(SC) 1/12 - 100% OF SOUTH CAROLINA VOTES GO THROUGH SCYTL - By Bev Harris
The genius of democracy is dispersed public control.
As we saw in Iowa when alert public citizens captured evidence of the actual vote count BEFORE it was reported by a centralized state committee, the state Republican Party and the news media initially claimed victory for the wrong winner. They only corrected this mis-call two weeks later, buying the favored candidate half a month of fund raising prowess and prestige.
In South Carolina, 100% of election results will be redirected through a private Barcelona, Spain-owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, before being reported to the public.
There is only one way to immediately find out whether Scytl/SOE reported the right results*, and that is for members of the public to capture evidence of reported precinct results when polls close tonight. Think of it as a giant neighborhood watch.
Precinct results should be posted at each polling site. In addition, during poll closing the public has a right to be in the polling place watching and videotaping what goes on.
Here is a four-minute video showing exactly what to do:
By the way, the results will be published here:
Compare photos of what you capture at polling places to the results reported at the above link.
For computer buffs, there's another thing you can do. (The above steps are easy and can be done by anyone.) But for tech buffs, you can download multiple times during the evening, and there are even Web snapshot tools to expedite this. It is not uncommon to see results change or disappear midstream.
In Broward County FL, the results reported by Scytl-owned SOE Software in 2008 showed an entire candidate, who was winning, disappear into vapor in the middle of the count, and in Hillsborough County FL and Dallas County TX, votes that had been reported began to disappear.
The way to see this is to download "time slices" -- snapshots at various points in time, and compare them. More information for those of you who like technical stuff is available in the Black Box Voting Tool Kit - http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.pdf
Follow Black Box Voting for further developments.
* Well, you have to put an asterisk alongside "the right results" because in South Carolinia you get a two-fer. Results could be incorrect at either end of the pipeline -- from the ES&S iVotronic paperless touchscreen voting machines, which have a history of incorrect totals, or from the private results reporting firm Scytl/SOE Software, which has centralized control over what gets reported. More
(USA) 1/12 - THE TRAGIC TALE OF EDWARD TRUE AND JAMES FALSE - Permission to excerpt granted, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org
By Bev Harris
The actual Iowa winner may "never be known", and one of the "dead" voters in New Hampshire has now shown up -- alive.
It matters, and it's called journalistic malpractice. TV networks announced that Romney won Iowa, and newspapers pronounced his 1-2 "wins" as "historic." Candidates dropped out, donors dried up or rushed to send cash to the reported "winner".
Now we are being told that the Iowa results "don't matter." They matter, regardless of any rent-an-expert who shows up in the press. Misreported results manipulated the candidate field from which the rest of America can choose.
The Des Moines Register is now reporting an even greater malfeasance: that the final, certified Iowa result may "never be known." There were several typos, they say. Some precincts will never be reported, they claim.
That we got a heads up at all about bogus media results was due to an alert Iowa citizen, Edward True, who captured evidence of the 20-vote misreport in his Appanoose County precinct. That people like Edward True were stationed all over Iowa capturing results before they hit the state Republican Committee tabulation was due to Black Box Voting, where the need to do this was explained, and to radio hosts and sites like Bradblog and Facebook, where the word went out.
Mainstream media then began its next act of theatre: They started spinning the false result that THEY THEMSELVES announced as -- instead of their own foolishness -- "making Iowa look foolish".
But if we're looking for truth, here's what we will find: The mistakes saw light of day because the Iowa caucus was conducted in open public meeting allowing citizens to watch ballots as they were hand counted.
At least it WAS an open system, until the Republican State Committee pitched the bizarre idea that some precincts might never be reported in the final certified result, and the media failed to bay like bloodhounds tracking the truth.
But there is some good news in this: It's great that public citizens are starting to understand their role in the "neighborhood watch" component of election integrity.
AND NOW FOR JAMES FALSE, OF THE ANTONYM ORGANIZATION "PROJECT VERITAS"
In New Hampshire, media hammertime revolved around James O'Keefe and his "Project Veritas", who reported that dead people were allowed to vote, "proving" it by sending people around the state to impersonate the dead. He's basically getting fat grants from fat cats who don't want so many (real, live) people to vote. He admits to receiving $50,000 for the New Hampshire piece. They are busy manufacturing evidence to manipulate public opinion in favor of voter ID legislation.
Problem is, another alert citizen -- who they were reporting as dead -- called them on their malfeasance. Robert William Beaulieu is on the video as a successfully impersonated dead voter. Embarrasingly for Project Veritas, Robert William Beaulieu is very much alive.
It seems that Project Falsum Project Veritas did not even bother to check birthdates to match names to dead persons. They mistook a 23-year old for an 80-year old.
Now, we recently saw an article coming out of South Carolina alleging that 900 dead persons voted, and that should immediately call into question how the match was made. By name only? Name and birthdate? Or Social Security number?
Matching by name only doesn't pass the sniff test, and it turns out that matching by name and birthdate is trickier than you might think. I found 130 people named Mary Williams in a Shelby County (TN) database. Two had the same birthdate. In fact, any time you have a common name, with 100 or more instances, you will find the same birthdate as often as 1 in 3 sets. In a statewide database like South Carolina, it would not be surprising to see 900 name/birthdate matches.
The only way to do a match is with Social Security number, and this is not available to public interest groups.
* * * * *
Des Moines Register article: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120117/NEWS09/301170041/1007/NEWS05
New Hampshire dead man not dead: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/946761-196/message-from-the-dead-nashua-man-23.html
Questionable spin on South Carolina dead people: http://www2.wspa.com/news/2012/jan/12/900-dead-voters-sc-fraud-or-clerical-errors-ar-3034169/
Frequency of name/birthdate matches in voter registration databases: Seeing Double: An extension of the Birthday Problem, by Michael McDonald and Justin Leavitt: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=997888
* * * * *
Please consider making a donation to support the important work by Black Box Voting: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html More