Clear Evidence 2006 Congressional Elections Hacked


Richard Moore

Original source URL:

Original Content at

November 17, 2006
OpEdNews Exclusive
Clear Evidence 2006 Congressional Elections Hacked
By Rob Kall

Results Skewed Nationwide In Favor of Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes

A major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in 
U.S. House and Senate races across the country is indicated by an analysis of 
national exit polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national 
election integrity organization.

These findings have led EDA to issue an urgent call for further investigation 
into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic 
election equipment.

"We see evidence of pervasive fraud, but apparently calibrated to political 
conditions existing before recent developments shifted the political landscape,"
said attorney Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, "so 'the 
fix' turned out not to be sufficient for the actual circumstances." Explained 
Simon, "When you set out to rig an election, you want to do just enough to win. 
The greater the shift from expectations, (from exit polling, pre-election 
polling, demographics) the greater the risk of exposure--of provoking 
investigation. What was plenty to win on October 1 fell short on November 7.

"The findings raise urgent questions about the electoral machinery and vote 
counting systems used in the United States," according to Sally Castleman, 
National Chair of EDA. "This is a nothing less than a national indictment of the
vote counting process in the United States!"

"The numbers tell us there absolutely was hacking going on, just not enough to 
overcome the size of the actual turnout. The tide turned so much in the last few
weeks before the eleciton. It looks for all the world that they'd already 
figured out the percentage they needed to rig, when the programming of the vote 
rigging software was distributed weeks before the election, and it wasn't 
enough," Castleman commented.

Election Defense Alliance leaders: Castleman, O'Dell, Simon at work

Election Defense Alliance data analysis team leader Bruce O'Dell, whose 
expertise is in the design of large-scale secure computer and auditing systems 
for major financial institutions, stated, "The logistics of mass software 
distribution to tens or even hundreds of thousands of voting machines in the 
field would demand advance planningï¿‹"at least several weeks--for anyone 
attempting very large-scale, systematic e-voting fraud, particularly in those 
counties that allow election equipment to be taken home by poll workers prior to
the election.

"The voting equipment seems to be designed to support two types of vote count 
manipulation--techniques accessible to those with hands-on access to the 
machines in a county or jurisdiction, and wholesale vulnerabilities in the 
underlying behavior of the systems which are most readily available to the 
vendors themselves. Malicious insiders at any of the vendors would be in a 
position to alter the behavior of literally thousands of machines by infecting 
or corrupting the master copy of the software that's cloned out to the machines 
in the field. And the groundwork could be laid well in advance. For this 
election, it appears that such changes would have to have been done by early 
October at the latest," O'Dell explained.

In a reprise of his efforts on Election Night 2004, Jonathan Simon captured the 
unadjusted National Election pool (NEP) data as posted on, before it was
later "adjusted" to match the actual vote counts. The exit poll data that is 
seen now on the CNN site has been adjusted already. But Simon points out that 
both adjusted and unadjusted data were instrumental to exposing the gross 

Simon, surprised that unadjusted polling data was publicly revealed, given the 
concerns after the 2004 election about the use of exit polls, downloaded as much
of the data as he could in real time. Scheduled and planned revisions on the CNN
site took place throughout the evening and by the following morning, the 
unadjusted exit poll data had been replaced with data that conformed with the 
reported, official vote totals. This was the planned procedure as indicated by 
the NEP's methodology.

Adjusting the exit poll data is, by itself, not a troublesome act. Simon 
explained, "Their advertised reason to do the exit polls is to enable analysis 
of the results by academic researchers--they study the election dynamics and 
demographics so they can understand which demographic groups voted what ways. As
an analytic tool, the exit poll is considered more serviceable if it matches the
vote count. Since the vote count is assumed to be gospel, congruence with that 
count is therefore assumed to give the most accurate picture of the behavior of 
the electorate and its subgroups.

"In 2004 they had to weight it very heavily, to the point that the party turnout
was 37% Democrat and 37% Republican, which has never been the case--leading to 
the claim that Rove turned out the Republican vote. This was nowhere witnessed, 
no lines in Republican voting places were reported. As ridiculous as that was, 
the distortion of actual turnout was even greater in 2006. The adjusted poll's 
sample, to match the vote count, had to consist of 49% 2004 Bush voters and only
43% 2004 Kerry voters, more than twice the actual margin of 2.8%. This may not 
seem like that much, but it translates into more than a 3,000,000 vote shift 
nationwide, which, depending on targeting, was enough to have altered the 
outcome of dozens of federal races.

"It should be very clear that weighting by a variety of carefully selected 
demographic categories, which yields the pre-adjustment exit polls, presents a 
truly representative electorate by every available standard except the vote 
count in the present election. So you have a choice: you can believe in an 
electorate composed of the correct proportions of men and women, young and old, 
rural and urban, ethnic and income groups, Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents--or you can believe the machines. Anyone who has ever wondered what
is really in a hot dog should be aware that the machines are designed, 
programmed, deployed, and serviced by avowedly partisan vendors, and can easily 
be set up to generate entirely false counts with no one the wiser, least of all 
the voters."

Simon concluded, "These machines are completely and utterly black box. The idea 
that we have this enormous burden of proof that they are miscounting, and 
there's no burden of proof that they are counting accurately--that, first and 
foremost, has to change."

Election Defense Alliance issued the following statement

As in 2004, the exit polling data and the reported election results don't add 
up. "But this time there is an objective yardstick in the methodology which 
establishes the validity of the Exit Poll and challenges the accuracy of the 
election returns," said Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance.
The Exit Poll findings are detailed in a paper published today on the EDA 

The 2006 Edison-Mitofsky Exit Poll was commissioned by a consortium of major 
news organizations. Its conclusions were based on the responses of a very large 
sample, of over ten thousand voters nationwide*, and posted at 7:07 p.m. 
Election Night, on the CNN website. That Exit Poll showed Democratic House 
candidates had out-polled Republicans by 55.0 percent to 43.5 percent -- an 11.5
percent margin ⤋ in the total vote for the U.S. House, sometimes referred to 
as the "generic" vote.

By contrast, the election results showed Democratic House candidates won 52.7 
percent of the vote to 45.1 percent for Republican candidates, producing a 7.6 
percent margin in the total vote for the U.S. Houseï¿‹"3.9 percent less than the
Edison-Mitofsky poll. This discrepancy, far beyond the poll's +/- 1 percent 
margin of error, has less than a one in 10,000 likelihood of occurring by 

By Wednesday afternoon the Edison-Mitofsky poll had been adjusted, by a process 
known as "forcing," to match the reported vote totals for the election. This 
forcing process is done to supply data for future demographic analysis, the main
purpose of the Exit Poll. It involved re-weighting every response so that the 
sum of those responses matched the reported election results. The final result, 
posted at 1:00 p.m. November 8, showed the adjusted Democratic vote at 52.6 
percent and the Republican vote at 45.0 percent, a 7.6 percent margin exactly 
mirroring the reported vote totals.

The forcing process in this instance reveals a great deal. The Party affiliation
of the respondents in the original 7:07 p.m. election night Exit Poll closely 
reflected the 2004 Bush-Kerry election margin. After the forcing process, 
49-percent of respondents reported voting for Republican George W. Bush in 2004,
while only 43-percent reported voting for Democrat John Kerry. This 6-percent 
gap is more than twice the size of the actual 2004 Bush margin of 2.8 percent, 
and a clear distortion of the 2006 electorate.

There is a significant over-sampling of Republican voters in the adjusted 2006 
Exit Poll. It simply does not reflect the actual turnout on Election Day 2006.

EDA's Simon says, "It required some incredible distortions of the demographic 
data within the poll to bring about the match with reported vote totals. It not 
only makes the adjusted Exit Poll inaccurate, it also reveals the corresponding 
inaccuracy of the reported election returns which it was forced to equal. The 
Democratic margin of victory in U.S. House races was substantially larger than 
indicated by the election returns."

"Many will fall into the trap of using this adjusted poll to justify inaccurate 
official vote counts, and vice versa," adds Bruce O'Dell, EDA's Data Analysis 
Coordinator, "but that's just arguing in circles. The adjusted exit poll is a 
statistical illusion. The weighted but unadjusted 7 pm exit poll, which sampled 
the correct proportion of Kerry and Bush voters and also indicated a much larger
Democratic margin, got it right." O'Dell and Simon's paper, detailing their 
analysis of the exit polls and related data, is now posted on the EDA website, .

The Election Defense Alliance continues to work with other election integrity 
groups around the country to analyze the results of specific House and Senate 
races. That data and any evidence of election fraud, malicious attacks on 
election systems, or other malfunctions that may shed more light on the 
discrepancy between exit polls and election results will be reported on EDA's 

This controversy comes amid growing public concern about the security and 
accuracy of electronic voting machines, used to count approximately 80 percent 
of the votes cast in the 2006 election. The Princeton University Center for 
Information Technology Policy, in a September 2006 study, was the latest 
respected institution to expose significant flaws in the design and software of 
one of the most popular electronic touch-screen voting machines, the 
AccuVote-TS, manufactured by Diebold, Inc. The Princeton report described the 
machine as "vulnerable to a number of extremely serious attacks that undermine 
the accuracy and credibility of the vote counts it produces." These particular 
machines were used to count an estimated 10 percent of votes on Election Day 

A separate "Security Assessment of the Diebold Optical Scan Voting Terminal," 
released by the University of Connecticut VoTeR Center and Department of 
Computer Science and Engineering last month, concluded that Diebold's 
Accuvote-OS machines, optical scanners which tabulate votes cast on paper 
ballots, are also vulnerable to "a devastating array of attacks." Accuvote-OS 
machines are even more widely used than the AccuVote-TS.

Similar vulnerabilities affect other voting equipment manufacturers, as revealed
last summer in a study by the Brennan Center at New York University which noted 
all of America's computerized voting systems "have significant security and 
reliability vulnerabilities, which pose a real danger to the integrity of 
national, state, and local elections."

The most prudent response to this controversy is a moratorium on the further 
implementation of computerized voting systems. EDA's O'Dell cautioned, "It is so
abundantly clear that these machines are not secure, there's no justification 
for blind confidence in the election system given such dramatic indications of 
problems with the official vote tally." And EDA's Simon summarized, "There has 
been a rush by some to celebrate 2006 as a fair election, but a Democratic 
victory does not equate with a fair election. It's wishful thinking at best to 
believe that the danger of massive election rigging is somehow past."

EDA continues to call for a moratorium on the deployment of electronic voting 
machines in U.S. elections; passage of H.R. 6200, which would require 
hand-counted paper ballots for presidential elections beginning in 2008; and 
adoption of the Universal Precinct Sample (UPS) handcount sampling protocol for 
verification of federal elections as long as electronic election equipment 
remains in use.

The Exit Poll analysis is a part of Election Defense Alliance's six-point 
strategy to defend the accuracy and transparency of the 2006 elections. In 
addition to extensive analysis of polling data, EDA has been engaged in 
independent exit polling, election monitoring, legal interventions, and 
documentation of election irregularities.

*The sample was a national sample of all voters who voted in House races. It was
drawn just like the 2004 sample of the presidential popular vote. That is, 
precincts were chosen to yield a representative (once stratified) sample of all 
voters wherever they lived/voted--including early and absentee voters and voters
in districts where House candidates ran unopposed but were listed on the ballot 
and therefore could receive votes. As such, the national sample EDA worked with 
is exactly comparable to the total aggregate vote for the House that we derived 
from reported vote totals and from close estimates in cases of the few unopposed
candidates where 2006 figures were unavailable but prior elections could be used
as proxy. It is a very large sampling of the national total, with a 
correspondingly small (+/-1%) MOE. There were four individual districts sampled 
for reasons known only to Edison/Mitofsky


The purpose of EDA is to develop a comprehensive national strategy for the 
election integrity movement, in order to regain public control of the voting 
process in the United States. Its goal is to insure that the election process is
transparent, secure, verifiable, and worthy of the public trust. EDA fosters 
coordination, resource-sharing, and cohesive strategic planning for a nationwide
grassroots network of citizen election integrity advocates.

Jonathan Simon , Co-founder, Election Defense Alliance. He is an attorney whose 
prior work as a polling analyst with Peter D. Hart Research Associates helped 
persuade him of the importance of an exit poll-based election "alarm system." 
617.538.6012 •••@••.•••

Bruce O'Dell is head of the Election Defense Alliance Data Analysis Team. His 
expertise is in the design of large-scale secure computer and auditing systems 
for major financial institutions. 612.309.1330 

Sally Castleman, National Chairperson, Election Defense Alliance. She lends her 
skills in conceptualizing, designing, implementing and managing programs as well
as her experience as a strategist. She has a long career in grassroots political
activism. •••@••.••• 781.454.8700

Authors Bio: Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of, 
President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including 
StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and 
The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and 
Positive Psychology. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, The art, science and 
power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, 
Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. See more of his articles here and, 
older ones, here.


Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website  
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives      
  cyberjournal forum  
  Achieving real democracy
  for readers of ETM  
  Community Empowerment
  Blogger made easy