Ex-Employee of HART Intercivic Voting Machines Blows Whistle

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oct. 24, 2012 More facts are being revealed involving the Nov. 6th Election where electronic voting machines will be used in many states, owned by Bain Capital, and tied to one of the candidates, Mitt Romney.

Photo: An actual HART Intercivic Machine to be used in November 6th 2012 National Election

In the 2004 Election, in Ohio a strange occurrence after midnight, was found in the vote count conducted by servers in Tennessee, contracted to a company to count the vote. After Democrat John Kerry led in the exit polls all day, the vote changed after midnight and flipped to George Bush mysteriously.

In the 2004 election, problems were found in both the state of Ohio and Texas.

2004 WhistleBlower Reports HART Intercivic for Fraud

A technician at HART Intercivic from 2004, reported that he worked at the company for two years and quit because he believed the company was committing criminal fraud.

He outlined fraudulent acts, fraudulent claims and misleading conduct and his letters were obtained by David Allen of Black Box Voting.com

Although the name of this technician was withheld but were verified by David Allen at the time he received the letters the information should be of value to the Dept of Justice in this election.

"The tech worked for Hart-Intercivic for over two years and left voluntarily because of what he believed to be "criminal fraud, extreme negligence, and a distinct and troubling pattern of failure to uphold the public trust both in violations of the spirit of its contracts [and] also in concealing problems in an industry which so crucially represents the public interest." end quote.

An article by David Allen explains the complaints by the whistleblower technician and can be found at: Scoop Independent News

The technician outlined the problems with HART Intercivic quite clearly:

1) The computers submitted for testing were not the same as the computers used in voting contracts and were not the same as those tested by State authorities, namely InfoSentry and Computerware which were two vendors hired to evaluate the quality of the HART machines.

2) HART Intercivic gave false information that it had "ongoing information security" which it did not have.

3) HART-Intercivic claimed it had documents on information security for it's own employees which it did not have.

4) HART -Intercivic also claimed that the election results were not transmitted through public networks which was not true. If a computer is hooked to any public network it is hackable and vulnerable to attack.

This misleading information also included false statements by HART Intercivic that their systems didn't crash, that storage cards cannot be altered, that errors and audits are tracked even entry errors that would uncover a hacked computer – all of which were false.

Once this technician left HART, he went to work at the Tarrant County Elections Administration office in Texas which are conducting Early Voting Counts in this year's 2012 election. If they are using HART machines -the vulnerabilities are still open.

He found the same problems with the HART Machines in the Elections office that he found at the HART company itself and another company called ES & S. Election Systems and Software company.

In a notice on ES&S's website they have been contracted for this year's election and claim that it has corrected problems found in it's software by the Election Assistance Commission.

But the whistleblower in 2004 said that ES&S is a repeat offender and singles out Robert Parten the Election Administrator with "unethical decisions and erratic behavior". Robert Parten is still the official Election administrator according to Parker County Texas website.

Apparently, Robert Parton refused to "allow" corrections to invalid entries and public tests to the voting system were not handled properly. The people involved were not even present in some cases for the testing. HART had sold the county a bill of goods, claiming their equipment was quicker, and would prevent corruption issues with ballot cards which were later found to be false statements.

If all the above statements are accurate, then any state doing business with ES&S and HART Intercivic can count on a hackable election in a few days.

FACTS:

In the last four major elections ES&S counted 50 percent of the ballots.

In 2009, ES&S purchased Diebold another Electronic Voting machine creating a virtual monopoly on election vote counting and this could easily affect a huge number of votes. Diebold had a history of problems, malfunctions as did all three companies that are now handling the vote count.

There are less than a handful of companies in the electronic voting machine business and now there are fewer this year as they merge together it gives more power to a very few CEO's.

BACK TO PAPER BALLOTS -HAND COUNTED

Counting votes by computer is more dangerous than counting votes by hand, simply because computers can affect larger numbers of votes than one person can manipulate by hand.

States and federal governments -need to maintain a paper trail in all elections especially after 2004 and unless there are accurate, traceable audits there is no way to tell that a voting machine actually registered all the votes or if it was tainted to only register certain votes.

The DRE machines – Direct Recording Electronic voting processes or internet voting present even more security issues that an accurate hand count of paper ballots, plain one sheet ballots, black ink on white paper that have an "X" beside the voters choice.

The system that works best is: The state conducts the vote, which is then counted by the state employee in front of scruiteers fromboth parties who are present at the count.

Each ballot is counted as a vote for the corresponding candidate, and a tally is added up at the end.

The winner is declared by the state election official or the returning officer who counted the vote, the ballots are wrapped in separate envelopes, the tally sheet is signed by a poll clerk and a poll clerk assistance and everybody's happy especially the citizen who's vote was counted.

Read more: http://www.politicol.../#ixzz2AHRWk9Ou

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

n.m.

Edited October 25, 2012 by The Patriot

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

n.m.

Edited October 25, 2012 by The Patriot

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Yes he did blow the whistle.. Eight years ago.. Lawsuits were spawned, audits were added, third parties assumed control of much of the process, and the next generation of machines was created.

Why are we spinning issues from 2004 that have been addressed as if they are new?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes he did blow the whistle.. Eight years ago.. Lawsuits were spawned, audits were added, third parties assumed control of much of the process, and the next generation of machines was created.

Why are we spinning issues from 2004 that have been addressed as if they are new?

Because his masters told him to.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Because his masters told him to.

According to his map it won't matter as Obama is going to pick up every toss up state anyway.

bleh OK, I'm done with this issue.

Edited October 25, 2012 by OnMyWayID

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

[/size]

Read more: http://www.politicol.../#ixzz2AHRWk9Ou

Already making excuses means you think Obama is going to lose. How long after the election will it be before you left wing moon bats start calling for his trial by the UN and his impeachment.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Already making excuses means you think Obama is going to lose. How long after the election will it be before you left wing moon bats start calling for his trial by the UN and his impeachment.

Actually, what it shows is compelling evidence that Republican Party operatives are willing to do just about anything to hold political power. What's telling is when Right Wingers such as yourself so easily dismiss such evidence while continuing to perpetuate lies about Democrat operatives committing voter fraud ("vote early, vote often") without any substantive evidence of such. Voter suppression, voter purging and Right Wing investments into electronic voter machines that have been proven to be susceptible to voting fraud is a real, documented strategy by Republican operatives knowing that the changing voter demographics in this country favor the Democratic Party.

[lostinblue 1,989]

York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots

August 6, 2012 | 8:00 pm

509Comments

Byron York

Chief Political Correspondent

The Washington Examiner

Sen. Al Franken (Getty Images) In the eyes of the Obama administration, most Democratic lawmakers, and left-leaning editorial pages across the country, voter fraud is a problem that doesn't exist. Allegations of fraud, they say, are little more than pretexts conjured up by Republicans to justify voter ID laws designed to suppress Democratic turnout.

That argument becomes much harder to make after reading a discussion of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race in "Who's Counting?", a new book by conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky. Although the authors cover the whole range of voter fraud issues, their chapter on Minnesota is enough to convince any skeptic that there are times when voter fraud not only exists but can be critical to the outcome of a critical race.

In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.

Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.

And that's just the question of voting by felons. Minnesota Majority also found all sorts of other irregularities that cast further doubt on the Senate results.

The election was particularly important because Franken's victory gave Senate Democrats a 60th vote in favor of President Obama's national health care proposal -- the deciding vote to overcome a Republican filibuster. If Coleman had kept his seat, there would have been no 60th vote, and no Obamacare.

Voter fraud matters when contests are close. When an election is decided by a huge margin, no one can plausibly claim fraud made the difference. But the Minnesota race was excruciatingly close. And then, in the Obamacare debate, Democrats could not afford to lose even a single vote. So if there were any case that demonstrates that voter fraud both exists and has real consequences, it is Minnesota 2008.

Yet Democrats across the country continue to downplay the importance of the issue. Last year, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, denounced "the gauzy accusation that voter fraud is somehow a problem, when over and over again it has been proven that you're more likely to get hit by lightning than you are to [be] a victim of voter fraud."

Wasserman Shultz and her fellow Democrats are doing everything they can to stop reasonable anti-fraud measures, like removing ineligible voters from the rolls and voter ID. Through it all, they maintain they are simply defending our most fundamental right, the right to vote.

But voter fraud involves that right, too. "When voters are disenfranchised by the counting of improperly cast ballots or outright fraud, their civil rights are violated just as surely as if they were prevented from voting," write Fund and von Spakovsky. "The integrity of the ballot box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to it."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

The election of Al franken never seemed to bother you liberals much.He did vote for kenyan care.....