Replies

"“There was an issue with the memory cards that record the ballots when they're fed through the machines originally,"”

More citizens are beginning to doubt our voting systems, as indeed they should. There is no audit trail for votes, and unless the count is performed before ballots have left the room and oversight of the local precinct workers, no recount has meaning. The recount simply counts what remains after those controlling the ballots have decided to retain. The most we can hope for is enough nonsense, enough ridiculous reports of counts, that a new election is called. Thus far, the 100% counts for Obama in Pennsylvania, even when the majority of black voters in California voted against same sex marriage, makes no sense. The appearance, in more the 50 precincts in "swing states" of more votes than registered voters is ludicrous. Those precincts should all have been removed from the final tabulation, if there ever was one. In truth, we have no way to extract meaningful numbers from those reported by our hodgepodge of voting mechanisms.

In most states the SEIU counts absentee ballots. Our election system used to be based upon paper ballots and local counting by precinct workers within plain view of one another. Any of the workers can check a ballot. There can be two or more counting teams, which would need to agree within a few votes. The ballots are sealed before they leave the room in which they were cast. After the count, which is the official count, the ballots are transported under guard to secure storage, never to be opened without a court order.

Any vote involving counts in computers cannot be verified. There is no “chain-of-evidence” - no audit trail with computers. I have read many proposals, IEEE papers, graduate thesis, and believe I could invalidate any count with which they were used. Read Prof. Avi Rubin's blog to see examples of such exercises. There have been thousands, fun for engineers but not for voters. Computers can help with identification, but the count must be on paper to be trusted. Yes, it might take several days for a complete count, but our citizens would have some reason to keep working, with hope that citizens will learn why a representative republic is worth being part of, even if your measure and candidate was not chosen this election. Today you are not represented. Voting is meaningless, except for the talking points raised by pundits and the state-run media, whose livelihoods are based upon explaining. Today, voting is symbollic, and claimed results decided by our managers, our community activists, via a secret process. Coordination is most likely distributed to activists in individual states so that exposure of corruption must proceed one state at a time.

All the talk about this state's voting blocks or attempts to interpret an election where the data are absolutely unverifiable is well meant, but meaningless. Some of us, mostly those in the computer industry, have known this for decades. Most citizens have a naive trust in computers. The trust that matters in a representative republic is trust in the judgment of citizens.

Some citizens, most of whom want to retain or obtain more power over federal policies, did away with paper and local counts claiming it was to assuage the TV networks, which wanted to report vote counts in real time. The networks formed a private corporation, Voter News Service, owned by CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, and CNN. Voter News Service actually counted the votes and reported the results. Today, whether or not there was chicanery in Voter News Service, our voting system so thoroughly corrupted that election managers probably take care not to deviate too much from previously reported fictitious counts. What blocks voted, in what numbers, and for whom cannot be trusted, and there is nothing that can be done to recover the real intentions of voters because there are no ballots that have secured, and no count before they were secured with which to compare a recount. Those cheating are often very clever about the techniques used from state to state.

This is not conjecture. This is a truth that those who develop secure systems, for banks, for chemical and pharmaceutical analysis, doing any kind of legitimate statistical analysis, have come to take for granted. How trustworthy are your data? Our elections do not come close because the data disappear after being generated in each precinct, leaving no verifiable hint of their content. Voting is a symbolic activity, with meaning to the naive, but meaningless if one wants to use the data to describe the intent of voters. Those filled stadiums for Romney, the attempts at polling so contrary to the vote until two days before the election, were not incompetence. When the vote is generated by political activists the actual polling done by people who actually call likely voters will have no reason to correlate. They didn't. It was not an accident. Voting today is a political process managed by those who control the process, as Stalin explained long ago.

There has been a dialog which prepared me to expect the outcome of this “election” - in parenthesis, because it was nothing of the sort. We were fed, and accepted, a story conjured up by people who knew the outcome because they controlled it. The details differ from state-to-state, but with growing certainty as the SEIU became the vote counters and Soro’s Secretary of State Project bore fruit.

In questioning the background of Barack Obama, one which remains largely concealed, many “authorities” explained that we could not know what our founders meant by the phrase “natural born citizen” because there was no definition in the Constitution. Most people accepted that explanation, clearly never having carefully read the Constitution, because our framers, explicitly, and for excellent reasons, did not include definitions in the Constitution. That is called a false flag conundrum. The Constitution contains but one refinement of a term, an exception which proves the rule. Our Constitution was written, as Madison and Chief Justice Waite explained, to depend upon our common-law and language familiar to our framers for definitions. Otherwise, the natural evolution of words will change the meaning of the Constitution.

Our rulers depend upon our ignorance for their commissions. Believing that without a definition in the Constitution, a provision's interpretation is indeterminate. Believing votes counted and reported by those who don't believe we have the intelligence to rule ourselves assumes a similar naivety. Think about how trustworthy is a poll of 100 people in a room, whose secret opinions were written on folded paper, with the paper passed out of the room to be tabulated, in secret, by people whose jobs depended upon a certain outcome. Without a local count, results have no meaning. Once out of the room, the folded papers have no validity, unless they are guarded, and unless there was an internal count, before they left the room. Our voting system does not represent our citizens. We must realize that it is a fraudulent mechanism to control us. We must fix it, or lose most of what our founders and our military gave their lives for, our freedom.