Voting-fraud machines and the subversion of democracy, Part Two

Ted Teach, Going Postal

Voting-fraud machines :

The problem with using electronic machines to count votes which have been cast is that they are invariably programmed in some way. What that means is that there is an electronic program which has been loaded into them in some form or other to tell the machines what exactly they are required to do. Those programmes are not something which you can physically inspect in situ – they are a bunch of electronic “1”s and “0”s which are not visible at all. They are stored in a memory device within the voting machine but the memory chip looks the same to you and I no matter what program it holds in its internal workings.

In theory we could get to look at a paper version of the program which we have been told has been loaded into these machines but the vast majority of us would be none the wiser if we did so. Most of us would have absolutely no idea what the voting machines were actually being programmed to do and would have to take it on trust that they were doing what we would want them to do, i.e. count votes accurately and reliably without altering the results in any way whatsoever. (Note that we have already seen photographic evidence from the US of voting machines altering results or only providing a single choice of candidate.)

Firstly, then, we’re having to rely on the say-so of just one person that these voting machines have been programmed correctly, even assuming that we can convince ourselves that the program was correct in the first place.

Secondly, we’re having to take it on trust that the machines, having once been correctly programmed, do not subsequently get reprogrammed with different instructions which change the results which they report. How could we tell if that happened ? The machines would reveal no physical change – there would be no visible evidence that we could ever see.

How might voting machines be re-programmed ? One possibility would be direct physical intervention but that need not even be necessary; modern technology has provided us with the means to build radio receivers so small that we wouldn’t even recognise them as such. That means that a program could be loaded into a voting machine from a remote location without the knowledge of anyone close to the machines. Alternatively, infra-red could be used to implement the changes; the range would be relatively short but, given the proliferation of small handheld devices available to us these days, that would not be difficult to disguise.

I’ve outlined just a couple of the possible means by which voting machines might be made to do something different from what we, the public, would want them to do. Those possibilities alone should be enough to convince any honest person that the whole concept of voting machines is an extraordinarily bad idea. Then stop to consider that the particular voting machines in question have been supplied to the US by a UK company in which a member of the UK House of Lords plays an integral part and that the very same person is a known Soros minion. No wonder Soros was able to boast recently about having already “bought” the result of the upcoming US Presidential election.

Voting machines create a “bottle-neck” effect whereby the whole democratic process depends on the actions of no more than a very few people at a critical point, and possibly just one person. This is entirely contrary to the principles which underpin democracy, i.e. the provision of a free and fair vote which individual voters may cast in anonymity and without coercion or any other kind of interference with the expression of their free will.

In order to achieve and honest and accurate election result the path between the input from the voters to the output, as declared by the returning officer, needs to be as broad as possible. That means that that path must be via as many independent people as possible. The path is effectively only as wide as its narrowest point; if that narrowest point is controlled by just one person then the whole democratic process is compromised – and yes, I realise that means that the returning officer must be subject to the closest possible public scrutiny.

Summary :

Voting machines are emphatically NOT an aid to democracy but a means to its subversion. Imperfect though the old system of paper voting slips is, it remains far preferable to electronic voting, simply because the results are much more difficult to manipulate. Not only that, the paper voting system creates a physical record of the votes cast which can then be checked later if necessary – always assuming that those votes have not been illegally destroyed, as has happened far too often in the past.

Voting machines are something which must be avoided if we are to retain any semblance of credibility in elections. Technology is often not the “good thing” that it might appear to be due to the proliferation of criminals who are all too ready to apply it to the furtherance of their own nefarious ends.

Related miscellany :

You may reasonably be asking yourselves if I am some sort of an expert in such matters as I have described above. To that I say no, I would never wish to be described as an “expert”. That is partly because “experts” have been trotted out by the “establishment” for years now in order to spread its views in return for payment of some sort. This has been done to such an extent that I immediately distrust anyone who is proclaimed as being an “expert” in a particular subject. Secondly, the field of electronics is so vast that it’s difficult to see how anyone could truly be an expert in every aspect of that field. However, I have spent most of my working life actively engaged in the design of electronic devices (primarily radio-based). I am self-taught to a large extent, having effectively begun my career in my chosen discipline while still at school. I have thus seen many changes and technological developments and have a pretty good idea of what is possible these days. Also, my views are offered free, gratis and for nothing.

Regarding the deployment of electronic voting, I understand that such has always been used in the EU “parliament”. No doubt many would claim that our system of having MPs physically move through the division lobbies in Westminster, when the result of a vote is not immediately obvious and undisputed, is archaic and should be replaced by the sort of fraudulent system which the EU doubtless revels in. To that I say poppycock, and for the very same reasons as explained above.

It is my recollection that a certain Daniel Hannan proclaimed himself in favour of electronic voting some time ago. I very much hope that he was merely being naïve in overlooking the obvious shortcomings of such a system; if not then that would mean that he was not someone to be trusted, and that would be a tragedy.

Ted Teach ©