Read the entire story here.
According to Buell, Oconee County failed to save about two-thirds of its audit files: voting data stored on small memory cards – or “flash cards” – that are supposed to be removed from voting machines and uploaded to a central computing system.
“Only about a third of the cast vote records show up in the files,” says Buell. “They’re just missing 2/3 of the vote data which makes it impossible to do a serious audit.”
Venango County has turned over their iVotronics to two Pittsburgh College computer scientists for a forensic audit. There were “numerous reports of vote-flipping, candidates missing from screens, write-ins missing, and high undervote rates in their May 17 Primary”.
Read the rest of the story here.
Here is the first complete independent county by county audit of South Carolina’s ES&S iVotronic voting system.
Here is the entire article by Robert Behre describing some of the problems with the November 2010 election audit.
Duncan Buell, a University of South Carolina computer science professor, helped spearhead the League’s audit.
“By my count, there were eight counties for which there were significant problems in terms of being able to get an independent audit to determine if the numbers were correct.”
He noted Williamsburg, Orangeburg and Lancaster counties had no electronic data available, while Oconee and Horry counties were unable to produce usable audit files. In Richland County, more than 1,000 votes in two different precincts didn’t get counted.
Colleton certified incorrect totals because of human error, and Charleston County was unable to account for 35,000 votes, or about 25 percent of the total, in the audit.
Taken together, Buell said, “we have a serious problem in having an election where we can go back and get results and be sure we have the right answers. I think what we have a system that’s not acceptable because there are too many errors happening.”
Buell noted that only 15 of 46 counties provided all five files requested. “That’s not a very good record,” he said. “For some of those counties, there were a few that produced only tiny fractions of the right data. I think we deserve better than that.”
The experts say the newly developed hack could change voting results while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind.
“We believe these man-in-the-middle attacks are potentially possible on a wide variety of electronic voting machines,” said Roger Johnston, leader of the assessment team “We think we can do similar things on pretty much every electronic voting machine.”
The Argonne Lab, run by the Department of Energy, has the mission of conducting scientific research to meet national needs.
Read the rest of the story here.
Please read the entire editorial at this link. A few excerpts are below.
“The election process is essential to democracy, and the credibility of the system is in jeopardy.”
“The Audit Council should be given the task to determine the extent to which the system is dependable, and whether changes need to made. “
Corey Hutchins of the Columbia Free Times reports on the ongoing State Election Commission audit in this August 17, 2011 article
The State Election Commission is auditing voting data from the 2010 statewide elections, and as it does, critics of the state’s iVotronic touch screen voting machines say the government audit is proving there are problems with the system — problems the agency doesn’t dispute.
“The Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments approved a resolution Monday requesting the Legislative Audit Council perform an audit of our voting system.”
James Island Public Service Commissioner Eugene Platt, who pushed for the resolution, was delighted it passed. “I think this vote makes the BCD Council of Governments the first council of governments in the state to take this stand,” he said.
Here is the link to the SC State Election Commission website where audit data and results are being posted.
Read the entire article here and view the COG resolution below. 
.
We continue to see problems across SC counties regarding the inability to properly store and reproduce the electronic files that are required to be kept for 22 months. The August 14, 2011 Times and Democrat article by Phil Sarata,County voting records absent in state audit, describes what happened.
An audit of electronic voting records by South Carolina election officials did not include local files, Orangeburg County Voter Registration Director Howard Jackson says.
“The state sent our office a software program to extract data from the (November 2010) general election,” Jackson said. “When we installed it, it crashed the whole computer system.