|
momentum. Why did he win by only 4%? That would be a very good question to ask of the CT stats.
CT is similar to Mexico. CT has tried and true, old-fashioned lever machines for the voting (almost impossible to rig), but electronic tabulation of the totals. Unless there is careful auditing, fraud can occur in that case. Perhaps they tried and failed (didn't have enough of an e-voting system in place to overcome Lamont's overwhelming win*)--or perhaps there was fraud or fraudulent intent in all those last minute "Democratic" registrations. In Mexico, they have a very insecure paper ballot system, combined with a highly manipulable central electronic tabulation system (in which Calderon's brother had an interest). Ballot boxes were stuffed (or emptied), sealed, and false totals reported--sometimes a 90% or 100% or more vote for Calderon, which the electronic tabulation system hid until the last moment. But Mexico's election theft system is not as seamless as some ours are--Lopez Obrador's supporters found some of the discarded ballots, and alert techies caught the anomalous tabulation numbers.
----------
*Diebold/ES&S touchscreens obviously work best with the Diebold/ES&S central tabulators (for fraudulent totals). We can know this by inference, if nothing else--for instance, the vicious lengths the fascist cabal has gone to, in California, to get touchscreens in place. Especially in paperless voting, touchscreens create a smooth, seamless and completely invisible and undetectable election theft system. ONE THIRD of the U.S. voted this way in 2004! Touchscreens with some sort of "paper trail" are only slightly more secure--a very minor deterrent effect--because the central tabulators run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code are still in place, as they are with optiscans. Optiscans are a few degrees more secure, but the paper ballots they provide are dropped into a box--separating the vote from the evidence of the vote--and are almost never seen again. Optiscan security also depends on the deterrent effect of possible recounts (extremely rare; very expensive; blockaded in many ways, and also manipulable), and on audits, which are currently non-existent in many places, and extremely inadequate in others.
That e-voting was never tested with a 100% audit--yet was used nationwide in 2004--tells you how useful minor "fix its" are now, for instance, trying to ADD ON a 1% or 2% audit of this high speed, invisible vote counting system, with fascist media pressuring for instant results.
Some election reform activists would have us support HR 550, the Holt bill, in the hope that the Diebold Congress will vote itself out of power. It ain't gonna happen. The best thing to do is massive Absentee Ballot voting in November, to bring this election theft system to its knees, and get rid of these machines! --ALL of them, touchscreens, optiscans and central tabulators!
This NON-TRANSPARENT e-voting system was INTENDED to steal our elections, and HAS stolen them. You only have to watch Congress for a day or two to know that (--not to mention watching Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld). There is no "fixing" it. There are only DEGREES of SECURITY--all far less than 100%--that can be achieved through MITIGATION. This system can never be made truly secure. Those who put it in place and are running it are too corrupt. They and their goddamned election theft machines need to be entirely EVICTED from our election system.
CT is almost unique, in the difficulty of e-rigging there (difficult but not impossible). I think NY also has lever machines (and is fighting the Bushites to keep them), and Oregon has very secure all mail-in voting. The irony is that CT's OTHER Senator, Christopher Dodd, was a key player in the imposition of Bushite corporate control over our elections everywhere else. He was a main architect of the $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle, passed by the Anthrax Congress, that started all this--the destruction of our election system, nationwide.
|