[Voterescue] [EDA Data Analysis] 1-20-08 Holt's emergency bill to assure secure elections is a FRAUD.

[M. Aram Azadpour]

Kindly "remove" my Email ID from the list; I wish you-all success.

How does one tell someone else s/he is ugly w/o offending him/her?

How does on tell someone else s/he is irrelevant and uninformed w/o
offending him/her?

Those are issues I'm struggling w/ in writing this Email here and now,
w/ that said, forgive me for I "will" sin!


I've read all the Emails on this subject matter since yesterday till Mon
21st about 9:00p., unfortunately, the ones w/ the loudest cries were the
one w/ the least amount of fact and solution.

Let me divert for a moment here; we have had federal statutes in the
books for some "100" years (that is a century) on matter of political
funding "control and reform." Now, if you were dealing with fixing a
"technical" issue for 100 years, it would have been solved (history
of technology speaks for itself and one needs not to be an "expert" in
anything to conclude that observation). So why is it that for over
100-years Americans have been "trying" to "fix" political funding issues
and still at it as if it is 100 years ago? Pls keep in mind, I'm talking
about federal acts, the state(s) may have had their own law(s)
shorter or longer in the book(s) on this matter.

I'm not going to repeat each point in the past day or so of Emails on
this matter, you-all got them, too and can re/read them. "Every" concern
voiced about e-voting-machines is equally "applicable" to "any" vote
counting means/method, that is any (including human-vote-counting).

If one is concerned of software enigma, then one should be "equally"
concerned of mechanical voting machines. After all, how do "you"
guarantee that someone once a mechanical voting machine is in some
polling place can "not" replace, say, a control pin that connects the lever
to the card-puncher so that once a leaver for one-candidate is pulled,
another candidate's name is not punched? Or, how do "you" guarantee
that vote-counter will "not" be bribed (or influenced) to "miss-count the
votes" by "hand?"

Consider this scenario: any voting administrative body could choice its
own e-voting-machine, then "another" e-voting auditor looks over the
e-voting-machine, real-time, and alarms if there is any irregularity; or,
the voting intake system, e.g., the keyboard of your PC, is designed
and manufactured by one vender and its output goes to two (or more)
e-voting-machines designed and manufactured by "another" vender, or,
an independent auditor. Let us say that a "democratic party" approved
vender makes one peace of the e-voting and then a "republican party"
approved vender makes the e-auditing system. Will you be happy?

What I'm trying to say: there is "nothing" inherently wrong w/ e-voting
machine, human-being is problem.

If w/in 100-years the human-kind has not been able to resolve issues of
miss funding political races, I guarantee you that within 100-years "any"
short coming any voting system may have will be resolved, from technical
stand point.

"Your" argument is misplaced.

You fail to spend the time/effort to grasp the issue; while screaming aloud
your perceived solution.

If you were not made aware of a discrepancy in a vote-tally, then how would
you know the voting process was broken? Foremost, the issue is to work
on a method that "best" alerts "you" of a voting irregularly rather than how to
re-count it. This is the 1st step in making "any" voting secure (or more secure).
You got to be alerted that something is wrong, before you worry about how
to fix it.

Reading not just this thread, but others I have been "shocked" at the lack of
basic understanding folks show before jumping on others' throat on what is
wrong or how to solve it. In another group, folks were writing that US is
not a democracy cause we have a republic-form of government in US.

Let's take another example, the Florida b/s of 2000 that went to US Supreme
Court. While every "expert" (there was and is) was and is screaming to do
away with the electoral college, the electoral college was the very reason and
mechanism put in place to deal with issues such as what we saw in Florida of
2000 (rather than going to "any" court). According to the US Constitution, the
electoral college members of a state are the "ultimate" voters for presidential 
election
that was so that "clear" injustice and wrong does not get propagated. The Florida
electoral college members should "have" and "could" have voted to have Florida
votes go for Dems and not even the US Supreme Court had the power to change
that (because that is the Constitutional power vested w/ the electoral college
members; the US SC can not take away a power vested by the letter of the
Constitution itself, only an amendment to the Constitution may alter that).

Folks, let us take a pause here and let us understand the issue and the mechanism;
before running around like mad. Let us not to go into the deep end.

There is "nothing" inherently wrong or false w/ e-voting machine. Your issue is with
security (integrity) and not with the actual machine/method. Concentrate on the
issue.

If anyone has any reply, kindly just send it to me <arama at att.net> directly. I wish
not to be on the group-list and get 10s of Emails on this matter. I do not have
time/interest on hitting my head against the wall; thank you. --Aram (Grapevine, TX).

ps
we are not here (at least I'm not) to arm wrestle w/ others as who got more,
perceived, experience w/ computers; after all one need not (and should not) be
a mechanic to know that his/her car has a problem, the dash-board indicator(s)
should be alerting the driver w/o requiring him/her to take the engine apart;
w/ that said, I do have relevant experience w/ computer hardware and software

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brent Turner" <brent at trealestate.net>
To: "'M. Aram Azadpour'" <arama at att.net>; <voterescue at voterescue.org>; "'EI 
Legislation List'" <eileg at lists.sonic.net>; "'Analysis EDA'" 
<analysis at electiondefensealliance.org>; "'Jerry Lobdill'" <lobdillj at charter.net>
Cc: "'Art Brender'" <meganp at artbrender.com>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 7:43 PM
Subject: RE: [Voterescue] [EDA Data Analysis] 1-20-08 Holt's emergency bill to assure 
secure elections is a FRAUD.


> M-  Due to the inability of the hand count community to deal with the
> realities of L. A. and IRV, we don't even have to consider the question of
> HCPB vs computers.   HCPB is a good philosophy, but our best offense is to
> support open source, as, obviously, we use computers. More obviously, we
> must also insist on complete paper ballots.    BT
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Aram Azadpour [mailto:arama at att.net]
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 7:29 PM
> To: Brent Turner; voterescue at voterescue.org; 'EI Legislation List';
> 'Analysis EDA'; Jerry Lobdill
> Cc: 'Art Brender'
> Subject: Re: [Voterescue] [EDA Data Analysis] 1-20-08 Holt's emergency bill
> to assure secure elections is a FRAUD.
>
>
>
> Please, let us not go into the deep end here.
>
> How do you know you are reading this Email; or, how do you know that
> a person (not a program) wrote it; or, how do I know that when I hit the
> send-button, the text of the Email sent is the same as the one I wrote?
> Please, let us not go into the deep end here.
>
> There is a difference between making the voting "process" (and it is a
> process, meaning it is not a one-step thing; which it starts from the time
> a voter enter his/her vote; until it is counted for a candidate and
> everything
> in between; for example, how do you know that the truck carrying
> paper-ballots
> would not fall off a bridge and all paper ballots be lost; or, how do we
> know
> that the truck carrying paper-ballot is not highjacked and another truck w/
> forged ballots is not sent in its place; BTW, if you were of the voting age
> during JFK or LBJ's time (or if your parents were), did you-all (or your
> parents)
> raised the same concerns about voting irregularities of that time (which
> happened
> to work in favor of JFK and LBJ)?)... now, there is a difference between
> making
> the voting "process" more secure and tamper-proofed than being against/for
> a particular voting-machine. At the end of the day, if "we," the voting
> public,
> are not aware of an irregularity how do we know that voting process was
> clean?
> Were the American people as concerned of voting-machines in, say, 1998,
> 1996,
> 1994, 1992, 1990, etc. as they are today? What happened in 2000 which caused
> us to become so concerned of voting machines and vote counting-process?
>
> Pls consider making the voting-process (from registering a voter, to polling
> places which are free of intimidation, to election-judges free of biases,
> to whatever else) more secured and reliable than just thinking that if
> voting
> machines were changed then all is going to be well and good. --Aram
> (Grapevine, TX).
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jerry Lobdill" <lobdillj at charter.net>
> To: "Brent Turner" <brent at trealestate.net>; <voterescue at voterescue.org>;
> "'EI
> Legislation List'" <eileg at lists.sonic.net>; "'Analysis EDA'"
> <analysis at electiondefensealliance.org>
> Cc: "'Art Brender'" <meganp at artbrender.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 5:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Voterescue] [EDA Data Analysis] 1-20-08 Holt's emergency bill
> to assure
> secure elections is a FRAUD.
>
>
>> Oh yeah! And how would we know that the compiled code was a faithful
>> version of the disclosed open source even if there was such?
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> At 12:33 PM 1/20/2008, Brent Turner wrote:
>>>Not to mention no open source / disclosure language, as Microsoft made
> sure-
>>>BT
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: analysis-bounces at electiondefensealliance.org
>>>[mailto:analysis-bounces at electiondefensealliance.org] On Behalf Of Jerry
>>>Lobdill
>>>Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 6:48 AM
>>>To: voterescue at voterescue.org; EI Legislation List; 'Analysis EDA'
>>>Cc: Art Brender
>>>Subject: [EDA Data Analysis] 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/~c1103UiRUC: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-Elec
> ti
>>>on-Audits-Rev-2-11-26-06.pdf
>>><http://vote.nist.gov/Considering-Vote-Count-Distribution-in-Designing-Ele
> ct
>>>ion-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-Abou
> t-
>>>Sampling-Without-Replacement-10-09-06.pdf
>>><http://vote.nist.gov/Election-Audit-Sampling-Plan-Design-Its-Not-Just-Abo
> ut
>>>-Sampling-Without-Replacement-10-09-06.pdf>
>>>
>>>Jerry Lobdill
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Voterescue mailing list
>> Voterescue at voterescue.org
>> http://voterescue.org/mailman/listinfo/voterescue_voterescue.org
>
>