From: Garland Favorito
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:33 AM
To: Garland Favorito
Subject: South Carolina Proves Statewide Unverifiable Voitng Cannot Be Trusted

VoterGA Supporters,

Mail-in paper ballot election results just received from each South Carolina county under
Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests confirm that there were enough voting
discrepancies in the recent U.S. Senate Democratic primary to have reversed the election
outcome. That race had dramatic, inexplicable discrepancies between the verifiable mail-in
absentee paper ballot results and the unverifiable electronic voting results recorded on Election
Day, June 8.

In that race, Alvin Greene was declared the winner based on a near landslide 60-40% margin in Election Day electronic voting results. However, certified mail-in paper ballot results, received
from the counties after a 15-business-day response period allowed under South Carolina law,
show that Vic Rawl actually won the verifiable mail-in paper ballot absentee voting by a solid 55-45% margin.

The near 30% total point differential among the two candidates is unheard-of in South Carolina election history, and, perhaps, nationally as well. Neither candidate emphasized absentee voting,
so there is no reasonable explanation for such a vast difference.

VoterGA issued the FOIA requests because South Carolina counties do not report separate
absentee totals for mail-in paper ballot votes and in-person electronic votes. While some of this information was previously known, here is what the official replies to the requests revealed:

  • In not one county did Alvin Greene win the absentee mail-in vote count and lose the Election Day vote count
  • In not one county did Vic Rawl win the Election Day vote count and lose the mail-in absentee vote count
  • In 41 of 46 counties, Alvin Greene’s Election Day vote percentage exceeded his mail-in paper ballot absentee percentage;
  • In 34 of those 41 counties, Alvin Greene’s Election Day electronic votes exceeded his mail-in paper ballot absentee votes by an abnormal margin of 15%
  • In no counties with more than 10 paper ballot casts did Vic Rawl have an abnormal margin of 15% or more (total for both candidates)

The individual county results illustrate the differences between Election Day electronic voting results and mail-in paper ballot absentee voting results much more dramatically:

  • In Aiken County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 70% to 30%;
  • In Barnwell County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 63% to 37% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 75% to 25%;
  • In Beaufort County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 82% to 18%;
  • In Dorchester County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 60% to 40% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 67% to 33%;
  • In Florence County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 70% to 30% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 58% to 42%;
  • In Greenwood County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 76% to 24% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 51% to 49%;
  • In Lancaster County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 90% to 10%;
  • In Newberry County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 55% to 45% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 84% to 16%;
  • In Spartanburg County, Alvin Greene won the Election Day vote 61% to 39% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%;

The differences between absentee in person electronic voting and absentee paper mail-in voting are similarly dramatic:

  • In Spartanburg County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 62% to 38% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%;
  • In Jasper County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 56% to 44% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 76% to 24%;
  • In Orangeburg County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 52% to 48% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 72% to 28%
  • In Chester County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 71% to 29% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 55% to 45%;
  • In Coleton County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 58% to 42% but
    Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 70% to 33%;
  • In Berkeley County, Alvin Greene won the absentee in-person electronic vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl prevailed in the mail-in paper ballots by 73% to 27%;

A spreadsheet on the voterga.org home page illustrates the discrepancies so that you can review them and make your own decision about the validity of this South Carolina election. However, the spreadsheet still does not take into account the extraordinary differences in the campaigns that were conducted. As you may already know Alvin Greene, an unemployed former military veteran who paid a $10,000 qualifying fee, did not even run a campaign. Greene held no fundraisers, ran no paid advertisements, made no campaign speeches, hired no campaign manager, conducted no state wide tours, attended no Democratic Party county events, printed no yard signs and did not even establish a web site. Vic Rawl, a county commissioner, former judge and four-term state representative, ran a normal, aggressive campaign as his campaign manager, Walter Ludwig, has explained. He personally campaigned in at least half of the counties made radio and TV appearances, attended the state convention, collected official endorsements, had 600 volunteers, printed 10,000 bumper stickers, established 180,000 database contacts, created a 104,000 Email distribution list, had 3,300 Facebook Friends, sent out 300,000 Emails just prior to the election, received 20,000 web site hits on Election Day alone and was more active on Twitter than the other Democratic Party candidates.

So how did this happen? All South Carolina elections are conducted on statewide unverifiable electronic voting equipment manufactured by Election Systems & Software (ES&S). South Carolina’s voting machines have no independent audit trail of each vote cast. This is necessary to audit the accuracy of the vote recording mechanism that transfers the selections the voter sees on the screen to the vote storage areas. All precinct printouts, ballot images and any other forms of paper documents that can be printed are not created independently but produced internally from the machines after the vote was recorded and could have been corrupted. It is technically impossible for anyone in the state to claim that South Carolina’s Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines record accurately on Election Day since there is no mechanism such as a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) to independently audit the vote recording. No amount of pre-election testing can assure DRE recording accuracy. The Federal Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) Technical Guidelines Development Committee concluded that: “The National Institute of Standards and Testing & EAC Security & Transparency Subcommittee do not know how to write testable requirements to satisfy that the software in a DRE is correct” The reason for such a conclusion is that many electronic voting machines, such as those used in South Carolina, can be programmed in a variety of ways to count differently on Election Day than during testing. As a result, South Carolina voters cannot verify that the selections they see on the screen were electronically recorded, election officials cannot audit the actual vote counts and there is no directly created evidence of voter intent that can be used in a recount.

Vic Rawl understood this and filed an election protest to have his claims heard by the leadership of the South Carolina Democratic Party on June 17. Expert witnesses testified as to the improbability of such results and they methodically eliminated other false explanations for the discrepancies such as ballot positioning, republican crossover voting and racial preferences. None of those excuses would explain the vast difference in absentee paper ballot results and electronic voting results. In addition, the office manager identified reports she had received from voters in a dozen different counties all of whom were impeded in some way from voting for Vic Rawl. One witness testified that Mr. Rawl was not on the ballot. Another witness testified that she successfully selected Vic Rawl in the race but Alvin Greene’s name on the confirmation screen. Still another witness testified that she received a confirmation screen indicating she had voted for Alvin Greene before she voted in the U.S. Senate race and immediately after she cast her vote in the governor’s race. Alvin Greene was not present and no evidence was presented to argue that the results were correct, the leadership denied Mr. Rawl’s request for new election by a count of 38-7. The entire hearing can be seen just by searching for Vic Rawl on Vimeo.com thanks to John Fortuin and Defenders of Democracy.

The hearing revealed that Vic Rawl’s expert witness was denied access to the machines at the county level. In addition, the State Elections Commission denied a petition by State Senator Phil Leventis to impound the machines until they could be checked. The commission claimed that they needed the machines for the run-off. However, they would not have needed all of the machines for the run-of and they would not have needed to impound all of them to run statistically significant tests. A spokesperson for the State Elections Commission said that they have done all that they could do in terms of testing and that they are confident in the results. The commission also issued a statement asserting that the voting machines have always performed accurately and reliably, a claim that is technically impossible to establish since there is no way to independently audit the voting recording mechanism of the machine.

So how should this dilemma be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties? Here is a suggested solution that might satisfy all parties involved:

  • Alvin Greene can represent Democrats in November against Sen. Jim DeMint since he rightfully won the election according to the procedures that have been used for the last six years
  • The South Carolina Elections Commission and legislature must immediately move to replace their statewide unverifiable voting with auditable electronic or optical scan equipment
  • Vic Rawl should be recognized as having done more for South Carolinians than he ever could have ever done if he had been elected to the U.S. Senate

I have sent a letter outlining the lack of credibility in this election to the State Elections Commission. is available on the www.Voterga.org home page. South Carolina federal elections results could impact voters in every other state so even if you don’t live there, take a few minutes and do the same.

The state elections commission can be contacted at elections@scvotes.org.

Thanks,
Garland
voterga.org
REPRINT AND POSTING PERMISSION GRANTED



13 Comments to “NEW EVIDENCE that Alvin Greene’s “win” in SC was STOLEN!”

  • [...] reading here: NEW EVIDENCE that Alvin Greene's “win” in SC was STOLEN! « News …   No [...]

  • Our democracy has become such a sham.

  • [...] no-paper-trail ES&S voting machines that made Greene the winner. As Garland Favorito notes in “New Evidence That Alvin Greene’s ‘Win’ in SC Was Stolen!”: “As you may already know Alvin Greene, an unemployed former military veteran who paid a [...]

  • [...] no-paper-trail ES&S voting machines that made Greene the winner. As Garland Favorito notes in “New Evidence That Alvin Greene’s ‘Win’ in SC Was Stolen!”: “As you may already know Alvin Greene, an unemployed former military veteran who paid a [...]

  • This is a reasonable summary of what went on at the Rawl protest to the Democratic committee. However, this blog does itself a disservice by not sticking to the facts and by apparently not checking them.

    The “Greene got 100% of votes” headline in he other posts at the bottom is nicely sensational. But not true. If one actually reads the email, it says “almost 100%”. And even that seems highly questionable. The pollworker says “Columbia”, which would be Richland County. My look at the Richland County returns, precinct by precinct, based on the data on the http://www.scvotes.org website of the SC State Elections Commission, has Greene getting no more than 75.3% of the votes in any given precinct.

    It would help the discussion if the objections raised were correct and could be substantiated. Since the precinct tallies are required to be posted at the polling place, there is no reason not to be able to cite details.

  • I have been protesting and working on this issue since 2004… at least. As long as we allow them to portray us as conspiracy nuts I’m not sure we can get anywhere. If you try to talk to the officials involved in elections regarding this they pretty much tell you to f-off. Until we have verifiable elections we are no more than a dictatorship run by the corporations. Yes, fraud can happen with paper ballots, but electronic voting is a super highway to nationwide fraud on a massive scale. They can simply flip the vote, which clearly happened here. The fact, when challenged, the challenge is so easily dismissed only indicates “the fix is in.”

    Watch out 2010 and 2012.

  • Amen, brother.

  • Now is the time for a real T- party. Take the damn machines and throw them in the river, or something close. All of them. Vote by mail.

  • [...] New evidence, disclosed by Mark Crispin Miller, raises questions about the results of the electronic voting machines used in the election. The paper absentee ballots would have given the election to his opponent. [...]

  • This is a serious charge but here has been now news about this in South Carolina for a month. In any event, Tom Clements of the Green Party is the best candidate and was in the race before the melt down by the Democrats.

    http://clementsforsenate.com/

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tom-Clements-for-US-Senate/128952760459672

  • Repubs still rule everything. It’s been 30 years in the making.

    You have no idea how much I hate it.

  • You can push for the Green Party candidate all you like, and several hundred thousand South Carolinians could vote for him—and it wouldn’t make a dime’s worth of difference, if the voting system in that state (as in the others) is rigged in favor of the GOP.

  • Voting machines are unverifiable:

    http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html

Post comment

Forbidden Bookshelf

Forbidden Bookshelf




“While We Were Sleeping”

While We Were Sleeping is an urgent call to save Greenwich Village from New York University's uncontrolled expansion.

Click here to donate to NYUFASP and receive a copy of "While We Were Sleeping: NYU and the Destruction of New York" (minimum donation to receive a book is $10 plus $8 shipping).

Orwell Rolls In His Grave, featuring MCM – Buy the DVD



About News From Underground

News From Underground is a daily e-news service run by Mark Crispin Miller, a Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU. It is based on his belief that academics, like reporters, have a civic obligation to help keep the people well-informed, so that American democracy might finally work.

If you'd like to receive updates delivered to your inbox daily, sign up for News From Underground Alerts:

Help News From Underground!





Message from Mark: "I am a one-man operation, although assisted greatly by some volunteers, and, now and then, by people paid by others for one-time projects. There is no shortage of skilled, dedicated folks out there who want to help me. There is, however, nothing I can pay them with, unless you decide you can contribute something."

Please donate via the PayPal button above or via PayPal by email to: markcrispinmiller@gmail.com

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Popular Posts

Blogroll