[HOME ] [ABOUT] [PHOTOS] [VIDEO] [BLOG] [HOUSTON] [TEXAS] [U.S. NEWS] [WORLD NEWS] [SPORTS] [POP CULTURE] [CONTACT]
Electronic voting machines are too treacherous to be trusted
The only secure way of voting will always be the physical paper ballot.
by Joseph Earnest November 8, 2012
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—Anybody with a computer programming background will tell you that electronic voting is the least trustworthy method of voting, and its results cannot be fully authenticated, unlike physical paper ballots. This article is in response to those who have been asking me for my opinion about the recent election, and haven't received a response from me yet.
Practically all polling experts who had models showing one candidate would win with certainty, are still baffled as to how their data did not check out on election day. Everyone is talking about demographics and ethnicity, but no one talks about the vulnerability of voting machines, dead people voting, non-citizens on voter rolls, multiple voting, uncounted ballots and suppressed military votes that can affect the outcome of any election.
Nobody talks about voter fraud, because people do not want to believe it happens even though it does, as explained by the Hill (pop-up)
In addition, Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor was hacked and emails obtained by WikiLeaks talk about fraud occurring in both Ohio and Philly in 2008. (pop-up)
Another email says John McCain did nothing about voter fraud after finding out about it, because he felt it would be detrimental to get an injunction to stop the process, and that it might lead to domestic violence, according to the Stratfor emails that were revealed by the WikiLeaks Web site. (pop-up)
Irrespective of all those revelations, when it comes to electronic voting systems, certain predictors or models can be overridden by infecting voting machines with a malicious code or virus so that the results may seem one way to the voter, but the outcome will depend on the how the computer programmer intends for it to be. Below is a demonstration of how unreliable and easily manipulated electronic voting machines can be:
This is a demonstration about how an electronic voting machine can be manipulated to vote the
way a programmer wishes it to vote. So it is not the voter who decides the candidate, rather,
it is the computer programmer who decides which candidate gets the vote.
This next example was conducted by the University of California Santa Barbara Security Group (UCSB) that explores multiple ways of manipulating votes for a particular candidate or party. Part I - Electronic vote manipulation:
UCSB Security Group demonstrates the various ways a voting machine can be compromised
before the actual voting takes place.
Part II: How to compromise electronic voting machines
UCSB Security Group
As mentioned earlier, there are several other ways of defying scientific models projecting a certain winner, like (a) permitting dead people to vote. (pop-up)
We know that the military vote has a tremendous impact on tight races, therefore another factor that can tilt a race is (b) suppressing the military vote. (pop-up)
Furthermore, if people who are not US citizens are allowed to vote, then a political race in a swing state can be affected by (c) illegally accepting votes from non-citizens. (pop-up)
The fourth way an outcome of an election can be affected, in addition to manipulating an electronic voting machine is (d) when people vote multiple times in multiple counties without showing identification. (pop-up)
Yet the most dishonest way of winning a political race is by simply refusing to count ballots out of fear that additional count will cause a favored candidate to lose the race. (e) Uncounted ballots in Arizona, and also in California are a good example.
Having reviewed most of the possible ways of affecting the outcome of an election, the only reliable method that can alleviate the above-mentioned defects is the paper ballot. The above defects can affect both parties in swing states that decide races. In predominantly Liberal or Conservative states, it would be very hard to manipulate the ballots, as those states have high numbers of either registered Democrats or Republicans to offset voter fraud. That's the reason why people should not ignore races at the local level where decisions that affect their lives are made.
Right now Liberal "trolls" are exhibiting buffoonish tendencies, by going around on Conservative Web sites and social network pages posting foolish and shallow comments about the outcome of this past election, because one candidate won and the other didn't.
Yet if these same Liberals faced an injustice, or if a crime were committed against them in their local neighborhoods, and the criminals (car jackers, home invaders, fraudulent banksters, deadbeat spouses, child abusers etc...) were not held accountable by their local courts or police, they are the same ones who would wish their local law enforcement and courts were conservative enough to enforce or apply the law to the fullest extent. Absurd!
Bottom line, anybody who comes to power illegitimately is like a hen that hatches eggs, it did not lay—or an arsonist who collects on fire insurance. Add Comments>>
Related stories:
Subverted
election? Connecting the dots of a questionable election
Election night party mixer as Texans make history at the polls
|
|
Join the Newscast Media social networks
for current events and multimedia content.
Copyright© Newscast Media. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Privacy Policy