WORDS TO THE WISE

GE&P has had a very interesting week.  We have been in contact with an upstate lawyer who has been doing a bit of research on the voting machines used in SC.  Some of the information he has garnered is quite disturbing.  We will attempt to consolidate the information we have gathered into language that is easy to understand for you and us both.

Our SC voting machines are the exact make and model that several other states have discontinued using because they lack a high degree of security.  According to numerous articles by noted experts in the field, there is no way to assure that this model machine, which does not have a printed back-up system, always provides accurate tallies of votes.  These experts' main concern is with the programming of the cartridges that control the actions of the voting machines.  Allow us to give you a bit more information on these cartridges.

These cartridges contain the information that tells the voting machine what to do.  These instructions are programmed into the cartridges in one of two ways.  The State Election Commission can (1) opt to send the cartridges back to the manufacturer with the information necessary for programming or (2) hire local contractors to program the cartridges on site.  The SC Election Commission has opted for the second choice because it is less expensive.  Option (1) is very secure and there has never been a case of fraudulent programming when this method has been used.  On the other hand, in states where these machines were formally used, there have been cases of fraudulent programming when independent contractors were utilized.  From the evidence provided to me, this election fraud was very easy, though expensive,  to accomplish.

The cartridges should be programmed as follows:

• If a person votes for candidate A, the machine records one vote for candidate A.
• Likewise, if a person votes for Candidate B, the machine records one vote for candidate B.

Historically, if there is election fraud involved with these machines, some interested party contacts one of the private contractors who were hired to program the cartridges and pays this person to use a different program.  From one account we read of what actually happened in one of these other states, the machines were given instructions by the fraudulently programmed cartridges as follows:

• Assume the fix is in to get candidate B elected.
• If a person votes for candidate A, the machine records the first such vote properly for candidate A.
• When the second person votes for candidate A, the machine records that vote as cast for candidate B.
• When the third person votes for candidate A, the machine records that vote  properly for Candidate A.
• Every vote for Candidate B is recorded properly.
• It would be easy to figure out how this election would turn out.

Supporters of these machines contend such tampering is impossible as the machines are tested for accuracy the day before the election and the day after the election.  The fact of the matter is that, being as a time-clock is added to the programming of each cartridge to assure they will only record votes between the hours that the polls are open,  it would not be impossible for these cartridges to, also, be programmed to tell the machines to do one thing the days before and after election day and something entirely different ON election day. This is the reason these other states got rid of these machines because this is exactly what happened to them.

To make election fraud even harder to detect or prove when these machines are being used, there is no paper print out of the individual votes generated.  The only audit possible (for the machines) is to look at the paper strip that contains the tallies and that is useless if you are trying to verify that each vote has been recorded properly.

You may be thinking of an easy solution to this potential problem; if you suspect election fraud, why not simply have the local Election Commission hire a programming specialist and have him/her review the programming on the cartridge for accuracy?  Well, you see, that's impossible.  The access codes to the cartridges, necessary to review the programming, are considered "proprietary information" of the manufacturer and, therefore, not available to anyone except the fellow doing the original programming. ( the same fellow who could potentially be bribed to fraudulently program the thing to start with)

Before you get so disillusioned that you decide to stay home on election day, these other states found a solution to remedy this kind of election theft.  The way they eventually proved election fraud consisted of a lot of hard work but it definitely provided them with positive results that led to the replacement of their voting machines.  

Any private citizen has the right to obtain a list of every person who cast a vote in any election.  This list does not indicate for whom each person voted, BUT, that does not prevent anyone from asking each voter that question.  Also, simple forms can be generated to serve as affidavits to verify the vote of each person who participates in this audit.  

A group of concerned citizens in these other states we have referred to, did just that.  After a questionable election result, they joined forces and audited several precincts at random.  They obtained the voter list and they questioned each voter on the list.  Surprisingly, in one case, they received amazing cooperation (89%) when they explained that they suspected election fraud.  Each affidavit was signed by the voter and notarized on the spot.  This process took only about a week as the effort had a huge number of volunteers.  When the process was finished, the recorded votes on the affidavits did not reflect the tally from the voting machines and all he!! broke lose.  The rest is history.  Should it become necessary, BC can do the same thing.  

Berkeley County has a primary election coming up on June 12.  One of the races in this election will take place in a very small District consisting of only a small number of voting precincts.  WOULDN'T THAT BE A SIMPLE AUDIT, THAT IS, IF IT SHOULD BECOME NECESSARY?