New Hampshire's Optical Scanner Voter Fraud
Same machines as Maine uses.

One man's private, sole source company programs 81% of the election in New Hampshire, 100% in Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts and most of Vermont. Never before seen video of the under-the-radar elections contractor John Silvestro as he tangles with master security expert Harri Hursti.For the full version of the hack see the 80 minute HBO film "Hacking Democracy"

Princeton University Exposes Diebold Flaws
Different Machine - Same Innards

Hacking Democracy

by Kenneth Capron

Very few people really understand fraud. Thank goodness. It is often hard to recognize fraud even when it stares you in the face. When fraud is undertaken with the participation of multiple actors, it is called collusion - a type of fraud which is extremely hard to detect and even harder to unravel. The players in collusion cover for each other. In reality, it is usually the innate desire to brag about one's conquests that brings down fraud involving collusion of friends and families. Either that or a whistleblower.

Most of the great incidents of fraud have come to light due to whistleblowers. Enron, Madoff, baseball doping and the like. And that's strange since becoming a whistleblower is a high stakes action undertaken by courageous and frustrated people who believe in doing things right even if it means destroying one's own life. Whistleblowers are shunned by co-workers, until and unless their claims are proven. They are usually threatened with loss of their jobs, or at least a loss of promotion and pay raises. They won't ever be awarded "Employee of the Year". Some may even be rejected by friends and family - or in the extreme they may experience physical harm. But the usual method for keeping potential whistleblowers quiet is intimidation.

When investigating the possibility of fraud, the first thing one looks at is the risk, the possibility that fraud could occur. If a business or activity or organization has weak controls of its assets and transaction processing systems, it is wide open to deceptive practices and defalcation. We use the term "internal controls" to identify those practices which when enforced will assure that assets are accounted for and that transactions get recorded they way they should. Something as simple as making nightly business deposits using locking bank bags - when the person who proves out at the end of day is NOT also the person with a key to the night deposit bags. Change any of those steps and you leave the door open to misappropriation of your assets.

We label any significant weakness in internal controls as 'red flags.' You've heard of something raising a red flag. Well that's what the term implies - that there is a hole in the fence that protects you and yours from theft or subterfuge. For simplicity sake, a red flag would exist if when you are cashing a check, tellers gave you cash without counting it - twice. Although, some banks have gotten lax on the end of day proof where you must account for all variances.

In reality, balancing your checkbook is your most common internal control. It could also be your red flag. You do balance your checkbook every month? Actually, with our electronic society, it is best to check your account online every day and make sure you know where your money is at all times. Got kids? Yaa.

Before I proceed, I have to point out that a statement to the effect that fraud "hasn't been found before" is in itself a double red flag. Speaking in terms of probability, the fact that something hasn't happened before actually increases the odds that it could happen now. And the longer it goes without happening, the greater the likelihood that it will. In my experience as a fraud investigator, if a client's employee used that excuse when being asked about their activities, they almost automatically become a 'person of interest.' It is at a minimum an indicator that someone is willing to look the other way - they'll let some things slide in exchange for similar consideration in the future.

Now let's look at how all this applies to the voter fraud concerns that is being pursued like a fox on a field mouse by Maine Republicans. I sincerely believe the GOP is right. I also believe that those who are fighting hardest to keep accountability out of the voting process are the same forces who know that there exists a potential that they may be caught. Call it instinct, or experience, or dumb luck but I have a knack for stumbling into fraud unintentionally. It is gut-wrenching when the owner of a business is told they are missing a few million dollars at the hands of someone they trusted. It is defeating to find a half million worth of rare books has disappeared from your collection and no one noticed until you asked for just one.

So what makes the GOP so paranoid about the voting system in Maine? Well - they have good reason to be. First and foremost, the present system has more gaps in internal controls than Swiss Cheese has holes. Whoever implemented the current system really didn't either care, or know, about accountability. Second, the system in use has been susceptible to fraud in other places. Third, ACORN's presence in Maine is significant and ACORN has been convicted of voter fraud in other places (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/). "And who is this ACORN here in Maine?" asked the squirrel. Ask Jesse Graham, head of the Maine People's Alliance and a major player (aka board member) in USAction - an ACORN sister organization.

Now, let's look at the voting equipment in use. I'll use Portland as an example since I don't have detail info on other parts of the state. Start by Googling "Diebold voter fraud". There you will find cases involving the same Diebold machines we use in fraud cases involving both parties. One that I find convincing and humorous at the same time is the 2008 Clinton-Obama primary in New Hampshire. I quote "New Hampshire Vote Fraud"

"Curiously - with percentages so perfect as if someone was attempting to entrap the perpetrators—Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton received 91,717 votes or 52.95% in precincts using Diebold Accuvote optical scan electronic voting machines and 20,889 votes or 47.05% of ballots from precincts using hand-counted votes.

Democratic Senator Barack Obama received the same 52.95% or 23,509 votes in hand-counted precincts and the same 47.05% or 81,495 votes in precincts using Diebold optical scanning tabulators, both according to analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) who used results from the New Hampshire Secretary of State website, raising questions as to how the percentage swap occurred."

Clearly this is not just a Republican issue. It IS an issue about who is controlling the inner workings of the voting machines. So what does that mean? Aside from the facts that Diebold no longer makes voting machines, and that it settled an investigation by the SEC for inflating their earnings by $127 million, there have been assertions that the software inside the machines could be programmed to produce other than true results. But that's impossible to prove. Why? Because no one has ever been allowed to look at the software coding itself. Let me explain how it works. And for any doubting Thomas's, I am a computer audit specialist and a former MCSE. Systems and data management and analysis are another area of expertise.

In general terms, there is a card inside every voting machine which contains the software programming that control how the machine counts votes. In preparation for each election, that card is returned to the company that programs them. There, the names of all the candidates and their district, precinct, state and other data is added to a database which becomes part of the card. Any updates to the counting software are installed and the card is returned to the source to be put back in the machine.

Since no one has ever gained access to the software, one can only assume that the card uses a proprietary chip and operating system. That usually means that how it is programmed will be impossible to discern. But for simplicity sake, lets be clear that only the programming firm can tell that card and the machine it is in exactly how to count the ballots.

It is possible for human errors to slip into the programming such that all votes for candidate A actually register as votes for candidate B. That could also be simulated with fraudulent programming. That could be detected by thorough testing and thus would require that a known sample of ballots is run through the machine several times. Other human errors can occur. They can also be simulated through programming. And most can be tested for with sample ballots.

The problem occurs however if the software is programmed in such a way that it behaves differently on one day than it does on another. It could in fact be programmed to produce specific results on a certain day (voting day) but different results on the day before or after. We don't currently test for this nor do we use internal controls that might detect fraudulent programming. And without access to the actual core software, we can't know what is happening inside that proprietary software.

There are ways to reduce the probability of this happening - manual recounts, exit polls, and random substitution of machines assigned to specific voting places. In short though, there is a possibility that the voting machines are producing faulty results.

Another concern, the one the GOP is pursuing, is the use of shill voters. That is, the registration of and the resulting vote of people who are not in compliance with one or more voting requirement - such as residence, citizenship, alive. Fact is, our voting lists are not well maintained. There are many names on the current voter lists of people who have moved, or died, or who-knows-what happened to them.

Now, it would be possible for election officials to fix the voter list, but it would take a lot of work. Most people, especially if they move out of state, don't bother to change their registration where they moved from. Technically, there is nothing preventing someone who moved to, say California, from voting in California in person AND in Maine by absentee ballot.

If someone dies, there is a reporting mechanism in place which is supposed to channel that info back to the town clerks. Yaaaa ... but it doesn't work perfectly. So if I know that someone who passed away is still on the voter list, I can show up in their district and vote using their name. Ya - I don't need to show a photo ID - I just need to say my name is John Doe and vote. Don't you wish that voter list was accurate?

The trick that is feared most, the reason the GOP focused on a motel address in South Portland, is the potential for bussing loads of people from place to place, letting them vote and then moving on. With same day registration, no photo ID, no requirement that election officials challenge that persons credentials whatsoever ... well, that leaves one big huge red flag in the whole voting process. Without the new law changing same-day registration to a delayed registration-vote, we could bus in a trainload of seniors, have them register using the train station address, let them vote and buy them lunch at McDonalds. Who would know the difference. Under the new legislation, it would now be necessary to bus in those seniors a few days ahead and again on election day, and that would be such a pain.

So the GOP paranoia is justifiable as long as sound accountability practices are not in use. In a perfect world, we should rebuild the voter lists with accurate data probably every ten to twenty years. The census years would be good years to correct the system. And again in a no-red-flags world, we should use photo ID and a central registry. And we should randomly validate voting machines - on voting day itself.

My auditor's gut feeling can't seem to get around some of the statements being made by people who oppose any improvements in accountability. The MCLU (ACLU of Maine) is trying to dupe you into believing somehow that someone will lose their rights to vote. Well, that's pure garbage. No one will lose any rights. It may get a little less convenient to vote and require some additional foresight. But greater accountability is much more important to the legitimacy of your vote than convenience. So why even suggest the loss of rights? Big RED FLAG!!

I would go so far as to ask why the GOP didn't insist on and pass the photo ID requirement. It IS government's obligation to insure that every vote is valid. Accountability that protects a fundamental right has a greater intangible value than any currency.

I don't disagree with what the GOP is trying to do - to assure that every vote is a valid vote. They are working for every voter to assure that every vote has true value. I do think however that it is the Secretary of State and the Attorney General who should be doing that work - serious investigations of the potential for voter fraud. Regardless of cost. Eventually, if you poke enough holes in the bee hive - you will either get honey, or stung. Either result will leave Maine in a better place. If fraud is found, it can be dealt with and stopped. If no fraud is found, then only the true paranoids will be left to swat the bees, or vice versa.

The Portland Maine Gazette will protect all sources, including whistleblowers, snitches, and assorted scoundrels.