Front Page  »  

Hill supporters accused of manipulating poll

May 3, 2012

Adam Hill

In an apparent attempt to keep Adam Hill seated as 3rd District San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, several supporters allegedly used unethical methods to vote multiple times in a New Times poll. [NewTimes]

The weekly poll question asked, “Which of these candidates for SLO County Supervisor has your vote?” Answers included 3rd District candidates Adam Hill and Ed Waage and 5th District candidates Debbie Arnold and Jim Patterson.

On  April 28, Waage took a small lead over Hill with about 150 votes in. The Democratic Central Committee responded by sending an email to members explaining how to manipulate the vote by cleaning cookies and voting repeatedly.

Shortly afterwards, it appeared someone was using an automatic program. From about 8:30 p.m. until midnight, approximately three votes a minute were made in favor of Hill.

Waage supporter Kevin Rice, also a recipient of the committee email, checked to see if turning cookies off allowed a second vote, and then called several media outlets including the New Times and CalCoastNews to report the apparent crooked voting.

“It was very clear someone was using an automatic program because the votes were coming in consistently and then it just stopped,” Rice said “It looks like team Adam Hill shares the same ethics as their candidate.”

In the end, 86 percent of those votes, roughly 5,396, went to Hill with the other three candidates receiving between 4 percent to 5 percent of the vote.

In today’s New Times, the Shredder wrote that its “IT guy” discovered that 5,349 votes were made from just three IP addresses.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


211 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Typical of Adam Hill and typical of democrats this day and age. i firmly believe that this is why they are so opposed to Voter ID laws. I mean, seriously, who cannot get an ID and use an ID? Can you open a bank account? No!. You cannot even go into certain Federal Buildings without some type of ID yet we want to allow anyone to show up at a polling place with a name and address and vote. There is fraud and I bet that it is rampant.


0

I don’t think that the generalization can extend to all Democrats (at least on the local level). I am not even sure whether Adam Hill himself was directly involved in this. But it reflects poorly on either his ethics, his oversight of his supporters or both.


That said, it is a problem of politics in general and not of one side (Democrats) or the other (Republicans). And I am sure that there are people on both sides that can “justify” their actions as necessary to counter the immoral or illegal behavior of their opponents campaigns — with very specific examples. (i.e. ‘fixing” of electronic voting machines in FL and elsewhere by GOP).


The biggest problem for those of us who want integrity in politics is the realization that taking the high road may lead to a exhilarating view from the top of a peak but politics is war and the important action often takes place in the trenches. In other words, the high road can lead to a place where little can be accomplished except to reduce one’s exposure to enemy fire.


As I age the cynical realist part of me tells me that, to the extent that the AVERAGE citizen doesn’t take the time to become ACCURATELY informed of the complexities in the world of politics, the dirty fighting in the trenches will be allowed to continue. The mere fact that this website and other alternative news sources are ignored by the majority of voters in this county who only get their news from TV (or at “best”, the Trib) means that those same people will not even be aware of uncomfortable truths about politicians to say nothing of ignorance and misinformation about the issues in general.


The idealist in me says don’t give in and become part of the problem. But it often can’t come up with a realistic solution so what do I do? Join the uninvolved masses?


0

Where has the integrity of our elected officials gone. This is so wrong and ethical but it is a public poll and serves a barometer in the community. To think someone could be so desperate to do something like this is very sad, especially with the support from the Democratic Central Committee. But then again, is this not that supervisor who called someone after they wrote a letter to the editor and claimed to be Mr. Waage and then called the episode a “joke”. This representation of the community when you take an oath to support and abide by the Constitution, Laws, and fairness is still important to some of us even if you think it is only a joke and you have no respect for us, the people you serve. Shame on all of you!


0

How do you know that Hill is responsible for this?


0

At this point, no one here does know — one way or the other. The thing is that if Hill was not involved, he apparently failed to communicate to whichever supporters were involved the importance of ethics in campaigning.


0

Well. I guess it could have been Mr. Waage just playing a joke on Mr. Hill. Really!!!


0

If Hill is not involved, then he will make a public statement admonishing the Demo. Central Committee or Team Adam Hill. Let’s see if this happens.


0

Why in the world would Adam Hill want to or need to do anything like that? Why should ANYONE resound to another misleading Kevin p. Rice propaganda campaign?


There is no rule against voting multiple times on a New Times weekly poll, so why should the DCC be admonished at all?


0

Dear Lynette,


Here’s just one message:


——– Original Message ——–

Subject: Re: [list-slocdp] Another Important New Times Poll!

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:37:03 -0700

From: Eric Wooten

Reply-To: listslocdp@****.***

To: listslocdp@****.***


It should be one vote per computer, unless you erase your cookies.


Anyway, as long as you aren’t a government employee, vote from your phone, work and home!


0

Oh too Funny, No wonder Adam Hill gamed the system. He only got 5% of the total honest votes. Heck, once those 5349 votes that came from the 3 IP address are backed out, it only leaves a total of 925 votes and 878 of those votes went to the other Candidates. Waage, Patterson and Arnold split the other 95% of the vote just about evenly. So it was………….

******************WAAGE 292***********************


HILL 47


If that is any sort of indication of how the public is leaning, Hill is toast. He better find a better find a new cheat sheet.


0

cindy, I’m a total computer novice. So if 5349 votes came from 3 IP addresses does that mean 3 different computers? In the same bldg? So the computer guy at New Times can look up the IP addresses of who voted, right? Again, I’m a total novice! ;0


0

Not necessarily in the same building and it is not supposed to be easy to find out who “owns” those IP addresses or where they are physically located without a court order. (BTW, I am not an expert on this, just a semi-informed novice.)


0

It means that ALL those 5349 came from 3 separate locations. An IP address is simply an address that is identifies the location that it is assigned to, a very distinct location, like a home or a coffee shop and sometimes it can be for an entire office or sometime there are several IP addresses that are assigned and accessed in an office. The IP address simply indicates where the person with the computer is at the time that they are on line. The person who lives or owns the physical address where the IP address is assigned can be identified if necessary by the access provider like Charter Cable or Verizon Wireless etc. Generally it takes a court order to obtain that information.


People can share IP addresses with each other when they are together. If you come to my home with your lap top and want to get on line, I can give you my account info and you and I will then both be using the same IP address. Once you leave my home, you won’t be able to access the internet with my IP address any longer because the address is just that, it is an address and you must be present at that addresses or very close by to use it ;)


Glad to be of help.


0

Cindy, you have presented ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Adam Hill “gamed the system.” And besides, there is NO RULE whatsoever that tries to prohibit multiple votes not the New Times poll. Get real.


0

The position of SLO County Supervisor is non-partisan. Why would the Democratic Central Committee get involved?


0

It’s non partisan in name only. The campaigns are fully involved with each party- both Republican and Democratic.


0

Check out their involvlement on the City of SLO Council. They are very rooted in local politics and especially the races. I am a registered democrat and will soon become an indepenent.


0

I dare CalCoast to reveal the supposed e-mail. Like so many articles here, the “several supporters allegedly used unethical methods” is just that, an ALLEGATION, yet it is passed off as fact. I’ll believe it when I see that e-mail. Otherwise Waage’s supporters might have done what is being alleged by the Dems.


0

Lynette ask the Shredder for revelation. CCN is only linking to the original story here. duh.


0

OMG, I guess you missed the fact that this happened at the New Times. How could you possibly have missed that fact, its clear as day in the article? You didn’t even read this article, did you? You heard about it from word of mouth and just came running over here trying to do damage control while accusing people of making up stories. Deny, Deny, Deny, typical Adam Hill spin, that man has more odd occurrences and stories than the Disney Channel.


0

Lynette : Don’t you have a follow up statement like “I didn’t realize this was a linked story” or “Thanks for showing the email from the Dem. Central Committee” or were you commenting just to criticize the Cal Coast News and try to imply that Waage’s supporters are at fault.


0

Kevin, you’d better get down to Julie Rodewald’s office and file a complaint. This is a clear case of voter fraud.


Oh, hold on, I’m being sarcastic in case you didn’t get it.


Really?. Who cares, it’s a New Times “poll”. It’s absolutely meaningless. Kevin is probably pissed that Waage’s supporters are not smart enough to do the same thing.


0

brettms,


Do you mean “not smart enough” or “not unethical enough”? This is just Team Adam Hill acting exactly like Adam Hill.


Yes, it is somewhat meaningless, but not absolutely meaningless. People take cues from the crowd, and a poll showing strong support of a particular candidate influences people, especially in a magazine read by the tens of thousands.


However, I think the fact that Team Adam Hill will go to any extent on the smallest poll says a lot.


0

You’re absolutely correct SLORider. A poll that indicates the sort of results like the one that “Team AH” manifested for the New Times readership creates public chatter and infectious misconceptions about the popular candidate who has achieved an 80 point LAND SLIDE spread in the polls . Then people start to talk about how he is unbeatable while pointing to the poll results. Perception is everything and the politicians know it.


0

SkORIDER, kevin p. rice, you have shown absolutely no evidence to back up your accusations against Adam HILL, and you have conveniently ignored the fact that there is NO RULE against voting more than once from a single IP address. Does Ed Waage condone your sleazy political attacks?


0

It’s called “cheating.” That does matter and it occurs on all levels of govt. One would think it would be too risky on the smaller, local front. You risk getting exposed, ala the Hill Team.


0

No, you are wrong, Disgusted. It is not cheating if you don’t break a rule. Polls like that encourage multiple votes and the media outlets usually don’t like to discourage that because they want the activity on their websites.


0

Wow, voting is really easy now. I normally have to go down to a polling station and stand in a little booth and check boxes for a few minutes to elect someone. Now I can just do it from the New Times website?


Why does this poll on the New Times website matter to anyone? It’s not like we are electing the guy based on those results.


0

Integrity matters at all times. And to think that Adam Hill was teaching our sons and daughters before he was elected to office is disturbing to say the least. Personal responsibility counts.


0

Did Adam Hill rig this poll, do you have info that rest of us don’t have?


0

The number one attribute of a supervisor should be character and responsible behavior. Clearly lacking in this candidate and his people. “Whatever it takes” seems to be the campaign direction. Tearing down signs, skewing polls, what’s next. Adam might need to get HIS cookies cleaned in this election.


0
1 2 3 4 … 6