Replies

Obviously done by the Democrats. They want to get back to paper ballots as fast as possible so they can steal the election.

Obviously done by the Democrats. They want to get back to paper ballots as fast as possible so they can steal the election.

I don't know if I trust the electronic voting, either.

Unfortunately, because the machines can be replaced and the manufacturer, which may be a Chavez-owned company, will make a bunch, paper ballots are the only voting mechanism with some potential for checking fraud. In the ‘old’ days, precinct workers, at least one monitor from each political party, counted ballots in public. The ballots were then put in sealed containers and sent to secure storage locations. The original count is tallied and the ballots only used in case a recount is necessary.

Today, there are no ballots, no checks, to monitors. We have entirely opaque elections system. George Soros has invested in another NGO to help control the elections of state secrataries of of state who might be tempted to impose election protocols which might be verified. One can make all sorts of guesses about how voting tallies are executed, but we needn't guess about the verifiability of those tallies because the process is entirely controlled by unelected, and probably union-employed bureaucrats. When reported vote counts in St. Louis in 2000 were larger than the number of registered voters nothing was done; investigations were not demanded by either party.

Elections may be guided by the best guess by those who establish the counts of what they can get away with. Wherever computers are used to tally votes, fraud is not only possible, it is likely. Paper would give us a shot at fair elections.