Well stated, Scott, and I would concur. -D
> On Dec 17, 2020, at 1:32 PM, Scott Ritchey via Mercedes > <mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > > There are about 3000 counties in the US which generally conduct independent > elections under elected supervisor of election. The main alleged problems > are only 6-10 counties. Excellent election integrity in the vast number of > counties tells us nothing about those problem counties. As far as I am > concerned, any county that stopped counting election night is suspect. Any > county where vast numbers of unbalanced ballots arrived in the wee hours is > suspect. Any county where observers were obstructed is suspect. Any county > that counted without observers is suspect. None of this is physical proof > but the "suspects" had complete control of the physical evidence since the > election and we KNOW at least some of that evidence was destroyed. We have > sworn eyewitness statements attesting to MANY "irregularities", a euphemism > for crimes. > > In 2000 I looked hard at our local election system in Okaloosa County, FL and > my conclusions there concur with Dan's. But that tells me nothing about > Philadelphia, Atlanta, etc. and nothing about an election with universal > unsolicited mail-in ballots. > > If our election system is corrupted, especially if by foreign powers, that > supersedes ALL partisan political considerations. > > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mercedes On Behalf Of Dan Penoff via Mercedes > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 8:23 AM > To: Okie Benz <mercedes@okiebenz.com> > Cc: Dan Penoff <d...@penoff.com> > Subject: Re: [MBZ] This is not political, but a serious question, if you > can’t handle it then hit delete > > It’s not. I’ve worked the elections both here and in two other states I’ve > lived in for over 40 years. I’ve worked elections since I was 16 years old > and the days of the voting machines with the curtains and little levers. My > father was a precinct committeeman and working elections was expected of all > of us kids, and most of us have continued that effort since. > > The “check in” station you mention is connected to a secure network that is > used to access the voter rolls. It’s not on the “Internet”, it’s an end to > end, encrypted, tunneled connection to the SOE which can be a hard wired or > wifi connection. This is common practice and is configured and set up well in > advance to maintain the security of that data. One of my teams is charged > with testing and verification of these connections prior to the elections. > The ballot printers are a part of this system. > > The scanners are purely stand-alone devices and have no connectivity. > > Counts are typically moved from the scanners to the polling system via secure > memory cards that are encrypted. Some scanners also have the capability of > printing out results on a paper tape, like an adding machine. The numbers, > after being reconciled, are either transmitted to the supervisor of > elections’ via the local client at the polling place or the data can be hand > carried (in a secure, chain of custody strongbox) back to the SOE (which is > how they get back there anyway, along with the paper ballots.) > > Anyone who has worked the polls has been exposed to these processes and > procedures used to guarantee the integrity of the elections. It’s certainly > different from one state or municipality to the other, but the general > approach is the same. It’s highly controlled and closely audited. Again, it’s > not perfect, but the claims of widespread, massive voter fraud are gross > misstatements. > > -D > > >> On Dec 17, 2020, at 7:46 AM, Meade Dillon via Mercedes >> <mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: >> >> Dan, I'm afraid your experience is limited. Here in SC, the voting >> machines were connected to the internet. Drove me nuts. I'm quite >> sure the same could be true in other states, that certainly has been >> reported in the press, and the "glitches" that always seemed to switch >> votes in one direction (from Trump to Biden) point to the need for a >> thorough forensic audit so we can be sure the right candidate really won. >> >> Our system is similar to what many of you described: one machine where >> you 'vote' which creates a paper ballot, and then the voter takes >> their ballot (which they can review to make sure it is correct) and >> feeds it into the scanner, which counts the vote. Locally, at each >> polling place, the scanner totals are printed out after the last vote, >> and the total number of votes cast is compared to the number of voters >> who came into the polling place. If those two numbers don't match, >> then they have to try to resolve that at the polling place, with the >> poll watchers from each party present (if they bothered to show up, a >> great many of our polling places had no poll watchers - not enough >> volunteers). Once the count is resolved, then the electronic votes >> and the paper ballots are taken to the county election headquarters and >> reported out. >> >> The first station at the polling place was voter check-in to make sure >> the voter was registered / at the right polling place, and they (the >> laptops) were connected to a local WiFi hot-spot that was part of the >> system, so they could communicate / get updates back to the county HQ voter >> database. >> I'm not sure if the ballot printer and ballot scanner were also >> connected, but once the count was resolved, it was loaded back onto >> that laptop somehow (I'm pretty sure via the local WiFi hotspot) and >> that laptop was the way the electronic count was returned to county election >> HQ. >> >> Here in Charleston, we had a lot of folks examining the totals and >> comparing them to historical patterns, and although the results were >> disappointing in some cases and pleasing in others, nothing was >> observed to raise alarms in the result. >> >> What was troubling to me was that we had three known instances of >> clear violations of voting law at the polling places, where one party >> tried to influence voters or intimidate poll watchers and so favor one >> party over the other. This pattern has been repeated locally for >> years; one side is convinced that breaking the law and bending the >> rules in their favor is OK, and at every election we have to be ready >> to try to counter this to ensure the fairest election possible. It is >> very easy for me to believe that this same pattern repeats across the >> nation, and the impact can be enough to swing the result in a tight >> race. If we had a tight race and these same patterns of law-breaking >> and rule bending were present, I'd be among the first to cry foul and seek a >> recount / remedy. >> ------------- >> Max >> Charleston SC >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 6:53 AM Dan Penoff via Mercedes < >> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: >> >>> Working with the SOE (supervisor of elections) here I can calm your fears. >>> >>> As previously stated, a nation state, most likely the Russians, did >>> breach several state’s voter registration databases aound the 2016 >>> election. While problematic for a lot of reasons, doing so had no >>> effect on the actual voting process. >>> >>> The actual voting systems, which vary from state to state, are always >>> “air gapped” in the sense that voting machines are never, ever >>> connected to the Internet or any network of any kind. As described by >>> others, ballots are typically printed out for each voter as they >>> register or check in at a polling place, filled out by the voter, >>> then scanned by a completely stand-alone voting machine. The votes >>> tabulated in that machine are collected on a memory card or other >>> means of electronic storage that is encrypted using state of the art >>> encryption protocols. There is a clearly defined chain of custody >>> involving the handling of the machines, memory cards, ballots and anything >>> else involved in the process. >>> >>> When auditing the results, paper ballots marked by the voters are >>> scanned by a machine and tabulated separately to compare with the >>> results tabulated by the voting machines. >>> >>> It’s a very, very highly controlled process that has changed little >>> over the years. Most states and municipalities continue to use a >>> paper ballot of some sort in order to provide a hard copy of the >>> votes - I’m not aware of anyone who does it 100% electronically, although >>> there may be somewhere. >>> >>> The stories about massive numbers of votes being added/removed and >>> such are bogus. The process simply doesn’t have the capacity for such >>> alterations, and even if someone tried it, the audits done using the >>> physical paper ballots would quickly reveal any discrepancies. >>> Mistakes do happen, and they’re typically identified in short order >>> when audits are performed and corrected on the spot. It’s still a >>> very manual process everywhere I know of, and that’s one of the >>> reasons why the integrity of the process has been preserved. >>> >>> -D >>> >>>> On Dec 17, 2020, at 2:09 AM, Scott Ritchey via Mercedes < >>> mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> My current NC county as well as my previous FL county used this system. >>> After marking a paper ballot the voter feeds it into a reader which >>> indicates that the ballot was accepted (read OK) or rejected (spit >>> back out). Accepted ballots are held within the machine. This is >>> the best system I know: simple, cheap, secure and auditable. >>> Anything more complex facilitates fraud, IMO. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Kaleb Striplin via Mercedes, Wednesday, December 16, 2020 >>>> 11:33 >>> PM >>>> >>>> Here in our state you get a paper ballot that you color in the >>>> squares >>> to vote. Then feed it into a machine that scans it and counts it. >>> Even though a machine counts it, you still have a physical paper that >>> can be hand counted later. Are other states totally electronic? >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________ >>>> http://www.okiebenz.com >>>> >>>> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ >>>> >>>> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >>>> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________ >>> http://www.okiebenz.com >>> >>> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ >>> >>> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >>> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com >>> >>> >> _______________________________________ >> http://www.okiebenz.com >> >> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ >> >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com >> > > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
