E-Voting Gives Election Cheaters and Conspiracies a Free Hand

E-voting Gives Election Cheaters and Conspiracies a Free Hand > > > > If you are contemplating committing an act of election fraud, I'd advise > you that it would be illegal. It's not really my job as an attorney, but > it seems to me you'd be very unlikely to get caught, since even conspiracies > pretty much have a free hand to run amok in our elections, so long as they > have any kind of insider connections. > > > > THE BEST PLACE TO FIND AN ELECTION CRIMINAL IS IN OFFICE. > > > > As in my previous published piece called Elections and Jesse James, the > very most likely place to find an election criminal is in office, because > that's there the successful election criminals end up as a prize for their > cheating (or the criminals' best friend ends up in that office). Thus, > give the long history of election shenanigans in this country throughout its > history, criminal access to elections is pretty much guaranteed. (They think > of the cheating as doing justice, to make sure some really stupid electoral > result, in their minds, doesn't occur). > > > CONSPIRACIES ARE NOT REALLY NEEDED IN ELECTIONS BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT > TO STEAL AND WHEN, WITHOUT ORDERS FROM ON HIGH. > > > > Conspiracies are not particularly needed to control electronic elections, > which we now know takes only one person about one minute with one disk from > one machine in one county. Nevertheless, a more ambitious large scale > conspiracy, while totally unneeded in most cases, would also have a free > hand. > > > > THE FIVE FACTORS GIVING CONSPIRACIES AND ELECTION FRAUD A FREE HAND > > > > Why do I say "free hand"? > > Free Hand Factor #1. First, I know of no jurisdiction in the country that > is looking for smoking guns of e-voting fraud. They don't know what they > are, so they certainly will not find them. > > Free hand Factor #2: The high numbers of people who are otherwise > unconnected to the conspiracy who in effect help cover it up by pooh-poohing > any "conspiracy" theorist that comes along to attempt to expose it. These > include pundits, editorial writers, the entire political party that won, > plus a host of others longing to make this "conspiracy theorist" attack > because it seems like a winning move and we all like to win. > > > > Free Hand Factor #3: Most importantly: the high numbers of unconnected, > unpaid folks who will denounce ANY evidence combined with educated theory as > "conspiracy theory" number in the millions and constitute an army of folks > who are de facto protectors of secrecy. This "conspiracy theory attack" > however, is a direct protection of any REAL conspiracy or secretive activity > should it actually exist. > > Free Hand Factor #4: Then there is the difficulty of getting media > attention on this, or a prosecutor's attention, when all but the bravest > election officials (Sancho, Funk) are going to tell the media that all's > fine, it coulda just been..... (blah blah blah PLAUSIBLE EXCUSE), Of > course, a criminal with insider status doesn't need to spend any energy > penetrating the system, and can instead spend all of his or her energy on > making the crime look plausibly innocent and keeping things secret. Thus, a > plausibly innocent excuse is just camouflage or an alibi of sorts that > should not terminate the investigation, but does so terminate it. (A Chicago > Trib political reporter admitted to me that if he came to a fork in the > investigative road where a plausible reason existed for the irregularity in > addition to a fraudulent explanation, his editors would not let him go any > further into "tinfoil land" and yet this is exactly the kind of camouflage > defense a criminal worth his salt is going to erect in the first place!. > > > > Free hand Factor #5: Generally low budgets and staffing for white collar > crime and election fraud crime in most state and federal offices, in fact > the election criminals, if incumbents, may have substantial influence over > the budgets and or investigations of these units. > > THE FIVE FREE HAND FACTORS MEAN ANY PLAUSBILE EXCUSE WILL DO JUST FINE. > > > > So, based on these five general factors, if someone were of the mind to do > something brazen in elections, with or without a conspiracy of support, > they'd be fairly likely to get away with it, because there are so many > pundits, officials, and the entire winning political party and its > supporters who are all looking for any conceivable reasons to support the > result as is. Any plausible reason, and plausible reasons exist to support > a very wide range of elections results including a wide range of fraudulent > results. > > > > THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE DESIRE TO CHEAT IN ELECTIONS > > > > When we think about the fact that we all tend to alert only our likeminded > friends to online polls, effectively stuffing the online ballot box in our > favor, we realize the urge to cheat in elections is pretty much universal, > even though online polls are nonscientific, urging only our friends to vote > is the moral equivalent of stuffing the ballot box and leads to distorted > results compared to random surveys. If we up the stakes only "slightly", > to say, control of the world's largest economy and sole military superpower, > do you think a bunch of folks just MIGHT have an incentive to cheat in the > elections like we do in the online polls? For trillions of dollars, might > they? > > > > OUR COUNTRY HAS BECOME A LAND OF FORCED NAIVETE > > > > The truth is, this is not the land of unlikely conspiracy, this is the > land of some sort of forced naivete', enforced by "conspiracy theorist" > attacks, in which we are all urged in effect to ignore any defense of > democracy's integrity when in fact reason tells us that democracy is greatly > at risk, pretty much at all times and at all history periods. It would > seem most obvious that we should all defend democracy or be sentinels of > democracy, but this seems to be in conflict with being a "conspiracy > theorist." > > > > THE SOLUTION IS FULL TRANSPARENCY > > > > That's why the only solution is radical transparency and full public > supervision. Get so many different and opposed eyeballs watching the > physical ballots that it becomes very hard to get away with anything. > > Without that, my friends, electronic vote counting's trade secrecy gives > bad guys and conspiracies a fairly free hand to do what they will, and they > story of their calumny barely ever gets off the ground in the media. > > "CONSPIRACY THEORY ATTACKS DEFEND IMPROPER SECRECY" > > > > IN a nutshell, e-voting sets up a wall of secrecy that never existed for > in elections, then citizens that use limited available facts to hypothesize > about what's going on behind that wall of secrecy are necessarily engaging > in theory or hypothesis, and therefore are then subject to "conspiracy > theorist" attacks. This shows that the direct rhetorical function of such > ridicule as "conspiracy theorist" is TO SILENCE PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO SECRET > MATTERS. But there's no justification for this secrecy, in elections... ! > Elections are supposed to be the most public areas possible! > > THE BIG PICTURE > > > > Think of it this way, It is, in effect, a crime of sorts to "connect the > dots" concerning secret vote counting in elections, if you're a citizen. > However, if you're the government and the matter is terrorism, you gotta > "connect the dots" and then see a terrorist bomb in every jar of hair gel, > padded bra, or bottle or water ,or else you're not doing your job. In that > case, the guys in the caves are always up to unlimited no good and there > conspiracies are all powerful and all dangerous. > > > > I guess for purposes of this double standard on whether one can engage in > "connecting the dots" or not it just depends on whether you're exposing > government abuse, or furthering it. > > Paul Lehto