es&s fails in jersey

Dear Friends,

Just wanted to share a letter I just sent to our Legislative, AG and SoS offices. I have a lot more to say. Stand by in the coming days.

Here’s what I sent:

---

Members of Nebraska State Government,

Again, this will be short. 

Evnen's favorite private election fraud company was recently exposed again in a New Jersey school board race. See here and here.

Assuming 3 ballot positions for the race, and 7,026 ballots cast (+/-1), and a swing of 11 votes in the recount, the ES&S read error rate for the race was .05219%. That is 5,219 times the maximum allowable HAVA error rate, which is .00001%, or 1 in 10,000,000 ballot positions. 

Looking at one of three Sarpy Co precincts (48) that was allegedly recently "audited," there was an error rate of .08853%. That's 8,852 times the maximum allowable error rate.

Here are the references on the error rate:

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), Section 301(a)(5) states the following with regard to machine ERROR RATES:
"The error rate of the voting system in counting ballots … shall comply with the error rate standards established under section 3.2.1 of the voting systems standards issued by the Federal Election Commission which are in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act."
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/HAVA41.PDF

Here’s the standard (which can be found by reading pgs 3-3 and 3-4 at the link below):
"the system shall achieve a target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 ballot positions" (or .00001%)
https://www.fec.gov/resources/updates/agendas/2001/mtgdoc01-62/v1/v1s3.pdf

You can also find it at the link below, on pgs 68 and 69:
"the voting system shall achieve a target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 ballot positions" (or .00001%)
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VVSG.1.0_Volume_1.PDF

The error rate standard is what it is for the following reason:
"This rate is set at a sufficiently stringent level such that the likelihood of voting system errors affecting the outcome of an election is exceptionally remote even in the closest of elections."
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VVSG.1.0_Volume_1.PDF

A “ballot position,” also called a “vote position,” is any choice presented to the voter, such as a single candidate in a contest or a single response to an issue. For example, a ballot with 10 contests and 3 candidates in each contest would have 30 vote positions.

Computerized, privatized and centralized "public elections" is oxymoronic.

ES&S and Evnen would rather chew their legs off than disclose the proprietary source code that is supposed to do simple addition. (~Quoting Ret AF Col Shawn Smith.)

Quoting David Clements, doctor of jurisprudence:

Rigged machine providers (Dominion/ES&S/Hart) all assert “intellectual property” as the reason to prohibit voters from auditing their source code.
The tabulators are supposed to be nothing more than adding machines.
What exactly is so proprietary about “addition”?
The only thing they want to protect is how they are defrauding voters.

Six minutes of testimony before Congress by Dr. J. Alex Halderman can be seen here.

The expensive black box machines are garbage. FYI.

Thank you for your time.

Robert J. Borer