By Bev Harris, Founder of BlackBoxVoting.com

New insights on one of the most interesting election fraud stories of 2012...

THIS REALLY HAPPENED.

It's a documented computerized voting system hack; it's been in front of a grand jury; it shows a political pattern. It appears to have targeted three specific and interconnected candidates. It is being declared thwarted and they say it wouldn't have worked. Officials claim the hack is untraceable.

Now here's the truth: It could easily have worked, and I'll describe how below, and by the way, Rocky and Bullwinkle could have caught these guys. The reason they weren't apprehended is that crucial IP addresses were withheld from investigators during the period while trace routing logs were intact.

Two questions still need a real investigation: (1) Which persons did the actual handoff (and omission) of the IPs to state/federal investigators; and (2) Where was the Miami-Dade absentee database to be sent during the print & mail phase of this election?

by Bev Harris, Founder Blackboxvoting.org

It's been a while since we've done this, maybe too long for people to jump in and roll up their sleeves again for one of these "open source" public investigations, but let's see about that. I'm requesting a little help chasing down some names. If you like doing a little online research or know the terrain in Pennsylvania, and can supply any further information on the situation I outline below, I would appreciate it very much!

You can e-mail me directly ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) or you can share anything you find publicly here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/166/82399.html

I am interested in finding out who the vendor was for the system that produced the problem below. I have learned that CIBER, a company with connections to the electronic voting industry, also had some deep involvement with the Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation's technology.

by Bev Harris, founder of Blackboxvoting.org

California Assemblyman Phil Ting has proposed AB 19, a bill to require the California Secretary of State to implement an Internet voting pilot project.

They tell us Internet voting is secure. It's not. It's not secure, and can't be made secure, but that's not even the point.

The point is it's not transparent. The whole premise in our Constitution is that we self-govern. To do that, the public must be able to see and authenticate essential processes, like who actually voted and the vote count, and that is not possible with Internet voting.

Internet voting transfers all control to whoever runs the server. (The server is just a computer that sits in a room -- and one Internet voting company, Scytl, has its server physically sitting in Spain.)

Internet voting gives the administrator complete control over the front end (who put the votes into the system) and the back end (the counting of the votes).

Internet voting is trying to come on with a vengeance, and not just in California. It is now imminent. Unless we are vigilant, many of us will be forced to vote online in 2014 and 2016. Lobbyists are at work to persuade your legislators to install Internet voting.

Political support has been secured from officials in several states. The governor of Hawaii has announced he wants Internet voting. Secretaries of State from Connecticut, West Virginia, Washington, and Oregon are already pushing online voting, and soon you'll hear about it near you. Federal bills promise cash to states that "expedite" their voting systems, with vague language as to what that means.

Because Americans are skeptical about Internet voting, politicians and reporters describe it as "smart phone voting" and "iPad voting." They also call it "convenience voting" but what they don't tell us is that, in exchange for convenience, we will lose the ability to self-govern.