Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

E-Voting Gives Election Cheaters and Conspiracies a Free Hand

By       Message Paul Lehto       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   No comments

Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 2492
- Advertisement -
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 naiveté, 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

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Paul Lehto practiced law in Washington State for 12 years in business law and consumer fraud, including most recently several years in election law, and is now a clean elections advocate. His forthcoming book is tentatively titled DEFENDING (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Germany bans computerized voting; will hand count in 2009

Cuyahoga County Ohio Elections Official Condones Felony Presidential Recount Rigging

GOP Voter Reg Fraud EXPANDS to OUTRIGHT Document Forgery

Why all California's electronic voting systems should be decertified

"Insulating Main Street from Wall Street" Means America's Keys in Wall Street's Pocket

Defending the Freedoms of July 4, 1776: America's Hope for the World