[justiceseeker93]

I laud your initiative in regard to testing voting machines, GregNH. Electronic hacking is a form of voting fraud and cheating that is rarely discussed, even in forums such as ours. Yet it can easily have the largest numerical impact on the reported vote, because it can alter the counting thousands of votes in one action. It appears as if the Obama campaign and its agents were doing electronic hacking of voting equipment targeted specifically to the swing states, of which New Hampshire is obviously one. That kind of fraud can easily account for the significant differences between pre-election polling by usually more reliable pollsters (e.g., Rasmussen) in these states and the reported election returns.

No wonder why Romney campaign operatives were reported to be "shellshocked" when the results came in on election night: they had no inkling that they were going to be blindsided by such egregious cheating, cheating that can be done most efficiently through electronic hacking. People that play the game by the rules sometimes have no clue as to what their sleazy opponents are capable of doing to harm them.

[Spaulding]

"Yet it can easily have the largest numerical impact on the reported vote, because it can alter the counting thousands of votes in one action."

I agree with everything you have said Justiceseeker93. We have no reason to assume reported vote tallies mean anything more than what those with control of what is reported want you to believe. Voting is being used to divide ethnic, cultural, and religious groups, because the need to belong to a group is so powerful. If people are told that their groups don't support their political ideals they feel isolated, and there is no way, in such a large country, to know otherwise.

Having worked in secure technologies for decades, fault tolerant networks, laboratory information management systems that collect and securely store analysis from dozens of machines to insure the purity or measure the impurities in drugs and other chemicals, I am not easily misled by the nonsense about voting machines. I know that it probably matters more that whatever data are counted by these machines are sent without supervision to political operatives, most of whom work for the SEIU, than that the machines are almost all crude and easily penetrated electronically.

The explanation that strikes home for me comes from comparing the OJ trial, which most everyone knows about, and has strong opinions about, to our voting process. All the physical data from the murder scene were collected by two police technicians - “criminalists”. The criminalists testified that each labeled sample included date/time/description/criminalist signature, and that each criminalist had collected about half the samples. When evidence was submitted, only one criminalist's signature appeared on all the samples. That is called an audit trail. All the physical evidence had thus been invalidated, regardless of what people think about OJ. The jury foreman did the proper thing and asked for all the time evidence again, since there was no admissible physical evidence.

When votes are cast, and the event is recorded by a machine, a machine maintained by one of the interested parties, the SEIU, there is no admissible evidence of the intentions of that voter. There is not only no audit trail, the system was built permit manipulation of counts by whomever did the counting (As Stalin explained, "It only matters who counts the votes!"). Democratic voting systems depend upon the integrity of volunteer precinct workers who live in the precinct, district, state, and country affected by the result. It was once our practice that ballots were counted in the public room in which votes were cast, in full view of party volunteers, and that count was the official count unless a court ordered a recount. The ballots were stored securely, with signatures of the counters and observers included. That permitted a recount and included an audit trail. Today we have none of that. Technically, voting is a myth. The FDA would never accept analysis with no audit trail whatsoever. I won't risk boring you with what satisfies them, but their demands were reasonable protections against contamination or unscrupulous manufacturers who have hidden contamination to obtain approvals for sale.

Obama cannot be assumed to have a mandate. He is trying to further consolidate control, taking over state and local elections even more than he already has. We do not have representation, which is probably why so few legislators are willing to stick their necks out. Control of elections means control over legislators. States each have their own Secretaries of State, who control the voting mechanisms. But recall Soros’ Secretaries of State Project. How many of those Secretaries of State has his money bought? The employees of those Secretaries of State are mostly SEIU members.

We need paper ballots, as Germany recently decided for their own voting system, approved, and implemented. We need vote counting to be done in public, before the ballots physically disappear into storage vaults. Elections will take longer, but they will be real elections. Volunteers will be plentiful. Those ballots are precious protectors of the rights were are now losing at a fearful pace. They once directed a government of, by and for the people. Today they have no provable validity, and are being used to control the citizenry, alienating citizens and stealing their productivity to keep a malleable population of dependents on government support to justify the tyranny of the proletariat.