1000 audit units (precincts, election districts, 
>>whatever). If you choose 3% of these (30) at random for a full hand 
>>recount, what does that buy you in terms of probability of choosing 
>>at least one corrupted audit unit?  The answer is, "It depends on 
>>the announced winning margin of votes, the distribution of audit 
>>unit size, how many units were actually corrupted in producing a 
>>fraudulent win, and the sizes of the units selected at random for audit."
>>Just for example, suppose the precincts are all the same size, so 
>>that completely random selection is a proper strategy for audit. 
>>Suppose the margin of the winner is stated to be 5% and the 
>>corruption is evenly spread through 15 of the largest audit units 
>>(easily done by reference to county election records).
>>What is the probability that your audit will find one of the 
>>corrupted precincts?  Why, it's about 0.37!
>>What if the corruption is spread through 25 of the audit units? 
>>Then the probability of finding one corrupt unit in the audit is 0.66.
>>So you see, the language of Holt's emergency bill is flawed and, 
>>considering his background and the work that was done on his 
>>previous bills before the politicos took over and emasculated them, 
>>you'd be a fool to think he is unaware of this flaw. Therefore, he 
>>is a fraudster with very high probability.
>>You can read more about the details of why this is fraud in the 
>>following papers (which were available to Dr. Holt in 2006).
>>Considering Vote Count Distribution in Designing Election Audits Rev.
>>2, 11-26-06 , by Jerry Lobdill:
>>
>><http://vote.nist.gov/Considering-Vote-Count-Distribution-in-Designing-Election-Audits-Rev-2-11-26-06.pdf>http://vote.nist.gov/Considering-Vote-Count-Distribution-in-Designing-Election-Audits-Rev-2-11-26-06.pdf 
>>
>>Election Audit Sampling Design It's Not Just About Sampling Without 
>>Replacement 10-09-06, by Jerry Lobdill`:
>>
>><http://vote.nist.gov/Election-Audit-Sampling-Plan-Design-Its-Not-Just-About-Sampling-Without-Replacement-10-09-06.pdf>http://vote.nist.gov/Election-Audit-Sampling-Plan-Design-Its-Not-Just-About-Sampling-Without-Replacement-10-09-06.pdf 
>>
>>Jerry Lobdill
>
>
>
>--
>Vote in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll
><http://www.usalone.com/blogvoices.php?Cheney%20Impeachment%3F>http://www.usalone.com/blogvoices.php?Cheney%20Impeachment%3F 
>
>Add this text to your own email and blog signatures!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://voterescue.org/pipermail/voterescue_voterescue.org/attachments/20080120/e9e50167/attachment.html 