Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Steven Gaal

Recipe for Vote Fraud: Global Internet Voting Firm Buys U.S. Election Results Reporting Firm

Recommended Posts

Recipe for Vote Fraud: Global Internet Voting Firm Buys U.S. Election Results Reporting Firm

January 15th, 2012

Bev Harris

Black Box Voting

January 15, 2012

In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world’s dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA’s dominant election results reporting company.

When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.

As local election results funnel through SOE’s servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get “first look” at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.

This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won’t work (if SCYTL’s voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own “audit” by matching one number against the other.

These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.

Here is the link to the press release regarding SYCTL’s acquisition of SOE:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/scytl-acquires-soe-software-becoming-the-leading-election-software-provider-2012-01-11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recipe for Vote Fraud: Global Internet Voting Firm Buys U.S. Election Results Reporting Firm

January 15th, 2012

Bev Harris

Black Box Voting

January 15, 2012

In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the worlds dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USAs dominant election results reporting company.

When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.

As local election results funnel through SOEs servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get first look at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.

This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that wont work (if SCYTLs voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own audit by matching one number against the other.

These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.

Here is the link to the press release regarding SYCTLs acquisition of SOE:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/scytl-acquires-soe-software-becoming-the-leading-election-software-provider-2012-01-11

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lets do reseach thats 'on line" step by step.

===================================================

Bilderberg Group the bottom line..............................................

=================oooooooo===============

http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2012/01/18/obama-donor-scytl/

http://e-lectoral.com/en/investors-p-227.html

OK,NEXT lets look here

Spinnaker SCR.

################oooooooovoooooooo########################

http://www.rivaygarcia.es/en/private_equity/principales_inversores (then click on main investors)

European Investment Bank

European Investment Fund

More information EIF is Europe's leading developer of risk financing for entrepreneurship and innovation. It is owned by the European Investment Bank (EIB) (64%) and the European Community, through the European Commission (27%).

OK,NEXT lets look here

European Investment Bank ...

OK , NEXT Lets look here

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=13738&context=va

Among the members of the Bilderberg Group are various European ... Governor of the Bank of Italy, President of the European Investment Bank ...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bilderberg Group the bottom line..............................................

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RELATED

Since OH and FL were stolen the new one to steal is PA

? Question ,what does Romney know and we dont ?

TRENDING: Romney anticipates winning a state that would ‘shock people’

http://politicaltick...d-shock-people/

"I'm going to win Pennsylvania, and I'm going to become the next president of the United States," the Republican presidential nominee said definitively at a fund-raiser, urging the crowd to help get out the vote

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Romney Family Now Own Your e-Vote?

Friday, 19 October 2012 09:12 By Gerry Bello, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Free Press |

Do you feel that mainstream media spin is obscuring the truth during this election season? Truthout doesn’t take advertising or corporate sponsorships, so we can bring you honest, fact-based election coverage. Click here to help support this effort by making a donation by the end of this week!

101912-2.jpg

A Hart e-Voting Machine. (Photo:

Joe Hall / Flickr)

Will you cast your vote this fall on a faulty electronic machine that's partly owned by the Romney Family? Will that machine decide whether Romney will then inherit the White House?

Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the United States.

In other words, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and his brother, wife and son, have a straight-line financial interest in the voting machines that could decide this fall's election. These machines cannot be monitored by the public. But they will help decide who "owns" the White House.

Also see: Will Bain-Linked E-Voting Machines Give Romney the White House?

They are especially crucial in Ohio, without which no Republican candidate has ever won the White House. In 2004, in the dead of election night, an electronic swing of more than 300,000 votes switched Ohio from the John Kerry column to George W. Bush, giving him a second term. A virtual statistical impossibility, the 6-plus% shift occurred between 12:20 and 2am election night as votes were being tallied by a GOP-controlled information technology firm on servers in a basement in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In defiance of a federal injunction, 56 of Ohio's 88 counties destroyed all election records, making a recount impossible. Ohio's governor and secretary of state in 2004 were both Republicans, as are the governors and secretaries of state in nine key swing states this year.

As we have previously reported, H.I.G. Capital has on its board of directors at least three close associates of the Romney family. H.I.G. Capital directors John P. Bolduk and Douglas Berman are major Romney fundraisers. So is former Bain and H.I.G. manager Brian Shortsleeve. H.I.G. employees have contributed at least $338,000 to Romney's campaign. Fully a third of H.I.G.'s leadership previously worked at Romney's old Bain firm.

But new research now shows that the association doesn't stop with mere friendship and business associations. Mitt Romney, his wife Ann Romney, and their son Tagg Romney are also invested in H.I.G. Capital, as is Mitt's brother G. Scott Romney.

The investment comes in part through the privately held family equity firm called Solamere, which bears the name of the posh Utah ski community where the Romney family retreats to slide down the slopes.

Unlike other private equity firms, Solamere does not invest in companies directly. Instead, Solamere invests in other private equity funds, like H.I.G. Capital. Solamere calls them partners. These partners, like H.I.G., then invest in various enterprises, like Hart Intercivic, the nation's third-largest voting machine manufacturer.

As reported by Lee Fang of The Nation, Solamere was founded by Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, Papa Romney's campaign finance chair. Ann Romney and Mitt's brother G. Scott Romney are also invested. Mitt himself threw in $10 million "seed money" to get the fund going, and spoke personally to its first full investors conference. Solamere's public web presence has been reduced to a front page only, so a complete list of it's partners can not be found. But reportage by the New York Times, Boston Globe, Esquire and the Nation have slowly given us a partial picture of which funds are being funded by Solamere. Some $232 million has been raised so far, according to SEC filings and industry publications.

In addition to Romney's finance chair Spencer Zwick, Solamere has also provided the campaign with its finance director, Richard Morley, and a western regional finance coordinator, Kaitlin O'Reilly. O'Reilly is listed as an executive assistant at Solamere, and also at SJZ LLC, which was founded by her boss Spencer Zwick. The SJZ LLC campaign finance consulting firm has billed Mitt's campaign over $2 million this election cycle as well as doing another $9,687,582 in billing to various Congressional Campaigns. The host of the private fundraiser at which Romney made his infamous "47%" speech was Marc J. Leder, co-CEO of Sun Capital, another "partner" of the Solamere fund.

As in virtually every close presidential race, Ohio may well hold the key to the Electoral College decision as to who will become the nation's next chief executive. The presence of Hart Intercivic machines in Hamilton County, home to Cincinnati, means there is a high likelihood the votes that will decide the presidency will be cast on them. Major media like CBS have begun reporting that Cincinnati could be "ground zero" in this year's election.

But these Hart machines are deeply flawed and widely know to be open to a troubling variety of attacks and breakdowns. There is no legal or other means to definitively monitor and re-check a tally compiled on Hart or other electronic voting machines. Ohio's current governor and secretary of state are both Republicans.

Does this mean the Romney investment in Hart Intercivic through H.I.G. Capital and Solamere will yield it not only financial profits but the White House itself?

Tune in during the deep night of November 7, when the electronic votes in swing state Ohio are once again opaquely reported to the nation and the world, without meaningful public scrutiny or legal recourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mathematician may have uncovered widespread election fraud, and Kansas is trying to silence her

===

Kansas loves them some voter fraud hysteria. From going to the Supreme Court to try and make doubly-sure that non-citizens can’t vote in their elections to setting up a voter fraud website where citizens can report every kind of voter fraud except the kinds that have actually happened in the state, Kansas is on the forefront of voter fraud readiness and protection.
Except, perhaps, when it comes to the machines they use to record their votes.
Accordingto the Wichita Eagle, Wichita State mathematician Beth Clarkson has found irregularities in election returns from Sedgwick County, along with other counties throughout the United States, but has faced stiff opposition from the state in trying to confirm whether the irregularities are fraud or other, less-nefarious anomalies.
Analyzing election returns at a precinct level, Clarkson found that candidate support was correlated, to a statistically significant degree, with the size of the precinct. In Republican primaries, the bias has been toward the establishment candidates over tea partiers. In general elections, it has favored Republican candidates over Democrats, even when the demographics of the precincts in question suggested that the opposite should have been true.
Clarkson’s interest in election returns was piqued by a 2012 paper released by analysts Francois Choquette and James Johnson showing the same pattern of election returns, which favor establishment Republican candidates in primaries and general elections. The irregularities are isolated to precincts that use “Central Tabulator” voting machines — machines that have previously been shown to be vulnerable to hacking. The effects are significant and widespread: According to their analysis, Mitt Romney could have received over a million extra votes in the 2012 Republican primary, mostly coming at the expense of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. President Obama also ceded significant votes to John McCain due to this irregularity, as well.
You can read the paper in full here.
in a number of localities, her efforts to confirm whether they amount to fraud have been centered on Sedgwick County, Kansas, due to the locality’s use of Real Time Voting Machine Paper Tapes, which provide a paper trail that other localities don’t have. However, her efforts to verify Sedgwick County’s election returns have been repeatedly shut down.
She first requested a recount of the 2013 election, but the timeframe in which a recount could have been requested had passed. She then requested the machines’ computer records from the Sedgwick County registrar, which told her to kindly shove off and sue Secretary of State Kris Kobach if she wanted the records so badly.
When Clarkson initially filed her lawsuit requesting the paper records from the voting machines, her suit was denied because a judge ruled that the paper records constituted ballots, shielding them from the state’s open records law. This ruling is suspect at best, given that the paper records do not have voters’ names assigned to them; they only record when and how a ballot was cast for recount purposes.
She then sought a court order giving her access to a sample of voting records in order to check voting machines’ error rates. This order was ignored by the Secretary of State’s office, despite their being legally required to respond to her within 30 days. The office later said that they didn’t realize they had received her request.
Given Kansas’s professed diehard commitment to combatting election fraud, one would think that they would be all for analysis into whether the integrity of their elections have been compromised. Apparently you’d be wrong.
Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

How does this work? We use paper for voting. They are placed into a ballot box which is then tallied by scrutineers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

How does this work? We use paper for voting. They are placed into a ballot box which is then tallied by scrutineers.

New South Wales Leads the Way in Internet Voting and ...

www.businesswire.com/.../South-Wales-Leads-Internet-Voting-eDemocr...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4niy7xkb60UJ:www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150330006516/en/South-Wales-Leads-Internet-Voting-eDemocracy-Innovation+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Mar 31, 2015 - New South Wales Leads the Way in Internet Voting and eDemocracy Innovation with Scytl Technology. Over 280,000 votes cast online in the

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Security flaw in New South Wales puts thousands of online ...

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/teaguehalderman/ivote-vulnerability/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6UORobxBi68J:https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/teaguehalderman/ivote-vulnerability/+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Mar 22, 2015 - New South Wales, Australia, is holding state elections this month, and they're offering a new Internet voting system developed by e-voting vendor Scytl and the NSW ... These allow them to log in to an online voting application ...

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

Zero Project | Scytl Secure Electronic Voting, S.A. – Australia ...

zeroproject.org/.../scytl-secure-electronic-voting-s-a-australia-state-of-vic...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tdSO467jeT0J:zeroproject.org/practice/scytl-secure-electronic-voting-s-a-australia-state-of-victoria/+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

/search?biw=1600&bih=726&q=related:zeroproject.org/practice/scytl-secure-electronic-voting-s-a-australia-state-of-victoria/+SCYTL+internet+voting+%22AUSTRALIA%22&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0CFUQHzAIahUKEwiLwu2Wg5jHAhUGO4gKHVDQD3E

eVoting improves voter access for the visually impaired as well as for the illiterate, those who cannot read English, and citizens living abroad. Voters with visual ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that; the electronic voting must be in the capital cities because - as I said - we in the regional areas still use paper. I'll have to ask someone about how it worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven,

Are you able to get more detailed information regarding electronic voting in Australia? I ask because all my research has not supported what the article said.

For example, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), the body which supervises all state and federal elections, does not allow online voting:


Can I vote online?

No, you cannot vote online.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/Ways_to_vote/overseas.htm

Now, I thought that "electronic voting" and "online voting" could be different things so I looked into the various ways to vote. All of them refer to the ballot paper; none refer to any form of electronic voting, even for those who are blind or have vision impairment (the blind can vote over the phone; though this might be a form of "electronic voting" I don't think it really forms part of the discussion; after all, you have to prove you are blind in order to use that voting method).

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/Ways_to_vote/index.htm

Ever since I have been eligible to vote, the same basic method has been used and it seems it does not vary:

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/polling.htm

The nearest thing I can find to "electronic voting" is when the returning officers / scrutineers enter the vote count into the "virtual tally room", or when it is used for Senate calculations:


Computerised Senate scrutiny

The Senate ballot papers marked above-the-line are manually counted in AEC offices and the first preference figures for each party and group are tallied. Numbers of votes for each group is then data entered.

The ballot papers marked below-the-line are forwarded progressively to a central scrutiny centre in each capital city where scrutiny of these votes takes place.

The below-the-line preference numbering of each ballot paper is entered into a computerised scrutiny system. The above-the-line totals for each party and group are then imported into the same system which is programmed to distribute the preferences. For the above-the-line votes the system uses the group voting tickets lodged with the AEC to determine the preference distributions.

The system will calculate the quota, transfer surpluses and distributes preferences, eliminating unsuccessful candidates, to produce the result of the Senate election in each state and territory.

http://www.aec.gov.au/media/counting-the-votes.htm

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/index.htm

It must be kept in mind that if any seat or vote were in dispute, the paper ballot forms are retained and so a totally manual count & tally could be done.

There is a discussion about "electronic voting" could it be used etc but it would seem to indicate that it has never been used in Australia.

http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/report.htm

Can you find details of where and when such methods were used in Australia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite Admitting to Voting Fraud at last Two Presidential Elections, County Officials in Atlanta get off with just $180,000 in Penalties
=
Published: August 28, 2015
=

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Despite_Admitting_to_Voting_Fraud_at_last_Two_Presidential_Elections%2C_County_Officials_in_Atlanta_get_off_with_just_%24180%2C000_in_Penalties/45916/0/38/38/Y/M.html

=

Source: All Gov.
=

A key Georgia county with a large population of black voters has been fined $180,000 for breaking state voting laws more than two dozen times.

Fulton County, home to Atlanta and a significant number of black voters who vote Democratic, kept thousands of voters from having their ballots included in the final results of the 2008 and 2012 elections.

Officials “admitted to illegally disenfranchising and misleading voters” and to violations of “improperly rejecting eligible ballots and sending voters to the wrong precincts,” according to ThinkProgress. They also failed to comply with voter requests for absentee ballots, provided wrong information to precincts about who was coming to vote and when, and failed to add to the rolls voters who registered in a timely manner, among other violations.

The controversy cost the job of the head of Fulton County’s elections office who claimed she was fired for refusing to cover up improper purging of thousands of voters from the rolls in 2012. The names of about 9,600 voters weren’t included on registration lists at polling places that year, forcing those individuals to cast provisional ballots.

Georgia has a record of disenfranchising voters of color, including its 2006 enactment of one of the country’s strictest voter ID laws. During the past several years, the state reduced the number of early voting days from 45 to 21, and this year made an unsuccessful attempt to cut the 21 days down to 12. This year also saw the cancellation of registration of hundreds of thousands of voters, reportedly in error, resulting in the resignation of the Georgia Director of Elections.

In addition to paying a fine of $180,000, Fulton County promised to spend $200,000 on software to better train their poll workers.

-Noel Brinkerhoff, Danny Biederman

To Learn More:

Georgia County Admits To Illegally Disenfranchising Voters (by Alice Ollstein, ThinkProgress)

State Approves Fulton Election Settlement (by David Wickert, Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

Fulton Elections Board Fined $180,000 For Violating Election Laws (by Sean Keenan, Creative Loafing)

Stonewalling in Georgia: As Election Day Nears, Judge Refuses to Force Secretary of State to Process 40,000 Missing Voter Registrations (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Fights to Delay Registration of Tens of Thousands of New Democratic Voters (by Steve Straehley and Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still dodging hard questions, eh Steven?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still dodging hard questions, eh Steven?

Scytl Drives the New Implementation and Evaluation of ...
www.pressreleaserocket.net/...new...online-voting...in.../281430/
Aug 13, 2015 - Australia leads the way in ensuring persons with disabilities are able to vote on equal terms ... Largest government online voting binding election: NSW Electoral ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still dodging hard questions, eh Steven?

Scytl Drives the New Implementation and Evaluation of ...
www.pressreleaserocket.net/...new...online-voting...in.../281430/
Aug 13, 2015 - Australia leads the way in ensuring persons with disabilities are able to vote on equal terms ... Largest government online voting binding election: NSW Electoral ...

Okay - thank you for that. It is only for State elections, not Federal. The State electoral commission didn't make it widely known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×