MARYLAND | 2014 | Governor
TellTale Signs of Election Fraud in a State Set Up for Electronic Rigging
Polling discrepancies, statistical analysis, and paper ballots indicate potential fraud in the 2014 race for governor.
- Polling Discrepancy: An overwhelming amount of pre-election polls predicted a Democratic victory.
- Shocking Upset: The Republican candidate won by a surprising margin in a state where there are twice as many registered Democrats.
- Statistical Evidence: An election researcher detected a suspicious upward trend for the Republican in districts with the most voters.
- Paper Trail: The Democrat won the paper absentee and provisional ballots by a 10-point margin.
- Down-Ballot Anomalies: Democratic candidates for lesser offices received more votes than the gubernatorial candidate.
- No Accountability: The Diebold touchscreen electronic voting machines in use are impossible to audit.
- Whistleblower: A former Diebold technician revealed that the company committed numerous violations in Maryland.
- Shady History: Leaked reports indicate Diebold has a history of hiding major voting machine security problems from the public.
Republican Larry Hogan won a shocking upset over Lt. Governor Anthony Brown in the 2014 race for Maryland governor. Polls predicted victory for the Democrat throughout the campaign, yet the electronic voting machines reported a completely flipped result.
The 2014 Maryland election was conducted mostly on touchscreen electronic voting machines that couldn't be audited and have since been replaced. It took Maryland officials nearly a decade to discard the deficient Diebold AccuVote TS system despite known problems.
A document leaked in 2006 shows that security vulnerabilities were withheld from government officials and from the public. An independent analysis by SAIC was heavily edited and redacted by Diebold itself, and SAIC was never given access to the proprietary source code. According to Brad Blog, this was “a very purposeful plan by Diebold to hide the operational and security flaws on the machines that count all of the votes in Maryland.”
Other signs point to a suspicious outcome in 2014. The percent of votes for Hogan trended upward in large precincts, including the heavily Democratic and African American city of Baltimore. Election watchdog Richard Charnin believes this may indicate electronic vote flipping.
Richard Charnin also compared different tabulation methods in search of discrepancies. He found that while Hogan won on the electronic voting machines, Brown won 55 percent of the paper absentee and provisional ballots. Those ballots represent 5 percent of total votes cast, an amount similar to what might be counted in a post-election audit.
Several Democratic candidates in lesser races received more votes than Brown did for governor, something that typically never happens. While Brown received 819,000 votes, the Democratic candidate attorney general received more than 936,000, and the candidate for comptroller received more than 1 million.
In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans roughly two to one, a Republican victory with suspicious numbers warrants investigation. When that victory comes via unverifiable touchscreen voting machines that are impossible to audit, voters have reason to suspect that their votes were not counted as cast.
Hired as a Diebold contractor during deployment of Maryland's voting machines, Chris Hood says physical security was routinely compromised, illegal software patches were applied, memory cards were erased (notably in Baltimore County 2004), and Diebold employees entered votes directly into tabulators (in Montgomery County 2002). Watch his full interview on YouTube.
"Leaked 2003 Report on Maryland's Diebold Voting Systems Reveals Serious Security Concerns Were Withheld," by Rebecca Abrahams, Brad Blog.
"An open invitation to election fraud," by Farhad Manjoo, Salon.
"Diebold's Political Machine," by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Mother Jones.