ANDREW SEYS THE OLD SAYING IS FROM THE COURTHOUSE TO THE WHITEHOUSE ALL IS CORRUPT. WHEN HONEST FAILES ALL ELSA FAILES SOONER OR LATER.

Were’t we warned that it is the vote COUNTER and not the voter who actually counts? Stalin I think.

“You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.”
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/dubiousquotes/a/stalin_quote.htm
Posted near the word “Update” in that article.

Anyone got a link to the Iowa precinct totals that the RNC used for the final tally’s? I was at precinct 29/34 in Sgt Bluff IA. I remember the final tally and we had exactly 300 voters.

We have the power right now to make the vote counts quick and nearly fail-safe using Computer Databases – the same technology that allows businesses to keep track of their various actions.
And we could have complete transparency without compromising ballot secrecy. Any voter could check to see whether his vote was counted correctly, and any voter (with the correct software) could count the votes of everybody to verify what was reported. We could also check easily to see if dead voters were voting, etc.
Why isn’t such a system already implemented? Because it would be tamper-proof and the Leaders don’t want that.

Is it asking too much for people to do simple math and get it right the first time? If Iowa can do something like this, then maybe it’s possible that the coming election will result in more complaints concerning election-night ‘counting’ than ever before.
Can we assume that no candidate will get more votes than there are registered voters in America? Frankly, I wouldn’t trust voting ‘machines’ to get accurate answers any more than dead people will show up with valid voter credentials. It pays to know who’s really voting, people.
I wouldn’t rule out ghosts, teens and beings from other planets voting this time around. Integrity can be so fickle.

(1) There are many procedural laxities in our Iowa Republican caucus system. The wizards may want no attention to be cast behind the curtain of Oz, but those of us who are little munchkins at the grassroots level can see as eyewitnesses what is going on. This is particularly true in urban areas when precincts are combined into crowds of hundreds of strangers milling about, and when the ballots are merely blank pieces of colored paper that anyone can easily counterfeit. In 2008, for instance, I saw my own ballot box being stuffed at a combined-precincts caucus by a fellow who tossed in a fistful of bogus ballots before darting away into the crowd. Later my own ballot, from that same ballot box, was physically stolen in the behind-the-scenes sorting room. I know this is true because when I received back my own single precinct’s sorted ballots for the counting, my ballot had disappeared. And to crown the 2008 farce, a county leadership official tried to hijack all the counts for Coralville’s 6 precincts so that he alone (not the individual precincts) could call the results in to the Republican state headquarters in Des Moines. This year I collected my precinct’s ballots without an admixture from other precincts, and verified (in front of 22 witnesses) what the correct count was– before anything went into the back counting room.

(2) They didn’t know their “results” had already been pre-recorded and verified by us in Coralville Precinct 3. So, when their erroneous results were “reported” back to us in Coralville CV-03, the alterations were easy to spot and correct. A few minutes later on caucus night I called in to Des Moines Republican headquarters both the correct and false 2012 results, described as such, and noted today 1-7-12 that they have the correct totals posted on their public Internet spread sheet. Thanks to the 2008 experience it was possible to learn and limit the opportunities for vote hijacking in Coralville in 2012. In order to have tamper-proof voting, it would be desirable to have for the future (a) ballot boxes that are made of transparent plastic, and visibly empty before voting starts. A $5 plastic jar from Wal-Mart would work fine. (b) The lid needs to contain a small slit, so that voters can be witnessed putting in one ballot at a time only. (c) The ballots need to be not blank paper, but rather imprinted with individual precinct identification, and security features against counterfeiting would be a welcome plus. (d) The ballots need to be collected one precinct to a ballot box, not multiple precincts ludicrously mixed together and then “sorted” in some back room before counting. (e) As soon as the individual precinct does its own voting, the same group of people needs to count and tabulate its own votes out of its own ballot box.

(3) For a small precinct everyone can gather around to check for honest counting. For a larger precinct, a lottery or a separate election can provide a dozen or two dozen witnesses to stand around the counting table and make sure the tally is honest. (f) Everyone in the precinct needs a chance to write down their own personal retained record of the witnessed count, and they need a website address so that later the next day or week they can verify their part of the statewide total is correct. (g) To prevent phantom voters from appearing at multiple precincts to make multiple votes, there should be no “quick vote and run” allowed, but rather everyone who votes should be required to start together at 7pm and then sit through the individual precinct’s procedural caucus falderal (tedious though it may be), until everyone votes together. At small group gatherings in Ma and Pa Kettle’s living room, a lot of the foregoing can be foregone because it applies to situations with anonymous crowds. But even with a small group where everyone knows everyone else, and everyone can see every ballot-handling move that is made out in the open, everyone still needs a chance to get their copy of the caucus tally. And they need a centralized Internet tabulation reference address so that within the next few days they can check up on the reliability of what is posted. END

In Australia we Scrutineers at the counting of the votes…

APPOINTMENT OF SCRUTINEERS
4.1 Role of Scrutineers
Candidates may appoint one or more scrutineers to represent them
in observing procedures associated with the conduct of the election.
Reg. 69
Candidates must complete form LG 18 Appointment of Scrutineer
to enable a scrutineer to be appointed. These forms are included in
the Candidate’s Pack CD.
Reg. Form 18
A person must be at least 18 years of age to act as a scrutineer. The
onus is on the candidate to ensure that the proposed scrutineer is
eligible to be appointed.
Reg. 69(2)
Candidates can appoint any number of scrutineers, but not more
than one scrutineer for each candidate per counting table (scrutiny)
or for any other process (e.g. scanning or processing of electoral
packages).
Reg. 72(a)
A person must not act as a scrutineer until he or she has signed a
declaration in the prescribed form before either a Justice of the
Peace, a person who has authority under the Oaths, Affidavits and
Statutory Declarations Act 2005 to take statutory declarations or
the Returning Officer.
Reg. 69(4)
Subject to the Returning Officer’s direction, candidates and
scrutineers may be present when the votes are counted but
candidates cannot scrutinise the count.

Rights of Scrutineers
The rights of a scrutineer in relation to an election are as follows:
• to enter and be in any polling place specified in his or her notice
of appointment at any time before the close of the poll. In a
postal election a polling place is a place appointed for the
delivery of votes;
• to observe, while in the polling place, the conduct of the election
and ascertain whether the Act and Regulations are being
complied with;
• to leave the polling place at any time;
Reg. 71
LGA s.4.71(1)(j)
• to be present at the preparation of postal voting papers for
counting, but only at a sufficient distance from the preparation
process that the markings on the ballot papers cannot be
ascertained by the scrutineers; and
• to be present after the close of the poll when ballot boxes are
opened and during the counting of the votes so as to observe all
proceedings at the count.
Reg. 52A
4.4 Restrictions on Scrutineers
A scrutineer:
• is to comply with the restrictions imposed by section 4.89 of the
Local Government Act 1995 as to conduct in or near polling
places;
LGA s.4.71(1)(j)
Reg. 72
A GUIDE FOR SCRUTINEERS – Local Government Postal Elections
Page 6 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN Electoral Commission
• is to comply with reasonable requests made by an electoral officer;
• is to comply with directions given by the Returning Officer;
• is not to record the name of a person who attends a polling place
to vote;
• is not to record any information given by a person to an electoral
officer in order to receive a ballot paper; and
• is not to be in any polling place specified in his or her notice of
appointment if another scrutineer appointed by the same
candidate is also there, except where one of them is there solely
to cast or deliver his or her vote.

A little hanky-panky going on?? Where there is smoke, there normally is fire. Why does this not surprise me? It is almost expected anymore.