partisan hacks

Dear Friends,

I just wanted to share two letters I wrote. One to Carol Blood, and one to Aaron Sanderford of the Nebraska Examiner, which I just sent a few minutes ago.

---

#1

I sent “the 500 lb gorilla” letter by Dean Christensen (contained in this post) to members of the Legislature back on the 18th.

Carol Blood responded to that letter with this:

---

Robert,

I've always wondered why you aren't more concerned about the modems used to transport the information in Nebraska. Those, out of everything you continue to share, have the highest ability to be hacked.

Senator Carol Blood
Nebraska Legislature-District 3
402-471-2627

---

I responded to Senator Blood with this:

Senator,

Thank you for the response. Shall I take this to mean that you are opposed to the secret ES&S system that our tyrannical SoS is shoving down our throats, at huge expense to hard working taxpayers? You know Republicans have been using it to cheat since at least Hagel (not in every race, mind you). (Someone also said they heard Jane Kleeb say she didn't want a Democrat gov because she'd lose too much money from fundraising. Don't know if that's true or not. I just want transparency and honesty in our elections.)

Regarding your comment, I'm opposed to every aspect of our computerized and privatized and centralized "election" management system. I don't get into the weeds, because I don't have the keys to the crime scene so I can get in and prove anything. I prefer to take the 30,000 ft view and focus on the absolute unconstitutional secrecy and centralization of the process. There's only one reason for such secrecy. Fraud. They can commit it at will, without fear.

I'm really interested in your answer to my question.

Thank you for responding.

Bob

---

She never replied back.

---

#2, sent just a few minutes ago. You’ve seen this content before, but I cleaned it up and tailored it for Aaron:

Mr. Sanderford,

I have a couple questions and comments on the article you wrote here.

Question 1. Who gets to audit themselves?? There's a huge conflict of interest here, don't you think? A self-audit is not an audit.

Question 2. This is in regard to the logic of this paragraph:
"Five of the 11 affected ballots had ovals that weren’t filled in darkly enough to be read by the machines, but people doing the hand recount were able to verify the voters’ intent. Evnen contended in a statement that that means the machines’ actual error rate was even lower."

Say what? The machine error rate is lower because a person could read the oval and the machine couldn't??? How does that make any sense? How does that make the machine's error rate lower?

Regarding the allowable 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." (pg 40)
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/HAVA41.PDF

That error rate standard can be found at the end of section "3.2.1 Accuracy Requirements" (on 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 under section "4.1.1 Accuracy Requirements" 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

Definition:
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.

Evnen says he looked at 3 races on 48,292 ballots in his so-called audit. I will allow for 4 ballot positions for each of those three races, which should be more than enough options in a general election. (Some races only have 3 options: R, D and write-in)

Now then….

3 races x 4 ballot positions x 48,292 ballots = 579,504 ballot positions.

Mr. Evnen said he had 11 discrepancies. 11 divided by 579,504 = .0000189817, or .001898% … or 189.8 errors in 10,000,000 ballot positions!

The maximum allowable error rate is .0000001 or .00001% … or 1 (one) in 10,000,000 ballot positions!

This 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

Obviously, Mr. Evnen and Co are WAY OVER the maximum allowable error rate with his limited "audit"...by 190 times, assuming he's telling the truth...because, after all, he is auditing himself. Who else gets to do that?

Evnen far exceeds the allowable error rate, even if we cut the discrepancies in half.

We won’t even talk about the fact that this error rate is supposed to test the integrity of ONE tabulator, not 93. (The machine workload Evnen was allegedly auditing was spread over 93 county tabulators.)

Just thought you'd like to know the true story. Did you happen to ask him how random the precinct selections were? But then, I wouldn't expect him to be honest. He said he conducted a thorough investigation into the integrity of our elections, but when asked for documentation of that investigation, he didn't have any.

Have a great day.

Robert J. Borer

---

God bless and have a great day.

Bob

---