"If you are asked by elections officials what gives you the right to watch over the elections that grant all the legitimate power and money the government ever gets, and why a government official shouldn't be trusted to count secretly the processes that determine the government's own money and power, since you've got lots of things to do, just tell them:

  ‘Thomas Jefferson sent me.’

Remind them that...
Declaration of Independence - John Trumbull You will have plenty of energy and time to do these tasks to protect freedom and democracy, if you just remind yourself of what others have sacrificed so that you could enjoy democracy, and consider whether we have the right to allow democracy to literally disappear on our watch by our inaction. Then you'll be a sentinel of democracy, one of democracy's real defenders."

 —Paul Lehto April 18, 2006

our system of government is not based
on trust; it's based on checks and balances.

Quick Start

The Rolling Stone article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is just the latest step in realizing the truth about stolen election 2004.

Just so everyone understands, here's how it all started.

National Exit Polls are released periodically throughout election day showing Kerry winning (up through the final poll of the day at just after midnight).

We were not supposed to see them but great lawyer, statistician, thinker Jonathan Simon captured the unintentionally released exit polls. He knew there were problems when the vote count contradicted the exit poll results. So did many of us as we reviewed Ohio and the rest of the voter disenfranchisement efforts across the nation.   TruthIsAll TIA got a hold of the data and noticed something very wrong, outlining the case by Nov. 9, 2004.

Simon and Alastair Thompson (althecat) wrote their article in “Scoop” Independent News, Nov. 17, 2004.

The truth was out and TruthIsAll, Steve Freeman, Ron Baiman and the rest of the brave "math people" made the case on the exit polls while Bob Fitrakis, Ph.D., Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D., Cliff Arnebeck, and a host of wonderful activists all over America nailed down the rest of the evidence of voter suppression and disenfranchisement.

Democratic Underground and its Elections Forum was absolutely central to the process...

                                           autorank, TruthIsAll is Back...!!!
December 13, 2004    December 13, 2005
Clinton Eugene Curtis Election

"It was a powerful moment ...causing me to break down and cry ...because there was proof, before my very eyes, that these machines were every bit as bad as we all had feared."
Clint Curtis took a polygraph test on March 3rd, 2005...and passed! Slide Presentation The Harri Hursti Hack

June 1, 2006
Robert F. Kennedy Jr
"...evidence shows Ohio Sec. of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was 'certainly in on' the scheme, and there are indications that the effort went all the way up to the White House."
  • 06.01.06 2MRZ3MWas the 2004 Election Stolen? Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. — ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. for Rolling Stone Magazine
    "And that's just the beginning of the story, which includes ballot-box stuffing, electronic voting machine manipulation, 'caging' in defiance of a court order banning Republicans from the notorious practice, threats and intimidation of Democratic voters by imported Republican goon squads, and multiple illegal uses of the office of the Secretary of State to disenfranchise Democratic voters." —Thom Hartmann
    "The article...covers several new and sometimes explosive details of Diebold's rollouts in both Georgia and Maryland dating back to 2002, as well as Florida, Ohio and Texas in 2004."

    From "EXCLUSIVE: New RFK Jr. Article On Diebold Says 'Electronic Voting Can't Be Trusted'" by Brad Friedman

    Protecting  The  Democratic  Vote:
    by   Michael Collins   and   TruthIsAll
    “Scoop” Independent News, Washington, D.C.
    Part 1
    Part 2
    (To scroll   use ↓↑ keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus)

    Protecting The Democratic Vote:  Part 3  — Analysis: A Formula for Catching Election Fraud

    by  Michael Collins  and  TruthIsAll


    November 7, 2006 promises to be a watershed event in the political history of the United States of America. After six long years of the Bush Administration the public is poised to clean house and throw the bums out. These colloquial phrases represent the fervently held hopes of the 55% to 60% of the people who consistently disapprove of the Bush presidency. However, a darker horizon beckons due to the inevitable temptations to deliver the vote in ways that deny the public will.

    [click link for full article]

    * * * *
    This is the final of three pre-election articles I wrote with Michael Collins (autorank) and Alastair Thompson of SCOOP. The purpose was to quantify the risk of fraud in the 2006 Mid-terms. The analysis forecast that the Democrats would gain control of the House and Senate. It also indicated the House seats and Senate races where fraud was most likely to occur. And extensively-documented voting “anomalies” confirmed that perhaps millions of votes were either uncounted or switched.

    The election fraud model projected that the Democrats would win at least 240 House seats, but lose 10-15 to fraud. It correctly forecast that they would gain control of the Senate by winning six GOP-held seats, although they barely won Virginia and Montana. The Democratic Tsunami overcame the fraud in the House and Senate.

    There is no longer any doubt that the poll/vote discrepancies were caused by uncounted and switched votes. Evidence of fraud was once again found in the Final National Exit Poll which matched to the recorded vote count with the use of fallacious weightings. The 2006 Final “How Voted in 2004” weights were manipulated just like they were in the 2004 Final “How Voted in 2000”.

    In 2006, the weights were transformed from 47 Bush/ 45 Kerry at 7pm to 49 Bush/ 43 Kerry at 1pm the next day! This replicated the 41 Bush/39 Gore to impossible 43 Bush/ 37 Gore weight changes in 2004. The net effect of the change was to cut the Democratic margin in half — from 55-43% to 52-46%! Applying realistic weights to the 7pm NEP (using the 12:22am 2004 NEP) the Democratic margin becomes 56.7-42.1%, exactly matching the 120- Generic poll trend projection! Was it a coincidence or confirmation? You decide.

    This is the best evidence that once again the Final Exit Poll was forced to match a fraudulent miscount. Simple logic dictates that if just one demographic requires impossible or implausible weights and/or vote shares in order to match the vote count, then all other demographics must be bogus as well.

    Matching to the vote is nothing new; exit pollsters have been doing it long before Bush arrived on the scene and stolen elections became the norm. In the pre-BushCo world, matching the Final NEP to an essentially fraud-free recorded vote made sense — until BushCo came along and stole the 2000 election, along with repeat performances in 2002 and 2004. The 2006 Democratic Tsunami overwhelmed the fraud but the Dems still "lost" 10-15 House seats they should have won.

    Mark Lindeman said this: “personally, I think Pew was probably not far off”, referring to the final Pew Generic poll (47 Dem / 43% Rep). None are as blind as those who will not see. The Democrats won all 120 pre-election polls. Mark refuses to recognize the obvious. What about the other 119 pre-election polls? Is it just a coincidence that he chose to believe the Pew poll, an obvious outlier in which the 4% Democratic margin was 10% below the trend line?

    Talk about cherry-picking!...


    [ed. — For additional articles and analysis on the 2006 Mid-Terms click menu-Tab  2006 Landslide Denied 

    For complete commentary of above with graphs (and sources), click
     FAQ & Analytics  and see:
    UPDATED: Response to the 'TruthIsAll FAQ'
    Part I: Analytic Summary, "The 2006 Mid-Terms" —Summary Analysis    

    For a compendium of TruthIsAll analyses by topic, see
    UPDATED: Election Fraud Analytics THE 2006 MIDTERMS  ]

    Part 3

    — Election Fraud 2006 —
    Quantifying the Risk
    — Election Fraud 2006 —
    Risk Assessment Update
    Analysis: A Formula for
    Catching Election Fraud
    House and Senate Take Over
    Looks Good
    Prospects for a 34 Seat House
    Pick Up Look Good
    Democrats Should Take Up To
    40 House Seats And
    6 In The Senate

    A:   2006  LANDSLIDE  DENIED —Final Exit Poll "does NOT compute —again!"

    ...there was gross vote count manipulation and it had a great impact on the results of E2006, significantly decreasing the magnitude of what would have been, accurately tabulated, a landslide of epic proportions
    ABSTRACT: In the November 7, 2006 election in Ohio there were 350,669 more ballots cast than the number of votes counted for United States Senator. In 16 counties there were 268,987 uncounted votes, or 19.46% of ballots cast, compared to 82,957, or 2.99%, in 71 other counties. Cuyahoga County alone accounted for 148,958 uncounted votes, or 26.48% of ballots cast in the county, and 42.47% of the statewide total of uncounted ballots. In Marion County there were 1,275 more votes counted for United States Senator than the reported number of ballots cast, which is an impossibility. If the rate of uncounted ballots in the 17 suspect counties had been about 3%, as was the case elsewhere in the state, there would have been about 42,000 uncounted ballots instead of 269,000. This indicates that 227,000 votes may have been lost by the touch screen voting machines, which were utilized in all 17 of the suspect counties.
    ...There is no longer any doubt that the poll/vote discrepancies are caused by miscounting votes. The proof is once again found in the 2006 Final National Exit Poll which matched to the recorded vote count with the use of fallacious weightings. As in 2004, the Democrats won the "preliminary" 7:07pm NEP by a solid 55-43%. But the 1:00pm Final cut the margin in half (52-46%).

    The 7:07pm NEP low-balled the Democratic vote share with the use of "How Voted in 2004" Bush/Kerry (47/45%) weights. The Final NEP (49/43%) weights are even more outrageous; they're a carbon copy of the mathematically impossible 2004 Final Bush/Gore (43/37%). This is the best evidence that once again the Final Exit Poll was forced to match a fraudulent miscount...

     Three  Preliminary  "Non-Matched"  Exit Polls of Interviewed-Voters'  Votes 
     A  Final Exit Poll  " Forced to Match"  the  Recorded  "
    (To scroll  use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area to focus)

    [Click for Full Article]
    "  of 
    See  e-Vote Hacking  for videos of hacks of the two main types of electronic "voting machines":
    I. paper-fed     Optical Scanner   vote-mark Counting computer

    A paper format...but once fed and disappearing inside a programmable "blackbox"
    Optical Scanner, ballot vote-marks can be counted differently from the
    See video of the Harry Hursti Hack of a Diebold Optical Scanner
    for programmed mis-counting that SWITCHES VOTES
    Paul Lehto: By what right or authority did my right to watch the counting of the vote get taken away?
    II. paper-less    DRE    vote-mark Direct-Recording-and-Counting computer

    "Touch Screen"
    Paper-less entry of vote-marks,
    No machine-independent record of vote-marks entered,
    No means to verify the recording and/or counting of vote-marks as the
    See the Princeton Hack video for programmed, untraceable
    mis-recording-&-counting of vote-marks
    (vote-marks entered for G. Washington counted as votes for Benedict Arnold)
    "NIST's recommendation to the STS
    is that the DRE in practical terms
    cannot be made secure."
    ABSTRACT: In the Nov 7, 2006 election in Ohio, there were:
    • 350,669 more ballots cast than the number of votes counted for US Senator
    • In 16 counties        : 268,987 uncounted votes, or 19.46 % of ballots cast
      In 71 other counties:  82,957 uncounted votes, or   2.99 % of ballots cast

      This indicates that 227,000 votes may have been lost by the touch screen voting machines (DRE), which were utilized in all 17 of the suspect counties.

      Source:  2006 Landslide Denied   12.07.06  Yet Another Stolen Election?
     2004 Exit Polls background, from excerpts of "An Open Letter to Salon's Farhad Manjoo" by TruthIsAll :

    Many voters went to sleep on election day assuming Kerry won. Jonathan Simon stayed up long enough to spot and download the 12:22am state exit polls. Luckily for us, The Washington Post chose not to delete the corresponding National Exit Poll ( 13047 respondents at 12:22am) which showed Kerry the 51-48% winner. We also have the earlier NEP timelines at 4pm ( 8349 respondents) and 7:30pm ( 11027 respondents) which established the 51-48% Kerry trend. He held the lead until the Final National Exit Poll ( 13660 respondents), when the numbers magically reverted to a 51-48% Bush win. The numbers (weights and vote shares) were revised to match the vote.

    click to open PDF
    On Election Day, exit polls … by six leading news organizations showed Kerry winning handily in four crucial states: Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Ohio. Since the poll results were beyond the margin of error, Bush's odds of victory were less than
    one in 450,000
    But when the ballots were tallied, the four states "flipped" to Bush, depriving Kerry of fifty-seven electoral votes — and the White House.

    click to read
    Timeline shows the midnight "forcing"
    of exit polls to the "count" of  vote-marks
    from: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?—RFK Jr. for  Rolling Stone, June 2006
    According to the
    ( To scroll  use scrollwheel or arrow keypad— if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus )
    Final National Exit poll
    , 43% of the 122.3 million who voted in 2004 were Bush 2000 voters and 37% were Gore voters. These weightings in and of themselves debunk rBr. Now 43% of 122.3 is 52.57 million. And since Bush only got 50.5mm votes in 2000, of whom about 1.75mm died, only 48.7mm (39.8%) could have returned to vote in 2004, so the 43% Final NEP weighting was mathematically impossible.  The Bush vote was inflated by 4 million . I have just shown that the Final Poll at 1:25pm on Nov 3 is bogus, and that the earlier 12:22am numbers are close to the truth.

    Here's proof that the Final NEP weights are impossible.

    Here's the National Exit Poll Timeline.  Notice the smooth trend in the first three timelines  (4pm, 7:38pm, 12:22am). Compare it to the discontinuous Bush jump in ALL the demographic weights and/or vote shares in the Final NEP.

    11.02.04   3:59pm   8349 respondents: Kerry 51 - Bush 48
    11.02.04   7:33pm  11027 respondents: Kerry 51 - Bush 48
    11.03.04  12:22am  13047 respondents: Kerry 51 - Bush 48
    11.03.04   1:25pm  13660 respondents: Kerry 48 - Bush 51

    "... a server at Edison/Mitofsky malfunctioned shortly before 11 p.m. The glitch prevented access to any exit poll results until technicians got a backup system operational at 1:33 a.m. yesterday. The crash occurred barely minutes before the consortium was to update its exit polling with the results of later interviewing that found Bush with a one-point lead. Instead, journalists were left relying on preliminary exit poll results released at 8:15 p.m., which still showed Kerry ahead by three percentage points.

    It was only after the polls had closed in most states and the vote count  was well underway
     click for link to a state-by-state   
    Regional Analysis
    State Exit Polls of Voters   vs.   Vote "Count" Discrepancies
       All 21 states (and DC) deviated to Bush by an average of 2.80%
    the odds:  1 in 4.2 million
       12 states deviated beyond the margin of error
    probability:  1 in 32 trillion
       Ohio and Florida "flipped" from Kerry to Bush  
     in the East
    that it became clear that Bush was in a stronger position in several key battlegrounds, including Ohio, than early exit polls suggested."

    A random sample of a population can be modeled as a normal distribution curve. Exit polls, however, are not random samples. To avoid prohibitive expense, exit poll samples are clustered, which means that precincts, rather than individuals, are randomly selected. This increases variance and thus the margin of error because of the possibility that precinct voters share similar characteristics which distinguish them from the rest of the state in ways that past voting behavior would not predict. An analysis of the 1996 exit polls estimated that the cluster sample design adds “a 30 percent increase in the sampling error computed under the assumption of simple random sampling” (Merkle and Edelman, 2000, p. 72).
    Figure 1.2 depicts the resulting distribution curve for samples of 1,963 randomly selected respondents from approximately 40 randomly selected precincts in Ohio, a state in which 48.5% of the vote went for Kerry...It turns out that the likelihood that Kerry would poll 52.1% from a population in which he receives only 48.5% of the vote is less than one-in-one-hundred (.0073).

    Conducting the same analysis for Florida...the chances that he would poll 49.7% out of 2,846 respondents in an exit poll with no systematic error is less than two-in-one-hundred (.0164). In the third critical battleground state, Pennsylvania...the likelihood that an exit poll would predict 54.1%, given 50.8% support of the electorate is just slightly more than one-in-one-hundred (.0126).

    Assuming independent state polls with no systematic bias, the odds against any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together are more than 5,000:1 (five times more improbable than ten straight heads from a fair coin). The odds against all three occurring together are 662,000-to-one. As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible,  it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error
    Pre-punched ballots;  touch-screen vote switching;  more absentee votes than absentee voters;  unfair provisional voter deletions;  change of voting sites on Election Day;  voter suppression; voter intimidation;  double voting;  malfunctioning machines;  recalibrated machines;  evidently rigged machines;  and even 25 million negative votes registered in some races in Mahoning County [Ohio]!

    Those were among the problematic incidents shared at a 3-hour public hearing on vote irregularities in the Mahoning Valley held on December 21 at the Warren-Trumbull Public Library...
    Finally, note was taken at the hearing of the curious fact that exit polls showed Kerry with a 4.2% lead over Bush in Ohio, but the vote results gave Bush an alleged 2.5% victory over Kerry, a 6.7% final vote tally percentage shift toward Bush. The chances of this enormous shift being legitimate and the exit polls so wrong are infinitesimal. Another explanation is much more likely, plausible and real. It was clearly expressed well before this rigged election by the  CEO of Diebold, Walden O'Dell , brother of the top executive at ES&S:  “I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral vote to the President next year” . That sentiment and intent were undoubtedly shared again on Election Day itself with President Bush personally by key Ohio election officials, including the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio who doubles as Ohio’s Secretary of State, when Bush came to his state headquarters on High Street in Columbus, site of what may be the crime of the century. It is unlikely that anyone there on that crucial day invoked the spirit of  Joseph Stalin  who is reputed to have said  “those who vote determine nothing; those who count the vote determine everything” . But whether explicitly invoked or not, that anti-democratic spirit was clearly invited to Ohio.

     E/M  Non-Response Bias  Hypothesis-Testing ("rBr" Debunked) 

    Corollary evidence

    The exit polls themselves are a strong indicator of a corrupted election. Moreover, the exit poll discrepancy must be interpreted in the context of more than 100,000 officially logged reports of irregularities during Election Day 2004. For many Americans, if not most, mass-scale fraud in a U.S. presidential election is an unthinkable possibility. But taken together, the allegations, the subsequently documented irregularities, systematic vulnerabilities, and implausible numbers suggest a coherent story of fraud and deceit.

    What’s more, the exit poll disparity doesn’t tell the whole story. It doesn’t count those voters who were disenfranchised before they even got to the polls. The Two videos, non-autoplay, will popup:
    Video the Vote: Columbus, OH (23 mins)
    No Umbrella movie trailer (3 min)
    voting machine shortages in Democratic districts
    , the fraudulent felony purges of voter rolls, the barriers to registration, and the unmailed, lost, or cavalierly rejected absentee ballots all represent distortions to the vote count above and beyond what is measured by the exit poll disparity. The exit polls, by design, sample only those voters who have already overcome these hurdles...

    [Ed: emphasis and links added]
    As they slowly hack democracy to death, we´re as alone — we citizens — as we´ve ever been, protected only by the dust-covered clichés of the nation´s founding: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

    It´s time to blow off the dust and start paying the price.

    The media are not on our side. The politicians are not on our side. It´s just us, connecting the dots, fitting the fragments together, crunching the numbers, wanting to know why there were so many irregularities in the last election and why these glitches and dirty tricks and wacko numbers had not just an anti-Kerry but a racist tinge. This is not about partisan politics. It´s more like: "Oh no, this can´t be true."
    The psychology of electoral domination has two parts—what is being done to people and how they allow it.

    Psychological techniques, used deliberately, allow many tricks to go unnoticed and unchallenged. For example, "mystification"" is a plausible misrepresentation of reality in which forms of exploitation are presented as forms of benevolence. Like magic and the use of distraction, the issue of voting reform was manipulated and misrepresented, so people felt calmed by the illusion that the problems from the 2000 election were being corrected. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Elements of the Help America Vote Act, HAVA (a name as Orwellian as the Clear Skies Initiative, should be more accurately called "Hide America's Voting Anomalies"), include intrusive identity checks, the introduction of the "provisional ballot" most of which were not counted, and the use of electronic voting machines. Each of these was brilliantly misused for the opposite intention— to corrupt and deny votes to Kerry in ways people wouldn't notice. 
    State & National Pre-Election/Exit Poll Simulations and National Exit Poll Timelines These are the PRE-ELECTION Polls.

    And they match the EXIT Polls
              ... i.e., the Preliminary exit polls of Voters.

    Kerry won them ALL
              ... but not the Final 'exit poll' which was — as usual —
             'forced' to match the recorded 'count' of vote-marks.

     the "Game" 
    The DU "Game" was a debate thread in which the naysayers finally agreed to provide a quantitative rationale to explain how Bush won the election by 3 million votes.

    The Final National Exit Poll "How Voted in 2000" demographic was the focus of the "Game".

    The naysayers agreed to this stipulation:
    The Final NEP Bush/Gore 43/37% weights were mathematically impossible.
    For the game, the assumption was that Bush and Gore voters represented an equal mix of the 2004 electorate (around 39%).

    We won The "Game" because the naysayer Bush vote share assumptions required to derive his margin were implausible. Some of the reasons why are explained in the earlier DU threads with links given below. There are many more.

    The "Game" thread was the last one in which I posted at DU.
    For this reason and also because we won, it will always have a special significance.

    a "game" about the 2004 election

    Since Kerry won all plausible voter turnout scenarios...
              RETURN OF THE CLINCHER: Kerry wins 120 of 120 scenarios

    naysayers were forced to provide implausible explanations...
              Bush needed 1 of 6 Gore 2000 voters to win by 3 million votes

    still they wanted to have it both ways...
              Naysayer Hobson's Choice: Final NEP or rBr? Take your pick.

    but the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis was debunked...

    and the odds of Bush winning required non-responders were remote...

    while the Final National Exit Poll Bush/Gore 43/37% voter turnout was a mathematical impossibility...
              The Final National Exit Poll is a FRAUD. Here's proof.

    and the great majority of EIRS-documented DRE incidents were one-sided in favor of Bush...
              Prob (86 of 88 DREs switch Kerry votes to Bush): 1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000

    e-Vote Hacking — Insecurity of Electronic VoteMark-Recording & -Counting  Machines 

    "Today in America your elections are being stolen on a regular basis."
    Election Deception:
    The Truth About H.R. 811
    "...That's OUR money that is being spent on these fraudulent voting systems..."
      ( the Princeton Hack here )
    Excerpts of Hacking Democracy
    Harri Hursti's attack does work: Mr. Hursti's attack on the AV-OS is definitely real. He was indeed able to change the election results by doing nothing more than modifying the contents of a memory card. He needed no passwords, no cryptographic keys, and no access to any other part of the voting system, including the GEMS election management server.  [p 2]

    Memory card attacks are a real threat: We determined that anyone who has access to a memory card of the AV-OS, and can tamper it (i.e. modify its contents), and can have the modified cards used in a voting machine during election, can indeed modify the election results from that machine in a number of ways. The fact that the results are incorrect cannot be detected except by a recount of the original paper ballots.   [p 2]

    Successful attacks can only be detected by examining the paper ballots: There would be no way to know that any of these attacks occurred; the canvass procedure would not detect any anomalies, and would just produce incorrect results. The only way to detect and correct the problem would be by recount of the original paper ballots
    ...  [p 2]
    103. Conditions for Approval and Certification
    (a) For any voting machine, voting device, vote tabulating device, and any software used for each...the criteria by which the Secretary of State evaluates such machine, procedure, device, modification, or software shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
      (1) The machine or device and its software shall be suitable for the purpose for which it is intended;
      (2) The system shall preserve the secrecy of the ballot;
      (3) The system shall be safe from fraud or manipulation;
      (4) The system shall be auditable for the purposes of an election recount or contest procedure;
      (5) The system shall comply with all appropriate federal and California laws and regulations, and;
      (6) The system shall have been certified, if applicable, by means of qualification testing...
    ...[It] has been determined that with the flip of a single switch inside, the [TS model] machine can behave in a completely different manner compared to the tested and certified version.
    "Diebold has made the testing and certification process practically irrelevant," according to Dechert.
    The most serious issue is the ability to choose between "EPROM" and "FLASH" boot configurations...It is clear that this system can ship with live boot profiles in two locations, and switching back and forth could change literally everything regarding how the machine works and counts votes. This could be done before or after the so-called "Logic And Accuracy Tests".
    This is not a minor variation from the previously documented attack point on the newer Diebold TSx...[In] the TS, a completely legal and certified set of files can be instantly overridden and illegal uncertified code be made dominant in the system, and then this situation can be reversed leaving the legal code dominant again in a matter of minutes.
    The Princeton Hack

    Security Demonstration
    Diebold Accuvote-TS "Touch Screen"
    [ DRE - Direct Record Electronic ]

    No paper ballots used
    No record of voter-intent independent of machine
    • Logic & Accuracy Test useless for detecting malicious software
    • Malicious software can steal votes AND cover its tracks to avert detection
    • Fraudulent vote-count recorded on internal memory AND on removable memory card (uploadable to central tabulator)
    • Software deletes itself at election close
    • No evidence of machine being hijacked
    • No evidence the vote count is fraudulent
    No recount possible (no independent records)
    Full Technical Report (PDF)
    "We've demonstrated that malicious code can spread like a virus from one voting machine to another," said Felten in an exclusive interview, "which means that a bad guy who can get access to a few machines — or only one — can infect one machine, which could infect another, stealing a few votes on each in order to steal an entire election."
    I am joining VelvetRevolution, VoteTrustUSA and over 100 other electoral reform and voting rights groups in demanding that the standards to be adopted by the Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) be in the public interest and in compliance with the federal Help American Vote Act (“HAVA”). I am very concerned, on the basis of published reports and witness accounts, that members of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) will recommend vendor friendly standards because they are both beholden to and influenced by the manufacturers of the voting machines at the expense of the public interest. If true, this would violate both the charter of the EAC and federal law under HAVA. ...
    In an important development in e-voting policy, NIST has issued a report recommending that the next-generation federal voting-machine standards be written to prevent (re-)certification of today's paperless e-voting systems... The new report is notable for its direct tone and unequivocal recommendation against unverifiable paperless voting systems, and for being a recommendation of NIST itself and not just of the report's individual authors.

    [UPDATE (Dec. 2): NIST has now modified the document's text, for example by removing the “NIST recommends...” language in some places and adding a preface saying it is only a discussion draft.]

    NIST does not know how to write testable requirements to make DREs secure, NIST's recommendation to the STS [a subcommittee of the TGDC] is that  the DRE in practical terms cannot be made secure.  Consequently, NIST and the STS recommend that [the 2007 federal voting standard] should require voting systems to be of the [software independent] "class"...

    In other words, NIST recommends that the 2007 standard should be written to exclude DREs...
    Years from now, when we look back on the recent DRE fad with what-were-we-thinking hindsight, we'll see this NIST report as a turning point.
    Recent news accounts discussing the vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems contained in the report titled "Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC," have raised the question of whether the report's recommendations represent the official position of NIST. This draft report was prepared by staff at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at the request of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) to serve as a point of discussion at its Dec. 4-5, 2006, meeting. Prepared in conjunction with the Security and Transparency Subcommittee (STS) of the TGDC, the report is a discussion draft and does not represent a consensus view or recommendation from either NIST or the TGDC. The report contains draft recommendations that were presented on Monday, Dec. 4, for consideration by the TGDC. The TGDC may adopt, reject, or modify the recommendations.

    During the Dec. 4 & 5 meeting of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, did the committee adopt any resolutions regarding the draft report, "Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC"?

    Yes. On Dec. 5, Dr. Ron Rivest (chair of the TGDC transparency & security subcommittee, and professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science) proposed the following draft resolution which passed unanimously.

    Resolution # 06-06: Software Independence of Voting Systems
    Election officials and vendors have appropriately responded to the growing complexity of voting systems by adding more stringent access controls, encryption, testing, and physical security to election procedures and systems. The TGDC has considered current threats to voting systems and, at this time, finds that security concerns do not warrant replacing deployed voting systems where EAC Best Practices are used.

    To provide auditability and proactively address the increasing difficulty of protecting against all prospective threats, the TGDC directs the Security and Transparency Subcommittee (STS) to write requirements for the next version of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) requiring the next generation of voting systems to be software independent. The TGDC directs the STS and the Human Factors and Privacy Subcommittee (HFP) to draft usability and accessibility requirements to ensure that all voters can verify the independent voting record.

    The TGDC further directs STS and Core Requirements and Testing (CRT) Subcommittee to draft requirements to ensure that systems that produce independently verifiable voting records are reliable and provide adequate support for audits.

    Several other resolutions, including one on a new class of voting systems and wireless security, also were adopted by the TGDC. The resolutions and other material from the Dec. 4 and 5, 2006, TGDC meeting are available at http://vote.nist.gov/index.htm.

    What is the next step regarding this resolution?

    The three subcommittees, working with technical experts at NIST, will draft requirements as stated in the resolution. The draft requirements will then be presented to the TGDC which may adopt, modify, or ask the subcommittee to revise the requirements. Once they are adopted by the TGDC, the requirements will become part of the next version of the VVSG that will be presented to the EAC for consideration in July 2007. Following a public comment period, the EAC will issue the voluntary guidelines.

    What is the TGDC and what is NIST’s role in the group?

    The TGDC is an advisory group to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which produces voluntary voting system guidelines. Both the TGDC and EAC were established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002. NIST serves as a technical adviser to the TGDC.

    Why was the draft software independence report done?

    It was drafted to help in the development of some of the key guidelines for the next generation of electronic voting machine to ensure that these systems are as reliable, accurate, and secure as possible. The guidelines, known as the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2007 (VVSG 2007), will be issued by the EAC after public comment.

    How was the research in the software independence report done and how were conclusions reached?

    The researchers’ and subcommittee’s conclusions in the draft report are based on interviews and discussions with election officials, voting system vendors, computer scientists, and other experts in the field, as well as a literature search and the technical expertise of its authors.

    What review and approval process is followed for the recommendations in this report? Who is responsible for implementing the recommendations when they are final?

    At the Dec. 4-5, 2006, TGDC meeting, the committee discussed the research conclusions and recommendations in the draft software independence report. See above for information on resolutions submitted to the TGDC.

    It appears that the recommendations in the draft software independence report—if they were accepted as is—would require independent paper trails or other means of auditing Direct Record Electronic (DRE) voting machines, and decertification of current DREs that do not include independent audit mechanisms. Is that correct?

    The TGDC approved a resolution on Dec. 5 that directs two of its subcommittees to draft requirements to ensure that systems that produce independently verifiable voting records are reliable and provide adequate support for audits. (See above for more information on this resolution.) Neither NIST nor the TGDC will make any requirements about certification, and the draft software independence report does not address issues of certification of current voting systems. Certification, decertification, or recertification of DREs is up to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and individual states. Current EAC certification procedures pertain to the VVSG 2005 guidelines. EAC requirements for 2007 certification would likely not take effect for many years. It has been erroneously reported that NIST is recommending decertification of DREs.

    If the recommendations in the draft software independence report are adopted, would that mean that some DREs in use now could no longer be used?

    No. The draft recommendations do not imply that existing DREs could no longer be used. Decisions concerning decertification of DREs would be determined by the individual states. Issues of certification and decertification of voting systems currently in place are outside the scope of the draft report and the TGDC’s deliberations.

    Does the draft software independence report conclude that there is no audit capability whatsoever in DREs?

    The draft report says that DREs are auditable but not independently auditable. In other words, the DRE audits itself which is less preferable than an independent audit capability.

    Did the draft software independence report conclude that current DREs are highly vulnerable and a single programmer could “rig” an election?

    Some statements in the report have been misinterpreted. The draft report includes statements from election officials, voting system vendors, computer scientists and other experts in the field about what is potentially possible in terms of attacks on DREs. However, these statements are not report conclusions.

    Additional information is available at: http://vote.nist.gov
    Vote-PAD — Non-electronic, Voting-on-Paper Assist Device
    In response to joint applications submitted by Vote-PAD, Inc. and California counties, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's voting system staff set up two days of certification testing of the Vote-PAD in July.

    With no training or experience in usability testing, the Secretary's staff and computer voting system consultants conducted "usability" testing on the Vote-PAD...

    HAVA + EAC — Help America Vote Act of 2002 + Election Assistance Commission
    The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was passed on the heels of the Florida 2000 presidential election and its “hanging chad” problem. These ambiguous ballot chads riveted and frustrated the nation for a couple of months in late 2000. However, few thought the solution to the ambiguity of hanging chad evidence of a voter’s intent would be to completely eliminate that evidence.

    With the help of nearly $4 billion in federal grants, HAVA eliminates the evidence of voter intent by eliminating the paper. Instead of paper ballots we have votes registered and counted on "touch screens" — computer-based direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines. Invisible electronic ballots are the result of these DRE touch screens. Electronic vote counting software does the vital vote tabulation in secret. For citizens and public officials, the vote counting processes are strictly off limits. There is literally nothing to see. As a result, the public records of vote counting are gone. To preserve this secrecy, DRE purchase contracts often pledge the government to cooperate with the vendors to fight the very citizens the government is pledged to serve.

    What is this secrecy in vote counting, really? To have the votes counted in secret by your political enemy is the picture of tyranny. To have the votes counted in secret by your political friend is the picture of corruption. To even desire such an unaccountable power is itself corrupt. So how is HAVA cramming this down the throat of American democracy?

    HAVA, it turns out, provides a $3.8 billion carrot of federal money to assist election jurisdictions with purchases that comply with HAVA’s “standards”. This federal carrot is combined with a big lawsuit stick for noncompliance. The date for required compliance with HAVA is the first federal election in 2006 (the primary), and violations of HAVA are routinely guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Justice to be cause for a lawsuit. New York was the first major example made of a big state, when DOJ filed suit to force compliance with HAVA’s “standards” in March 2006.

    HAVA standards require voting accessibility for people with all “disabilities”. They also require at least one “accessible” voting device per polling location. Adding considerably to the stress of some local jurisdictions is the fact that there is no single voting system that allows accessibility for all disabilities, whether of sight, motor abilities up to quadriplegia, or other disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

    However, HAVA “helpfully” states an example of compliance with this accessibility requirement in a single machine: DRE voting systems, such as touch screen voting systems. While other technologies are at best problematic and fraught with risks of noncompliance and lawsuits by both disabled groups and the DOJ, there exists a relatively safe harbor with DRE touch screens. HAVA names them as an example of a voting system that is compliant by law, though obviously not in fact, because touch screens serve less than half of the total disabled population. Clearly, the HAVA safe harbor, misrepresentations about other technologies, and the hype about DREs all combine to clear the way for touch screen DREs, and all the threatened lawsuits make perfect the “HAVA Cramdown” of DRE touch screen voting technology into our elections.

    At $3,000 to $5,000 a piece, and with regular breakdowns and vote switching behaviors reported, with touch screen DREs crammed down the throat of democracy, we can look forward to bottlenecked long lines for these expensive machines, together with many years of elections that nobody can verify because of the secret vote counting.

    Because of the trade secrecy claims and the nature of electronic vote counting on hard drives, with touch screen DREs, the voters never see the final form of their ballots, and the ballots are all counted in complete corporate trade secrecy. Making any reasonable connection between the intent of the voters and the invisible electronic ballot requires an elections theory that borders on magical thinking.

    The wildly unaccountable features of invisible ballots and secret vote counting, and the fact that DREs do not accommodate more than half of all disabilities yet get a free pass under HAVA, should give us reason to pause to reevaluate the law and its outcomes. Yet at this very moment, the Department of Justice is proceeding, suing and threatening to sue any and all jurisdictions that do not comply with HAVA, scaring them into the only seemingly safe route to go under HAVA: touch screen DREs, even though some brave jurisdictions have still rejected that route.

    Local and state activists have taken a variety of approaches. Some have filed complaints under HAVA, others are lobbying Congress, and some are litigating, in states including Washington, California, New Mexico, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Ohio.

    On Saturday, April 8, a group of nearly 100 election integrity activists gathered in Washington DC for a conference. They heard a speech [by] Commissioner Ray Martinez, one of the four commissioners on the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), who is an attorney. The EAC, it turns out, administers HAVA and, with the help of the DOJ, administers what they will not want to call the HAVA Cramdown, sweetened by the $3.8 billion in federal money that can be used for the purchase of voting systems, including DREs for all voters, not just disabled voters.

    Nevertheless, Martinez spoke of EAC’s commitment to fair elections and provided some background on HAVA. He is a Democratic appointee and lawyer who had recently in a speech at Princeton made constructive comments on election reform, and is probably the most sympathetic voice for citizens on the EAC in an area where the public has few friends these days.

    At the beginning of the question-and-answer period for Commissioner Martinez, business law and consumer fraud attorney Paul Lehto, of Everett, Washington, pointed to the secret vote counting that always takes place on touch screen voting machines, and asked a simple but powerful question:

    Paul Lehto:     My question is: By what right or authority did my right to watch the counting of the vote get taken away?

    Along with Lehto’s two follow-up questions, the responses by Commissioner Martinez point out more detail in the massive civil rights violation of the HAVA Cramdown...

    [ed: some links and emphases added. Click section link above for original (and resizable) text.]
  • THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Citizen Paul Lehto Questions Ray Martinez, Attorney-at-Law and Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission.
    MR. MARTINEZ:     Okay, in what way was your rights - how did you get - how did it get taken away?

    Comment: Lehto, an attorney himself, begins by describing his rights as a citizen of Washington State under state election laws to Martinez, another attorney in election law. These state rights are similar to those in many other states that seek to provide election transparency and public or political party witnessing of various aspects of the vote-counting process to act as a check and balance against fraud. Lehto says he can see his own vote as he marks the ballot, watch the overall vote count both in the precinct and in the county counting center, and be present at canvassing board deliberations on disputes. He has a personal right of appeal should his voting choices be in any way vague, whether or not exactly similar to the “hanging chad”. Lehto points out that the EAC forces state purchases of DREs and gets the ball rolling for DREs, then provides the funding for the initial purchase through HAVA grant money. He points out that the use of DREs takes away all of his rights, yet that has never been debated directly anywhere in Congress or state legislatures; it’s at best a side effect but a very real and destructive one nevertheless.

    The initial response by Martinez is not encouraging. He stumbles and either fails to understand Lehto’s question or seems unaware of any rights that might be denied by touch screen DREs. The exchange then continues:

    MR. LEHTO:     Well, you know, I can look at the outside of the [touch screen voting machine] DRE all day long and I’ll never see how the vote is counted and I’ll never get any information about how the electronic vote is counted after the fact [either], so I have no idea how the vote is counted.

    MR. MARTINEZ:     Then I understand your question. The answer is that Congress didn’t — I mean the federal government didn’t trump your rights under state law to see the counting of the vote. Now, I understand what your point is. That is, what you’re talking about is these electronic voting machines do not leave the evidence under that you would have under a paper-based system, where you’d see a lot more of what’s actually going on, so I don’t have a good answer for you. Congress is not intending to obstruct your rights as a citizen under Washington State law to see what’s in the vote count. What I would suggest to you is that you better define your state law so if you want to see what’s going on with the machines, then you gotta have your legislature write a law that deals with the fact [of] changes in voting technology [inaudible]. Your legislature can request [inaudible] that you as a citizen to be able to witness every single aspect of the vote count, you’re going to have to get your state law changed, or you’re going to have to do it a different way like 25 and 26 [inaudible] which may not mean anything to you because most of these states [inaudible] It’s not a good answer to your question but I can tell you...I’m pretty sure that the intent of HAVA was not to trump your rights under state law; that may be what the effect was, but that’s not what the intent was.

    (Author’s note: At this point, the EAC has been effectively put on notice that it may well be abridging citizen rights, with knowledge of the same, by facilitating contracts for DREs and cramming them down the throat of democracy by litigation threat after litigation threat, all in the name of the disabled and yet serving only a fraction of the disabled community, favoring some disabilities over others, all at the expense of democracy itself.)

    Comment: The second exchange reveals a great deal more about EAC’s consideration or lack thereof of voting rights in the various states, together with HAVA’s central role in the forcible denial of election transparency and institution of a secret vote counting across America. Lehto points out that watching a DRE means nothing. The implication is clear: Observing vote-taking and -counting on a DRE means simply watching the motionless case of a computer, much like watching paint dry. Such “observation” reveals nothing about the processes of vote counting, their accuracy, or the presence of any malicious vote-switching code, whether source code or code added later as a virus. The secret software is not accessible by citizens or even government officials, because the software and methods that replaced public vote counting are private corporate property interests called trade secrets. The violation of citizen rights goes directly to the issue of observing and being involved in election processes which are themselves a check and balance designed to preserve the integrity of the voting system and are essential voter rights. These rights are abridged completely, taken away by the manufacturer contract with the elections board or county, which prohibits any examination of the machines or the software that runs them. Counties commonly agree via the same contract to gang up on and defeat any citizen records request, subpoena, or lawsuit that might be filed seeking such information, such as Lehto’s lawsuit. www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp (see Contract, Appendix B to Complaint, paragraph 37)

    Martinez provides contradictory responses...First, he says Congress did not take away any rights or intend to trump Lehto’s state rights. Then, he seems to think about it and seems to get Lehto’s point: Observing electronic voting doesn’t give the citizens information about what’s going on in electronic vote counting.

    Finally, in a stunning remark, Martinez (a lawyer) says that the restoration of rights is the citizen’s responsibility. Basically, the response is, Get a bill passed in your state: “…you better define your state law if you want to see what’s going on with the machines…” This constitutes a tectonic shift in the role of the federal government, from the preserver of individual and citizen rights to an indifferent pusher of technology which eviscerates those voting rights. 

    Citizens are now informed that it is now their job to patch their rights up after the government damages them, provided they have the ear of their legislators. Of course, today the reelection of those legislators depends on the outcome of the secret vote-counting programs. With each new electronic election, given the hardball nature of politics today, our representatives would have to weigh whether they need to be nice to those corporations, or risk retaliation in the secret vote-counting process. The burden placed on today’s citizens is enunciated in the most casual way by the EAC Commissioner: “…you gotta...write a law”. Sure, citizens do this every day, no problem.

    The final sentence of the second exchange is worth reading carefully. It reveals just how little thought EAC has in fact given to this issue. In one sentence, the Commissioner says HAVA does not “trump your rights”, but acknowledges “that may be the effect [anyway]”; but if that is “the effect”, well, sorry “that’s not what the intent was”. This argument is little more than a complex version of “Ignorance of the law is our excuse”, or a reflexive denial of intentional wrongdoing.

    Did Congress give any thought to voter rights within the states in the drafting and deliberations of HAVA? To democracy? To the very credibility of our system of government? Did the EAC spend any time at all considering voter rights while implementing this act that claims to help us vote, or at least to help a fraction of this country’s disabled population? How do the disabled themselves feel about having only a fraction of their community served by HAVA, and having democratic vote counting as a whole denied to all of society, in their name? The picture becomes clearer below:

    MR. LEHTO:    HAVA set that whole thing into motion. But I think that the question is who does the burden fall on of moving the legislature? I would say that citizens’ rights cannot be changed except by an act of the legislature or by an amendment to the Constitution. In other words, a contract can’t change citizens’ rights, and yet [these purchase contracts for electronic voting systems are changing citizens’ rights…] So, you don’t have an explanation for how that can possibly be the case?
    Shortly after this Saturday April 8, 2006, address and Q&A with voting rights activists, as well as exchanges with Lehto and numerous other activists, on Monday morning, April 10, 2006, Commissioner Martinez resigned his seat on the commission effective June 30, citing “strictly personal and family reasons” in his resignation letter to President Bush.

    [ed: some emphasis added...click section link above for full original text.]
  • THE IMPLICATIONS: The Citizen Lehto - Commissioner Martinez Exchange.
    The implications of this exchange with EAC Commissioner and attorney Ray Martinez are significant.
      (1) Although the Declaration of Independence and most state Constitutions include language like the Declaration’s statement that “to secure these [individual] rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”, the primary purpose of the EAC and the DOJ as regards HAVA is clearly not to secure any citizen rights. They are tasked with enforcing the rapid implementation of secret counting of invisible ballots throughout America, using a carrot and stick approach together with a statutory “safe haven”...

      (2) The EAC is now, if it wasn’t before, on notice that the civil rights of many citizens will be curbed by HAVA’s contracting process; namely their current right to open access to the voting process, whether statutory, common law, or “unalienable” under the Declaration of Independence...

      (3) Specifically, as Lehto said, you can observe a touch screen voting machine all day long and never see any evidence of vote counting. Asking for reports on the machine or the nature of the software, or testing the machines operations and methods, will frustrate questioners, since the machine vendors do not allow in-depth access to and examination of their software and methods at any time, and they claim exemptions to freedom of information laws and other laws based on claims of trade secrets...

      (4) The Election Assistance Commission, in a misguided effort that only partially serves some disabled voters in America by often forcing all voters in a district to vote on touch screen DREs, has violated one of the most fundamental aspects of voting rights, namely open, transparent access to the process of taking and tabulating votes...

      (5) The EAC is not willing to take the existing citizen rights to election access into account in the process, given HAVA’s main goal based on the comments of Commissioner Martinez: “HAVA does require … voting technology upgrades for a lot of different and I think very compelling reasons”. This indicates the tunnel vision of the EAC, DOJ, and Congress for passing the act.  HAVA advocates like to claim that “it’s about Florida 2000” — lost votes — yet they create a system that loses all of our votes in a maze of privately owned and controlled voting machines and software...

      (6) The EAC knows that it will be inflicting all of this collateral damage on American elections by making them nontransparent, hidden, and out of the public view. Yet the EAC is preceding full force with lawsuits and threats attempting to force states into HAVA “compliance” that will amount to what Lehto has elsewhere called a dark age of democracy.
      [ed: emphasis added]
    The HAVA cramdown is delivered in the form of twin inducements to counties and states that are nearly irresistible: “We will buy you your voting machines” and “We’ve got language in HAVA that says these types of machines, DREs, will make you largely immune from litigation by those pesky citizens who might object”. When those inducements fail to gain the necessary compliance, the next step in the cramdown of electronic voting is threats of litigation and actual lawsuits by DOJ in behalf of EAC.

    Once the machines are purchased and contracted for, the stripdown of our rights takes place. We are no longer able to know where our votes go once they leave the screen, nor can we have someone examine the process for us. We are no longer to challenge the vote because DREs are the final word now. Even if so-called voter-verified paper ballots become part of HAVA, currently HAVA makes the DRE-generated invisible ballots the “ballots of record” only if state law so requires, thus rendering the DREs as the headline-makers, even with full “paper trails”.

    The HAVA lockdown will be discussed in depth in the next article in this series of affronts to freedom. Once we have HAVA crammed down our throats and we have been stripped of our most fundamental rights to free, fair, and transparent elections, we will find ourselves in a HAVA lockdown, an iron cage composed of bureaucratic, regulatory, and politically predetermined results in which government and its friendly vendor corporations certify each other’s qualifications, all strictly enforced by a judicial system that may not be able to offer relief if we fail to take up the challenge to defend democracy soon.
    Citizen lawsuits have provided the most notable resistance to the HAVA cramdown, stripdown, and lockdown...
    The EAC may have opened up the opportunity for civil rights litigation against government officials, forcing this dark age for democracy and leaving no basis for public confidence in elections. Concerning the civil rights of citizens, the United States Code says:
      Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress… — United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Civil Rights, Subchapter I- Generally. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.
    When deprived of their rights by statute, regulation, or other means, individuals or groups of citizens can take their case to court. Citizens can defend democracy by reminding their elected officials and their bureaucratic employees of two important points. First, governments are instituted solely to secure and protect the rights and well-being of citizens. Second, it is the role of elected officials to be the guardians of democracy at all times. The necessary effects of EAC- and HAVA-driven purchase contracts for DREs should be noted clearly. If you complain about losing your rights through DRE secrecy and your government officials persist in instituting technology with secret vote counting, their behavior constitutes a violation of public rights that is then intentional, not simply negligent, because you have put them on notice. A certified letter pointing out some of the facts and legal realities here or those located in the complaint in the following link should suffice for starters and can be adapted to your jurisdiction by a lawyer if a lawsuit becomes necessary. Check and inquire about your state law as part of the process. See www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp (complaint link).

        A. Key Help America Vote Act 2002 language.
        B. Illustration of paper versus electronic voting.
  • The BRAD BLOG has obtained an EXCLUSIVE partial transcript from a recent, unaired interview by a major broadcast network with former U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) chair Rev. DeForest Soaries.

    ...Soaries says there are "no standards" for voting systems and that Congress and the White House "made things worse through the passage of the Help America Vote Act."

    "...This was a travesty. I was basically deceived by the leaders of the House, the Senate and the White House."

    "...Someone in America has got to hold America accountable for protecting the most fundamental right in a democracy and that is the right to vote." 
    [emphasis and links added]
    The following is the text of Senator Feinstein’s letter to Donetta Davidson, Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission:

    Dear Chair Davidson:

    As the incoming Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I am writing about the failure of the Election Assistance Commission to provide timely information to election officials and the public about your Commission’s decision to withhold accreditation to Ciber Labs.

    Until the New York Times published an article on January 4 about the denial, election officials and the public were generally in the dark about the apparent failure by Ciber Labs to properly test electronic voting systems.  This raises questions about the security and accuracy of our nation’s voting equipment. 

    I request information from the Commission that answers the following questions:
    On Friday, January 26, 2007 the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) released the Interim Accreditation Assessment report submitted to the EAC back in July of 2006. The report “Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Interim Accreditation Independent Test Authorities (ITA) Assessment Report CIBER & Wyle” is an assessment of an on-site review conducted July 17 to July 22, 2006. It is a damning indictment of the ITA team of the CIBER lab and the Wyle lab, which tested the voting equipment used by at least 70% of the voters in the November 7, 2006 election.

    The failures documented in the report exceed the direst fears of those who had come to question the independence, authority and testing competence of the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) ITA labs. The cadre of doubters came to include many computer security experts, election integrity activists, several state examiners and eventually candidates themselves. Doubt grew with each NASED qualified system which later proved to have significant defects. Doubts grew with revelations of significant defects in systems qualified through NASED ITA program. The defects and illegal system configurations had gone undiscovered by these labs through many rounds of “testing” and remained undiscovered [by] the two labs over the course of years.

    The recurring question of the doubters has always been: “How could such a system pass the qualification testing?”

    And make no mistake — this was not an idle question. The NASED/ITA qualification process using ITA labs was vital to the sales and acceptance of many voting systems in many states. For years manufacturers of voting equipment, state election officials, and current EAC personnel have repeatedly stated the testing done by the ITA labs was thorough and rigorous and thus ensured strict conformance of the qualified systems to the tough standards documented in the 2002 Voting Systems Standards (2002 VSS). The testing and conformance to standards has often been the first line of defense against reports of security vulnerabilities in voting systems.

    However, this assessment report released on January 26, 2007, makes clear that for systems tested by the CIBER/Wyle team these frequent statements were unjustified. And even with the publication of this assessment report, most of the details such as what was and was not tested in those systems, remain cloaked behind a veil of secrecy. After reading this assessment, one also has to wonder why Wyle was granted interim accreditation.

    The following discussion reveals that: ...
    After the 2000 Florida election debacle, Congress established a body called the Election Assistance Commission to improve voting and democracy in this country. Two years ago, the commission approached me about doing a project that would take a preliminary look at voter fraud and intimidation and make recommendations for further research on the issues.
    1. After submitting the DRAFT in July 2006,
      1. we were barred by [EAC] staff from having anything more to do with it.
    2. after sitting on the draft for six months,
      1. the EAC publicly released a report -- citing it as based on work by me and my co-author -- that completely stood our own work on its head.
    Consider the title.
    [ed: also, see  Imbalance of Power  ]
    Citizens of the United States of America have the right to know that their votes are marked and counted in a way that assures citizens that the candidates declared the winners are in fact the winners. This is axiomatic.

    "The voting system shall produce or require the use of an individual voter-verified paper record of the voter's vote..."

    So begins House Resolution 550. It is worth looking at this phrase carefully. The "system" produces a record of the "voter's vote." We are immediately tied to "the system," the very same system that produces incomprehensible results all over the country in a variety of ways. The key to H.R. 550 is that it ties citizens to "the system," one which they trust so little we see snap polls like those on Lou Dobbs showing that well over 80% of respondents favor dumping voting machines of all types entirely and returning to paper.

    The primary objection to H.R. 550 is that it puts "lipstick on the pig" that is HAVA. That legislation was cleverly written with the intent of pushing localities into electronic voting with touch screens (DRE's)...
      • 08.06.06  Amend or End HR 550   What's wrong with the Holt Bill in three easy bullets  —Nancy Tobi, OpEdNews.com
      • 08.17.06 EDA Study Finds Major Flaws in HR 550 Election Audit Proposal —Study Proves Flaws in HR 550 Audit Leave Congressional Elections Fully Exposed To Outcome-Altering Fraud And Error —Statistical Analysts Propose Effective and Powerful Alternative —Bruce O'Dell; Jonathan Simon, JD; Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D.; & Steven Freeman, Ph.D.
    Today a group of computer security and statistical analysts released a study proving that the election audit procedure set forth in HR 550, popularly known as the Holt Bill, would in practice leave elections for the US House of Representatives completely exposed to undetected programming errors and deliberate fraud. (Read the Abstract or Download the full report...)

    The study demonstrates that the HR 550 audit [Sec. 5] is so ineffective that in 40% of races examined, the audit would completely fail to detect fraud or error affecting 10% of precincts in an average US House race. Fraud or error on this scale could easily alter the election outcome if left undetected.

    Statistical experts and mathematicians associated with Election Defense Alliance (EDA) propose an effective alternative approach in their report issued today. Their validation approach detects fraud or error affecting as little as one percent (1%) of the electronic tally with a ninety-nine percent (99%) level of confidence.

    EDA urgently recommends replacing the audit proposed in HR 550 with this alternative approach. The EDA study first tested the HR 550 audit by applying its protocol in 10,000 simulated congressional elections. The simulation revealed serious flaws in the HR 550 audit design that cannot be remedied by typical quantitative means, such as by selecting larger samples.

    To avoid this intrinsic flaw, the report then presents and tests an alternate validation protocol that can immediately achieve 99% confidence of detection of manipulation of even 1% of the total vote. The alternative protocol calls for a hand count of 10% of the paper ballot records in a U.S. Congressional District race in 100% of the precincts. EDA will present this Universal Precinct-based Sampling (UPS) in a full report soon to be released.
    Following the General Election of 2006, which returned control of the U.S. House and Senate to the Democrats, Common Cause sent a mass email to its members exhorting them to support House Resolution 550, also known as the Holt Bill. H.R. 550 provides for the addition of "paper trails" to electronic voting, provides for audits of 2% or more of the paper trails with discrepancies to be resolved in favor of the paper trail, makes permanent and further strengthens the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), and requires that source code for e-voting machines be disclosed and placed in escrow.

    Yet Common Cause is DEEPLY wrong about H.R. 550 as a solution to the problems in America's election systems. Citing the Sarasota Florida's now-famous 18,000 undervotes in a disputed Congressional race, they suggest we lobby for H.R. 550 paper trails, yet Sarasotans themselves learned from their experience, blew right past H.R.550's paper trails for touchscreens, and went to paper ballots. If citing Sarasota, why not follow the Sarasotan example and ban touchscreens instead of validating them?

    Touchscreens make one's own ballot invisible, and at best create a paper trail that studies suggest only 25% of people actually check, and most of those who do check still miss many errors, making errors, fraud and legitimate votes equally "voter-VERIFIED" to use H.R. 550's deceptive terminology. Thus, H.R. 550 paper trails as applied to touchscreens is the gold standard of fraud-approval, allowing 75% and then some to sail through totally unnoticed, but nevertheless earning public confidence. With H.R. 550, Common Cause seems to want to do something "realistic", but these "realistic" Band-Aids don't help; they actually make things worse.

    In the case of H.R. 550, this is not entirely unsurprising. The legislation, in its first iteration (H.R. 2239), was first proposed in 2003, shortly after the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that it purports to favorably amend, and a lot has happened since then.

    The election integrity movement has shown that the technology solutions HAVA foisted on the American public — with the full support of the federal government to the tune of an appropriated $4 billion — were based on a singularly faulty premise that was not fully disclosed to the American public: the idea that private ownership of elections through proprietary technology and trade secret software has a legitimate place in a truly democratic election system, and that the safekeeping of our ballots and the counting of our votes should be outsourced to private corporate interests who claim the Constitution is inapplicable to them as private actors, rather than held in the hands of our American communities and overseen by local citizens.

    This premise of HAVA, that secret vote counting and privatization of elections and removal of public oversight is somehow OK, flies in the face of one of the most widely held political values ever measured. This political value is the 92% of the American public which support, as measured in an August 2006 Zogby poll, the right of the public to witness vote counting and obtain information about vote counting: the necessities of public oversight of elections. That HAVA is trying to make this sacred democratic value extinct is the brewing scandal of the century in elections.

    Because it questioned this faulty premise, the citizens' election integrity movement was able to uncover many other holes in the approach taken by HAVA.

    The movement discovered that HAVA undermined community-centered, paper ballot-based voting systems, along with transparency in elections...

    The movement discovered that the HAVA-created Election Assistance Commission effectively hands oversight of the nation's elections squarely to the Oval Office and the Executive Branch, causing a dangerous shift in the balance of governmental powers...

    And the movement also discovered, with astonishment and sadness but not surprise, that HAVA was largely written and funded by lobbyists working for an industry for whom profit trumped patriotism...

    Rather than taking into account these lessons, H.R. 550 continued to build on the false premises of HAVA, and as a result, H.R. 550, if passed as written, now promises to become HAVA II, building an even more expensive and elaborate superstructure on top of an undemocratic foundation that is radically hostile to the public's right to supervise its own elections and be a watchdog on the only mechanism of power and money transfer to government: elections.

    H.R. 550's defects are stated below in brief form.

    Paper Trails Can't Work
    Auditing as Described in H.R. 550 Won't Work
    Imbalance of Power
    It was against the dangerous centralization of power that the Patriots of American history arose in revolt and revolution. By making permanent and strengthening the EAC, H.R.550 pushes us to a dangerous brink. It's a simple matter for the White House to stack the EAC with crony appointments, leading to any number of dangerous decisions about our elections. With technological elections in place, it also puts the "keys" to the codes programming our elections in the hands of the incumbent administration, precisely the folks (of whatever party) who are most likely to throw elections so they can stay in power. The Founders were adamant about not allowing an aristocracy or “One of the steps for getting there is a permanent Republican government, in the sense of fifty-five Republican senators and a thirty-vote margin in the House and a Republican President for twenty years in a row...”self-perpetuating class to rule this country.
    Transparency and Citizen Oversight
    The only solution to the problems caused by HAVA is radical transparency and observation, combined with the robust checks and balances that are available, if and when they are used, by a physical paper balloting system. Although fraud or incompetence in elections has occasionally caused the proper checks and balances to not be in place in paper balloting systems, at least with paper the average payoff per election crime is low and evidence is created. Whereas, with electronic voting the average payoff is high, little or no evidence is created, making the prospects of undetected fraud unprecedented in our history as a democracy.
    The sine qua non of democracy is not elections per se, it is the fact that all legitimate power comes from the people. In light of this, there is simply NO consideration that has the weight necessary to sacrifice public supervision of elections and public observation of elections, particularly the concern for vendor profitability or election official convenience. The HAVA-caused elimination of public oversight and official accountability via computerization and privatization ultimately means the end of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" if the people can not fully understand and check the legitimacy of their own elections. As such, HAVA, and anything that attempts to put a shiny coat of confidence on HAVA, must not be tolerated by democracy-loving Americans.

    [Ed: emphases and links added]
    It’s conceivable to support HR 4463 and 4989 and not support HR550. It’s inconceivable to support HR550 yet fail to pay equal attention to the other two Holt bills.

    The problems with DRE’s don’t take place in some politically neutral laboratory. They occur in minority and poor communities across the country. They're an extension of the old “spoiled ballots” which were used to disenfranchise millions of minority votes each year. The problems with elections, DRE's, registration, access, misinformation emerge almost exclusively from the political party with the greatest interest in contracting the franchise — keeping minorities and poor people from voting. Holt's HR 4463 and 4989 address this real world political situation. It's about time we did to rather than dwelling on bits and bytes as though that's the real problem...
    An impressive coalition of election fraud-election integrity groups signed an open letter to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives calling for paper ballots as the only standard for voting in the United States.

    Paper trails and paper records are not sufficient to safeguard elections and restore confidence among the electorate. Unless there is a paper ballot for every vote cast, three fundamental principles of democratic elections are violated: 1. Observable tallies... 2. Equal Access... 3. Accurate Results... [Emphasis mine, Ed.]

    The letter states clearly:

    ...we now hold that a paper ballot, whether counted by optical-scan system or hand, is the minimum requirement for any Election Reform legislation in which voters may have confidence.
    [Emphasis mine, Ed.]
    This open letter is encouraging on a number of levels, but it leaves the door open for election fraud by allowing optical scan voting machines to stay in place. Referring to "a paper ballot, whether counted by optical-scan system or hand…" does not address the numerous problems associated with optical scan systems. In a case of collective amnesia, the organizations have erased any problems associated with optical scan voting machines or the vendors that sell and service them...
    Venezuelans are smart, and don't trust the electronic voting machines.* What does that make us? DUMB!
    Here is what we need:

    1. Paper ballot.

    2. Substantial audit.[*]

    The coalition for a paper ballot--the subject of this OP--seems to be limiting itself to the first need, in a Congressional venue. I don't know why. The letter should say: paper ballot AND 10% audit (or whatever). [*] It may be that the groups could not agree on size of the audit, and so are going for the other bottom line need, a paper ballot.
    [* Ed: link to a proposal added]
    At a stunning rate of 92%, Americans insist on the right to watch their votes being counted. And, at an overwhelming 80%, they strongly object to the use of secret computer software to tabulate votes without citizen access to that software.
    Ohio Ballots and Litigation
    4. "...I have recently collected and examined photographs and photocopies of poll books, voter signature books, and tens of thousands of ballots from eleven counties in Ohio, and have found evidence of ballot tampering in all of them. My investigation is ongoing."
    While Democratic Party supporters celebrate their success in Ohio, where their statewide candidates won four out of five executive offices and they now control both the U.S. House and Senate, they are ignoring massive and verifiable irregularities in the 2006 election. Similar irregularities — including missing votes, undervotes and overvotes — may come back to haunt the Democrats in the 2008 general election.

    The only statewide partisan loss for the Democrats was also the closest contest. Republican Mary Taylor defeated Democrat Barbara Sykes for State Auditor by an official vote of 50.64% to 49.36%. Taylor prevailed by 48,826 votes. The Columbus Dispatch's final poll, usually the most accurate in the state for candidate races, predicted Sykes would win by 10%.

    An analysis by the Free Press documents massive discrepancies between the unofficial turnout reported by Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell immediately following the election and the official general election turnout numbers reported in December 2006. These discrepancies may help explain Sykes' unexpected loss.

    In Cuyahoga County which contains the Democratic stronghold of Cleveland, immediately following the election 562,498 votes were reported cast with 30,791 listed as absentee or provisional ballots. The official results show 468,056 counted in Cuyahoga. This means that 94,442 ballots cast in the unofficial total disappeared in the official tallies. This represents a shocking 16.8% of all the votes cast in Cuyahoga.

    Sykes won 62% of the vote in Cuyahoga County.
    Similarly in Lucas County, another Democratic stronghold, 17,351 votes disappeared (10.6% of the total vote) between the unofficial and official turnout numbers.
    Other counties with significant and unexplained loss of votes include: Auglaize (15.7%), Coshocton (14.1%), Jackson (11.3%), Licking (14.1%), Morrow (17.4%), and Tuscarawas (11.7%). In these less populated counties, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland won in five out of six and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Sherrod won in four out of the six.
    The voting irregularities in the 2006 election appear to be greater than in 2004, but many Ohio Democrats have chosen to ignore that reality. But one who hasn't taken that position is newly-elected Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who has pledged a complete review of the electronic voting machines. The facts remain that not every vote is counted or accounted for in the Buckeye State, and this could be the key factor in deciding the next president of the United States.
    In Cuyahoga County, a Democratic stronghold where about 600,000 ballots were cast, the recount did not have much effect on the results. Kerry gained 17 votes and Bush lost six.

    Patricia Wolfe, election administrator in the Ohio Secretary of State's office, testified that election boards are expected to follow the law and can choose the way precincts are selected randomly for recounts.

    Ohio law states that during a recount each county is supposed to randomly count at least 3 percent of its ballots by hand and by machine. If there are not discrepancies in those counts, the rest of the votes can be recounted by machine.

    Sample precincts were to be selected randomly before witnesses.

    Baxter said the case will show that the three county workers chose sample precincts for the Dec 16,2004 recount to ensure the tally sample matched a previous computer vote count, avoiding a lengthy hand recount of all ballots.

    "This was a very hush operation," Baxter said.
    The county prosecutors do not allege vote fraud. Nor do they say mishandling the recount affected the election's outcome.

    But Cleveland, which usually gives Democrats an extremely heavy margin, was crucial to Bush's alleged victory of roughly 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million counted. Some 600,000 votes were cast or counted in Cuyahoga County. But official turnout and vote counts varied wildly and improbably from precinct to precinct. Overall the county reported about a 60% turnout. But several predominantly black precincts, where voters went more than 80% for Kerry, reported turnouts of 30% or less. In one ward, only a 7% turnout was reported, while surrounding precincts were nearly ten times as high. Independent studies indicate Kerry lost thousands of votes in Cuyahoga County that rightfully should have been counted in his column.

    Similar allegations have been made in other counties. Indeed, such illegal non-random recounting procedures appear to have been common throughout the state, carried out by board of election employees with the tacit consent of Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell...
    But the trial in Cleveland represents just a small sampling of what happened during the Ohio recount. At a public hearing sponsored by the Free Press in Toledo in December, 2004, sworn testimony claimed that Diebold technicians were party to picking the "random" precincts to be recounted...

    In Miami County...

    In Fairfield County...

    In Hocking County, Board of Elections Deputy Director, Sherole Eaton was fired after she submitted an affidavit to U.S. Rep. John Conyers outlining how Hocking BOE officials pre-selected one precinct because it had the "right" number of voters (3%), thus illegally prescreening like Cuyahoga County...

    In Coshocton County, Green Party recount observer Tim Kettler acquired public records showing that election officials pre-counted in secrecy in clear violation of Ohio law. Coshocton BOE officials desperately begged Secretary of State Blackwell for advice when the recount did not match. Blackwell's office urged the county to simply send in the results as official. But after being confronted by angry recount observers, Coshocton BOE officials became the only ones in Ohio to hand count every ballot. The recount resulted in a statistically significant vote pickup for John Kerry among previously uncounted ballots.
    The significance of the corrupted recount

    If my assumptions and calculations are correct — if the Kerry/Edwards ticket did lose 43 thousand votes in Cleveland because the Cuyahoga County central tabulator deleted Cleveland votes, that would not by itself have changed the results of the Presidential election in Ohio, which John Kerry “lost” by 118 thousand votes. However, this analysis may have underestimated the number of deleted votes, for example if it underestimated the voter turnout in Cleveland[*] or if vote deletion was selectively targeted at the most Democratic Cleveland precincts. Additional evidence (See Cuyahoga County results) for that possibility comes from a study that shows that in Cuyahoga County there was an inverse relationship between voter turnout and percentage of the vote for John Kerry, county wide.

    Also, there is a great deal of additional evidence of election fraud in Ohio. In Cuyahoga County alone there appears to have been massive illegal purging of registered voters, resulting in a net loss of additional tens of thousands of net Kerry/Edwards votes in Ohio. John Conyers' report, “Preserving Democracy— What Went Wrong in Ohio”, provides a great deal of additional solid evidence of numerous “irregularities” occurring in the 2004 Ohio Presidential election. And there is much much more.

    The prosecutors who are prosecuting the Cuyahoga County election officials for rigging the Cuyahoga County recount have implied that the sole reason for that crime may have been to avoid the excess work of having to recount all the votes in the county. That explanation does not seem very plausible to me. Election workers get paid for their work. If they didn't have to hand count the presidential votes they certainly would have been given other work to do. Would three people commit a felony simply to avoid a little excess work?

    Far more important than the prosecution of those three individual election officials is figuring out what happened, so that measures may be taken to prevent a repeat occurrence — in Ohio or elsewhere. Perhaps the trial will shed light on this. But just as or more important than the trial would be a complete hand recount of the Cuyahoga County vote. I don't know if the records are still available, but if they are there is no reason not to proceed with a full recount — which should have been done a long time ago.    [* ed: link added]
    "The rigging of the recount was the NORM in Ohio, and the Cleveland convictions are just the tip of the iceberg. The recount rigging came right from the top with Ken Blackwell saying that the definition of "random" recount was whatever the locals decided -- including nonrandom selection of ballots and allowing private vendors to pick the precincts to be recounted. I think Blackwell (who was co-chair of the Bush Cheney campaign) knew that a proper recount would have revealed that John Kerry was elected by Ohioans in 2004, and not the candidate Blackwell represented in Ohio. As attorneys in pending litigation in Ohio, in our case it is our goal is to continue to preserve the ballots in Ohio so that citizens and scholars can determine the true count someday soon. As a matter of fact, limited proper recounts have been performed and wherever we've counted we've found discrepancies in favor of Kerry." —Bob Fitrakis
    The first felony convictions of two Cleveland poll workers stemming from Ohio's stolen 2004 election confirm that the official recount in that contested vote was, in the words of county prosecutors, "rigged." The question now is whether further prosecutions will reach higher up in the ranks of officials who may have been involved in illegalities throughout the rest of the state.
    Throughout the rest of the state, under the direction of Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, mandatory random sampling was not done, as prescribed by law...

    Blackwell simultaneously served as state co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign. This fall he was defeated in his campaign for governor by Democrat Ted Strickland. ...
    The 2004 TRUE VOTE MODEL encapsulates the mathematical arguments which indicate why Kerry easily won the 2004 election BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    Download and run the Excel model: http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/KerryTrueVote.zip
    The TRUE VOTE MODEL uses factual historic election data. It considers voter mortality and turnout estimates in order to calculate reasonable Exit Poll weights. It assumes that the early 12:22am NEP vote shares are a good starting point (base case) for the analysis, but allows the user to change ANY AND ALL ASSUMPTIONS.
    Users of the model are challenged to find one plausible Bush win scenario. In lieu of this, the base case scenario indicates that Kerry won by over seven million votes.

     FAQ + Election Fraud Analytics —TruthIsAll  Responds
    2004-2006 Election Fraud Analytics:  Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ
    Updated:   Jan. 9, 2008   by  TruthIsAll

    Election Fraud Analytics is a comprehensive statistical analysis of the 2004 and 2006 elections.

    In 2000, Al Gore won by several million more than his recorded 540,000 vote margin. In 2004, John Kerry actually won by 8-10 million votes. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic Tsunami gave them control of Congress, but the landslide was denied; they did much better than the official results indicate. And the True Vote does not include the disenfranchised, the great majority of whom are Democratic minority voters.

    Bush had a 48.5% average approval rating on Election Day. The Nov. 1, 2004 Election Model, based on the final state and 18 national pre-election polls, projected Kerry as the 51.8-48.2% winner of the two-party vote. His expected 337 electoral vote was calculated as the average of a 5000 election-trial Monte Carlo simulation. The projection model was confirmed by the state and national exit polls.

    Edison-Mitofsky provided four state exit poll measures. Kerry won the first three; Bush won the Final:

     1)    WPE51.8  –  47.2%(unadjusted)
     2)    GEO51.0  –  48.5%(adjusted to incoming recorded votes)
     3)    Composite50.3  –  49.1%(12:22am – adjusted to pre-election polls)
     4)    Final48.5  –  51.1%(matched to recorded vote)

    WPE is the only unadjusted (“pristine”) measure. It was based on the average discrepancy between the exit poll result and recorded vote for all state precincts which were polled. Measures (2) and (3) are adjusted estimates which incorporate pre-election polls and recorded votes. The final state exit polls were forced to match the recorded votes, therefore implying ZERO election fraud. Why should we believe them? And why bother doing exit polls at all, if they will just assume that the recorded vote count was the True Vote?

    Some say that exit polls are not designed to predict the True Vote but to provide a demographic snapshot of the electorate. But if that’s the case, and the recorded vote count is corrupted, then so are the demographics.

    Kerry also had a steady 51-48% lead throughout the National Exit Poll timeline: at 4pm (8349 respondents); 7:30pm (11027); 12:22am (13047) — after the polls closed. Of course, Bush won the Final NEP by 51-48% (13660 respondents) which was posted at 2pm the day after the election. The Final NEP was forced to match the Recorded Vote count with impossible weights and implausible vote shares, so why should we believe it?

    Excel–based models were developed to calculate the  True Vote (T)  =  Recorded (R) + Uncounted (U) + Switched (STrue Vote. Links to the models are provided in this document. They confirm the massive documented evidence of elections which were compromised by a combination of uncounted and miscounted votes. The essential input for the models include state and national recorded votes, pre-election and exit polls, Census total votes cast and mortality rates. Users can enter their own assumptions and then view a “sensitivity analysis” of resulting state and national vote shares and margins. The scenarios are displayed in numeric tables and charts. Many examples are provided in this document.

    The Election Calculator and Interactive Election Simulation models determined that Kerry probably did 1-2% better than the exit polls indicate.

    ( To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus )

    Some argue that exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote can't prove that fraud occurred. But that's not a valid criticism. The question should be:

    Do the exit polls, in conjunction with the pre-election and approval polls, indicate that fraud was likely?
    Election Calculator
    • In 2004, pre-election and exit polls (state and national) closely matched Bush's 48% job approval.
    • Twenty-nine states deviated from the exit poll to recorded vote beyond the margin of error — a virtually impossible occurrence.
    • The preliminary National Exit Poll had Kerry winning the election by 51-48% with a 1% margin of error.
    The probabilities were a compelling circumstantial case for fraud; they were confirmed by the overwhelming documented evidence of corrupted vote counts in  Ohio,  Florida,  New Mexico, etc. See the 2004-2006 Election Fraud Analytics... for details.

    Democrats always do better in the preliminary exit poll than they do in the final, which is always matched to the recorded vote count. But what if the recorded count is corrupt? Millions of votes (over 3%) are uncounted in every election — and 70-80% of them are Democratic; this is an obvious component of the discrepancy between preliminary and the Final exit polls. The other component is vote-switching at the polling place and/or the central vote tabulators.

    [ click for access to full article & Election Calculator ]
     is an Excel model for analyzing 1988–2004 elections. Users can override the pre-set default assumptions for voter mortality, uncounted vote rates, prior election voter turnout and vote shares of prior and new voters. The base case scenario indicates that Kerry won by nearly 10 million votes with a 53.2-45.4% vote share. Interested readers can download the model, review the base case scenario and then enter their own assumptions. Sensitivity analysis tables provide an instant view of vote shares over a range of input assumption scenarios.

    The The model can be used to run simulations, calculate probabilities and perform "sensitivity analysis" to see the effects of changes in assumptions on the electoral and popular vote.

    The model provides a strong circumstantial case for those who believe the election was stolen.

    Kerry won the pre-election state and national simulations, which are confirmed by the State and Preliminary National exit polls. Bush won only the Final Exit Poll, which was matched to the recorded vote.

    There are only two possible explanations: either the pre-election AND exit polls were wrong - or massive fraud occurred.
    [ Click to access the model & data ]

    This workbook contains a full analysis of the 2004 election, based on four sets of polls:
    (1)  Pre-election State polls
    (2)  Pre-election National Polls (18)
    (3)  Post-election State exit polls
    (4)  Post-election National Exit poll
    Do the exit polls, in conjunction with the pre-election and approval polls, indicate that fraud was likely?Interactive 2004 Election Simulation Model
     (also Excel) enables users to run simulations based on state and national pre-election and exit polls. State exit poll vote shares are based on the user options:  1) WPE,  2) Best GEO  and  3) Composite (12:22am). The National Exit Poll data includes the 12:22am update and the 2pm Final. The only pre-election model assumption is Kerry's projected share of Undecided Voters. The only state exit poll inputs are the method (1, 2, or 3) and assumed cluster effect.  A Monte Carlo simulation consisting of 200 election trials generates both the projected popular and expected electoral vote. The probability of Kerry winning the election is the percentage of trials in which Kerry received at least 270 EV. Additional model analysis includes National Exit Poll timeline, Gender vote, exit poll response optimizer, Census data and the Ohio exit poll.

    In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic Tsunami gained 31 congressional seats. But they actually did much better than that. A regression trend analysis of 120 pre-election Generic polls (all won by the Democrats) projected they would win by 56-42% and gain over 40 seats. The 7pm National Exit Poll update (55 Dem-43% Rep) confirmed the pre-election trend. But the next day, the Final NEP was once again forced to match a corrupted vote count with implausible weights and vote shares. The Democratic margin was cut in half to 52-46%. The fraud resulted in the loss of 10-20 seats.

     Part II   contains the original "TruthIsAll FAQ" with my responses included. The author of the FAQ, Mark Lindeman, has tried to debunk the work of independent analysts who maintain that pre-election and exit polls are powerful statistical evidence that Kerry won handily and that the 2006 Democratic landslide was denied. Mark has posted on the Democratic Underground as "On the Other Hand", on Daily KOS as "Hudson Valley Mark" and numerous other forums.

    The TruthIsAll.pdf contains Nov. 1, 2004 Election Model reports, analysis, graphs, methodology, links. I have posted on Democratic Underground, Progressive Independent, Thom Hartmann, Mark C. Miller, Brad Blog, Buzz Flash, RFK Jr., Huffington Post, Democrats.com, Smirking Chimp...


    ( To scroll   use scrollwheel or arrow keypad —if necessary, click empty window-area first to get focus )

    Dec. 12, 2000 is a day that will live in infamy.   Bush needed the help of five right-wing Republicans on the Supreme Court to stop the recount in Florida and enable him to steal the election. There has been an ongoing controversy regarding the 2004 election. State and national pre-election and exit polls pointed to a Kerry victory. Those who claim that Bush won fair and square are relentless in their attempts to thrash polling analyses which suggest that fraud occurred.  Since the media will not release tell-tale precinct-level data, analysts must rely on publicly available polling data.  And they have determined that the polls provide powerful statistical evidence of fraud. “Voter fraud” has been shown to be a non-existent distraction from the evidence of massive “election fraud”.  Voters don't fix elections, corrupt officials do.  The corporate media was quick to dismiss the statistical polling analyses and claims of election fraud by “spreadsheet-wielding Internet bloggers” as another left-wing conspiracy theory.

    This is what Richard Morin, a Washington Post Staff Writer, wrote on Thursday, November 4, 2004:
    An Election Day filled with unexpected twists ended with a familiar question:  What went wrong with the network exit polls? … In two previous national elections, the exit polls had behaved badly. Premature calls by the networks in Florida led to a congressional investigation in 2000.  Two years later, a computer meltdown resulted in no release of data on Election Day. … Results based on the first few rounds of interviewing are usually only approximations of the final vote. Printouts warn that estimates of each candidate's support are unreliable and not for on-air use. … That is why the early leaks anger Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research, which conducted Tuesday's exit poll with Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool, a consortium of the major television networks and the Associated Press. … After the survey is completed and the votes are counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the actual vote, which in theory improves the accuracy of all the exit poll results, including the breakdown of the vote by age, gender and other characteristics.
    The media never considered the possibility that the votes may have been miscounted and that the exit polls were essentially correct. They just took it for granted that the vote count was accurate (i.e.  the election was fraud-free). After all, isn't that why the exit poll results are always adjusted to match the vote count? Of course, they never did an analysis which would have shown that the adjusted Final NEP weights were impossible and that the adjusted vote shares were implausible. And they would have come to the same conclusion as the spreadsheet-wielding bloggers:   the election was stolen.

    A dwindling number of naysayers continue to argue that the exhaustive statistical analysis of 2004 pre-election and exit polls by a number of independent researchers does not provide convincing evidence that the election was stolen. Their “case” consists of faith-based theories, factual avoidance, misstatements and misrepresentations. And they cannot reconcile the many statistical anomalies which all point to massive fraud. Some of their “explanations” include the following: Kerry voters were more likely to respond to exit pollsters; exit poll interviewers sought out Kerry voters; over 7% of returning Gore voters told the exit pollsters that they voted for Bush in 2000; pre-election and exit polls are not pure random samples; exit polls are not designed to detect fraud in the United States; early exit poll results overstated Kerry's vote; women voted early and Republicans voted late; Gore voters defected to Bush at twice the rate that Bush voters defected to Kerry. None are supported by factual data and all have been refuted.
    Uncounted Votes First-time Voters Bush Approval The Urban Legend The Final
    5 Million Votes
    Weighted Average State Vote shares Vote Share Projection and Electoral Vote Simulation Undecided Voters Red-shift
    Matching the
    Exit Polls
    to the
    Recorded Vote
    Democratic Bias National Exit Poll Timeline Margin of Error Regions and Time Zones NEP Methods Statement
    Reluctant Bush Responders Mortality Impossible NEP Weights The Game False Recall
    Model Assumptions
    Switched Votes
    The EIRS
    Sixteen Million New Bush Voters 2000 Voter Turnout Breakeven Scenarios Implausible Vote Shares Swing
    Ohio Florida New York Exit Poll Response: Four matching models The 2006 Midterms

    [ click for complete Summary Overview commentary by topic ]

    Gore won by 3 million more votes than the 540,000 official total
    — Florida UN-COUNTED VOTES by county
    The 2000 Election

    Voted in 2000 — preliminary, final, adjusted — sensitivity analysis Smoking Gun:  The Final National Exit Poll
    Impossible/Feasible NEP weights
    — Implausible vote shares
    — rBr ("reluctant Bush responders" hypothesis)
    — defection rates
    — false recall
    The Democratic Underground "Game" Thread

    State polls — National polls — undecided voters —
    EV win probabilities — sensitivity analysis
    The 2004 Election Model: Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation

    18 Final Polls — Correlation of monthly polling and Bush approval ratingNational Polling Trend
    Average — weighted average — monthly/weekly projections — final Zogby battleground pollsState Polling Trend
     PART II:  RESPONSE to the TruthIsAll FAQ

    It is pretty easy to look around and determine that not many political scientists are expressing agreement with these views. But why not? It could be that political scientists have a status quo bias and/or are afraid to rock the boat by confronting unpleasant truths; perhaps some are even paid by Karl Rove. It could be that political scientists simply haven't looked at the evidence. It could be that political scientists see gaping holes in TIA's arguments. It could be some combination of those factors, and others besides. For what it's worth, I will explain at some length why I don't agree with TIA's views.


    These are just a few well-known researchers whose analyses confirm mine:  Steve Freeman, Ron Baiman, Kathy Dopp, Greg Palast, RFK Jr., Mark C. Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Michael Keefer, John Conyers, Richard Hayes Phillips, Paul Lehto, etc. At least four have advanced degrees in applied mathematics or systems analysis. I have three degrees in applied mathematics.

    It would be useful if you would mention the names of the political scientists or statisticians who disagree with my analysis and believe that Bush won the election fairly in 2004.  How do they account for his 3 million vote “mandate”?  How do they explain where Bush found 16 million new voters which were added to his 2000 total (net of voter mortality and turnout)? What are their confirming demographics?  Do any of the analysts you refer to have degrees in mathematics or statistics? Did their 2004 projections match the exit polls? Or did they match the vote miscount? Have any of them ever written about or considered election fraud in their analysis? Have they analyzed the impact of uncounted votes on election results?  What is their track record?  Were their projections based on economic or political factors or did they use state and national polling?  What was the time period between Election Day and their final projections?

     A TruthIsAll (TIA) FAQ
     (Mark Lindeman)
    1.2. How does TIA come up with those 99+% probabilities of a Kerry victory?
    Basically, those probabilities (for both state and national polls) assume that all his assumptions (for instance, about how "undecided" voters will vote) are right, and that the only source of uncertainty is random sampling error. I argue below that his assumptions are more wrong than right. They certainly aren't 100% reliable. (TruthIsAll himself suggests that the polls might be biased -- against Kerry, of course.)

    Mark says that my assumptions are not “100% reliable” and “are more wrong than right”. What does 100% reliability mean when it comes to assumptions? And how are they more wrong than right? Let's take a close look at some assumptions.

    -Does he mean the base case 12:22am NEP vote shares?
    The sensitivity analysis provides a range of assumptions: 2000 voter turnout, Kerry's share of returning Gore, Bush, Nader voters and others who did not vote in 2000. Which assumptions does he believe are more wrong than right?

    -Does he mean the undecided voter allocation?
    I provide a 60-87% undecided voter allocation range (see the Monte Carlo EV sensitivity analysis). The 75% base case matches that of world-class pollsters Zogby and Harris. I trust their combined 70 years of experience a lot more than the Mystery Pollster. What polls did he run? Is Mark implying that MP knows more than Zogby and Harris?

    -Does he mean the Margin of Error?
    I use pre-election state poll 600- sample MoE (4%).
    I use the given national pre-election polls sample-size to compute the MoE.

    The state exit poll MoE is adjusted for a user-entered cluster effect.

    The 12:22am National Exit Poll (13047 sample) adjusted for a 30% cluster effect yields a 1.12% MoE.
    In the notes to the NEP, Edison-Mitofsky claim the MoE is 1.0%.

    -Does he mean the annual mortality rate?
    I use the published U.S. 0.87% annual rate. It's a fact.

    -Does he mean the assumption that only living Gore, Bush or Nader 2000 voters could have voted in 2004?
    It’s a fact. Or does he believe in reincarnation?

    -Does he mean the random sampling assumption?
    I refer once again to Edison-Mitofsky’s notes (link above).

    -Does he mean my assertion that the Final NEP “How Voted in 2000” weights (43% Bush / 37% Gore) and corresponding vote shares were drastically changed to match the Bush 51-48% vote?
    It’s a fact. The Final NEP has always been matched to the recorded vote.

    -Does he mean my assertion that the “How Voted in 2000” weights were mathematically impossible?
    It’s a fact. Do the math.

    -Does Mark agree that matching to the NEP only makes sense if the election is fraud-free?
    Is it his assumption that 2004 was fraud-free? What about 2000, 2002 and 2006?

    -Does he mean my assertion that the election was stolen?
    In light of the above, is that not a fair conclusion?
     The Pre-Election Polls

     The "Rules": Did They Favor Kerry?

    3.4. What about exit pollster Warren Mitofsky's reputation for accuracy?

    Here is how Mitofsky International's website puts it: "[Mitofsky's] record for accuracy is well known. 'This caution in projecting winners is a Mitofsky trademark, one which has served him well...,' said David W. Moore, the managing editor of the Gallup Poll in his book, The Super Pollsters."
    ( http://mitofskyinternational.com/company.htm ) In other words, Mitofsky very rarely "called" or predicted the winner incorrectly. (Mitofsky died on September 1, 2006; as of this writing, the page I have cited is still active.)

    If Mitofsky's calls were rarely wrong, doesn't this mean that the exit poll data must be highly accurate? No, it doesn't. One reason for Mitofsky's success was that he avoided making calls in close races based on interview data alone. Edison/Mitofsky (the firms that jointly conducted the 2004 exit poll) did not make any incorrect projections in 2004. Perhaps people who believe that the exit polls evince fraud should take Mitofsky's "caution in projecting winners" more seriously.


    “Mitofsky's record for accuracy was well-known”. Does this quote refer to the preliminary or the Final exit polls? The Final is always matched to the vote count. We know that 3% of total votes cast in every election are uncounted and heavily Democratic. So from the get-go, matching to the Final vote is incorrect. And what about votes which are switched? So to argue that Mitofsky is accurate is a double-edged sword. His final exit poll accurately projected a fraudulent recorded vote count; and his preliminary exit polls closely matched the TRUE vote. But very few individuals get to see those numbers, since they are "preliminary"; only the final exit polls are listed on the media web sites.
     Describing the Exit Poll Discrepancies

    4.5. How can you explain the impossible changes in the national exit poll results after midnight?

    First to explain the "problem": The tabulation of the national exit poll at 7:33 pm on election night, based on 11,027 respondents, indicated that Kerry had a 3-point edge. The tabulation was later updated; a version time-stamped 12:22 am (just after midnight) showed 13,047 respondents, and one can infer that Kerry still leads by 3 points. The final tabulation, still available on CNN.com, reports 13,660 respondents and shows Bush ahead by approximately 3 points, as in the official returns.

    At times TruthIsAll and others have suggested that these results are "impossible" in the sense that an additional 613 respondents cannot account for the shift from Kerry to Bush.  Indeed they cannot.  As I explained above, the tabulations are periodically updated in line with the projections -- and, therefore, in line with the official returns. The tabulation would have been updated even if there had been no additional respondents. So the whole idea of "impossible changes" is a red herring.



    Interested readers should refer to the DU Game thread in which you were finally forced to provide a plausible rationale for the Bush "mandate". Unfortunately, you only succeeded in proving that there was none. Because you had to finally agree that the 43/37 weightings were impossible, you had to force Bush vote shares much higher than they were in Final Exit Poll where they were already inflated to match the votes. So you compounded the fakery by hypothesizing that 14.6% of Gore voters defected to Bush in 2004. The 12:22am National Exit Poll said that 8% did — a 6.6% discrepancy. The margin of error assuming a 90/10 vote split for 3200 respondents is 1.7%.

    [ed: see  Exit Polls  to access and view "2000 Presidential Vote" data from the 2004 UNADJUSTED 12:22am Preliminary NEP and the "FORCED" 1:25pm Final NEP … for comparison with the implausible 14.63% Gore2000voter-'defection share' hypothesized in  the 'Game'  to explain how Bush won the election by 3 million votes, after feasible weightings were substituted for the impossible 43/37 forced weightings in the Final NEP ]
     Explaining the Exit Poll Discrepancies

     Comparing 2004 to 2000
    State vs. NEP — Gender — Voted2k — True Vote Models
    —Interactive Election Simulation
    State Pre-election Polls vs Exit Polls vs Recorded Vote

    Monte Carlo Polling SimulationWPE, GEO, Composite estimates
    True Vote Sensitivity analysis based on two factors:   Nader 2000  and  New voter shareConservative Scenario Analysis * 
    Exit Poll Margin of Error (MoE) exceeded in 29 states for Bush Regional Analysis
    Battleground vs. Red states
    Composite (12:22am) vs. WPE-adjusted exit polls
    Red-shift vs. Swing

    Excel “Solver”
    — True Vote
    — 1250 precincts by partisanship, 5 location-size groups
    — states by partisanship

    “Edison-Mitofsky summarized the exit poll data for 1250 precincts separated into five partisanship groupings, from ‘strong Bush’ to ‘strong Kerry.’  The optimization model used the Excel ‘Solver’ algorithm and determined that Kerry won the 2-party vote by 52.15–47.85%.  This ‘feasible’ solution used the final recorded 2-party vote and the following partisanship constraints:  1) within precinct error (WPE) and  2) response rates. The optimal resulting vote share exactly matched the 12:22am National Exit Poll  ‘Voted 2000’ demographic. ...”

    Exit Poll Response Optimization

    Deviations based on percentage voting machine/method mix
    applied to WPE-based Exit Poll discrepancies
    State Exit Poll Deviations by Voting Method

    * recent update
    Demographic weights — vote shares — sensitivity analysisTimeline
    Effect of changes in demographic vote shares
    on Kerry's national vote
    Sensitivity Analysis

    2000/2004  "First-time" and "Other" New Voters

    — 16 million recorded Bush voter increase from 2000

    New Voters

    TRUE VOTE (T)  =  Recorded Vote (R)  +  Uncounted Vote (U)  +  Switched Vote (S)

    True Vote Model "Base Case" assumptions and bases:

      1) Kerry vote share:  uses  12:22am Prelim NEP share   (see  Exit Polls  for basis)
      2) 2000voter turnout in 2004:   assumes  95%  after mortality factor
      3) (U)ncounted Votes:   Recorded VoteCount  v.  US Census  (122.3M v 125.7M)

      — sensitivity analysis — probabilities — determining (S)witched votes

    Base Case TRUE VOTE (T):    Kerry   66.10 million   ( 52.57% )

    True Vote Model
    Implausible urban and suburban vote shares
    —2000-2004 Exit Poll analysis (Voted in 2000; Location-size)
    The Bush Urban Legend

    Correlation with monthly Pre-election polls
    — weights and vote shares adjusted to match the recorded vote
    Bush Approval Ratings

    Weights and vote shares were adjusted to match to the recorded voteWhen Decided * 
    Weights and vote shares were adjusted to match the recorded voteParty ID * 
    Implausible increase in Bush’s share of women voters from 2000 to 2004The Gender Demographic * 
    State adjustments:
      Gore 2000 uncounted votes
      Kerry share of Nader and New voters
    Did Kerry Win More Than 360 Electoral Votes?

    True Vote Model
    — (U)ncounted and (S)witched votes by state
    — electoral vote effect

    True Vote (T)  =  Recorded vote (R)  +  Uncounted vote (U)  +  Switched vote (S)

    See  True Vote Model  above for the establishment of the
    Kerry "Base Case" True Vote (T)  of  66.10 million votes

    Switched vote (S)  =  True Vote (T)  -  Recorded vote (R)  -  Uncounted vote (U)

    Uncounted and Switched Votes

    Difference in vote share between
    • the initial 117 million votes and
    • the final   5  million votes
    — exit poll vs. late vote correlation
    Reconciling the Final 5 Million Vote Anomaly

    Database filtering for absolute and percent changes by state, county, voting method County Vote Database (2000-2004)
    Party registration and recorded vote anomalies
    — touch screen vs. optical scanner counties

    2000-2004 county-recorded votes by machine type — exit polls
    — model calculations — sensitivity analysis

    2000-2004 votes by county — Nader effect
    — state exit poll vs. recorded vote — sensitivity analysis
    New York

    2000-2004 county recorded votes by machine type — exit polls — model calculations — sensitivity analysisCalifornia
    1988-2004 Oregon vs. National vote shares
    — Avg Oregon Democratic 2-party vote (1988-2004)

    Election Calculator: Prior election Total Votes Cast adjusted for voter mortality, turnout; NEP vote shares
    True Vote: Prior election Recorded and Current election total votes cast adjusted for total mortality, turnout; NEP vote shares
    Switched Vote: Current election Recorded Vote adjusted for uncounted and switched vote rates
    1988—2004  Election Calculator

    The Submerging Democratic Majority
    The Democrats actually won all FIVE elections by an average 8.9 MILLION vote margin. That's the True Emerging Democratic Majority. Don't believe it? Run the numbers yourself...

    THE 2006 MID-TERMS
    Quantifying the risk — likely fraud contests
    — Democratic Tsunami — Generic polls — projections
    Summary Analysis

    Demographics — Linear Regression — NEP Timeline
    — probabilities
    Generic 120-Poll Trend vs. 7:07pm and Final Exit Poll

    CBS reported state votes — Wikipedia vote countUncounted and Switched Votes
    Allocating undecided voters — Final 10 Polls — probabilitiesGeneric 120-Poll Trend vs. Final 10-Poll Average

     ELECTION  MODELS  (Excel) 



    Downloadable .pdfs with much more information

    In Print


    Take Action

    • Send copies of the above books & movies, & the Solar Bus Multimedia CD-R to the media and politicians
    • Write a letter to the editor of your local paper
    • Support verifiable voting technologies, random audits, hand counted paper ballots, and the Vote-PAD

    Other Sites

    Any questions or suggestions on how to make this page better? E-Mail me!

    Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, economic, democratic, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.