Friday Meeting w/ Judd Choate

[joseph richey <richey80304@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wow . . . you guys are as fast as the Israeli Air Force! Before noon and I have nine notes, all with good points that I'll try to bring up on Friday morning.

Joe

--- On Wed, 1/20/10, Margit Johansson <margitjo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Margit Johansson <margitjo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Fwd: BIPARTISANLY YOURS: COAKLEY WON THE HAND COUNTS
> To: "Harvie Branscomb" <harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dave Larson" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Angie Layton" <angielayton@xxxxxxxx>, "Mary Eberle" <m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "joseph richey" <richey80304@xxxxxxxxx>, "Ivan Meek" <ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Cliff West" <clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Alison Maynard" <dinophile@xxxxxxxxx>, "CFVI Attendees" <attendees@xxxxxxx>, "Citizens for Verifiable Voting" <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Catherine Lo" <ctlo@xxxxxxx>, "Al Kolwicz" <alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx>, "Dr. Charles E. Corry" <ccorry@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 9:23 AM
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message
> ----------
> From: Bev Harris <bev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:29 AM
> 
> Subject: BIPARTISANLY YOURS: COAKLEY WON THE HAND COUNTS
> To: margitjo@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> This article is about our right to know, not about Martha
> Coakley or Scott Brown. And lest you think something here
> favors a Democrat, just you wait, I'm still working on
> anomalies in the NY-23 election that are just plain hard to
> 'splain. As Richard Hayes Phillips says when people tell
> him to forget it, "I'm a historian, I've got
> all the time in the world." NY-23 still has history to
> be written. My public records are starting to arrive. But
> that's another story.
> 
> 
> Back to Massachusetts, I think you have a right to know
> that Coakley won the hand counts there. You can discuss this
> here:
> http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80830.html
> 
> 
> That's right.
> 
> According to preliminary media results by municipality,
> Democrat Martha Coakley won Massachusetts overall in its
> hand counted locations,* with 51.12% of the vote (32,247
> hand counted votes) to Brown's 30,136, which garnered
> him 47.77% of hand counted votes. Margin: 3.35% lead for
> Coakley.
> 
> 
> Massachusetts has 71 hand count locations, 91 ES&S
> locations, and 187 Diebold locations, with two I call the
> mystery municipalities (Northbridge and Milton) apparently
> using optical scanners, not sure what kind.
> 
> 
> ES&S RESULTS
> 
> The greatest margin between the candidates was with
> ES&S machines -- 53.64% for Brown, 45.31% for Coakley, a
> margin for Brown of 8.33%. It looks like ES&S counted a
> total of 620,388 votes, with 332,812 going to Brown and
> 281,118 going to Coakley. Taken overall, the difference --
> 8.33% Brown (ES&S) added to 3.35% Coakley (Hand Count)
> shows an 11.68% difference between the ES&S and the Hand
> Counts. Of course, as Mark Twain used to say, there are
> three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
> These statistics don't prove anything, and probably
> shouldn't be discussed without a grain of salt handy
> before examining more detailed demographics.
> 
> 
> As a point of reference, however, in the Maine gay marriage
> issue recently there was no significant overall difference
> between machine count and hand count locations.
> 
> DIEBOLD RESULTS
> 
> Diebold's results are 51.42% for Brown, with 791,272
> Republican votes counted by Diebold, vs. 47.61% for Coakley,
> with 732,633 Democratic votes counted by Diebold, for a
> spread of 3.81% favoring Brown.
> 
> 
> LATE-REPORTED RESULTS
> 
> It's always interesting to watch hand counts beat
> machine count results to the newspaper.
> 
> In the Massachusetts special senate election, results from
> six of 71 hand count locations were reported about 2 1/2
> hours after the polls closed, with the remaining 65 hand
> count locations in right away. The slower hand count results
> represent 8.45% of all hand count locations.
> 
> 
> These latecoming hand-counted results favored Coakley very
> heavily (she got 55.68% of these, earning 4,610 votes to
> Brown's 42.9%, representing 3,552, a 12.78% margin)
> Whether the reports came to the media late or the media
> posted them late is unclear.
> 
> 
> ES&S SLOWPOKE VOTES
> 
> ES&S had 12 of its 91 locations reported at least 2 1/2
> hours after polls closed, a total of 13.2% of all its
> locations (as compared with just 8.45% of slower reporting
> hand count locations). So ES&S certainly wasn't
> faster than hand counts, overall!
> 
> 
> These slow-arriving votes represented 88,288 of
> ES&S's 620,388 votes. Overall Brown got 46,257, for
> 52.39% of the late-arriving ES&S votes, and Coakley got
> 41,238, for 46.71%, yielding a margin of 5.68% of the
> late-arriving votes going to Brown, for a net gain of 5,019
> votes to Brown.
> 
> 
> North Attleboro and Paxton appear to be the last locations
> in the state to be reported, and they are both ES&S.
> North Attleboro brought in 10,881
> very late votes, 71.48% of them going to Brown; Paxton
> brought in 2,036 votes, 65.37% going to Brown.
> 
> 
> THE SLOW BOAT FROM DIEBOLD
> 
> Yes, I know they're supposed to be called Premier
> machines now, and ES&S bought the company so it's
> now all one big monopoly family, and then the whole kit and
> kaboodle in New England -- Premier and ES&S -- is
> programmed by the juicy little LHS Associates guys. But I
> like to just call them Diebold, that familiar name which we
> all know and love.
> 
> 
> Twenty-four of Diebold's 187 locations wandered in
> late, smoking cigarettes and wearing a bathrobe. That's
> 12.83% of all its locations. Apparently it was faster to
> hand count 8,497 ballots, as they did promptly in
> Newburyport, or 7,339 ballots, as they hand counted in
> public for all to see in Milton, than to push a button and
> wait five minutes for the machine to spit out a Diebold
> results report in Pelham where they had 725 votes. East
> Brookfield's 899 Diebold votes must have run out of gas
> somewhere; they weren't reported for hours.
> 
> 
> All in all, a total of 170,594 Diebold votes took a long
> time to stumble in the door, These votes -- surprise! --
> favored Coakley. She got 86,214 of them, for 50.54%, and
> Brown got 82,911 tardy Diebold votes, for 48.60%, putting
> Coakley on the plus side of the late arrivers by a 1.94%
> margin, for a net gain of 3,303 slow-moving votes.
> 
> 
> They'd called the election by the time the 170,594
> tardy Diebold votes showed up. Coakley had conceded. And of
> course, there are many ways to look at this if you don't
> trust voting machines, and why should you? It's hard to
> know who was fooling around, or if anybody was.
> 
> 
> You see, the Diebold latecomers represented the strongest
> showing for Coakley of all and in some heavily populated
> areas. 32 of 33 Cambridge polling place results couldn't
> find their way to the media for a long time. Cambridge
> finally came in with 27,268 votes for Coakley -- 84.11%.
> Brown was only able to locate 4,921 votes from Cambridge
> when all was said and done.
> 
> 
> And the media couldn't seem to rustle up any Amherst
> votes for any of its 10 polling places until races were
> called and candidates had conceded. Amherst generated 84% of
> its votes for Coakley with only 15% going to Brown.
> 
> 
> So this is all very interesting, and hopefully is accurate
> because I'm spreadsheeting after midnight. And we're
> talking statistics based on premature and unofficial results
> which came from the media and not the government, and the
> Massachusetts Secretary of State doesn't officially tell
> us which place is using which system, so we're relying
> on volunteers from the VerifiedVoting Web site who hunted it
> down.**
> 
> 
> ** A public service announcement from Disclaimers-R-Us, a
> subsidiary of the US Elections Industry.
> 
> GET OVER IT, SCOTT BROWN WON
> 
> Actually, I think any intellectually honest person will see
> that Brown garnered financing and executed brilliantly, and
> that's just politics.
> 
> 
> He probably DID win. In 71 Massachusetts locations we could
> watch the counting (woops, he lost those, overall). But in
> 277 locations, the counting was on computerized voting
> machines and concealed from the public.
> 
> 
> So we can never really know who won, and that is unfair to
> both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. But it's most
> unfair to the citizens of Massachusetts, who have an
> inalienable right to choose their own governance. You
> can't hold sovereignty over the choosing process if you
> can't see it.
> 
> 
> Black Box Voting is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit
> 501c(3) elections watchdog organization. We need your
> support in 2010 very much. If you think our work is
> important, do support us.
> 
> Just click here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
> 
> or mail to:
> Black Box Voting
> 330 SW 43rd St Suite K
> PMB 547
> Renton WA 98057
> This message was sent by: Black Box Voting,  Inc., 330 SW
> 43rd St Suite K - PMB 547, Renton, WA 98057
> 
> Email Marketing by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com
> 
> 
> To update/change your account click here:
> http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=50781024&l=100140&s=5AI3&m=685541&c=325456
> 
> 
> Forward to a friend:
> http://app.icontact.com/icp/sub/forward?m=685541&s=50781024&c=5AI3&cid=325456
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>