Editor: This is a good website for
research, but for activism, go to:
LYNN'S ARTICLES, etc.
(view on one webpage)
Compilation of Lynn's articles, speeches,
and lawsuit from 2002-2008 (112-page document, page layout:
1"right&left, .8" top&bottom)
2007 Report to Congress
Lynn's federal lawsuit (2004-2006)
For latest news:
Feb 8: Why doesn't the Department of Justice (DOJ)
investigate electronic vote fraud? Is it that DOJ and the FBI have
long been involved in it, themselves?
The 1987 Leonard Gates Deposition --
Gates, a Cincinnati Bell employee for 23 years, testified that in the late 1970's and 80's, the
FBI assisted telephone companies with hacking into mainframe election
computers in cities across the country. The first election Gates provided
the hack for was in 1979, see http://www.sos.state.oh.
1985 Background Material from Jim Condit, Jr.
and also see:
There's a History of Suspected Vote Fraud
In NH - Forget 'Official Recounts', Do Citizen Audits
Dec. 22: Lynn's Affidavit for
National Clean Elections lawsuit
Mar 12: The “Voter Confidence”
IT’S CONFUSING - Electronic Tallies Can Still Trump Paper
Ballots on Election Day
Florida Gov. Crist's suggestion that ballot scanners are the answer to
touchscreen machines is a cynical ploy. State officials plan to use ES&S
ballot markers plus ballot scanners. No hand count. Both machines are
computers and can be easily programmed to rig an election. Florida also has a
law on the books that the electronic tally, not a hand count, will be the
official election result in the case of a recount. In addition, counties that
used ballot scanners in the 2004 presidential election showed a massive and
highly suspicious crossover vote from Democratic voters (and other parties) to
Bush. Bush posted vote totals of 200%, 300%, 400%, and in one county 600%
over Republican registration. See the chart - Florida
Feb: Rush Holt's bill
HB 811 is very disappointing. Check out
Nancy Tobi's comments. My full review coming soon. We need Kucinich to
re-introduce HB 6200, paper ballots, hand-counts only.
Jan 15: The Landes Report To Congress On Voting
- A call for total transparency in voting, Open Voting. Rescind laws that
allow voting by machines, absentee, early, and secret ballot.
Nov 14: Dems! Why
Elect Majority Leader By 'Secret Ballot'?
RED ALERT -
Will Cheney be hunting fowl or orchestrating election results?
Cheney's hunting destination (South Dakota) is next door to Nebraska
and Offutt Air Force Base - home of ES&S, the nation's largest
counter of our votes.
http://www.utulsa.edu/ ES&S CEO Bill Welsh was profiled in the University of Tulsa Magazine,
Fall 2001. An interesting excerpt: "Given the fundamental importance
and the logistical complexity of elections, Welsh and company leave
nothing to chance: they had four business jets and two turboprops on
standby; as well as more than 1,000 temporary employees, some drawn
from Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska.ES&S staff were ready
to be anywhere at a moment's notice to help iron out unexpected
kinks." Comment: Why
does ES&S go to an air force base for temporary personnel?
URGENT! Candidates Advised To 'Citizen Audit' Race
Caught On Tape, The Fix Is In, news release /
Supreme Court refuses to
hear Lynn's case, lets stand
lower court decision which denied Landes
standing & allowed costs against voting rights activist
Scrap the "Secret" Ballot - Return to Open
Feds Secretly Control The States' Emergency Management Assistance Compact
Hurricane Katrina - Who are the 75,000 body bags
American Meltdown - Get Ready For Next
Paper Ballots and Hand Counts ONLY (no machines, no audits, no absentees,
no early voting)
Mar 29: Lynn
filed appeals in 3RD Circuit Court in Philadelphia
READ ABOUT THE FIRST PARALLEL
ELECTION! by Ellen Brodsky
Aren’t Good Enough. Count The Damn Ballots!
Exit Poll Madness - Analyst Steve Freeman &
Company Offer False Choice
this article got lots of reaction - See
Dave Dodge and Kathy Dopp.
Feb 26: Oakland, CA - Lynn gives speech at
teach-in organized by
Feb 14: The biggest problem with
election reform bill by Ensign that is being pushed by Ballot Integrity is
that is calls for audits rather than our constitutional right to have
every vote counted.
Organize Parallel Elections & Signed Ballots
Jan 5: Did Networks
Fake Exit Polls, While AP 'Accessed' 2,995 Mainframe Computers?
Dec 11: Voting Rights
Groups 'Block' Talk of Machine-Free Elections
Dec 6: Lynn submits written
testimony to Rep. Conyers hearing.
Dec 6: Machine-Free Election solution is Winning Poll on
Dec 4: Lynn speaks at rally in Columbus, Ohio
sponsored by CASEohio,
urges civil disobedience option
Lynn is invited to send message to 3rd
Panhelladic Conference in
Nov 23: Lynn files
appeal to Third Circuit Court
Coalition's Support of Voting Machines
Causes ConfusionNov 13: Lynn speaks at hearings in Columbus, OH
sponsored by CASEohio
Lynn's chart on Florida 2004 election
If This Election Is Stolen, will it be by enough to stop a recount?
Oct 26: Landes
submits brief to United States Supreme Court -
This is a long shot, but I felt I had to do something. Lynn
Oct 22: Could the Associated Press (AP) Rig the
May 10: Federal Commission Nixes Talk of Paper-Only
Elections - Stacks Panel With Proponents of Paperless Touchscreens
Two Voting Companies & Two
Brothers Will Count 80% of U.S. Election
Apr 13: Republicans Walk Out
Of Federal Hearing On Voting Machines - While Some Civil Rights Groups
Support 'Paperless' Elections
Apr 6: Faking Democracy - Americans
Don't Vote, Machines Do, & Ballot Printers Can't Fix That
Philadelphia Hearing on Electronic Voting
Feb 10: Questions Mount Over New
Jan 12: Democrats Send
Mixed Signals in Voting Technology Debate - approved the use of
Internet voting in 2000 Arizona primary and 2004 Michigan primary.
Dec 15: NIST Ignores Scientific Method for Voting
Republicans and Brits Will Count California's Recall Votes /
California recall election: Voting systems - by
Oct 2: Lynn submits
comments to U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit for
Susan Marie Weber case.
Sep 17: Lynn Landes
submits comments to
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on ACLU Foundation of Southern
Philadelphia Forum on 'Voting Technology & Democracy'
speech / press
Internet Voting - The End of Democracy?
Voting Machine Fiasco: SAIC, VoteHere and Diebold...Scam To Vet Voting
Computer Voting Expert Ousted From Elections Conference
Offshore Company Captures Online Military Vote
Voting Machines Violate Constitution - Who Will Launch Legal Challenge?
Suspicion Surrounds Voter News Service
Mission Impossible - Federal Observers & Voting Machines
2002 Elections: Republican Voting Machines, Election Irregularities, and
"Way-Off" Poll Results
It's A High-Tech Ambush - Just Say "No" To Voting Machines /
PR Newswire press release
Election Night Projections - A Cover For Vote Rigging Since 1964?
Elections In America - Assume Crooks Are
The Nightmare Scenario Is Here - Computer Voting With No Paper Trail
The Case For Open Voting
Democracy demands transparency, not trust -
Sign up and be counted
There is no
transparency to our current voting system.
Congress has legalized election fraud by allowing,
if not mandating, non-transparent voting systems that prohibit direct
access to a paper ballot and meaningful public oversight:
ABSENTEE VOTING (1870’s)
SECRET BALLOT (1880’s)
I believe that there should be only one standard of
voting for both our political representatives and voters. I believe that all
voting should be open and public - no machines, no absentee or early voting, and
no secret ballots. Secret ballots are really an anonymous ballots that
corrupt election officials can count any way they want.
Why one standard of voting for politicians and another for the public?
Under current circumstances, the only thing
candidates and voters can do to find out how
citizens really voted is to conduct their own
SUMMATION: This is how, for all practical purposes, America’s
voting process became completely nontransparent and highly vulnerable
to vote fraud by a relatively small group of people.
Voting is the linchpin of democracy.
And democracy demands transparency, not trust. Yet, there is no real
transparency to the way Americans vote today. While our
politicians are required to vote publicly and openly, we citizens are
held to a different standard - a lower standard. We vote
remotely, privately and anonymously by machine, absentee, early, and
secret ballot. It's an invitation to massive and
undetectable vote fraud. Things weren't always this way.
BEFORE the Civil War, voting
was a completely transparent process. It was
only AFTER the Civil War,
as the right to vote expanded to African Americans, that the
voting process itself began to recede from public view and meaningful
oversight. It started with absentee voting in the 1870’s, secret
ballots in the 1880’s, and voting machines in the 1890’s. Today in
America, 50% of all voting is by absentee or early, 95% of all votes
are machine-processed, and 100% of all ballots are secret and
anonymous. For the sake of convenience and 'alleged' voter protection,
Congress has destroyed the transparency, verifiability, and integrity
of America’s voting process.
Making matters worse, our public voting system has been privatized and
to a handful of domestic, foreign, and multi-national corporations,
most of whom have close ties to the right wing of the Republican
Party. Just two companies, ES&S and Diebold,
started by two
brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich,
electronically process (using touchscreen machines or optical
scanners), 80% of all votes. Their employees are in a perfect
position to rig elections nation-wide. And evidence is mounting that
have been computer programmed to prefer conservative candidates of
both political parties.
In America, less than 1% of votes are
hand-counted-paper-ballots at the polls on Election Day.
Neither government-controlled audits nor official recounts (both can
occur days or even weeks after the election) provide sufficient
transparency to detect widespread election fraud by voting machines
companies and/or election officials. Moreover, the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ),
under the 38-year reign of Craig C. Donsanto, refuses to seriously
investigate or prosecute electronic vote fraud.
Can't we detect vote fraud through exit polls?
The major news networks refuse to report
on vote fraud and may be implicated in it. Exit polling is conducted by one organization, currently
called the National Election Pool (NEP), that is hired by the major
news networks and the Associated Press. Since they first
started "projecting" election night winners in 1964, at the same
time computerized ballot scanners came into use, the major
news networks have never provided any 'hard' evidence that they
actually conducted any exit polls, at all. In
other words, the major news corporations broadcast their own
pre-election surveys based on anonymous sources, collect vote totals
on Election Day in a manner they refuse to disclose, and back-up those
results with their own exit polls based on more anonymous sources. The late authors of the
book, VoteScam: The Stealing of America, James M. Collier and
Kenneth E. Collier, concluded that some of the major news networks,
including the polling organization that they hire for election night
reporting, have been complicit in vote fraud.
Under the U.S. Constitution and case law, qualified
citizens have two constitutional rights: 1) to vote, and 2) to have
their votes counted properly. For that right to be enforced by
federal and state authorities, the voting process must be observable.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
Is there any evidence that voting machines have been rigged?
Yes. Lots of it. An extensive history of voting machine irregularities
can be found in the following:
Has anyone confessed to rigging
voting machines? Yes.
easiest way to rig elections nationwide is for voting machine
company-insiders to program the firmware (permanently installed software
in touchscreens and ballot scanners) to favor one political party over
another. That way they don't need to know the candidates' names nor
their position on the ballot. They can even rig the top of the ticket
only, in which case the winning candidate can claim a crossover vote in
a opposing party's district, as may have happened in Florida 2004 - See
Lynn's data table
voters need these machines, such as non-English language voters and
No. Voters who want a ballot in their own language should be able to
order such a ballot in advance of any election. Secondly, voting
machines present the same violation of voting rights for disabled
voters. And contrary to popular belief, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
does not require election officials to purchase electronic voting
machines. Besides, anecdotal evidence suggests that these machines
are difficult for the disabled to use. Election officials and voting
machine companies admit that it takes the sight-impaired voters ten
times longer to use a touchscreen machine than able-bodied voters.
However, there is a way for the sight-impaired to vote privately and
independently. They can use
tactile paper ballot with audio
assistance. Tactile ballots are used around the world and in some
states such as Rhode Island. Unfortunately, many disabled voters are
unaware of these kinds of ballots. That may not be an accident. Two
organizations for the blind, The American Association of People with
Disabilities (AAPD) and The National Federation of the Blind (NFB),
are ardent supporters of paperless touchscreen voting machines. They
also have received over $1 million dollars from the voting machine
industry, according to news reports.
conduct Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) using paper ballots? First, I do not support IRV or proportional
voting because they are unnecessary, complicated, and cannot be easily
observed. But, yes,
Britain, Ireland, and
Australia have used paper ballots to conduct Instant Run-Off Voting.
However, some advocates of IRV are aggressively promoting the idea
that voting machines are necessary. Regarding proportional voting, it
is the wrong answer to the obvious problem presented by "at-large"
elections where the winners take all. Instead, political entities
(such as townships) should be divided into voting districts (which
many already are), thereby allowing the development of Democratic,
Republican, etc. strongholds which could result in more equitable
machines faster than a hand count and isn't that important?
They should be, but often they're not. Machines breakdown routinely,
thereby taking longer to report election results. In Maryland in the
2004 election, 9% of machines observed by a voting rights group, broke
down. Essentially, a speedy hand count is based on a sufficient
number of poll workers per number of registered voters and the length
of the ballot. Canada uses 2 election officials per approximately 500
registered voters. In addition, election officials don't need to
depend on volunteers. Citizens can be drafted to work at the polls on
Election Day, as is done routinely with jury duty. The right to
direct access to a ballot and meaningful public oversight of the
process supersedes the perceived convenience of voting machines.
about states that have really long ballots, including initiatives and
countries keep their ballots brief. For instance, in America state
and local judges could be elected by legislative bodies instead of the
voters. But, there are other issues. The initiative/referendum
movement is called Direct Democracy. However, it is really an end-run
around the legislature. Some activists think this is a good idea,
but others disagree. California's ballot has become a nightmare.
Clearly, those with the money get their issues on the ballot. And
consider this. The initiative/referendum movement allows those who
control the voting machines to also control which candidates win and
what legislation gets passed.
voting machines more accurate than a hand count?
There is no way to know. There is no way to test the accuracy of
voting machines during the actual voting process on Election Day.
Citizens vote in secret. The machines count those votes in secret.
If ballot scanners are used, then election officials can run an audit
to check accuracy. But, few states require audits. Even with an
audit, election officials decide where and when the audits occur.
Public participation and oversight is not meaningful. Any test done
prior or after an election cannot ensure that during the election the
machine did not manipulate votes, either by accident or design. The
accuracy of voting machines is often correlated with the number of
overvotes and undervotes it records. One could have nothing to do
with the other. There is no way to know the intention of the voter,
or if a voting machine is filling in votes that the voter deliberately
left blank. Although a lever and touchscreen machine can prevent
overvotes, all in all, "The difference between the best performing and
worst performing technologies is as much as 2 percent of ballots cast.
Surprisingly, paper ballots—the oldest technology—show the best
performance." This is the finding of two Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) political science professors, Dr. Stephen
Ansolabehere and Dr. Charles Stewart III, in a September 25, 2002
study entitled, Voting Technology
and Uncounted Votes in the
more expensive, voting by machine or paper? For
legitimate elections, expense can never be a consideration. That
said, paper is cheap and requires no special servicing, storage, or
trained personnel, while a single voting machines can cost thousands
of dollars and require servicing, storage, and trained personnel.
Furthermore, election officials never need to rely on volunteers to
staff the polls. Citizens can always be drafted as they are for jury
duty, at little or no cost to the tax payer.
wins by a large enough margin, isn't that a sign that the election
No. It only stands
to reason that if someone is going to rig an election, it will be done
by a sufficient number of votes to avoid triggering a recount.
Otherwise, this could happen: In August of 2002, in Clay county
Kansas, Jerry Mayo lost a close race for county commissioner,
garnering 48% of the vote, but a hand recount revealed May won by a
landslide, earning 76% of the vote.
voting machines are being used at my polling precinct, is it better to
vote by absentee?
Most absentee ballots are not counted by hand, but instead scanned by
computers. The same corporations (ES&S, Diebold, Sequoia, etc) that
dominate the touchscreen market, also control the ballot scanners. In
addition, some counties, like King County Washington, have even
outsourced the mailing of their absentee ballots to private industry.
Can't elections be rigged by stuffing ballot boxes, as well?
Yes, but it is a detectable kind of vote fraud, whereas voting
by machine, early or absentee is nearly impossible to detect. The
problem of stuffed ballot boxes may be more fiction than fact. In his
book, The Right To Vote, The Contested History of Democracy in the
United States, Alexander Keyssar, of the Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, writes, "...recent studies have found that
claims of widespread corruption were grounded almost entirely in
sweeping, highly emotional allegations backed by anecdotes and little
systematic investigation or evidence. Paul Kleppner, among others, has
concluded that what is most striking is not how many, but how few
documented cases of electoral fraud can be found. Most elections
appear to have been honestly conducted: ballot-box stuffing, bribery,
and intimidation were the exception, not the rule."
Doesn't the federal
government regulate the voting machine industry?
No. There is no federal agency charged with regulatory oversight of
the elections industry. There are no restrictions on who can count our
votes. Anyone from anywhere can count our votes. The Federal Election
Commission (FEC) doesn't even publish a complete list of all the
voting technology companies whose business it is to count Americans'
voting companies info
Can a voting machine company be owned by foreigners and run by
felons? Yes. Sequoia is the third largest voting machine company
in America and is owned by a British-based company, De La Rue. Diebold
is the second largest voting machine company in the country. It counts
about 35% of all votes in America. Diebold employed 5 convicted
felons as senior managers and developers to help write the central
compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.
Jeff Dean, Diebold's Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on
Diebold's central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony
theft in the first degree. Dean was convicted of planting back doors
in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade
detection over a period of 2 years.
see: fraud & irregularities
Isn't that a threat to national security? Yes.
What was the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) all about? It
established the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to distribute
billions of dollars to the states to upgrade their voting systems, but
failed to mandate any meaningful standards.
Doesn't the federal government certify the voting
machines? No. The federal government has a loose set of
technical guidelines for voting machines that are voluntary and may be
actually harmful. The Federal Voting Systems Standards (FVSS) used
by the three NASED's approved Independent Test Authorities (ITA) to
"certify" companies are outmoded guidelines and voluntary, and not all
states have adopted them. According to industry observers, the FVSS
guidelines allow one in ten machines to fail. There is no enforcement
of these guidelines, such as they are.
Who, then, certifies the nation's voting
machines? The FEC coordinates with the industry-funded
National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), a private
non-profit group, to have machines inspected certified by
industry-funded private contractors. NASED selects and approves
the testing laboratories. Only prototypes of the machines and software
are available for a very superficial inspection. The inspection is
conducted by three private companies who are not themselves subject to
Technical Issues & Standards "An unelected
person named R. Doug Lewis runs a private non-profit organization
called "The Election Center."
Lewis is possibly the most powerful man in the U.S., influencing
election procedures and voting systems, yet he is vague about his
credentials and no one seems to be quite sure who hired him or how he
came to oversee such vast electoral functions. Lewis organized the
National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS, now heavily funded
by voting machine vendors); he also organized the National Association
of State Election Directors (NASED) and, through them, Lewis told
(author Bev) Harris he helps certify the certifiers." "Wyle
Laboratories is the most talked-about voting machine certifier,
probably because it is the biggest, but in fact, Wyle quit certifying
voting machine software in 1996. It does test hardware: Can you drop
it off a truck? Does it stand up to rain? Software testing and
certification is done by
When Ciber quit certifying in 1996, it was taken over by Nichols
Research, and was in charge of testing. Nichols Research stopped
doing the testing, and it was taken over by PSInet, where
did the testing. PSInet went under, and testing functions were taken
over by Metamore, where
did the testing. Metamore dumped it, and it was taken over by Ciber,
where does the testing. Here is a photo of
WOULD YOU TRUST THIS MAN WITH YOUR VOTE?
meet Shawn Southworth
the industry guy who "certifies" America's voting technology
17. But, wouldn't it take a vast number of people to rig an
election? Not with today's technology. One programmer working at
either ES&S or Diebold could write code that could manipulate votes
across the country. If a voting machine has computer components, it can
be rigged or accessed through the firmware, software, wireless, modem,
telephone, and simple electricity. Main tabulating computers can be
rigged in a similar fashion. Lever voting machine are also easily
rigged, although it would be more labor intensive. Still, anyone with
the keys to the county warehouse where the machines are stored could rig
the machines. Labels can be switched, gears shaved, odometers preset, or
18. Can't we detect vote fraud through exit polls?
Exit polling is conducted by one organization that is hired by the major
news networks and the Associated Press. Since they first
started "projecting" election night winners in 1964, the major news
networks have never provided any 'hard' evidence that they actually
conducted any exit polls, at all. The late authors of the book,
VoteScam: The Stealing of America, concluded that some of the major
news networks, including the polling organization that they hire for
election night reporting, have been complicit in vote fraud.
see: exit polls
19. If someone wins by a large enough margin, isn't that a
sign that the election wasn't rigged? No. It only stands to
reason that if someone is going to rig an election, it will be done by a
sufficient number of votes to avoid triggering a recount. Otherwise,
this could happen: In August of 2002, in Clay county Kansas, Jerry Mayo
lost a close race for county commissioner, garnering 48% of the vote,
but a hand recount revealed May won by a landslide, earning 76% of the
http://www.ecotalk.org/BevHarrisBook2.pdf (page 45)
20. Aren't you just a conspiracy theorist? No. In the words
of Greg Palast, "I'm a conspiracy expert." Election officials have
outsourced and privatized a uniquely public function. Corporations have
gained near total control over the process of voting. Corporations also
control the process of reporting exit polls. Both processes are
(215) 629-3553 phone/fax (The Landes Report)
Audit polls on Election Day
& afterward video
Jan 18, 2010 -
MA Senate race
Whistleblower Clint Curtis:
Interview of VoteScam author
MOVIES & VIDEOS...
Dangers of straight party voting.
11/02/05 PA Exam of Danaher
(vp Matthew Lilly):
Whistleblower Chris Hood:
Whistleblower Stephen Spoonamore
3 4 5 6 7
Deposition of Cincinnati Bell employee: 1970's to 80's, FBI &
phone companies hacked into election computers (video pending)
Bill Moyer's interview of Mark Crispin
John Silvestro (LHS) programs most ballot scanners
for New England
A CLASSIC! Cong. King (R-NY)
before '04 election:
FOR LAUGHS! not
The Onion "Diebold"
WV 2008 article!