1 / 14

Forensic Statistical Mechanics Applied to Public Documents Prove Poll-Worker Fraud

Forensic Statistical Mechanics Applied to Public Documents Prove Poll-Worker Fraud. David L. Griscom* and John R. Brakey. Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections and Media (AUDIT-AZ).

nam
Download Presentation

Forensic Statistical Mechanics Applied to Public Documents Prove Poll-Worker Fraud

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Forensic Statistical Mechanics Applied to Public Documents Prove Poll-Worker Fraud David L. Griscom* and John R. Brakey Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections and Media (AUDIT-AZ) 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science San Francisco, 16 February 2007 *(Presenter) 3938 E Grant Rd #131, Tucson, AZ 85712

  2. John R. Brakey was the Democratic Cluster Captain for four predominately Hispanic precincts belonging to Arizona Legislative District 27, which is part of Arizona Congressional District 7. This study is based on John’s Election-Day-2004 experiences, as well as his compilations on Excel spreadsheets of all public voter registration data and all paper records of the 2004 balloting at the Pct. 324 polling place. (more than 1,000 hours invested!) John McCain’s office January 4, 2005

  3. Typical Paper Records Generated at AZ Polling Stations The “Signature Roster” The voter signs the block next to his/her name. The Judge of the Same Party marks voter Registration No. on “Notice-to-Voter Slip” A. Anwar Abraham “E” means this voter must vote provisional In Pct 324 there were 1986 registered voters on the “Signature Roster”

  4. Examples of Paper Records Actually Generated at the Pct 324 Polling Station The “Notice-to-Voter Slip” Voter Reg. Numbers are filled in by Judge of Opposite Party N.B. Red ink means this voter was instructed to vote a Provisional Ballot So far, so good...

  5. Examples of Paper Records Actually Generated at the Pct 324 Polling Station The “Notice-to-Voter Slip” Non-standard consecutive-order numbering used by Pct-324 poll workers (Clerk?). Voter Reg. Numbers are filled in by Judge of Opposite Party The very same numbers appear on other slips as “dup”s (meaning duplicate?) but the Voter Reg. Numbers are different! What's going on here???

  6. Typical Paper Records Generated at AZ Polling Stations The “Consecutive Number Register” (CNR) a.k.a. “The Poll List” The Clerk copies the Voter Registration No. from the “Notice-to-Voter Slip” here… then hand prints the corresponding voter name here. CHARLIE BROWN 35 CLARK KENT Wait a minute! There are blank spaces in this Pct. 324 CNR! 82 LOIS LANE 83 JOHN Q. TAXPAYER 804 JOE SIXPACK 699 What's going on here??? HOMER SIMPSON 282 MARGE SIMPSON 750

  7. Audit of 2 Nov 2004 Voting at Pct 324 of Arizona Congressional District 7 I.Voter signs one of two* “Signature Rosters” II.The Clerk enters voter names in Consecutive Number Register (CNR). Normally… But there are four more Irregularities! IIIa. “Regular” voters are instructed to scan their completed ballots into the Diebold AccuVote-OS voting machine which records their vote and serves as a “paper trail.” “Notice to Voter Slips” Hand Printed Names Signatures “Regular” Signature Roster: 847 uniquenames 11 names are not found on CNR. The height of each column is proportional to the number of names it contains. 55unique-nameprovisional voters signed Signature Roster 781 “Regular” ballots cast at polling place 19 of the names on CNR are not found on either roster 847 unique names 884 unique names 787 Improperly! 11 voters who cast provisional ballots signed both rosters IIIb. “Provisional” voters seal their ballots in signed envelopes, which are delivered to the Recorder Provisional Ballot Signature Roster: 40 uniquenames 6 55 97 13 29 11 names are not found on CNR

  8. Audit of 2 Nov 2004 Voting at Pct 324 of Arizona Congressional District 7 Felony Double-Votes Had the poll workers moved 10 unique names into those 10 blank spaces on the CNR, they might have successfully covered up 10 of the 11 double votes These 11ballots “disappeared”! (Officially, they were never issued.) Now there are 11 more ballots in the box than there are unique names on the CNR! “Regular” Signature Roster: 847 uniquenames 11 double votes The height of each column is proportional to the number of names it contains. 55unique-nameprovisional voters signed Signature Roster 19 of the names on CNR are not found on either roster 895 ballots cast 884uniquenames 787 Irregularity! 11 voters who cast provisional ballots signed both rosters Provisional Ballot Signature Roster: 40 uniquenames 6 55 97 13 29 These 11 ballots also “disappeared”

  9. Audit of 2 Nov 2004 Voting at Pct 324 of Arizona Congressional District 7 Provisional Ballot Fraud Provisional Ballot “Irregularity” 36 of these 39 purloined Provisional Ballots were cast by voters not registered in the precinct. Therefore, they are likely to be double votes! After the polls closed, the poll workers removed 39 Provisional Ballots from their envelopes and scanned them into the ballot box. 10 double votes “Regular” Signature Roster: 847 uniquenames The height of each column is proportional to the number of names it contains. 55unique-nameprovisional voters signed Signature Roster 19 of the names on CNR are not found on either roster 895 ballots cast 884uniquenames 787 39 Irregularity! 11 voters who cast provisional ballots signed both rosters 39 provisional ballots are transmogrified into “regular” ballots!!! Provisional Ballot Signature Roster: 40 uniquenames 9 6 55 59 4 29 1 double vote

  10. Audit of 2 Nov 2004 Voting at Pct 324 of Arizona Congressional District 7 The “Rule of 11” The odds are less than one chance in 214 million of these being eightindependentaccidents. Conclusion: The poll workers contrived them. 11 “disappeared” regular ballots 11 too many spoil-replacement ballots (intended to cover up double votes?) 11 double votes The height of each column is proportional to the number of names it contains. Absolutely Impossible without a system! 895 ballots cast 11registered voters who did not sign any roster at all 884uniquenames 787 39 11 voters who cast provisional ballots signed both rosters 48 provisional ballots accepted by Recorder 9 6 55 59 Recorder’s Office 4 29 11nameson CNR no longer correspond to actual ballots! 11 “disappeared” provisional ballots 11“new”names not found on CNR or any roster! 11 provisional ballots rejected by Recorder

  11. Audit of 2 Nov 2004 Voting at Pct 324 of Arizona Congressional District 7 If the intent were to swing the vote toward Bush… Suppose only Kerry ballots would have been destroyed. Suppose these unidentified voters were for Bush. Assume all of these were cast for Bush. Assume these were validly cast votes for Kerry. Assume all cast for Bush. Presume all were for Bush.

  12. Audit of 2 Nov 2004 Voting at Pct 324 of Arizona Congressional District 7 Registration by Party OTHER NOP DEM REP Whoah!!! Official Results At-the-Polling-Place Provisional Ballots Mail-In Voting KERRY KERRY KERRY BUSH BUSH BUSH The 1.94w memory card in Diebold optical-scanners used to tabulate Early Ballots IS HACKABLE!!! POLL-WORKER SHENANIGANS DOCUMENTED IN THIS AUDIT!!! NO CHEATING POSSIBLE on ballots in voter-signed-and-sealed envelopes accepted by Recorder.

  13. 20% registered Republican 65% voted for Bush! The 24 smallest Florida counties that used optical- scan ballot boxes on 2 November 2004

  14. Audit of 2 Nov 2004 Voting at Pct 324 of Arizona Congressional District 7 The “Balance Sheet” This Audit, Modified by Assuming that 39 Provisional Ballots Were Scanned into the Ballot Box on Election Day • Result of about 1,500 hours • research by Brakey and Griscom Official Report Signed by 7 Poll Workers • Audits every paper record of voting on • Election Day 2004, except the ballots This Audit Discrepancies Serious Disagreements

More Related