Respected election integrity watchdog Jonathan Simon has published a detailed analysis of Republican Scott Brown’s surprising upset electoral win in the special election to replace the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy. Simon has concluded that absent fraud, Brown’s victorious margin in machine-count towns versus his losing margin in hand-count towns remains unexplained.
Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org was the first to sound the alarm on election night when she did a quick spreadsheet analysis of the vote outcome, comparing hand-count towns against machine-count towns. Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, the incumbent Attorney General favored to replace Kennedy, won the election in towns where the ballots were hand-counted. Brown, however, carried the day in the more numerous towns that counted ballots by optical scanners.
Brown’s victory gave Republicans enough votes to effectively block White House measures in the Senate, turned Massachusetts politics upside down, and in large part launched the Tea Party movement into a viable national political force
Simon, Executive Director of the Election Defense Alliance, notes that of the 3% hand-count ballots, all were publicly counted and verified. However, of the 97% machine-count ballots, none were audited or verified in public.
Brown’s winning margin came from ballots counted by software-driven optical scanners susceptible to rigging by malicious self-deleting code. In his review of the election, Simon discovered that a number of basic safeguards to protect the integrity of the vote were not in place.
“No systematic audit of the count was performed. No spot-checks of the count were performed. There was no recount of any ballot. There were no exit polls performed. No actual ballots stored within the opscan equipment were examined or permitted to be examined.”
Simon also found that no memory cards were examined nor was any computer code examined leaving the outcome a “blind faith” result subject to control by programmers and potential unknown hackers.
“If, in fact, the vendor corporations, or any insider(s) with access to the programming and distribution processes, had chosen to serve a private political agenda rather than the public trust, there would be nothing in the official processes or voting, vote-counting, and election certification to indicate that such a breach had occurred.”
Simon’s study methodically explores the demographics and voting history of Massachusetts and pays particular attention to variability factors in the hand-count towns. Simon’s detailed review of the statistics ruled out any “favorite daughter” influence or other “benign” factor responsible for the disparity of outcome between hand-count and machine-count towns.
At the time of the January election, voting integrity activist Sheila Parks called on Secretary of State William Galvin to order a recount of the single-contest ballots but was rebuffed in her attempt at electoral accountability.
“The handcount vs. opscan disparity in the 2010 Special Election in Massachusetts stands as an unexplained anomaly of dramatic numerical proportions.”
Permission granted to reprint
To read the full report: http://electiondefensealliance.org/
To read Michael Richardson’s Taiwan Policy reports: http://echoflam.com/taiwan-policy-in-national/michael-richardson
To read Michael Richardson’s COINTELPRO reports: echoflam.com/cointelpro-in-national/michael-richardson