Re: [EL] Voter being referred to District Attorney for posting election fraud video evidence

As Joseph Lorenzo Hall already pointed out, nobody's digit or voting
pen is anywhere near the other votes that light up, nor near the Green
Party staight ticket option.  Besides, observed vote flipping is the
most common complaint nationwide in the past 3 federal elections
(voters disappearning from voting rolls, often without moving is
usually in second place).  In 2008, for what it's worth, Oprah had
problems.  Many people work with touch screens daily, such as in
restaurants and medical facilities, and while screens do need
recalibration occasionally (once or twice a year) voting machines are
only used a few days a year at most and have much higher
"recalibration" issues -- if that's what they are.

Usually, election officials will take the position that the observed
problems were caught and corrected and therefore there's no harm no
foul.  This ignores the serious consideration that not everybody
notices every vote flip, so some slip through with no evidence, and
worse yet, the voter arguably "approved" the flipped vote and so even
video proof would likely not be successful in a voter's attempt to
complain (say they noticed the flip after review of the video,
post-voting).  In states like Texas, that may only result in the voter
being referred for prosecution either under laws prohibiting video or
for an alleged fake.

That being said, I stated in the original post there's a chance it's
fake (though I see no real evidence supporting that, I'm willing to
give benefit of the doubt neverthess).  Given the lack of evidence
released suggesting it's fake, I'm sufficiently cautious on this, it
seems to me.  What Michael McDonald may have more difficulty being
cautious on is that thousands of other voters have reported similar
experiences in this and the past three federal elections.  There are
other videos, none of which have been proved fake.  Among other
options, there's a video demonstration in Louisiana on machines after
an election showing changed or flipped voting.  The candidate is shown
voting for herself and having her opponent appear.  Anyone interested
in more video footage from this and the past few years send me an
email and I will gather them together.

To me the proper attitude towarde defending election integrity is a
forensic approach that is,however, balanced by a strong desire to
defend election integrity.  I'm not a fan of the Republican
gubernatorial candidate in Texas but I do forward that evidence.
Present company excepted, I think the attitude of too many in
elections, if applied to NORAD and the air defense of our country
(which ultimately protects free elections perhaps THE most important
thing of various important "assets" of our country) would result in
mocking the Air Force and NORAD for scrambling jets when it turns out
the radar showed a flock of birds, and was known to be probably
innocent when the order to scramble jets was given.  I think pooh
poohing both the Air Force as well as those serious about nonpartisan
election protection is not the right approach.   As to this case,
there are no conclusions right now, but we definitely can't rule out
either a ballot programming error or an "easter egg" or other type of
hacking fraud, from inside or outside the offices of election
administrator.  That's just going by the investigation book....

The approach Michael does suggest, namely that it "would be possible,
with an accomplice" if true, does not close out the other
possibilities.  If the criminal standard were "if it's possible
somebody else did it, or that it is a fraud" (my words) that wouldn't
work very often at trial and it certainly is no justification for
refusing to investigate all reasonable angles.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 10/26/10, Michael McDonald <mmcdon@gmu.edu> wrote: