Did you see anything on the media about a Caltech study showing 6 MILLION VOTES LOST in 2000 ?!?!?!
Who is this Caltech / MIT Voting group?
On 2000 they were about this...
On 2004 they are about COVER -UP:
SECAUCUS-- You know it's bad when the two sides start throwing professors at one another.
Two conflicting scholarly studies on the variance between the national exit polling and the presidential election results, are flying across the Internet.. One, from the University of Pennsylvania.. suggests the actual statistical odds that the exit polling was that wrong in the battleground states were 250,000,000 to one.
The other, from a voting project managed by CalTech and MIT, says that .. on a state-by-state basis, [exit poll variance is actually within the error margin]
A fellow Kossack had noticed the Cal Tech study was "weird" and Caltech is involved with ES & S and the extreme right wing
Another MIT report believes in fraud
Odds of Bush gaining by 4 percent in all exit polling states 1 in 50,000; Evoting/paper variance not found to be significant
A statistical analysis of exit polling conducted for RAW STORY by a former MIT mathematics professor has found the odds of Bush making an average gain of 4.15 percent among all 16 states included in the media's 4 p.m. exit polling is 1 in 50,000, or .002 percent.
The analysis, conducted by former Associate Professor of Mathematics David Anick, also ruled out any significance of a variance between electronic balloting and paper ballot states, which RAW STORY reported last week.
The Cal Tech/MIT paper
Another Kossack summarizes it's weak numbers
I thought it odd that the November 11, 2004 Caltech/MIT .. report .. would focus so narrowly on justifying the discrepancy between the exit polls and the actual vote without ever mentioning that the openness to fraud of the electronic vote tabulation that they delineated [in 2001]
The paper was very weak on statistics and facts... Apparently only one person worked on it.
Selker picked up the work of a REAL statistics pro (The math professor at MIT who wrote the blue lemur article above), massaged the numbers a little, added some tales about HIS experience as "observer of elections" and came up with some lame conclusions and some pretty looking Lotus graphics... And worse, he didn't even sign his paper, i.e, he must be embarassed of it... I wasn't impressed at all!
As dennisv had already pointed out here on Kos, that study is very fishy.. And Caltech is involved with ES & S
"In the early 1980s, brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich founded ES&S's originator, Data Mark. The brothers Urosevich obtained financing from the far-Right Ahmanson family in 1984, which purchased a 68% ownership stake, according to the Omaha World Herald. After brothers William and Robert Ahmanson infused Data Mark with new capital, the name was changed to American Information Systems (AIS). California newspapers have long documented the Ahmanson family's ties to right-wing evangelical Christian and Republican circles".
"According to Group Watch, in the 1980s Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. was a member of the highly secretive far-Right Council for National Policy, an organization that included Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, Major General John K. Singlaub and other Iran-Contra scandal notables, as well as former Klan members like Richard Shoff. Ahmanson, heir to a savings and loan fortune, is little reported on in the mainstream U.S. press. But, English papers like The Independent are a bit more forthcoming on Ahmanson's politics"
Cal Tech study say: "Don't blame the voting machines, blame all the irresponsible people..." AKA: Blame them for allowing us to hack the machines all over the place
Wouldn't be shocked at all if Cal Tech was involved....They were the first to announce those faulty exit polls to CNN....
The writer, Ted Selker is from the MIT. Not an expert on computer security, but on user interface, i.e. to build a better mouse, trackball, etc..
Group: Context-Aware Computing
Phone: (617) 253-6968
Fax: (617) 258-6264
addresses are formatted email@example.com
Ted Selker heads the Media Lab's Context-Aware Computing group. His research has contributed to hundreds of products ranging from notebook computers to operating systems. He is known for the design of the "TrackPoint III" in-keyboard pointing device now found in Compaq, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, Sony, TI, and other computers; for creating the "COACH" adaptive agent that improves user performance (Warp Guides in OS/2); and for the design of the 755CV notebook computer that doubles as an LCD projector.
The curious source of the Caltech/MIT voting project website
Here's something you rarely see on a web site: An entire news article "hidden" on the page source as comments..
See for yourself: Click in this link http://www.vote.caltech.edu/
and try to view "source" or "Page source" on your browser..
Scrolling dow a bit, you should see this
After that line that clearly says "!-- / DELETE ME LATER" you can see the ENTIRE 2000 press release on their study on voter disenfranchisement in Florida.
So the source of http://www.vote.caltech.edu/ includes this as comments :"!-- /
July 16, 2001
Up to 6 million votes lost in 2000 presidential election, Voting Technology Project reveals
PASADENA, Calif.- Though over 100 million Americans went to the polls on election day 2000, as many as 6 million might just have well have spent the day fishing. Researchers at Caltech and MIT call these "lost votes" and think the number of uncounted votes could easily be cut by more than half in the 2004 election with just three simple reforms
To read the rest of the hidden report clean of "computer giberish" go to
We did our best, TRUST US e-vote petition from Cal-Tech/MIT vote project
"We did our best so you should believe us" is the gist of it. It got an "underwhelming" total of... less than 20 signatures!
We, American election workers, election supply vendors, voting technology researchers and advocates have worked hard for the last 4 years to improve election accuracy, integrity and security. We are convinced that there is no precinct in America now that has not put effort into making their voting technology and process more careful and transparent than in the past. Most of the worst technologies have been replaced. Where they have not new processes arein place to help ameliorate problems.
Our public debate shows that none of us think the job is done, still, we all believe it is the best it has ever been. While we expect and work to uncover problems, we are convinced that the crucial work for all of us now is to turn out and vote. Work with us to make this the greatest turnout voting year in the history of America.
Signatures of Endorsement
less than 20 signatures from the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project