from breadwithcircus.com
First, let me say that I have no horse in the US Presidential race. I don’t care if the winner is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or Al Gore for that matter. I will be happy with which ever Democrat wins, provided that they restore Habeas Corpus and shut down the Guantanamo Bay Gulag. All of that said, it looks as if the results of last night’s New Hampshire Primary are fraudulent.
Machine-Counted vs Hand-Counted Ballot Results
There is a distinct difference between the results in places where ballots were hand-counted compared to the results in places where machines counted the vote.
Diebold machines counted about 80% of the total vote. They gave Clinton a victory over Obama, 39% to 36%. However, in places where votes were counted by hand, the score is Obama 38%, Hillary 34%. Isn’t that curious? Mitt Romney also appears to have benefited from the voting machines. Paper ballots gave him 25% of the vote while the machines gave him 33%.
There are also reports that votes for Ron Paul were not counted. One claim involves a small town called Sutton. The offical results said that Paul had received zero votes in Sutton. However, three members of one Sutton family claim that they had all voted for Paul. Clearly, their votes were not counted. Is this just a coincidence? There were also other places where Paul received zero votes. Were Paul voters similarly disenfranchised there?
It looks very much like the vote was rigged last night. A recount is in order, or would be if the machines had a paper trail. I urge everyone to make an issue out of this, and to pass this story along. American democracy is in grave danger. Elections have been stolen in the past. We can all work to stop it from happening again.
Alex, you need to do just a little more; that is to suggest a solution.
I’m very pleased you libs see the problem, but the jackasses we have in office apparently need it laid out for them from beginning to end with no pieces missing so they don’t have to think. Here, below is my effort:
Concerning Election Reform
It’s very exciting to me that with our technology, even the confused little old lady in Florida can’t screw up the voting system. Instead of her being able to carefully hang a chad, or vote for both Gore and Bush, she must now press a frail, uncertain finger against a touch screen that won’t tolerate anything other than a single choice.
But now, as the election reform issue turns to other topics, there is a growing mindset that is willing to sacrifice secrecy for accurate vote count. This bothers me because I don’t want man or machine to know how we vote.
The question, then, is how do we obtain both a very high degree of voting privacy and accuracy?
This is how:
(1) Require photo identification (such as a driver’s license) against the up-to-date list of names of registered voters.
We should enter the voting precinct and show picture I.D. to the poll worker, who then finds us on the list. Then we sign on the line next to our name, and go vote.
(2) Use a computer touch screen which both issues a paper ballot to the voter, and records the vote electronically.
(3) The paper ballot is then inspected by the voter and put into the ballot box.
After the polls close, the paper ballots are carefully counted, the count is matched against the number of people who showed i.d., and signed the list, and against the computer disk record. All three must match: paper ballot, number of people who signed to vote, and computer disk count.
So if 2000 people showed I.D.., 2000 must have voted electronically and there must be 2000 paper ballots. If they don’t match, work it out amongst all parties to satisfaction.
(4) Randomly pre-assign the ballot with a number, issued to the voter. For example, the number 4XXX2170 might be your ballot number. This number is on your paper ballot and you either write it down or tear a little tab with the number on it before putting the paper ballot in the ballot box. Then all the numbers are displayed on the internet. No one else has any idea who 4XXX2170 is, but you. This helps verify that your vote was recorded and counted. This also gives the total number of voters, again. If not there, voter reports discrepancy.
(5) Provide appropriate punishment for those who cheat, so it’s not worth it to do so.
For example, I think it was some place in Florida, more people voted for Al Gore in 2000 than there were registered voters.
Cheating like this should be investigated and prosecuted vigorously.
One thing I really dread is a federal takeover of our election process. States are reforming their ballot process just fine, thank you very much, and should receive neither federal mandates nor federal money, in spite of what Jimmy Carter wants.
The state run election is one of the more subtle yet powerful checks and balances in our system of government and besides, the govt is already too large, powerful and wasteful to be taking on more responsibility.
Incidentally, people should not be overly encouraged to vote. I’m very willing to study the issues and candidates and vote for those who don’t feel like it.
Being able to register and vote the same day is a bad idea because it disrupts the carefully maintained list of registered voters needed for accurate elections (see point #1).
It’s an embarrassing fact that one of the components of our Judeo/Christian heritage, honesty, is now so lacking in our culture that the foregoing is necessary. As a result, our voting system, in order to be accurate, must contain redundancy and therefore be expensive to administer. But I’m certainly willing to pay the price for secret, thoroughly accurate elections, and suggest the preceding as a way to achieve much needed election reform.
Grimgold
Comment by grimgold — January 10, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Alex, I just posted your article to a conservative website. Thanks; doin’ my best to spread the word.
Funny that the Main Scream Media hasn’t said a word. Hmmmmm?
Grimmy
Comment by grimgold — January 10, 2008 @ 9:48 pm