Imagine you go to the polls and choose Mitt Romney on an electronic machine, but your vote comes up Barack Obama. So you re-enter your choice, but the president’s name still stubbornly appears. Then a third try. Ditto.
Innocent malfunction…or something else?
This hasn’t escaped the notice of the Republican National Committee, which has just sent a letter outlining its concerns to the secretaries of state of the aforementioned. The RNC’s chief counsel, John Phillipe, wrote that he understands how “the causes of this problem are varied, and include miscalibration and hyper-sensitivity of the machines,” verbiage diplomatic enough to avoid being branded a (paranoid) life form from another “inhabited planet,” as a complaint-barraged and incredulous North Carolina elections official put it. As for where this puts me, I guess I’m suspicious enough to be targeted by the Men in Black.
I’ll make my case. First, all these stories about uncooperative machines involve votes switched in only one direction: Barack Obama’s. Would this be possible if at issue were merely innocent errors?
If it isn’t true that these malfunctions are curiously monolithic in favor of the president, then where are the news stories to that effect? After all, if Obama votes were switched to Romney ones anywhere, the reliably liberal mainstream media would certainly make it front-page news. But have you gotten wind of such happenings? If so, I’d like to hear about it—honestly. It would be mind-easing.
Next, we’ve all used ATMs, and most everyone (except my quasi-Luddite self) has something such as an iPod. Now, have you ever, anytime, anywhere, had one of these electronic devices switch data input on you? So how is it that in our high-tech universe of flawlessly functioning electronic gadgets, voting machines are the only ones prone to human-like “error”? If there’s an explanation other than human meddling, again, I’d truly like to hear it. Experts, feel free to weigh in.
Lastly, while electronics may not be my forte, I do know something about man’s nature. And the nature of the man known as the leftist has been on full display this election cycle. Consider the OWS protesters who vandalized property, littered grounds, and committed rape and theft; the Democrat partisans who key people’s cars, steal Romney/Ryan signs (happened to someone close to me), and beat up Republicans; the Democrat operative caught on video facilitating vote fraud; the liberals who wanted to kill a conservative 6-year-old; and the progressive septuagenarian who told a conservative 12-year-old he should have been aborted. These actions—just a small sampling of many—reflect well the situational-values set, people who are beneath contempt and above nothing.
Now let’s apply logic. Some of the technicians calibrating electronic voting machines are liberals, and it follows that some percentage of them must be cut from the above stone. After all, does anyone really think that leftist political manipulation and bullying stop at the border separating low-tech and high-tech crime?
This election is within the margin of fraud, and I’ve already made my predictions and written that vote manipulators can, with little question, steal it for Obama. And here is how we could know on Nov. 7: watch the exit polls. Exit polling is a precise enough science so that states can be called for one candidate or another based on it. Thus, if this data shows a Romney win in a state but it nonetheless goes for Obama, it will be a clue that the living-constitution types have given us a living vote count along with a dying republic.
Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) has written for The Hill, Observer, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily and American Thinker. He has also contributed to college textbooks published by Gale – Cengage Learning, has appeared on television and is a frequent guest on radio. His website is Selwyn Duke.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement