Take Action
Check Here Frequently for Updated Action of the Day [1] If you are asking, "But what can one person do?" please check this "Take Action" menu tab on a regular basis to explore the options listed in the dropdown menu below (check "Citizen Activism Tools" and "Action of the Day" for frequent updates). Each link opens up to list additional practical, effective ways you can take action in your own community or from your desktop to build integrity, transparency and fairness back into our electoral processes, to revive and restore our democracy. Additionally, we have need for special assistance projects in address-compiling, website-building, database programming, research by Internet and phone, writing, graphics, publicity, and mass e-mail.
What Can You Do to Defend Election '08?
Many Things. Start Here for Some Recommended Actions [2]
Please contact Dan [3] or Sally [4] for further explanation.
Our goal at EDA is to build local-to-national collaboration among regional election integrity groups acting locally but also with collective strategy for effecting national outcome. This collaboration we speak of is not one-way and top-down, but two-way and interactive. Local groups have invaluable direct experience that can be synthesized and applied at a national level. A national group can develop research, legal, media, and fundraising capacities that are beyond the scope of smaller local groups. We encourage you to go get active with a local or regional election integrity group where you live -- and then put that experience to work at a national level as well, by becoming an active member of an EDA Working Group [5]. Everything that you learn and do on the local level can be leveraged for double-duty, working with EDA to build a collaborative national effort. A core concept we have at EDA is that all elections are local. There is no substitute for taking action in the precincts and counties where you live and vote.
To find a state or regional election integrity group near you, see this directory http://electiondefensealliance.org/regional_election_integrity_organizations [6]
If you know of additional groups not listed here, please send us their contact information.
Action of the Day
We're asking you to help us monitor the country. If you're aware of breaks in the system that need to be corrected, let EDA know. Send your recommendations for action alerts to Info[at]ElectionDefenseAlliance[dot]org with "Action of the Day" in the subject line. Voting in the first round closes TONIGHT Dec. 31st at midnight (Pacific time). That gives the eastern half of the country enough time to party in the New Year and still vote until 3:00 a.m. The top 3 proposals voted for in each category will advance to a final round of voting, from January 5 through January 15. The top 10 proposals to emerge from the final voting round will be presented to the Obama Administration on Inauguration Day as the "Top 10 Ideas for America." To read more below about "Ideas for Change in America" and the consortium of organizations sponsoring Change.org, see the bottom of this article, and visit this link: http://www.change.org/ideas/faq [9] And while you're at the Change.org website, be sure to visit the EDA page: http://www.change.org/electiondefensealliance [10] You can vote for all 3 EI proposals from this page, using the widgets below. Move the country towards transparent election systems This idea is currently in 1st Place in Technology Policy and is in position to make it into the second round. But no sense in being complacent. EDA recommends voting for this measure, since it is the ONLY election-integrity-related proposal that has a chance of advancing past this elimination round of voting. (EI advocates of all stripes can debate the message once this proposal makes it to the second round of voting). You can vote for this issue RIGHT NOW by clicking this widget. (Be sure to come back and vote for the 2 HCPB proposals too).
There are two HCPB (hand-counted paper ballot) proposals in two different categories. Clearly, EDA advocates HCPB solutions to the election crisis. But neither of the HCPB proposals have nearly enough votes to survive the elimination round. We recommend voting for them anyhow. There is no penalty for multiple voting, and every vote counts. Maybe the 1048 members of this EDA news alert list can do something to improve those numbers between now and midnight -- especially the 94 of you who have offered to forward EDA announcements on to your own e-mail lists! You can vote for each of the 3 EI proposals using the widgets embedded on this page. And, you can FORWARD this message right now by clicking the E-mail this article link at the foot of this page. In the Other [12] category, a HCPB proposal called "Return to citizen-run, citizen-counted, citizen monitored elections" is currently in 57th Place in Other and needs 1858 more votes to make it into the second round. Here are the top 3 issues in the Other category: Return to citizen-run, citizen-counted, citizen monitored elections reads in part: For the full text, see: To vote for it now, click the widget:
Be sure to come back and vote for the other EI proposals too. The other HCPB proposal, in the Government Reform category, is called Hand Counted Paper Ballots (NOW), and reads as follows: Hand Counted Paper Ballots (NOW) This idea is currently in 46th Place in Government Reform [15] and needs 1427 more votes to make it into the second round. Dale Axelrod, a member of the EDA Communications Working Group [16], is taking the lead promoting the EI vote in the "Ideas for Change" contest. Dale writes: ". . . we need to make an diligent effort to maintain our 1st place position through tomorrow night. It looks like it's going to be neck and neck with the hardcore, internet savvy, 3rd-place proponents from now 'til midnight on the 31st. Can you email any of your private lists to vote today? (I can send you a sample email message if you'll email me directly.) Also we want to get organized now so we'll be ready when the 2nd round begins on Monday, January 5. Each qualifying idea will compete against the qualifying ideas from all other categories. The voting will end on Thursday, January 15. We need to be smart about our cyber-GOTV effort. Can you help with a second e-mail blast to your lists when the time comes, or do you have any other connections (i.e., social networking), or other ideas? Please reply via e-mail directly to me (dalea@sonic.net [17]) ASAP so we can get setup and ready to roll on January 5th. Thanks, Dale www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org [18] ------------------ Phones (California, USA): The project is nonpartisan, and invites all political points of view. It is not connected to the Obama campaign or the Obama Administration. EDA has partnered with Groundspring to bring you a new DONATIONS page [24] -- and we'd like you to try it out before MIDNIGHT tonight. (But we won't object if you try it out tomorrow or the next day). We've set up monthly donation options so you can spread your contribution over 12 months -- in any amount you choose. Stock up on those EI books you've been meaning to read or the films you've missed, and wear a "Prevent Unwanted Presidencies" button [28] as a reminder of what happens when a nation lets machines count the votes. If you have any questions or problems while placing your order, just e-mail us at Orders [29] or phone our new TOLL FREE number 877-375-3930 and an executive director will be happy to assist you. 2. Be a Pollworker for Democracy [30] 3. Video the Vote [31] 4. Conduct a Citizens' Election Verification Exit Poll [32] (EVEP) 5. File Poll Incident Reports [33] with Voter Story, Watch the Vote, CNN, EDA, NPR, Twitter, and MORE [34] 6. Protect the Count [35]: Record Precinct Vote Counts and Watch the Ballots 7. Monitor the Central Count [36] at your County Elections Department 8. Be Prepared to Protest Suspect Election Outcomes [37]
(on paper, of course!) Throughout the US boards of elections are desperate for poll workers. The average age has been creeping up over the past decades, and in many instances there are critical shortages. We have significant testimony from poll workers who saved literally hundreds of votes in 2004. The power of even a single poll worker inside a polling station who is committed to democracy can be immense. Sign up: http://act.credoaction.com/pollworkers/index.html [39] We also urge citizens to join the Video the Vote [40] teams that will be going to thousands of polling stations. The bare but vital footage that was shot at besieged inner city precincts in central Ohio 2004 has stood as a vital beacon to show the tip of how thousands of voters were deliberately disenfranchised. This time, we need saturation coverage to protect against and document every possible violation of our rights as citizens. with Voter Story, CNN, EDA, 1-800 Our Votes, Watch the Vote, Twitter, NPR, and more Record the Precinct Vote Totals and Watch the Ballots Things to bring: Clipboards, notepads, pens, digital cameras, video cameras, tape recorders, cell phones, and binoculars (to see the tabulator monitor screens). For further instructions on Central Count Monitoring, LOOK HERE [45] Download the 5-page overview, "Gathering Election Evidence" [46] BlackBoxVoting.org's Election Monitoring Watchlist: What To Watch For [47] Also: Download the comprehensive 2006 Citizens' Toolkit by Black Box Voting Citizen's Tool Kit [48] Ohio Election Justice Campaign: Quarantine That Machine! [49] On election night, the EDA Data Analysis Working Group [50] will be rapidly checking election results against the citizen-organized Election Verification Exit Polls [51] (EVEP) and other baseline data such as pre-election tracking polls and voter registration figures, to determine if and where the "official" (computerized) vote counts are suspiciously at odds with observed reality. Please sign up now to be notified where and when to assemble for Code Orange [52] vigils on election night. The purpose of these peaceful but resolute public demonstrations will be to convey these messages to the nation: 1. Insist that the news media not report as fact what they cannot verify (see Open Letter to the Media [53]) 2. No concessions until all the votes have been counted (see Standing for Voters Pledge [54]) 3. Candidates must challenge suspect outcomes 4. Reject suspect election results and demand handcounts of the voter-marked paper ballots For an overview of citizen election monitoring -- what to look for, what questions to ask -- see this five-page digest: For the "Top 5 Things You Can Do To Protect Election 2008" download Black Box Voting's You can also request a free printed copy of the 2008 Toolkit in a 4.5" x 7" booklet format easy to carry in your pocket. For a comprehensive (118-page) year-round guide to election integrity activism, download Black Box Voting's 2006 edition of the Citizens' Toolkit, called "Take Back Your Elections" Journalistic malpractice What to do: Object and reject premature "calls." Get the facts, however long it takes, and report them, wherever you can. Also watch for: "The gray pie slice" -- In the 2008 New Hampshire primary, CNN used a gray pie slice without a name to represent Ron Paul. Other candidates, even when pie slices were smaller, were colored and had candidate names affixed. What to do: Record coverage start to finish to gather evidence of any journalistic malpractice. Also watch for: Eroding vote totals. You may see candidate totals go DOWN during the count. What to do: Record coverage start to finish. Also watch for: What to do: Record television coverage start to finish to retain and examine later, and take screen shots of incoming AP totals from sites like http://www.politico.com [61]. WATCH FOR AND DOCUMENT VOTING RIGHTS PROBLEMS IN THREE AREAS: ACCESS TO VOTING What to do: DECEPTIVE PRACTICES What to do: If it happens in the polling place: If it happens outside the polling place: VOTE COUNTING CHAIN OF CUSTODY: Look for: What to do: ACCURACY OF THE VOTE COUNT Except in hand count locations, you will be unable to see your votes being counted. The counting is now controlled by government insiders and voting machine programmers. Your right to citizen sovereignty over your own government is at stake, and you have been placed in the position of trying to get circumstantial evidence to authenticate the count. This places an extraordinary and unsustainable burden on the citizenry. You can surrender the voting process to government insiders now, or you can put up a fight. Look for: What to do: After polls close, videotape poll closing activities and videotape the results tape and any other reconciliation forms filled out by poll On optical scan systems (fill in bubble, draw arrow): If you live in New York: Also: New York public records laws include the VENDORS in freedom of information requirements. IF YOU LIVE IN GEORGIA, KENTUCKY, CONNECTICUT: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ABOUT ACCURACY OF THE VOTE COUNT Evidence means: Documents, video, audio and photos. SURRENDER NOW OR DIG IN FOR THE LONG HAUL It's easy to become overwhelmed. Yet, if many different citizens simply welcome the awakening of their own civic Guide to Gathering Election Evidence: A 5-page digest. Download BBV's "Gathering Evidence" [62] Citizens' Toolkit 2008: A five-point guide to essential monitoring actions on election day Download BBV 2008 Citizens' Toolkit [63] Citizens' Toolkit 2006: A general guide to year-round election monitoring and investigation Download BBV 2006 Citizens' Toolkit [64] Election Defense Alliance is calling on any California voter who witnessed or otherwise has evidence indicative of miscount in the Proposition 8 contest to please file a formal complaint with the CA SoS office so it can be entered as evidence in an official investigation we have been told may be initiated as early as this Wednesday. See sample complaint letter lower in this post, and click this link to download the CA election fraud complaint form [65]. EDA is asking for collective public review of the complaint and evidence, and any additional comment or correction you would recommend be added to the complaint and evidentiary letter (see below) sent to the CA SoS office, citing the EDA exit poll evidence. EDA Director Dan Ashby is in communication with Sharon and Richard Tamm who filed the original complaint and letter of supporting evidence, (reproduced below) to which the CA SoS office has affirmatively responded. EDA is prominently mentioned in that original complaint as the source for the most compelling single piece of evidence calling the official Prop. 8 vote count into question. The CA SoS office has responded with a request for as much supporting evidence as possible to be submitted by Monday November 24 using the CA election fraud complaint form [66]. However, evidence will continue to be accepted beyond Monday, so please do file additional reports when you can, but as soon as you can. Please Forward this page by clicking the E-mail This Page link below or by using the Share Page webtools, upper right column. Click the Read More link to read the rest of this post and how you can help bring an investigation into the Prop. 8 vote count. If you have been involved in analyzing any of the CA voting results, and specifically anything to do with Proposition 8, please contact the CA Secretary of State's Election Fraud Investigation Unit: SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE English: 1-800-345-VOTE (8683) On the telephone menu, press option 2 to record a report of election fraud. Please also send a copy of your complaint or other information to Info[at]ElectionDefenseAlliance[dot]org [68] with "Prop. 8" in the Subject line. Additionally, you will see that the second page of the CA election fraud complaint form refers specifically to any indication that HAVA Sec. III has been violated. Sec. III concerns standards of acceptable error rates in voting machines (which as we know, in practice are widely ignored). This is an opportunity to cite evidence (such as EDA Council member Judy Alter has documented in L.A.) of machine read error rates in excess of the HAVA standards, as additional grounds for investigating the Proposition 8 vote count. With enough public pressure, we may be able to bring about official recounts at the precinct, county, or even statewide level. If you have any knowledge of violations of HAVA voting machine accuracy standards, please include that in your letter of complaint too. A list of the voting machines in every CA county [69] is attached for download. Election Defense Alliance [70] and other election fraud watchdogs found a greater than 8% discrepancy between exit polls and reported results for Proposition 8. This is a key indicator of possible vote fraud and should be investigated by the Secretary of State. In order to do this she needs to receive Election Complaint Forms from California registered voters. [Click to download CA election fraud complaint form [71].] Final elections returns must be submitted to the Secretary of State's office by December 9th and will be certified on December 13th so we don't have much time. I am going to drive my complaint (and any others that are ready) to Sacramento on Monday morning 11/24 so they can assign an investigator by the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. --Sharon Ryals Tamm [filer of initiating complaint] Otherwise mail it to the address listed on the second page of the form which is also listed below. Or you can scan the completed form and any supporting documents and email it to: Elections@sos.ca.gov [72] SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE English: 1-800-345-VOTE (8683) When naming the "Person(s) and Organizations Against Whom Complaint is Brought" cast as wide a net as possible and include anyone and everyone you can think of who might be involved in, liable, responsible or accountable for possibly fraudulant elections results on Proposition 8. I have included how I filled out my complaint form below. There is more evidence coming out from www.electiondefensealliance.org [73] that should be included but this was the best I could do for now. The line for victims on the form could include names of California citizens whose right to marry was eliminated by Prop 8. Obtain their permission first. PAGE 1: ELECTION COMPLAINT FORM brought by Sharon Ryals Tamm PERSON(S) OR ORGANIZATION(S) AGAINST WHOM COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT: STATEMENT OF FACTS DESCRIBE YOUR COMPLAINT (if necessary attach additional sheets): To the Honorable Debra Bowen et al: I am writing to you to request that the Office of the Secretary of State of California launch an election fraud investigation into the vote count of Proposition 8 based on the following evidence. I received the following as part of an email from Mark Crispin Miller who passed it on from Velvet Revolution: '"Around the world, exit polls are used to determine the need for investigation of elections. In the U.S., the National Exit Poll (NEP, also known as Edison/Mitofsky) now adjusts results to match vote counts before issuing its final polling numbers. Election Defense Alliance downloaded NEP numbers from the internet on election night, however [around 8 PM, as told to me by Dan Ashby of EDA], before poll results were changed to match the official vote count. This is the exit poll from early in the evening of election night. [I rearranged the percentages reporting to the following format.] Prop 8: Yes: No: This is the exit poll from later in the evening. There were 2,240 respondents -- 72 more respondents than in the earlier poll -- and they break down in a very different way: Prop 8: Yes: No: This discrepancy should be ringing alarm bells. Something doesn't add up." If you view the screen captures, you see they are from CNN, which I would consider to be a fairly reputable organization. The shift in percentages does NOT add up. Here's why: Using the above percentages and respondent numbers, and assuming that Male and Female respondents are approximately 50% each, the shift can be seen this way: Prop 8, Males and Females: Yes: No: respondents: Later in the evening: 52.5% 47.5% of 2,240 Based on the number of respondents, percentages convert (without exit poll adjustments) to: For the percentage changes in the later exit poll reports to make sense, with the addition of 72 more respondents, we would have to see a change of + 135 for a Yes on Prop 8, and - 63 for a No on Prop 8. My question is: How does the addition of 72 respondents to the later exit poll cause an increase of 135 votes for Prop 8 and a decrease of 63 votes against Prop 8? Exit polls are done with people who just voted, telling how they had just voted. And exit polls have, traditionally, been extremely accurate, so much so that a number of European countries that still do hand-counted paper ballots use their exit polls to declare the winner before the hand-count is complete. I request that the Secretary of State of California launch an election fraud investigation to get to the bottom of this. As time is of the essence, while final vote counts are still being tallied, you can immediately at least demand all relevant material from the National Exit Poll (NEP, also known as Edison/Mitofsky), and start a larger hand-counted paper-ballot audit of some selected precincts/counties. Please consider this information and request with the utmost seriousness and urgency. And, if I can be of any further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you very much, Richard Tamm [74] In 2004, Ukrainians took to the streets to protest a stolen election. They demonstrated by the millions, for days on end, until they overwhelmed the attempted electoral coup. They demanded a revote, and they got their legitimate government back. In 2004, we Americans had our votes stolen and our government hijacked, but we were immobilized with shock. This time we will be ready. Election Defense Alliance and other election integrity allies are monitoring the lead-up to the election for danger indicators. We will know where to look, and what to look for. We will be analyzing election returns in real time, and when we find vote theft and suppression, we will call on you to rally for the republic in mass protests strategically focused for maximum effect. We are neither predicting or announcing where the protests will be called. Our response will be swift and decisive with the element of surprise and the determination to sustain protest as long as necessary. How long? Until we get an honest accounting of the votes. We need to know who will stand with us in defense of our votes and where we can reach you when the call goes out. Can we count on you? Yes! When the call comes, I will be there! [75] Last chance to vote in the presidential election! Double-check your registration status (Poke your Vote to the right >>>> Spread the Word. Be Heard.
If you can, hand-deliver to your county elections department. Registrations Received By Mail: [ARIZONA -- For Example Only! Check your own state's rules.] In the case of registration by mail, a voter registration is valid if it complies with 1. The registration is dated 29 days or more before an election and is received by the 2. The form is postmarked 29 days or more before an election and is received by the Check here for thorough registration details in your state [76] 1. Go to http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision [77] and let the President-Elect know what the people want and need from our government. 2. Please forward this email to everyone you know. [Click the "E-mail This Page" link at the foot of this article]. If they hear from millions of us, it will make a difference! Since we've recently had elections with very slim margins, no undocumented totals should be relied upon in presidential or congressional voting. All across the country, instances of paperless, electronic touch-screen (DRE’s) voting machines’ losing, misdirecting, or miscounting large numbers of votes has been well-documented. In the interest of ensuring auditable and trustworthy election results: PLEASE support immediate passage of ELECTION REFORM legislation requiring that paper ballots replace paperless, touch-screen voting systems in time for the November 2010 congressional elections. Trust in elections is central to trust in government. Only with a tangible, paper ballot can voters have confidence that there is something to count. Complete Details with Live Links at: http://www.paperballot.info/ [78] Alabama Indiana Iowa Kentucky Michigan New Mexico North Carolina [81] Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Texas Utah West Virginia Wisconsin
OVERVIEW Voters are warned that use of the "straight-party" ballot option to be offered on voting machines in 15 states this November may result in the loss of votes cast for president and US senate. In 2004 reports of aberrant electronic voting machine behavior resulting in the cancellation of votes for president and senate were associated with the "straight party" mode of casting a ballot for an entire party-based slate of candidates. Careful study of 2004 election incident reports (EIRS) revealed that the effects of straight-party machine voting in New Mexico in 2004, reported in this original investigative study by EDA Coordinator Judy Alter, were subsequently identified as having occurred in the same fashion on voting machines in other states that also offered the straight-party ballot option. The straight party ballot option is a known and continuing danger in this upcoming presidential election. Given the proven risks, EDA urges voters to avoid using the "straight-party" option when casting your ballot. Cast your selections for each office individually. =================== DOWNLOAD This Article: This brief version [82] (printed below) Full-length original report [83] =================== By Judith B. Alter, Ed.D. This study of a single county in New Mexico describes the effect of the "straight-party" voting option in relation to the high "under-vote" that occurred in the 2004 presidential election in Santa Fe County. The "straight party" voting option allows a voter to mark or cast a single vote that registers for all candidates in the voter's political party. This study revealed in Santa Fe County, several of the patterns found by other researchers who have studied the election in the entire state of New Mexico. Unusual voting patterns emerged when researchers compared the presidential results to the totals of the statewide "down-ticket" candidates in the three voting opportunities: Absentee, Early Voting, and Election Day. Different Sequoia voting systems were used for each of these three classes of voting. After the November 2004 presidential election, the Green and Libertarian parties requested a recount in New Mexico because the state had the highest under-vote rate for president in the nation. Election officials record an under-vote when the voter does not make a choice for a particular race, in this case for president. Recount volunteers working with BlackboxVoting.org filed numerous public records requests for election documents. The material acquired from these public records requests provides the basis for the analysis provided here. The "straight-party" option appears to have contributed, in a major way, to the historic "under-vote" for president in New Mexico, 2004. New Mexico Set National Record for Presidential Undervotes The high under-vote rate (no vote for any candidate for an office) in Santa Fe County and the rest of New Mexico may have occurred primarily when voters chose the "straight-party" voting option on election day. Another vote reducing and possible vote-shifting scheme seems to have been present in the Sequoia scanners that counted hand-marked paper ballots cast during absentee and early voting in the straight party choices for minor third parties. Finally, a large discrepancy exists between the number of signatures on voter rosters, the total votes cast, and the presidential votes cast, especially on Election Day. New Mexico voters had three different opportunities to vote; each was tabulated by proprietary Sequoia software. A voter could choose to vote: (1) absentee (ABS), using a paper ballot tabulated by Sequoia Optech 4C-400 scanners; (2) in early (EV) at five specified locations using a paper ballot tabulated by Sequoia Optech Insight scanners; or (3) on Election Day (ED), using Sequoia Advantage push button machines (DRE-direct recording electronic devices) that tabulated the votes and recorded the results on internal memory tapes. In Santa Fe County on election day 86 precincts or polling sites contained a total of 214 Sequoia push button DRE machines. In Santa Fe County, 62% of the voters registered as Democrats, 18% Republican, and 20% as "other" or "decline to state." Of these voters, Absentee voters comprised 29% of the total Santa Fe County votes, 35% chose to participate in Early Voting, and 36% participated in Election Day voting. Of these voting choices, 0.26% of Absentee (ABS) ballots contained under-votes, 0.22% of Early Voting ballots recorded under-votes, and a full 4.2% of Election Day ballots were recorded as under-votes for president. This means that of the 36% of voters who voted on Election Day in Santa Fe County, 4.2% of them did not record a vote for president. In contrast to results reported on the New Mexico Secretary of State's website, actual election night material provided the numbers of voters who chose the "straight-party" option. The "straight-party" option allows a voter of a specific party to check a single box indicating the intention to vote for all the candidates in that party for all the races. The voter would check one box and believe that all those running for any office of their party would receive their vote. The "down-ticket" races refer to all of those contests below the president, such as congressional or senate races, where a partisan vote was possible. "Straight-Party" Voting The evidence about how the "straight-party" option worked on election day came from the compiled lists of voter complaint calls received by the many election protection services sponsored by groups such as the NAACP, PFAW, MoveOn, etc. These complaints were compiled by the Election Incidents Reporting Service (EIRS) (http://voteprotect.org [84]). The reports shed light on the problems that occurred when voters chose the "straight-party" option in New Mexico and 16 other states with the straight party option. EIRS records indicate that the "straight-party" option appears to have resulted in reports of missing presidential vote selections for every political party except the Republican Party. When a Republican voter selected the straight party option, a Bush vote appeared to register automatically; that is, the machine showed "Bush" (with rare exceptions). Many "straight-party" voters of parties other than the Republican Party may not have noticed the absence of a presidential vote on their review screens. Other voters who reported seeing no presidential vote on their review screens may not have realized how their choice of the "straight-party" option contributed to the absence of a presidential vote. The "straight-party" option appeared to have created a large under-vote by means of the no-vote-for-president (except Bush) phenomenon. The second way the straight party option contributed to the under-vote occurred when voters selected candidates outside their straight party selection. Many voters may not have known that, on electronic voting machines, after selecting the straight party option, if they then voted for a candidate from another party, that non-straight party vote cancelled the voter's straight party choices throughout the rest of the ballot. For example, perhaps a Democrat voted for the Green Party candiate for county surveyor instead of the Democratic candidate for that office. That one vote outside the Democratic straight party slate would automatically cancel all of the voter's previously selected votes for Democratic candidates throughout the ballot. Machines Spontaneously Presented Wrong Candidate Selection Voters who chose the straight party option also reported another problem. Instead of no presidential choice appearing on the voting machine screen, voters reported that the wrong candidate, often Bush, appeared. Only two EIRS reports in New Mexico (Sandoval County) came from Republicans saying that their straight party selection initially displayed a vote for a Democratic or Green Party candidate. These voters reported being able to successfully correct the choice. The difficulty in removing the wrong presidential choice, however, created another means of generating an under-vote. To override the automatic Bush vote or the voter’s wrong choice on the Sequoia push-button electronic voting machines, voters had to push the button for Bush (or the wrong candidate) again (a toggle mechanism) to erase the vote. Voters reported that they had to push the Bush button from two to ten times to remove that incorrect choice before they could vote for their preferred candidate. Furthermore, after removing the vote for the wrong candidate and voting again for their intended choice, some voters reported that when they got to the review screen at the end of the ballot, they found no vote for president had registered. Voters reported the need to scroll back up the ballot one or two more times to vote again for their presidential choice. Even when the review screen actually showed their correct vote, citizens voiced concern that their vote might not actually register. They worried about the voters who were unable to find and correct this problem of a non-vote or a wrong vote for president. The programmed mechanisms in the straight party option probably contributed to the high under-vote rate on Election Day. These programmed mechanisms for the straight party option include a vote shifting formula in the scanners used to count ballots for absentee and early voting (see below); and with the DREs on Election Day: no-vote-for-president for all but the Republican party; a difficult to change incorrect presidential vote; an inadvertent canceling of straight party votes when voting outside that party, or undetected or uncorrected Bush default. The under-vote total alone, 1117, amounts to 19% of Kerry’s loss by 5988 in New Mexico. In New Mexico, the Election Day statewide presidential under-vote was 17,095. Down-Ticket Discrepancies in Early Voting and Absentee One might assume that the "straight-party" discrepancies only occurred on the Election Day electronic DRE voting machines. Not so! Evidence shows votes for President for persons voting "straight-party" in third parties, such as the Green Party, both in the Absentee and the Early Voting choices were not recorded. For example, the straight party choice for the Green party showed 2 votes, but no votes registered for David Cobb. There were, however, minimal under-votes recorded; this implies another candidate received the "shifted" vote. Sequoia scanners with proprietary software counted both the Absentee and the Early Voting paper ballots. Since the three Democratic members of the State Election Board prevented the official hand recount, citizens have no way to know how much vote shifting occurred. Roster Signatures, Total Votes Cast, Votes for President: Hidden Provisional Ballots The website of the NM Secretary of State lists the total number of roster signatures for each voting occasion by precinct. A comparison of the total number of signatures with the total votes counted shows, for all voting occasions in Santa Fe, 1523 more roster signatures than total ballots cast. That is a large number of voters who signed the roster books, but for some reason, did not have their ballot counted. That number, 1523, is 27% higher than the tallied under-vote of 1117. The website also shows 205 phantom votes, (more votes cast than roster signatures) in the three voting occasions: 95 in absentee voting and 110 in early voting. Researchers Warren Stewart and Ellen Theisen explained that election officials subtracted phantom votes from the under-vote in their certified vote tallies instead of listing the phantom votes in a separate category on the certified totals. The total number of more-signatures-than-votes-cast may be the uncounted provisional ballots: 2% of the total ballots cast in Santa Fe County. Rather than post the counted and uncounted provisional ballots as a separate category, Warren Stewart reports, the Secretary of State adds the total provisional ballots counted to the election night totals. Combine the 1523 uncounted ballots to the under-vote of 1117 and get 2640. This 2640 is 4% of the total Santa Fe County vote and it may represent the extent of voter disenfranchisement in this County. If the uncounted provisional ballots were primarily from newly registered Democrats whose voter registration forms remained unprocessed or destroyed, then much of the 2640 votes (under-vote + uncounted provisional ballots) amounts to 44% of Kerry’s 5,988 vote loss. Summary When voters use the "straight-party" option during an election, they run the risk of losing their vote. The effects observed in New Mexico have also been seen in many other states that offer the "straight-party" option. Whether intentional or unintentional, the use of proprietary software prevents citizens from observing the actual vote counting; thus, citizens do not know if their votes are counted as cast. Scanners that count paper ballots use proprietary software and are just as susceptible to large inaccuracies as the touch screen machines. Citizens must vote on paper ballots but unless citizens also hand count these ballots no one can verify the accuracy of the total vote count with or without the "straight-party" option. Since fifteen states in November 2008 continue to offer the "straight-party" voting option and almost no option to hand count paper ballots yet exists, after reading this evidence, voters should avoid using the "straight-party" option. ====================== Other Articles About the 2004 New Mexico Presidential Election: Stewart, Warren. 2005. “Did We Bounce An Election?” www.votersunite.org [85] and http://www.votersunite.org/info/newMexicophantomvotes.asp [86] Theisen, Ellen and Warren Stewart. 2004. “Summary Report on New Mexico State Elections Data.” www.USCountVotes.org [87] Liddle, Elizabeth, and Josh Mittledorf. 2005. “Analysis of Undervotes in New Mexico’s 2004 Presidential Ballots.” www.USCountVotes.org [88] Plotner, Robert Glenn. 2005. “A Guide to irregularities in the 2004 New Mexico General Election.” www.USCountVotes.org [89] State of New Mexico, Office of New Mexico Secretary of State, Secretary of State, Rebecca Vigil-Giron, http://www/sos.state.nm.us/Election/cntyindx04.html [90] ========================= Thank-yous: Green and Libertarian Parties, Jeremiah Akin, Warren Stewart, Ellen Theisen, Ken Aaron, Stuart Shakman, Dan Ashby, Myra Boime, Megan Matson, Scripps Howard News Service, Eva Kataja, Mitch Buszek, Wayne M. Burke, Lubosh Novak, and others in Recount New Mexico; Bernie Ellis, Kip Humphrey. According to USA Today, a new report shows there is no evidence that significant numbers of voters are lying about their identity at the polls, voting twice or voting in the name of dead people. Yet across the country, burdensome voter ID bills and other legislation that disenfranchises eligible voters are being justified by this made-up epidemic. We deserve to know which threats are real and which threats are imaginary. Please petition the Elections Assistance Commission to release its report on voter fraud! Right-wing members of Congress and state legislators have been passing onerous laws that make it harder for citizens to vote. Despite erecting barriers to the ballot box and disenfranchising voters, they’ve claimed these laws are necessary to stop rampant voter fraud. Thanks to a press leak, it is now public that the US Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) commissioned a report to find out about voter fraud. While this has long been suspected by those of us who have fought discriminatory attempts to address “voter fraud” (e.g. voter ID bills that would, in effect, create a poll tax for poor, elderly and minority citizens who don’t have or need government issued ID in their regular lives), the Please petition the EAC to release the report at http://www.ReleaseTheReport.com [93]! Across the country, states have been introducing legislation requiring voters to show identification before voting, preventing eligible voters from casting ballots. Indeed, the US Congress has tried to pass national Voter ID legislation four times in the last four months – all in the Sign the petition [94] http://www.ReleaseTheReport.com [95] -- Alert Researched and Distributed by People For the American Way The following emergency response action comes from The PEN (Peoples' E-Mail Network) Everyone has heard about the dramatically suspicious results in the Jennings congressional race in FL-13, but did you know that there were massive parallel shenanigans going on in FL-24 as well? And yet we got a tip late today that tomorrow the House Administration committee is secretly, and without public notice, preparing to dismiss their own inquiry into this other still NOT conceded race run by Clint Curtis, the famous voting software rigging whistle blower. Since the election, dedicated volunteers have spent massive hours painstakingly collecting affidavits from citizens block by block in the district that constitute direct proof that the results in FL-24 are also not only beyond credulity, they are patently fraudulent. There is a still LIVE challenge to this election the Florida state courts, JUST AS in the Jennings case. So why is the House administration even considering refusal to hear this evidence, where it may even constitute evidence of a broader statewide conspiracy, and give additional weight to the Jennings FL-13 challenge as well? Because of the shortness of time this will be primarily a PHONE action. Please locate the member of the House Administration committee closest to you from the list below and call them first thing in the morning. Distance being equal you may find the Democrat more receptive. Tell them that even if you are not in their particular district, they are the closest House member to represent you on this committee. And ask them to give the evidence in the FL-24 ALSO the fair and just congressional hearing it deserves. You can call toll free at 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 and ask for your choice of House member below, in particular the CHIEF OF STAFF listed, or you can use their direct dial phone/fax numbers. MORE EVIDENTIARY INFORMATION IS BELOW THIS COMMITTEE MEMEBER LISTING SECTION CA-3 CA-16 CA-22 CA-53 MA-8 MI-3 PA-1 TX-20 THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE'S POSSIBLE BOGUS REASONS FOR DISMISSING THE CLINT CURTIS CONTEST (talking points if you get challenged on the phone): * [Not enough evidence.] What we did not have is mainstream media coverage. What we do have is hard evidence that there is a discrepancy between the official count and the affidavits that were gathered from actual voters. * [Sworn affidavits not good enough.] In the past, it was exit polls that were considered not good enough because they did not connect the vote with the voter. Our system does exactly that. It is like having a paper ballots to count except even better. It is signed. Affidavits and eye witness testimony are the corner stone of our legal system. * [Your signature not good enough.] If the committee is not willing to accept what every court in the country requires as evidence, what level of proof are you willing to accept? * [Source code unknown.] If the committee requires the errors in the code to be found, we must be allowed access to the code and the machines. We are aware of hundreds of experts willing to independently examine and blueprint those proprietary systems should that opportunity become available. DETAILED BASIS OF THE CONTEST: The Congressional Contest filed by Clint Curtis is a Contest where the results of the election can be proven. Unlike Christine Jennings, whose loss was caused by 18,000 missing votes that unfortunately can never be found, Clint Curtis for Congress Campaign has found and tabulated data from actual voters that conclusively proves that Mr. Curtis received more votes than the official results recorded. The reason Mr Curtis did not concede is that although there was an apparent 16% loss, this loss did not reflect the Zogby Poll taken just weeks before the election that showed us within 2% points nor by the polling conducted by the online vote verification tool http://www.VoteNow2006.net [96]. The Zogby Poll also revealed that Curtis was leading among likely voters who describe themselves as Independents by a full 11 points. The opponents lead was just 45% to 43%, with one in ten (10%) undecided. The so called wide margin of 16 points in Mr. Curtis' race is the exact reason it possible to find where the count was not accurate. If the results were closer like a 51/49 split or 369 votes as in the Jennings race, it would have been nearly impossible to determine whether or not the official results were accurate. Every voter would have to be contacted to find the few votes that may not have been recorded accurately. On virtually every block walked by volunteers, the results have shown that more votes were cast for Clint Curtis than officially recorded. Walking for Democracy, the volunteers gathered sworn affidavits signed by the voters in District 24 as to how they voted for Governor, Congress and Amendment Three. The Governor's race and Amendment Three were control questions. The results from that data confirm the official results, while the data in this Congressional race is shown to be inaccurate. For example in Precinct 66 in Seminole County (highlighted below), official results showed that Mr. Curtis received 57% of the Democratic and Independent vote. According to the affidavits gathered however, he received over 80% of that vote. In each of the precincts that have been walked, he has received from 6%- 22% more Democratic and Independent votes than the official results. This simple method of determining how voters actually cast their ballot, can be independently verified. Congress can mandate a non-partisan group of volunteers or pay personnel to gather affidavits from District 24 voters. The cost is minimal and results easily obtainable. Congress owes it to the American people to determine once and for all whether or not the electronic voting machines counted accurately. This is not about partisan politics. This is about our Democracy. Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know. If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at http://www.millionphonemarch.com/in.htm [97] march50:113989 Powered by The People's Email Network Bookmark for daily updates on Pima Election Integrity Trial: http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/pima.html [98] See today's report from "Blog for Arizona" (Michael Bryan) crossposted at the EDA Blog [99]. [100] Tucson TV News Video Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iXJahaGmk [101] (addresses below) Only the Board of Supervisors has the authority to decide whether to appeal the court's ruling, and they haven't yet met to make any decision on the matter. Tuesday morning January 8, 2007 we will present affidavits and letters from renowned computer scientists and election integrity activists stating that releasing these databases cannot harm national security as Chuck Huckelberry and his lawyers claim. Copies of the supporting declarations may be downloaded from the links at the foot of this article. Election Trial item early on agenda There are some 800 databases going back to May of 1998. Making them public could prove our votes were NOT counted inaccurately. If there is no probl The Democrats have also taken issue with several of Judge Miller's findings of fact as not supported by the testimony, and some of his conclusions of law as erroneous. See Democrats Motion to Amend for more details. Bill Risner make a powerful case that Judge Miller would be hard-pressed to ignore that the Judge quite simply got several points wrong in his under-advisement opinion. Discussion of the lawsuit will be one of the very first items on the agenda, so try to at the Board's Chambers by 9 am. Contact the Supervisors and let them know this is a critical issue for you. Sources near the case indicate the Board will probably vote to appeal unless Ann Day decides to vote with Ray Carroll. She should be the target of heaviest lobbying. Ray Carroll is already in support of election integrity; call and thank him for his leadership. Ann Day, District 1 Ramón Valadez, District 2 Sharon Bronson, District 3 Ray Carroll, District 4 Richard Elías, Chairman, District 5 See http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/pima.html [102] for in-depth coverage The release will allow Democratic Party activists to examine the results for evidence of tampering. The decision goes beyond a judge's order that the county release the final databases from the 2006 primary and general elections. But the crowd didn't disperse after the vote, instead remaining to speak at call to the audience, which is scheduled for the end of the meeting. Elections-integrity activist John Brakey; started shouting that people had waited far too long already and should not have to wait any longer. After hearing from more than 20 speakers, Elias made a motion to reconsider the earlier vote, and the supervisors voted unanimously to release the RTA records as well as the 2006 general and primary records. They also voted to release all the files associated with the three elections, instead of just the final databases, as ordered by the judge. At trial, the party presented witnesses who testified an elections employee took home backup files, and the county lost tapes of the RTA election after they were returned by the secretary of state. Pima County acknowledged security flaws in new technology and has developed a plan to address many of the problems. The county is accepting public comment on the plan until the end of the week. It is available on the county Web site, Activists have said the plan is a good start but still leaves the system vulnerable to hacking by an insider. County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said he will present a revised plan and a summary of public concerns in February and suggested the supervisors could decide then if they want to ask for a court order to recount the paper ballots from the RTA to reassure the public the election was fair. Elias made a motion to have the county ask for such a recount, but it was not voted on because there was no agenda item related to the RTA election. Voting on items not on a posted agenda is a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Attorney Bill Risner, who represented the Democrats, said such court orders are hard to obtain, and the release of the database is a much more certain way to examine the election results, given the judge's ruling after the trial determined that election databases are public records. Risner said the party will develop a computer program to analyze the databases, which it will make available to anyone who wants it. Risner said there still are legal issues that have to be resolved. He wants a ruling that the databases always are public records and must be released promptly enough to let political parties challenge an election within the five-day deadline. Risner also has asked the court to award his team $279,907 in legal fees. Contact reporter Erica Meltzer at 807-7790 or emeltzer@azstarnet.com Tucson Citizen It is a victory for democracy through establishment of an open and transparent elections system and process. The Board of Supervisors, acceding to an unrelenting Supervisor Ray Carroll, voted not to appeal December's order by a Pima County Superior Court judge that the county release the elections data. Judge Michael Miller had ordered the county to turn over parts of elections electronic databases, from the 2006 primary and general elections, to the Pima County Democratic Party in response to its lawsuit questioning whether the elections system is secure and tamper-proof. The county had considered appealing that order, claiming the databases contained sensitive information whose release might make it easier to hack into the elections system. The supervisors rightly dropped the appeal threats Tuesday. And thanks to Carroll, supervisors went beyond that. The board also voted to release records of the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election that were not included in the judge's order. Confidence and transparency are the cornerstones of a free-functioning democracy. The county would have risked losing those cornerstones had it continued fighting to keep its election data secret. Additionally, if voters believe their ballots will not be counted accurately and confidentially, if they believe something nefarious or underhanded is going on behind the scenes, election turnout will plunge. The case pulled aside the curtain of county election operations, exposing matters of substantial concern. Simple software manipulation could mean voters would cast their ballots one way, but they could be tabulated according to a hacker's wishes. This case demonstrated that voters are unwilling to take the county's word on election security without independent verification. By dropping appeal threats, releasing more material than the judge ordered and allowing qualified outsiders to look at the inner workings of elections, the county has moved to assure voters it has nothing to hide.
Vote for Election Transparency by Midnight 12/31
Deadline Tonight Dec. 31st at Midnight Pacific Time
(3:00 a.m. Eastern, 2:00 a.m. Central)
Cast your votes NOW at www.Change.org [7] for Election Integrity and Transparency. Complete Details Below.
Thousands of citizens inspired by the Obama presidency are submitting policy proposals to a contest called "Ideas for Change in America" sponsored at the website www.Change.org [8].
The page just went up, and could use some testimonials to fill it in. If you like what we do, please leave a good word for us. Thanks!3 Election Integrity Proposals are in the Running -- But They Need Your Votes!
The widgets will take you to the webpage for each proposal. You will see a Vote button on the page, and when you click it, you will be prompted to open an account. It only takes a minute; then you can vote.
There are three different EI proposals in three different categories --but only one of them at the moment is in a position to get past this first elimination round.
In the Technology Policy category, a proposal called "Move the country towards transparent election systems" is in 1st place with more than 700 votes and seems positioned to advance to the second voting round.
This proposal, initiated by an Open Source voting proponent, and boosted with votes by Open Voting Consortium members, is very open and nonprescriptive in its language:
The currently utilized intellectual property software based election systems have been proven deficient by government study ( CA Secretary of State Top to Bottom Review etc)- Transparency in government should start with elections- We must implement uniform, open source, paper ballot systems by immediately conducting feasibility studies. The Obama administration should consider candidates with open government understanding when interpreting EAC positions.
-- Brent Turner (Election Reform Activists for Obama ), SF, CA Dec 13
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/move_the_country_towards_transparent_el... [11]The HCPB Proposals
3,310 votes, Appoint Secretary of Peace in Department of Peace and Non-Violence
1,989 votes, Repeal the Patriot Act
1,921 votes, End Corporate "Personhood"
Control of elections must be taken back from corporations, whose procedures right now and for the last several election cycles equate to secret vote counting (with secret software and non-transparent procedures -AND brought back into the hands of citizens through hand-counted paper ballot elections - WITH enhanced security procedures such as video cameras on the ballot box - WITH citizens monitoring all day - WITH ballot boxes never leaving the table until 7pm when the box seals are broken and multi-partisan teams of citizens count all the votes until they all agree on the totals...AND TOTALS are posted, as Tom said, AT THE PRECINCT LEVEL. In this way, ballot boxes are extremely difficult if not impossible to stuff; ballot boxes may end up in the river or in the trunk of someone's car, but only after all the votes are counted. If any other computerized counting device is used as a second count, the hand count MUST be the "count of record" or the real results can easily be subverted.
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/return_to_citizen-run_citizen-counted_c... [13]
The most single urgent issue confronting this country, preceding in importance all others, simply because it presupposes all other change in government, is emergent need for the return to observable voting process; and the only way to do that securely, and with voter confidence worthy of the name, is through the casting and counting of hard copy (i.e., paper) ballots, and posted at the precinct level, so as to secure the chain of custody for citizens. We have seen our democracy hijacked, de facto, by privatized voting interests, counting our votes in secret, an event that is absolute anathema to any believer in democracy, and prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that one person shall cast a vote. Not a machine. The only way to return citizen confidence to voting, crucial to a credible and legitimate democracy, is to cast observable, palpable, ballots without the mediation of machines (or private voting criminals, ah, companies) and to have those ballots counted by fellow citizens as may be drafted at random, such as we do juries. If we do not resolve these chain of custody issues, we will not be secure in the results of our elections, nor even know who it is that controls and calculates them. We the People...must know; or change will be stillborn, void, and meaningless.
-- John Ervin, Balboa, CA Dec 27
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/hand_counted_paper_ballots_now [14]
Pull Out the Stops "til Midnight, Then Plan for Round 2
Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee,
Alternate, District 2
Communications Working Group
Dale Axelrod
------- Petaluma CA 94952-3212
----- SF Voice Mail (24 hrs): 415-824-1549
-------------------------- Mobile: 707-235-9089
Web sites ----------- www.verifygra.com [19]
------------------------- www.paperballot.info [20]
------------------------- www.caricaturist.com [21]
Email ---------------- dalea@sonic.net [22]
Source: http://www.change.org/ideas [23]
What is Ideas for Change in America?
Ideas for Change in America is a citizen-driven project that aims to identify and create momentum around the best ideas for how the Obama Administration and 111th Congress can turn the broad call for "change" across the country into specific policies. How does it work?
Anyone can submit an idea and comment and vote on others. The top 10 rated ideas will be presented to the Obama Administration on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009 as the "Top 10 Ideas for America." We will then launch a national campaign behind each idea and mobilize the collective energy of the millions of members of Change.org, MySpace, and partner organizations to ensure that each winning idea gets the full consideration of the Obama Administration and Members of Congress.How are the top ideas determined?
The "Top 10 Ideas for America" will be determined through two rounds of voting. In the first round, ideas will compete against other ideas in the same issue category. The first round will end on December 31, 2008, and the top 3 rated ideas from each category will make it into the second round. The second round of voting will begin on Monday, January 5, and each qualifying idea will compete against the qualifying ideas from all other categories. Second round voting will end on Thursday, January 15.
Donate by Midnight to Start the Year Right
All contributions to EDA are fully tax-deductible, so take a 2008 deduction now for more Election Integrity in 2009.
Plus, we're giving away great gifts as thank-yous for your donations. See the Donations page [25] for details on the EDA buttons, stickers, EI books [26] and documentary DVDs [27] you can get for free with your tax-deductible contribution. (We've got "Stealing America Vote by Vote" for just $7.00! Call for info).
Election Day Action Plan
What You Can Do to Defend the Vote on Election Day -- and Beyond
1. Vote (on a real paper ballot, in person, in the precinct, whenever possible)
1. VOTE
Voting in person in your local precinct is always the best policy.
If you have the option of requesting a paper ballot in lieu of voting DRE, always vote paper, not vapor.
If you have an absentee (mail-in) ballot that you haven't already mailed, walk it in to your local polling site on election day, or take it in person to the county election department any time prior to election day.
If you are voting on an optical scan system, the most reliable way to have your vote correctly read is to mark your vote with a firm Number 2 lead pencil!
2. Be a Pollworker for Democracy
Read more [38]
3. Video the Vote
Learn more and sign up: http://www.videothevote.org/ [41]
4. Conduct Independent Election Verification Exit Polls (EVEP) [42]
Election Defense Alliance, Election Integrity and The Warren Poll are organizing an Election Verification Exit Polling (EVEP) project as a safeguard for the November 2008 presidential election -- and we're calling on you to help. Exit polling provides an independent check on "official results" reported by suspect computerized voting systems. Unlike the national exit poll conducted by a private consortium of newsmedia corporations, who withhold their raw polling data and heavily "adjust" their results to match the reported election results (!), this Citizens' Exit Poll will fully disclose the data so there can be no doubt about the truth of the numbers and what they reveal about the purported truth of the official election results -- and, for that matter, the purported truth of the corporate newsmedia exit poll.
5. File Poll Incident Reports [43]
6. Protect the Count
Watch the pollworkers print out the machine end-of-day vote reports from the voting machines. Then, with a video camera, record the "poll tapes" as soon as the pollworkers post them on the outside of the polling site. Slowly pan the length of the tally tape, recording all the vote totals on it. As soon as you can, upload this information to the Protect the Count Project: (upload links at YouTube and Black Box Voting forthcoming; check back soon.)
There are 3 additional parts to Protect the Count/ Tactics vary according to the nature of the electronic voting systems where you live.
Read and download the 4-page instructions here: Protect the Count [44] 7. Observe the Central Count
Monitor County Election Headquarters
You are a member of the voting public and have the right to observe election procedures so long as you don't obstruct the election workers.
Don't let anybody tell you any different.Additional Guides to Election Day Monitoring
(Treat election violations as a crime scene)
8. Protest Suspect Election Returns: Code Orange Rapid Response Demonstrations
For an overview of the Election Day Rapid Response plan and how you can join in, see
EDRR 2008: A Six-Part Plan to Defend the Vote [55]
Election Day Watchlist
BBV Guide to Gathering Election Evidence [57]
2008 Citizens' Tool Kit [58].
Go to the home page of Black Box Voting [59] to request a copy.
Download the "2006 Citizens' Tool Kit" [60]
Watch for the media to announce who "wins" instead of stating "We predict (name of candidate) will win." News channels are supposed to report the news, not create the news. Results as reported by the news never match the actual results, by the way.
Unusual fluctuations or insufficient variations with minor candidates.
In one Minnesota district in 2004, for example, ALL MINOR CANDIDATES received the same percentages of votes, until screen shots were posted
and questioned by Internet watchdogs. Then the vote totals were spread more normally. In Florida in 2000, at one point the Socialist Worker
Party candidate had more votes dumped into his totals in a single county than he received statewide. One strategy for electronic vote
manipulation involves use of minor candidate vote bins to store votes temporarily.
- Access to voting (voter rolls)
- Fairness (deceptive practices)
- Counting the votes
Watch for: - Registrations hijacked to a different party - Omissions and improper additions to the voter rolls The new "electronic pollbooks" help to block citizen oversight and also introduce sophisticated attack vectors.
Gather evidence: Documents, records, video, audio and photographs.
Persevere – keep gathering proof, even after the election is over.
Example: When voter registration is hijacked to a different party, there should be a paper trail. Find out your state's regulations for the paperwork
needed to change a voter's party preference. Use public records requests to request the backup documents. If they can't produce them,
expose the fraud by propagating the evidence, to blogs, legislators, citizens groups. Get your evidence to at least five different entities.
Find out if your local jurisdiction is now using electronic voter sign-in instead of observable paper pollbooks.
Watch for:
Omission of candidate names on the ballot or screen; misdirection about where/when/how to vote; misleading ballot design; confusing or
misleading instructions; intimidation tactics
Gather evidence and propagate it.
Call an elections worker over and show them; then ask that they write the incident down to document it, and watch to see that they do so.
Then submit a formal public records request for a copy of the incident report and any other incident reports throughout the jurisdiction.
Video, photograph, get documents, and if you obtain evidence, propagate it to at least five entities, including Internet sites, mainstream
news, legislators, elections officials and citizens groups.
Watch for: Whether you can see the chain of custody; whether you can see the votes themselves being counted.
The greatest risk for manipulation of the count is from inside access.
The best way to prevent vote-counting fraud by insiders is to require a fully public chain of custody. If chain of custody is not public, even
spot checks, audits and recounts will fail to ensure integrity in the election. Your ability to review chain of custody varies depending on your jurisdiction. Most locations nowadays have removed chain of custody from public view – which means citizens must go to
extraordinary lengths to learn the simplest information, if they can get it at all.
Weak links in the chain, or "narrow spots in the pipe" where just a few people, or just one person, has access to the votes before (or shortly
after) the vote count is announced. JUST ONE BROKEN LINK means the vote count cannot be trusted.
Get evidence of broken links, narrow spots in the pipeline, or inside-only access/oversight. Evidence means documents and videotape. Persevere
– it may take time to evaluate even one link in the chain. When you get evidence that the chain has been broken or left public view, propagate the evidence to at least five entities, like blogs, voting rights groups, open government groups, the media, and public officials. Prepare
a report with a local group of citizens, submit it to those with authority in your jurisdiction, request remediation of individual
issues before the next election.
On DRE (touch-screen, dial-a-vote) systems – observe screens carefully, watch for vote-hopping to selections you did not choose. The vote may hop to another choice immediately or after a delay, or even after you have page to a new screen.
Stop the process immediately, call an elections worker over, see if you can replicate it, request that they write the incident down, stay and
watch while they do so, make a formal request for the public record of their incident reports and all other incident reports in your jurisdiction. Double and triple check before casting votes, and document all anomalies. (If you witness vote-hopping on a dial-a-vote system like the Hart eSlate, document it using every means necessary and contact Black Box Voting, BradBlog, and VotersUnite.)
workers. If they won't let you videotape, then videotape them telling you that you cannot watch, or that you can't capture evidence of the
poll closing and counting procedures.
Observe whether the vote count increments when you deposit your ballot. After polls close, videotape poll closing activities and videotape the results tape from the optical scan machine and also videotape any other reconciliation forms filled out by poll workers. These should include number of ballots provided, cast, unused and spoiled, along with number of voters checked in to vote.
Most New Yorkers are voting on lever machines, which -- unlike the scanners and DREs -- are extremely difficult to tamper with in a wholesale, nontransparent way. However, many New Yorkers do not realize that customized Sequoia scanners are used to count tens of thousands of
absentee votes. Start asking questions about those votes (chain of custody, counting). Ascertain your rights to observe and examine your
computerized absentee counting system.
Consider submitting public records requests directly to Sequoia Voting Systems. Ask for things like correspondence, incident reports,
invoices, contracts. These vendor-directed records requests are especially important because it looks like New York's Nov. 2008 elections will be run on Sequoia computerized systems, or something similar.
You, too, can request public records DIRECTLY FROM THE VENDOR. Let's get to work on opening them up.
Compare number of voters checked in to vote with number of votes. Note any arithmetic that doesn't add up. You may also want to visit the main elections division for your jurisdiction to observe and record procedures and activities. If you cannot view and record the computer screen, you are being blocked from viewing even circumstantial evidence of the count. Check your state election law as to whether counting votes in secret has ever been authorized. Persevere. Take as much time as it takes to gather real evidence, including evidence of efforts to obstruct your right to oversee chain of custody and counting.
The Government is currently displacing citizen sovereignty over election processes. Assert your right to sovereignty via documentation and
oversight to authenticate election procedures and results, and when your rights are obstructed, gather evidence of this and propagate it. All
evidence you acquire during the primary election cycle should be applied towards regaining citizen sovereignty over elections in the
Nov. 2008 election.
duty, trust to their own common sense and innate creativity, and take just one step, the next will become clear.
Trust me on this. Good luck and God bless, Bev Harris Founder - Black Box Voting
Help File Evidence for CA Investigation of Prop. 8
On Election Night, 2008, one or more members of the EDA Election Data Analysis Working Group downloaded the CNN screenshot of unadjusted exit poll results for CA Proposition 8 that is now the catalyst for a rapidly growing statewide call for an official investigation.
You can scan the completed form and any supporting documents and e-mail them to: Elections@sos.ca.gov [67]
Election Verification Exit Polls May Also Turn Up Evidence
Additionally, EDA conducted citizen exit polls in 19 precincts in Los Angeles County and precincts in Alameda and San Francisco counties. This evidence may also be brought to bear in questioning the veracity of the official machine count on Proposition 8.
ELECTION FRAUD INVESTIGATION UNIT
1500-11th STREET, 5th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Spanish: 1-800-232-VOTA (8682)
Collect Evidence of Machine Error for HAVA Sec. III Complaints
Excerpts of Announcement Calling for Investigation of Prop. 8 Vote Count
They will combine all similar complaints into one investigation and the more citizen complaints they have the better.
or you can call a complaint into the numbers listed.
ELECTION FRAUD INVESTIGATION UNIT
1500-11th STREET, 5th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Spanish: 1-800-232-VOTA (8682)
Text from Initiating Election Complaint Form Submitted by Sharon Ryals Tamm
National Exit Polls (NEP aka Edison/Mitofsky); CNN; all companies whose election systems are used in the State of California including but not limited to ES&S, Sequoia, Hart Intercivic, and Premier Election Solutions (aka Diebold), all elections officials and elections personnel of the State of California, including all County Registrars' Offices and the Secretary of State's Office and their respective staff including temporary workers.
Date(s) and time(s) alleged events occurred: 11/04/2008—11/05/2008 including but not limited to the hours of 6am 11/04/08 to 1am 11/05/08 PST
Location(s) of alleged event(s): The State of California, all polling places, precincts, county and state elections and elections equipment locations, including those where votes were counted or machine tallied, especially in Los Angeles county.
Names and phone numbers of witnesses or other victims: Richard Tamm, 510-524-4608. Emily Levy 831-429-8946. Dan Ashby 510-233-2144.
Attached is initial evidence of a greater than 8% discrepancy between exit polls and tabulated results for Proposition 8. Recent elections history has shown this type of discrepancy is a key indicator of possible election fraud requiring further investigation. Please employ all means necessary to acquire and examine all data, equipment and persons that could possibly account for such a discrepancy; in particular, all raw poll data procured by National Exit Polls (NEP-aka Edison/Mitofsky) including which precincts they polled, the testimony of polling personnel, and exactly how NEP revised poll data later to match results reported on CNN. In addition to any California Elections statutes and regulations that may apply please review under the HAVA Title III Section attached and any other section relevant to the issues brought in this complaint. I request that regional hearings be held throughout the state on these concerns.
Text of Supporting Evidentiary Letter Provided to CA SoS Office by Richard Tamm
There were 2,168 respondents, and they break down as follows (a "yes" vote is a vote against same-sex marriage):
Males: 48% 52%
Females: 48% 52%View actual screen capture
Males: 53% 47%
Females: 52% 48%View actual screen capture
About 8 PM: 48% 52% of 2,168
Percentage change: + 4,5% - 4.5%
Prop 8, Males and Females: Yes: No: respondents:
About 8 PM: 1,041 + 1,127 = 2,168
Later in the evening: 1,176 + 1,064 = 2,240
Respondents change: + 135 - 63
Sign Up for Code Orange Rapid Response Demonstrations
SIGN UP HERE
No More Rolling Over
No More Stolen Elections
United We Count
SIGN UP HERE
Registration Deadlines Closing Fast -- Let Everyone Know
In 1 to 3 days from today (Oct. 4th through 6th) voter registration CLOSES in 26 of the States and territories.
or better, use the All State Registration Directory link also to the right. >>>>Your Vote is Your Voice.
Otherwise, there may still be time to mail -- but check the mail-in regulations for your state.
either of the following:
County Recorder by first class mail within 5 days after the last day to register to
vote in that election.
County Recorder by 7 p.m. on the day of that election. 
Tell the President-Elect: We Want Paper Ballots
Barack Obama's Transition Team is calling for public input on what direction the US should go in.
EDA Communications group member Dale Axelrod (originator of the Paper Ballot Platform Plank) presents this recommendation:
Support Legislation for PAPER BALLOTS
Download, print, and distribute this flyer [79]
The PLAN
Complete Details with Live Links at: http://www.paperballot.info/ [80]
WARNING: Straight-Party Ballot Option a Danger to Your Vote
Voters Beware in These 15 "Straight-Party" States:
Effects of the Straight Party Voting Option and Sequoia Voting Machines
Observed During the 2004 General Election in Santa Fe County, New Mexico
Director, Protect California Ballots
EDA Council Member at Large
Tell EAC to Release Report: No Evidence for Alleged "Voter Fraud"
http://www.ReleaseTheReport.com [91]
According to USA Today [92],the EAC’s report shows that there is no evidence that significant numbers of voters are lying about their identity at the polls, voting twice, or voting in the name of dead people. Let me repeat that: NO
EVIDENCE.
EAC report makes it official: voter fraud does not present a health risk to our democracy. That is, it would be official if the EAC had released it. … But it won’t release it.
name of stopping the one electoral cancer from which we don’t appear to be suffering. Worse, the mostly Republican legislators who are pushing such “prescriptions” are more like doctors who are getting kickbacks for prescribing cancer drugs to healthy people, insofar as they are keeping away from the polls voters who tend to cast ballots for the other party.
to the EAC urging that this report be released and that hearings be held on its findings. We deserve to know which threats are real and which threats are imaginary.May 8: Tell HCA, NO Coverup! Investigate Florida-24th CD!
Dan Lungren (R)
ph: (202) 225-5716, fax: (202) 226-1298
Chief of Staff: Victor Arnold-Bik
email: victor.arnold-bik.house.gov
Zoe Lofgren (D)
ph: (202) 225-3072, fax: (202) 225-3336
Chief of Staff: Stacey Leavandosky
email: stacey.leavandosky.house.gov
Kevin McCarthy (R)
ph: (202) 225-2915, fax: (202) 225-2908
Chief of Staff: James Min
email: james.min.house.gov
Susan A. Davis (D)
ph: (202) 225-2040, fax: (202) 225-2948
Chief of Staff: Lisa Sherman
email: lisa.sherman.house.gov
Michael Capuano (D)
ph: (202) 225-5111, fax: (202) 225-9322
Chief of Staff: Robert Primus
email: robert.primus.house.gov
Vernon Ehlers (R), Ranking Member
ph: (202) 225-3831, fax: (202) 225-5144
Chief of Staff: Bill McBride
email: bill.mcbride.house.gov
Robert A. Brady (D), Chair
ph: (202) 225-4731, fax: (202) 225-0088
Chief of Staff: Stan White
email: stan.white.house.gov
Charles A. Gonzalez (D)
ph: (202) 225-3236, fax: (202) 225-1915
Chief of Staff: Kevin Kimble
email: kevin.kimble.house.gov
Copyright 2007, Patent pending, All rights reservedPima Supervisors Vote to Disclose Election Databases
VICTORY!
Today the Pima County Supervisors voted to release the entire database series from 2006 primary, general, and RTA elections.
Congratulations to all involved, and particularly to John Brakey for spearheading this precedent-setting effort.
Also See Arizona Press Accounts of Today's Action: Click here
Jan. 8 Action: Lobby the Pima County Supervisors
The County Attorney has filed an apparently unauthorized notice of appeal, presumably purely on the word of County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, or on the initiative of the County Attorney's office itself.Pima County Administration Building
130 W. Congress Street
First Floor Meeting Room
Please arrive by 9:00 a.m.
em, what is Pima County afraid of? Could these databases and audit logs prove the County committed election fraud?
(520) 740-2738
(520) 740-8126
(520) 740-8051
(520) 740-8094
(520) 740-8126Press Accounts on Pima Supervisors' Release of Vote Databases
RTA databases to be released
transportation sales tax for Pima County residents to approve a similar
levy.
year.
Faced with a raucous crowd of more than 60 people demanding the county release the RTA database, the Board of Supervisors Tuesday originally voted only not to appeal the judge's order, which amounted to agreeing to release those records.
Republican Supervisor Ray Carroll voted no because he wanted the RTA records released as well.
The issue was scheduled for an executive session to receive legal advice, but the supervisors remained in open session and heard from five speakers before the first vote.
Carroll repeatedly asked the other supervisors why they did not want to hear from the more than 30 people who signed speaker cards and continued his questioning after the vote.
Brakey sat down after board Chairman Richard Elias repeatedly told him he was out of order and threatened to have him removed.
"We cannot turn this into a carnival," Elias said as the crowd became increasingly unruly.
But as Brakey quieted, a chant went up: "We want our voices heard. We want our voices heard."
Elias then agreed to hear the speakers, some of whom said they were "disgusted" with having to "beg" for public records.
The Democratic Party says access to the computer files is necessary for it to perform its election-oversight duties in a high-tech age. Other parties also would have access to the files.
The crowd rose in a standing ovation after the vote.
The Regional Transportation Authority election created a half-cent sales tax to fund a $2 billion, 20-year transportation plan.
After raising concerns about practices within the county elections division and the security of electronic vote-counting machines, the county Democratic Party sued the county for access to the computer files from past elections.
www.pima.gov [103].
John Moffatt, a technology expert with the county, said it should be a simple matter of copying the databases to a disk, and he would work with representatives from all the recognized parties to get the information out as
soon as possible.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/73553.php [104]
Our Opinion: Ray Carroll drives county move toward transparency
letters@tucsoncitizen.com [105]
Tuesday's decision by Pima County politicians to release elections-related data is the first step in restoring voter confidence.
Had the county appealed the ruling, voters would have gotten the clear impression that it was hiding something.
At trial last month, expert witnesses for the county conceded that the voting system could have been manipulated to swing elections results.
County officials said while that could have happened, it never did.
Ray Carroll championed open government by pushing for prompt and full release of all relevant data while fellow supervisors seemed content to meet the minimal required disclosure.
Tucson Citizen, AZ -
Tuesday's decision by Pima County politicians to release elections-related data is the first step in restoring voter confidence. ...
Tucson Citizen, AZ -
The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday not to appeal a Superior Court judge's ruling to turn over computerized databases to the Pima County ...
Plan L to Save New York's Levers and Block the E-Machines
Dear New York Friends,
This is the first in a series of quick and simple actions designed to stop computerized voting from coming to NYS and Help Save Our Lever voting machines by letting our Election Commissioners, elected representatives and the press hear from you: New Yorkers who will not be silent while our secure voting system is replaced with "crap".
Please choose one of the sample letters below and e-mail to the NYS Election Commissioners at info@elections.state.ny.us [108] - Make sure the subject line says "Share with all election commissioners"
We know everyone is pressed for time but the impact of your letter will be enhanced if you are also able to cc your letters to:
-- your local election commissioners - http://www.elections.state.ny.us/CountyBoards.html [109]
-- your state representatives - www.congress.org [110] for email addresses
-- your local media - www.congress.org [111] - for media click on # 8 "media guide."
We encourage you to personalize your letters if you desire and please include your e-mail address and your town. Scroll to end of letters for important information.
Here are the letters to choose from:
LETTER 1
Dear Commissioners,
As a citizen of New York and resident of (fill in the blank) County I am appalled to learn that New York still intends to replace our dependable and transparent lever voting machines with electronic voting systems which the consensus of scientific experts has deemed too unreliable and insecure and about which the National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated "experience in testing software and systems has shown that testing to high degrees of security and reliability is from a practical perspective "not possible."
As election commissioners who have sworn an oath to protect the voters of New York, the state legislature will heed your advice. The requirements of HAVA have now been met through the provision of ballot marking devices at every polling place. I implore you now to inform the legislature what common sense, your professional experience and oath of office demand - that secure, transparent and reliable elections depend upon the retention of our lever machines and the rejection of electronic optical scanners and DREs.
Yours Sincerely,
Name
town
LETTER 2:
Dear Commissioners,
We look to you to uphold your oath of office to protect the voters of New York. Our county election commissioners cannot fulfill their oaths to do the same if you blind them with computerized vote counting machines that renders the process they are responsible for, invisible. We have been watching and reading and we know that software-driven voting machines are "insufficient to guarantee a trustworthy election." (Project EVEREST/, Ohio Secretary of State, 2007). Do not certify computerized machines that have been shown to allow one person "...with temporary access to a single voting machine" to steal the entire election. (California's Top-to-Bottom Review, 2007). Indeed you cannot in good faith certify machines when the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the agency which advises the US Election Assistance Commission on the writing of federal voting system standards, has already found that, " ...testing to high degrees of security and reliability is from a practical perspective not possible."
SAVE OUR LEVER VOTING SYSTEM.
Sincerely,
Name
Town
Letter 3
[ FOR THOSE WHO READ THE RECENT BLOG POST AT http://re-mediaetc.blogspot.com/ [112] ]
Dear Commissioners,
We look to you to uphold your oath of office to protect the voters of New York. We have been following the progress of New York's certification testing of the optical scan voting systems, including your weekly reports to Judge Sharpe and your public Commissioners meetings. As your best efforts have shown, you cannot in good faith "certify" any software-driven voting systems. This should come as no surprise however, since the National Institute of Standards and Technology has already found that, "...testing to high degrees of security and reliability is from a practical perspective not possible." (Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007, Nov. 2006)
We know from the experience of other states that software-driven voting systems are "insufficient to guarantee a trustworthy election." (Project EVEREST, Ohio Secretary of State, 2007). Please do not certify computerized machines that have been shown to allow one person "...with temporary access to a single voting machine" to steal the entire election. (California Secretary of State's Top-to-Bottom Review, 2007).
We ask you to PLEASE SAVE OUR LEVER VOTING SYSTEM. Return the Title I HAVA money, and continue to provide and perfect accessible ballot markers for voters with special needs to comply with HAVA using Title II funds. But please do not ask the vast majority of New York's voters to trust that the software will get it right on election night, when this is impossible to guarantee.
Sincerely,
Name
Town
If you have not yet SIGNED the PETITION to stop computerized voting and save our levers
please go to http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org/save_ny_levers [113]
This Just In: Tonite on PBS TV Stations: Mark Crispin Miller on Bill Moyers Discussing Election Fraud
Details: http://electiondefensealliance.org/MCM_Moyers_Journal_pbs [114]
Thanks for your commitment to safeguarding our democracy. Please circulate this action alert and the petition among your friends, lists, groups and other New Yorkers willing to resist the take over of our electoral system,
Rady Ananda, Joanne Lukacher, Andi Novick, Howard Stanislevic
Re-Media Election Transparency Coalition
http://re-mediaetc.blogspot.com/ [115]
Election Defense Alliance.org
http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org/save_ny_levers [116]
--------------------------------------
* "[T]he voting industry sells crap. And that's the problem." -- SBoE Commissioner Kellner, 6/19/08
Reclaim the Vote, Day by Day
Nov. 9 - Actions for Day 2 of Reclaiming the Vote (Click here) [117]
Nov 8 - Day 1, Reclaiming the Vote: "Widespread Vote-Switching" [118] -- EDA Data Analysis Project
Reverse Mississippi's Deliberate Ballot Design Manipulation
Update: In a partial victory that fell short of actual correction to this situation, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that state law requires that contests for national office be placed at the top of the ballot (rather than be buried at the bottom) -- but stopped short of issuing an order that this be done.
To download a PDF of the court ruling in Barbour v. Berger click here. [119]
We recommend especially the dissenting opinion by Justice Diaz joined by Easly and Graves.
Action of the Day 091708
-- [Today's action prepared by the Care2 Petition Site: http://www.care2.com]
EDA editor's note: We are reproducing the text of the Care2 Alert verbatim.
The facts speak for themselves. Republican officials in Mississippi in charge of the state's election procedures have deliberately chosen to alter ballot design in violation of state law and common sense, with the predictable result that voters will be disoriented and many will probably error when voting on the U.S. Senate race.
Denouncing the perpetrators of partisan election manipulations like this one is NOT a partisan act on our part.
Election fraud, manipulation, and dirty tricks are wrong no matter who the perpetrators are -- and it is a multipartisan civic duty to put a stop to it.
Republican officials in Mississippi must be desperate. They're pulling out the stops in election shenanigans in an attempt to confuse voters, hoping to push a close Senate contest to the Republican candidate.
Tell the Mississippi governor: The purposefully confusing ballot is illegal!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/0Xto/wRCg/E0DA [120]
The Republican Secretary of State decided to bury the Senate race below all local contests on the ballot.
The race, between interim Senator Roger Wicker -- a Republican temporarily appointed to replace Trent Lott -- and former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove, is expected to be close, making it one of the most important in the state.
Not only does burying this Senate race below all the local ones confuse voters, it's a direct violation of state election law, which clearly states that federal races must be on the top of the ballot!
Tell Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour -- who approved the ballot -- to reverse his decision in order to maintain the integrity of America's electoral process!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/0Xto/wRCg/E0DA [121]
Work-from Home Volunteers to Help Document '08 Elections
Action of the Day
Monday 11.17.08
Working from your home computer, here's how you can help with EDA Election '08 exit poll and monitoring projects.
We currently have 3 projects to choose from.
1. Entering exit poll questionnaires into a database entry form.
2. Researching voter turnout in conjunction with the exit poll project.
3. Entering election monitoring reports for Save-R-Vote.
In all cases we will provide you a coordinator contact, easy instructions, and an estimate of how much work/time is involved.
You choose how much time you can put in.
Follow the "Read more" jump link for details and contacts.
Click the "E-mail this page" link to forward this request to others.
EVEP Data Entry
The Election Verification Exit Poll (EVEP) project conducted about 40 citizen exit polls in 12 different states in this presidential election.
Data analysts are working on the numbers, but they could use your help entering the exit poll responses into a master database.
Data entry is as simple as clicking selection boxes with a mouse.
The more people we have taking small portions of this work, the sooner we can complete the database and begin publishing results.
If you can help, please send an E-mail to Info@ElectionDefenseAlliance.org [122] with "EVEP Data Entry" in the Subject line.
Or, leave a phone message with your contact information at: 510 275 5723.
Election Turnout Research
To augment and refine results of the citizen exit polls, this project is to collect information on voter participation rates by party registration, drawing on poll registers and related election day records. Work involves navigating government websites and possibly phone queries with county election admin and IT staff. Should take a few hours.
If you can help, please send an E-mail to Info@ElectionDefenseAlliance.org [123] with "Turnout research" in the Subject line.
Or, leave a phone message with your contact information at: 510 275 5723.
Election Monitoring Data Entry
Data entry consists of reading monitor checklists and entering the remarks in a spreadsheet table.
Getting this information into a database will enable the project to quantify and analyze the problems identified on election day
in this survey of Riverside County precincts by EDA affiliate group, Save-R-Vote, one of the most experienced election monitoring groups in the country.
If you can help, please send an E-mail to Info@ElectionDefenseAlliance.org [124] with "Monitoring checklist" in the Subject line.
Or, leave a phone message with your contact information at: 510 275 5723.
Please forward this request to anyone you know who might be able to help.
Thank you,
Dan Ashby
EDA Co-founder and Director
Election Defense Alliance is a sponsored project of International Humanities Center, a 501(c)(3) organization
Let the People Count
Click Here [125] for a quick, one-click way to write We provide a sample letter you can adapt to make your own. Copy, paste, alter, and add what you want to say. Click here to Act [126] When you're done, you can click a link to see the messages other citizens have sent. Volunteer to hand-count ballots in your local precinct: Click here to Join the I Count Corps [127]
Had Enough of "Faith-Based" Elections Entrusted to a Corporate Machine?
Tell Congress and the Media You Want Paper Ballots Counted By Hand in The Precincts
your U.S. Senators, your Representative, and your regional newspaper all at once.Want to do more?
THUR NOV 9 -- Day 2 of Reclaiming the Vote
Action 1
Send in Election Night CNN and CBS Exit Poll Screen Captures to EDA Data Analysis Project
Think the 2006 Midterm Electi