This Edition: Bigger Than Watergate! - How To Rig An Election In The
United States - Fantasy vs Reality - How We Discovered The Backdoor -
Evidence Of Motive - Evidence Of Opportunity - Evidence Of Method -
Evidence Of Prior Conduct - Consistent Unexplained Circumstantial
NOTE: Publication of this story marks a watershed in American
political history. It is offered freely for publication in full or
part on any and all internet forums, blogs and noticeboards. All other
media are also encouraged to utilise material. Readers are encouraged
to forward this to friends and acquaintances in the United States and
*** NEW *** FOLLOW UP STORY
Bald-Faced Lies About Black Box Voting Machines
The Truth About the Rob-Georgia File
Also Companion Article For Detail And Screenshots Of An Election
A U.S. Election Vote Counting Program
story you are about to read is in this writer's view the biggest
political scandal in American history, if not global history. And it
is being broken today here in New Zealand.
story cuts to the bone the machinery of democracy in America today.
Democracy is the only protection we have against despotic and
arbitrary government, and this story is deeply disturbing.
if you will that you are a political interest group that wishes to
control forevermore the levers of power. Imagine further that you know
you are likely to implement a highly unpopular political agenda, and
you do not wish to be removed by a ballot driven backlash.
way to accomplish this outcome would be to adopt the Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
or Hun Sen (Cambodia) approach. You agree to hold elections, but
simultaneously arrest, imprison and beat your opponents and their
supporters. You stuff ballot boxes, disenfranchise voters who are
unlikely to vote for you, distort electoral boundaries and provide
insufficient polling stations in areas full of opposition supporters.
as so many despots have discovered, eventually such techniques always
fail – often violently. Hence, if you are a truly ambitious
political dynasty you have to be a bit more subtle about your methods.
then if it were possible to somehow subvert the voting process itself
in such a way that you could steal elections without anybody knowing.
for example if you could:
secure control of the companies that make the voting machines and vote
- centralise vote counting systems, and politicise their supervision;
- legislate for the adoption of such systems throughout your domain,
and provide large amounts of money for the purchase of these systems;
- establish systems of vote counting that effectively prevent anybody
on the ground in the election – at a booth or precinct level - from
seeing what is happening at a micro-level;
- get all the major media to sign up to a single exit-polling system
that you also control – removing the risk of exit-polling showing up
imagine further that you;
install a backdoor, or numerous backdoors, in the vote counting
systems you have built that enable you to manipulate the tabulation of
results in real time as they are coming in.
a system would enable you to intervene in precisely the minimum number
of races necessary to ensure that you won a majority on election
night. On the basis of polling you could pick your marginal seats and
thus keep your tweaking to a bare minimum.
a system would enable you to minimise the risks of discovery of your
a system would enable you to target and remove individual political
opponents who were too successful, too popular or too inquisitive.
most importantly of all, such a system would enable you to accomplish
all the above without the public being in the least aware of what you
were doing. When confronted with the awfulness of your programme they
would be forced to concede that at least it is the result of a
To Rig An Election In The United States
how would such a system actually work?
one way to run such a corrupt electoral system might look like this.
Each voting precinct (or booth) could be fitted with electronic voting
systems, optical scanning systems, punch card voting systems or the
more modern touchscreen electronic voting machines;
At the close of play each day the booth/precinct supervisor could be
under instructions to compile an electronic record of the votes cast
in their booth;
They might print out a report that contains only the details of the
total votes count for that precinct/booth, and then file via modem the
full electronic record of votes through to the County supervisor;
The County Supervisor could be equipped with a special piece of
software and a bank of modems that enables all these results to be
received and tabulated in the internals of the computer;
The County Supervisors themselves could be assured that their system
was bullet proof, certified and contained tamper-protection mechanisms
The Country Supervisor could be given a range of tools for looking at
the data within this software, but nothing to enable them to directly
manipulate the results;
But unbeknownst to the County Supervisor the software could actually
create three separate records of the voting data;
Meanwhile - also unbeknownst to the County Supervisor - these three
tables of voting data could be in fact completely insecure and
accessible simply through a common database programme, say Microsoft
Having the three tables would enable you to keep the real data in
place – so the system could pass spot tests on individual precincts
and booth results (should a precinct supervisor be particularly
astute) -while simultaneously enabling you to manipulate the bottom
Finally you might also enhance the election hacker's powers by
including within the software a utility to enable them to cover their
tracks by changing the date and time stamps on files and remove
evidence of your tampering.
above description of a corrupt voting system is not the result of an
overactive imagination. Rather it is the result of a extensive
research by computer programmers and journalists working around the
globe. Principally it is the work of investigative Journalist Bev
Harris, author of the soon to be published book " Black Box
Voting: Ballot Tampering In The 21st Century "
most important of all it is the result of research focussed on
investigating the actual software distributed by one of the
largest voting systems companies operating in the recent U.S.
It is important to note that the research into this subject has not
established that the files we have been working on were in fact in
situ in County Election Supervisors offices at the last election –
nor have we proof that the back door we have discovered - which
might enable the rigging of elections - was actually used in any
recent election. However it is the considered opinion of all those
involved in this investigation that it is not up to us as
journalists or programmers to prove that elections were rigged,
rather it is a responsibility of the electoral system itself to
prove its integrity.
you read here amounts to revelation of evidence of motive,
conduct , and a variety of items of, consistent
unexplained circumstantial evidence . Significantly we do not
believe we have sufficient resources to complete this investigation
to its conclusion and are therefore making available our findings to
the media, community organisations, political parties, computer
scientists and geeks in the anticipation that they will pick up the
torch and take extend this inquiry into every county in the United
We Discovered The Backdoor
story of how this story emerged is a great tale in itself, most of
which has already been told in this report by Bev Harris.
INTEGRITY FLAW DISCOVERED AT DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS
short version of the story is relatively simple.
the course of investigating the issue of the integrity of new
electronic voting machines Bev Harris learned that people around the
world had been downloading from an open FTP site belonging to Diebold
Election Systems one of the leading manufactures of voting systems.
website contained several gigabytes of files including manuals, source
codes and installation versions of numerous parts of the Diebold
voting system, and of its vote counting programme GEMS.
we had stumbled across what might be the equivalent of the Pentagon
Papers for elections, the full contents of this website have been
secured around the world at several locations. The original website
was itself taken down on January 29th 2003.
can now reveal for the first time the location of a complete online
copy of the original data set. As we anticipate attempts to
prevent the distribution of this information we encourage supporters
of democracy to make copies of these files and to make them available
on websites and file sharing networks.
many of the files are zip password protected you may need some
assistance in opening them, we have found that the utility available
at the following URL works well:
some of the zip files are partially damaged, but these too can be read
by using the utility at:
this stage in this inquiry we do not believe that we have come even
remotely close to investigating all aspects of this data. I.E. There
is no reason to believe that the security flaws discovered so far are
the only ones.
we expect many more discoveries to be made. We want the assistance of
the online computing community in this enterprise and we encourage you
to file your findings at the forum HERE
for obvious reasons it is important that this information is
distributed as widely as possible as quickly as possible. We encourage
all web bloggers, web publishers and web media to re-publish and link
to this article and to its companion article by Bev Harris which
contains detailed descriptions of how to use the GEMS software to rig
conclude this overview article I will make a few more comments on the
evidence we have thus far that the U.S. election system has been
compromised. As stated earlier we do not at this stage have proof that
it has in fact been been compromised through this method, just a great
deal of circumstantial evidence that it could have been.
this was Watergate, we are effectively at the point of discovering
evidence of a break-in and have received the call from deep-throat
telling us that should dig much deeper.
will follow in time we expect, but only if the work we have begun is
completed and this inquiry is taken into every corner of the U.S.
is probably the easiest part of this puzzle to get your head around.
The motivation of the Republican Party in general and the current
administration in particular to gain ever greater amounts of power -
by whatever means possible and damn the consequences - is evidenced
most recently in the Supreme Court's partisan appointment of George
Bush Jr. as President, the attempt to recall California Governor Gray
Davis, and the Ken Starr investigation and attempted impeachment of
Of Opportunity ,
connected control over the major election systems companies in the
United States has been thoroughly researched.
Urosevich, CEO of Diebold Election Systems is also the founder of
ES&S, a competing voting machine company. Together these two
companies are responsible for tallying around 80% of votes cast in the
United States. Also significant, from what we can determine about the
architecture of the software, is that its basic structure was
specifically a creation of Mr Urosevich's company I-Mark.
more background on Diebold Systems connections to the Republican Party
- The Face Of Modern Ballot Tampering
Presidential wannabee and Republican Party United States Senator Chuck
Hagel has been directly connected to ES&S via his campaign finance
director, Michael McCarthy, who has admitted that Senator Hagel still
owns a beneficial interest in the ES&S parent company, the
Ethics Director Resigns; Senator Hagel Admits Owning Voting Machine
evidence of method has been detailed in a companion article by Bev
Harris, author of the soon to be published block-buster Black Box
A U.S. Election Vote Counting Program
this article – which contains screenshots from the software and
detailed instructions on how one might rig an election - Bev Harris
explains security flaws thus:
GEMS election file contains more than one "set of books."
They are hidden from the person running the GEMS program, but you
can see them if you go into Microsoft Access.
might look at it like this: Suppose you have votes on paper ballots,
and you pile all the paper ballots in room one. Then, you make a
copy of all the ballots and put the stack of copies in room 2.
then leave the door open to room 2, so that people can come in and
out, replacing some of the votes in the stack with their own.
could have some sort of security device that would tell you if any
of the copies of votes in room 2 have been changed, but you opt not
suppose you want to count the votes. Should you count them from room
1 (original votes)? Or should you count them from room 2, where they
may or may not be the same as room 1? What Diebold chose to do in
the files we examined was to count the votes from "room2."
Of Prior Conduct
is a recorded fact that every system of balloting established in
America has been gamed and rigged. I.E. America's political
practitioners have a very long history of ballot rigging and vote
tampering. This is nothing new and evidence of the sort we have
uncovered has been long predicted by computer scientists such as Dr
more recent history investigative Journalist Greg Palast has
documented in detail Katherine Harris's use of electronic data
matching technologies to disenfranchise thousands of Florida voters in
advance of the 2000 Presidential election.
highly recommend readers purchase a copy of "The Best Democracy
Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast to read much more about this.
compendium of links on Palast's investigations can be found via a
Google search on:
palast florida katherine harris"
Unexplained Circumstantial Evidence
the 2002 Mid-term there were numerous reports of unusual happenings in
counties throughout the United States.
the phenomena reported were voting numbers suddenly fluctuating in the
middle of the counting process, something you might expect to see if
the backdoor identified above were used clumsily.
organisation called Votewatch was set up during the 2002 elections to
record unusual happenings and its archives can be viewed here.
will suffice here to cite a couple of specific examples – these are
excerpts from the soon to be published " Black Box Voting:
Ballot Tampering In The 21st Century". These examples of
actual events are consistent with the existence and use of an
electronic vote counting hack described above.
1990, Seattle, Washington - Worse than the butterfly ballot, some
Democratic candidates watched votes alight, then flutter away.
Democrat Al Williams saw 90 votes wander off his tally between
election night and the following day, though no new counting had been
done. At the same time, his opponent, Republican Tom Tangen, gained 32
votes. At one point several hundred ballots added to returns didn’t
result in any increase in the number of votes. But elsewhere, the
number of votes added exceeded the number of additional ballots
counted. A Republican candidate achieved an amazing surge in his
absentee percentage for no apparent reason. And no one seemed to
notice (until a determined Democratic candidate started demanding an
answer) that the machines simply forgot to count 14,000 votes.
1996, Bergen County, New Jersey - Democrats told Bergen County
Clerk Kathleen Donovan to come up with a better explanation for
mysterious swings in vote totals. Donovan blamed voting computers for
conflicting tallies that rose and fell by 8,000 or 9,000 votes. The
swings perplexed candidates of both parties. For example, the
Republican incumbent, Anthony Cassano, had won by about 7,000 votes as
of the day after the election but his lead evaporated later. One
candidate actually lost 1,600 votes during the counting. “How could
something like that possibly happen?” asked Michael Guarino,
Cassano’s Democratic challenger. “Something is screwed up here.”
1999, Onondaga County, New York - Computers gave the election to
the wrong candidate, then gave it back. Bob Faulkner, a political
newcomer, went to bed on Election Night confident he had helped
complete a Republican sweep of three open council seats. But after
Onondaga County Board of Elections staffers rechecked the totals,
Faulkner had lost to Democratic incumbent Elaine Lytel.
2002, Johnson County, Kansas - Johnson County’s new Diebold
touch screen machines, proclaimed a success on election night, did not
work as well as originally believed. Incorrect vote totals were
discovered in six races, three of them contested, leaving county
election officials scrambling to make sure the unofficial results were
accurate. Johnson County Election Commissioner Connie Schmidt checked
the machines and found that the computers had under- and over-reported
hundreds of votes. “The machines performed terrifically,” said Bob
Urosevich, CEO of Diebold Election Systems. “The anomaly showed up
on the reporting part.”
problem, however, was so perplexing that Schmidt asked the Board of
Canvassers to order a hand re-count to make sure the results were
accurate. Unfortunately, the touch screen machines did away with the
ballots, so the only way to do a hand recount is to have the machine
print its internal data page by page. Diebold tried to re-create the
error in hopes of correcting it. “I wish I had an answer,”
Urosevich said. In some cases, vote totals changed dramatically.
2002, Comal County, Texas - A Texas-sized lack of curiosity about
discrepancies: The uncanny coincidence of three winning Republican
candidates in a row tallying up exactly 18,181 votes each was called
weird, but apparently no one thought it was weird enough to audit.
Conversion to alphabet: 18181 18181 18181 ahaha ahaha ahaha
2002, Baldwin County, Alabama - No one at the voting machine
company can explain the mystery votes that changed after polling
places had closed, flipping the election from the Democratic winner to
a Republican in the Alabama governor’s race. “Something happened.
I don’t have enough intelligence to say exactly what,” said Mark
Kelley of ES&S. Baldwin County results showed that Democrat Don
Siegelman earned enough votes to win the state of Alabama. All the
observers went home. The next morning, however, 6,300 of Siegelman’s
votes inexplicably had disappeared, and the election was handed to
Republican Bob Riley. A recount was requested, but denied.
2002, New York - Voting machine tallies impounded in New York:
Software programming errors hampered and confused the vote tally on
election night and most of the next day, causing elections officials
to pull the plug on the vote-reporting Web site. Commissioners ordered
that the voting machine tallies be impounded, and they were guarded
overnight by a Monroe County deputy sheriff.
2002, Georgia - Election officials lost their memory: Fulton
County election officials said that memory cards from 67 electronic
voting machines had been misplaced, so ballots cast on those machines
were left out of previously announced vote totals. No hand count can
shine any light on this; the entire state of Georgia went to
touch-screen machines with no physical record of the vote. Fifty-six
cards, containing 2,180 ballots, were located, but 11 memory cards
still were missing two days after the election: Bibb County and Glynn
County each had one card missing after the initial vote count. When
DeKalb County election officials went home early Wednesday morning,
they were missing 10 cards.
Page | Headlines
Story | Next