What are you going to do about it? After you've decided, contact www.yuricareport.com and find out about removing Bush by use of the RICO ACT. He and friends are removed the due process of the law does its job, they are indicted and all the people of this country gets their pensions back, our nation gets its money back, we can then go on and repair our world for our children and our children's children for our future.





384,427 CALIFORNIA BALLOTS NOT RECOVERED!! NEARLY 4.6% OF TOTAL VOTES!

HALF OF MISSING VOTES ARE FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY—RIFE WITH DEMOCRATS!

Dr. Rebecca Mercuri works it out!

GUESS WHO MANUFACTURED THE MACHINES IN QUESTION?

From RISKS-LIST (Risks-Forum Digest Thursday 9 October 2003 Volume 22: Issue 94)

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.94.html

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:10:04 -0400

From: "Peter G. Neumann"

Subject: Analysis of California recall data confirms voting system doubts

(from Rebecca Mercuri)

Following is based on information from Rebecca Mercuri.

[The words are hers, not mine, lightly edited for RISKS.]

Rebecca Mercuri has analyzed California's recall ballot data and reports

that it confirms numerous doubts about election systems. Her results

demonstrate that the style of voting system in use (punchcard, optically

scanned, or touchscreen) cannot be generically considered either "good or

bad". She asserts that the particular model of the system, as well as the

procedural controls in place in each county, along with the ballot layout,

may have considerably more impact on the reliability of the election results

than the type of system deployed.

The analysis revealed some shocking details. Of the 8,359,168 votes cast

statewide, some 384,427 (nearly 4.6%) were not recorded for the recall

question. Almost half of these missing votes (over 175,000) were in Los

Angeles, nearly 9% for that county. Yet the Datavote punchcards used in 14

other counties fared somewhat better, on average, than all of the optically

scanned and touchscreen systems, with the exception of only the ES&S Optech

Eagle (used in San Francisco and San Mateo counties) and the Diebold

Accu-Vote-TS (used in Alameda, though with some reports of equipment

malfunctions). The Sequoia Edge touchscreens, currently under litigation in

Riverside County, performed slightly worse than the Datavote punchcards.

The ES&S iVotronic touchscreens were ranked lowest of the three touchscreen

types in the state, and were outperformed by all other systems with the

exception of the Sequoia Optech optically scanned systems and the Pollstar

and Votomatic punchcards.

In earlier court battles prior to the recall election, the ACLU claimed that

voters using punchcards would be unfairly disenfranchised, as compared to

voters using optically scanned or touchscreen systems. As it turns out, the

counties using Datavote punchcards had residual vote rates that were better

than all but one of the optically scanned systems, and also lower than two

of the three touchscreen systems. At the other end of the scale, the

counties using Pollstar and Votomatic punchcards (which included

heavily-populated Los Angeles) had worse residual vote rates than any other

type of voting system in use in the state. Clearly it is not the punchcards

themselves that are to blame, since the Datavote systems demonstrate that

punchcards can be used successfully.

The residual vote technique was previously used by MIT/Caltech in their

studies following the 2000 Presidential Election. For the California

analysis, she performed her calculations by comparing the difference between

the total number of ballots cast, as reported by California Secretary of

State Kevin Shelley's office, with the total numbers of "yes" and "no" votes

on the recall question. It should be noted that the residual vote tally is

incapable of differentiating between a voter who deliberately or

accidentally did not make a selection on the recall question, and an

equipment failure (such as hanging chad) that could result in a cast vote

not being counted.

The rush to fully computerized ballot casting is misguided. Although

supplemental technologies are needed for disabled voters, there is no clear

evidence that touchscreen systems are substantially or consistently better

for use by the general population than other voting methods. The fact that

the touchscreens in California do not provide any way to perform an

independent recount [and no real assurance that votes are even handled

correctly in the absence of the voter-verified audit trail that Rebecca has

long been recommending -- PGN] should make them less desirable than the

paper-based systems that do have such capabilities. Counties, like San

Francisco, that are doing well with optically scanned ballots, and the

smaller ones that use punchcards effectively, should feel no pressure to

modernize.

For further information, contact Rebecca Mercuri via telephone at

1-609/895-1375 or 1-215/327-7105, email mercuri@acm.org and Internet at

http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html

-- -- -- --

Supporting Data for California Recall Question, Rebecca Mercuri 7 Oct 2003

Numbers represent RESIDUAL VOTE RATE as percentage of total votes cast

according to type or model of machine:

Punchcard 6.24

Datavote 1.94

Pollstar 6.02

Votomatic 8.17

Optically Scanned 2.68

ES&S Eagle 1.87

Diebold Accu-Vote-OS 2.36

ES&S 550 and 560 2.42

Mark-A-Vote 3.04

Sequoia Optech 4.35

Touchscreen 1.49

Diebold Accu-Vote-TS 0.72

Sequoia Edge 2.01

ES&S iVotronic 3.49

Statewide 4.59

------------------------------