Replies

“Romney is anti-conservative, and he deserves the blame of what his 20 years of effort, and 50 millions dollars of his personal funds, did to America.”

But West lost. A Republican is a Republican is a Republican. Doesn’t matter if he’s a RINO or the best conservative out there. The Dems will always find a way to get someone even more liberal.

That was one of the major points against the liberal, anti-conservative Romney, that he would hurt the down ticket, and he did.

This isn’t about democrats vs republicans anymore. Its about the “makers” vs the “takers.” There are now more takers than makers. The takers rule this country. The makers are the slaves that fund it.

Time for everyone to learn about voting systems. The US, both parties, has refused to implement verifiable elections. No one can say, because there are no audit trails in the US system today, how many votes were cast and for whom. Auditablity is lost at the precincts, where it used to be the case that paper ballots were counted locally. Today, humans are removed from the process up front, and trust is irrelevent, because the counts are extracted, largely by SEIU personell, and collated by programs protected from scrutiny by our legal system.

Mia Love and Allen West were threats, in close races. Those controlling the counts are smart enough to make little changes which might seem plausible. The bottom line is that we have absolutely no means of verifying vote counts. We do not today have a representative republic, regardless of what anyone babbles about the latest touch screen system. A voter can have a printed receipt, and compare his/her vote with the what they see on a screen. But there is absolutely no way to insure that what a voter is shown is tabulated as marked, and forwarded to some anonymous authority. All the authorities are anonymous, and that should be a clue. Only real people at the precincts, reading counts from hand printed ballots is verifiable. It is a little more trouble, but today, our elections cannot be assumed to have meaning.

This is not a new phenomenon. It depends upon the naivety of the public about computing equipment. Paper, and local counts, is the only way to provide an audit trail. Computer scientists have tried for decades to to develop auditable verifiable voting, with some clever, but thus far, flawed results. Many in political power don't want to return to paper ballots, claiming the process is too slow. But without it, elections are not verifiable, and can easily be manipulated. Until this major hole in representative government is fixed, prognostications about why a measure passed or failed, or why someone did or didn't win are meaningless. The person who or party that wins an election today is most likely the person or party that controls the report of the count, because there is no verfiable count.