Sunday, January 22, 2012

Noway To Verify South Carolina Votes

And now we come to the "First-in-the-South" Republican primary in South Carolina, where all evidence of how voters vote disappears entirely as the voters will be forced across the entire state to vote on easily-manipulated, oft-failed, 100% unverifiable touch-screen voting systems made by the nation's largest voting machine company, ES&S. When the machine-reported results are announced tomorrow night they will either be accurate or not. Either way, there will never be a way for anybody to know one way or the other as there will be nothing to prove how voters voted and nothing to "recount," even if anybody wanted to.
Appropriately enough, perhaps, Saturday's primary in the Palmetto State will offer 100% "faith-based" voting, since it will be scientifically impossible to prove that even a single vote for anycandidate on the ballot has been recorded accurately by the ES&S iVotronic touch-screens as per any voter's intent. Know what we mean, Alvin Greene?...
The machines that will be in use on Saturday in South Carolina are the very same ones that reported an unknown, unemployed, seemingly-illiterate man named Alvin Greene -- who had done no campaigning, had no campaign staff, had no campaign money and no campaign website -- had unverifiably defeated Vic Rawl, a four-term state legislator and circuit court judge who had campaigned and raised money across the entire state, for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2010.

They are the same brand and model of machines (some of them, quite literally, the very same physical machines!) that were used in Florida's contested Congressional District 13 race for the U.S. Congress in 2006 when theyinexplicably lost some 18,000 votes in a raceultimately awarded to the Republican candidate Vern Buchanan over Democrat Christine Jennings by just 369 votes. After that election (the one, ironically, held to fill the seat of Republican Rep. Katherine Harris who had previously been the Sunshine State's partisan Sec. of State during the 2000 Presidential debacle Florida momentarily wised up and largely banned touch-screen voting entirely across the entire state. Many of the state's wholly-unverifiable voting machines were then sent to the landfill, but many others were sold to the state of South Carolina.
The 100% unverifiable ES&S iVotronics that are used across the entire state of South Carolina are also the same type of machines that led to impossible numbers in Monroe County Arkansas' primary election in May 2010, when, as The BRAD BLOG reported exclusively, thousands of votes seem to have simply vanished after being reported by the Secretary of State on Election Night. To this day, neither state nor county officials are able to explain what happened.
They are also the same type of machines that were used in Clay County, Kentucky in 2006 when election officials actually changed the votes of voters on the machines after the voters had left "the booth." Eight top officials from the county's Election Commission -- including the County Clerk, a Circuit Court Judge and the School Superintendent -- are all now serving a collective 156 years in the federal penitentiary for those election fraud crimes.
As well, the ES&S iVotronic system is the same one that was discovered to have been"remotely accessed" on "multiple occasions," including for 80 minutes the day before the 2010 general election, in Republican-leaning Venango County, PA, as recently revealed by a forensic audit carried out by two Carnegie Mellon computer scientists -- both of whom were threatened with lawsuits by ES&S for daring to examine their machines. The Republican-majority Board of Elections in the small, rural county had commissioned the study after problems in several recent elections, as the Chairman of the Election Board told us, resulted in inexplicable under-votes, reported touch-screen vote-flipping, and even zero votes registered for several candidates in some locations during recent elections.
They're the same machines that also registered ZERO voters for an Arkansas mayoral candidatein a 2006 run-off election, even though both he and his wife insist they had voted for him, at the very least.

Read More:

No comments:

Post a Comment