ELECTRONIC VOTING, REPORTING, AND POSSIBILITY FOR FRAUD

Most of the elections, if not all, were rigged. I wouldn’t allow Obama to take his second term until this fraud is settled. Then try him for treason.

You are so right. God have mercy on us.

this..and this alone..is the most important dimension to our “continuing” Freedom on the planet

It’s nice to have dreams...

I am very suspicious of the Florida results with the shennanigans that went on there and if that is what it came to, I would agree; however, the final result was outside the margin of fraud.

"Of note, I’m not aware of any stories of big bags of “misplaced” ballots (trunks of cars, in unsecured storage closets, etc) that have suddenly appeared - and magically containing enough votes to place a Democratic candidate ahead."

In most precincts there are not hand generated ballots as there once were. Electronic “ballots” are impossible to audit. There is no audit trail for most votes cast in the US. Absentee ballots are counted in most states by SEIU employees, who have shown great resistance to poll watchers who have been approved by attorney's general to observe absentee counts. The transport of counts is different from state-to-state, and largely irrelevant since vote counts from precincts are not verifiable.

Why do you think the largely secular, and very liberal US Citizens currently voting from Israel voted 89% for Romney and the more observant Jews in US precincts voted 69% for Obama. The votes from Israel are counted as absentee ballots, but not in the districts in New York or Cleveland controlled by the SEIU. One could surmise that this government might want to be able to blame US Jews for what may be about to become of Israel at the hands of Obama's Saudi patron's Jihad troops, the Muslim Brotherhood. There may be some who know how US Jews actually vote, but I can assure you that I now lots of them, liberal Jews, and they fear Obama's clear hatred for Israel. The meaning of polls, and sadly, of apparent votes, has no verifiable connection to how they voted. The mechansism don't allow it.

Without paper ballots and local counts, before the ballots are sent to secure storage, there is no way to audit vote counts. With secret ballots there must be a human count at the front end. With computers doing the counting there is no “checkpoint.&rdquo, no baseline from the source, the local precinct; There is no count associated with the actual voter, before data have been transferred to employees of government unions who have a fiduciary interest in what numbers are reported. Israel, Spain, Mexico, and a number of Eastern European countries use paper ballots because they, along with immediate local counts before the ballots are removed, remains the only auditable mechanism for tabulating secret ballots.

Precinct workers used to be more than ushers. They were trusted neighbors, selected from the respective political parties, who would count the ballots after the polls closed. Their count was the legal reported number. After counting the ballots in plain view they deposited the ballots in secure boxes for guarded transport to vaults. Today the opposite is the case. The mechanisms are opaque. How many know that only the SEIU is allowed to count absentee ballots in most states?

“Big bags” represent a half hearted measure to satisfy the complaints of some constituents who know that our voting system is a charade. Some precincts are using paper ballots today, but they are read by machines with results processed, if they are at all, in secret. Without the paper ballots, which have no association with voters to preserve secrecy, being counted by hand at the precinct in which they are filled out, there is no way to verify from where they came, or that all those filled out were counted. Our voting system is a palliative for those who would like to believe our choices are respected. Both parties have known that voting was largely a ceremony for the naive for several decades. Neither party has taken up the issue for reasons one can easily imagine. We must begin by informing the public, because, like anything associated with computers, most don't understand why computers cannot be used to count votes. The proliferation of spying, spamware and viruses, along with identity theft should give a hint that the cheap and vulnerable embedded computers used in voting systems are anything but secure. We need transparency in our voting systems, but those who are changing our government have built the opposite.

If Allen West can gain access to the ballots cast in his district before they have been accessed by Democrat SEIU operatives, he may find different results than were reported. Unfortunately, the processes are largely controlled by government unions so the ballots he wants hand counted have probably already been “corrected”.

Without paper ballots and local counts before the ballots disappear into union offices, we are now Venezuela, and perhaps shortly, Cuba, except that we may soon be observing Sharia law, where voting has no meaning. Don't believe the claims that computer voting, using the Internet as we do for banking, cannot be spoofed. Once the vote disappears into the system there is no way to affirm how it is counted. Thus far, and I've read many engineering reports and thesis on the topic, there is no more secure assurance than paper ballots and local precinct counting. It will take a few hours to count a thousand ballots, but verifiable votes may allow us to return to a Constitutional Republic, an institution our current government despises.