The Rise of the Machines

Clearly our rulers do not trust us with honest elections. Just think! If everyone could vote in a fair election, the wrong people might be chosen, the wrong policies adopted, and wrong decisions made. Far better to give the peonage the illusion of democracy than the reality. To that end, it will be necessary to outlaw any election systems that might produce results different from those officially approved by officials in power. Honest elections cannot be tolerated!

Colorado recently passed a law, SB 153, prohibiting hand counting of ballots

How is that to be accomplished, you might ask. Colorado recently passed a law, SB 153, prohibiting hand counting of ballots. Only officially sanctioned electric tabulators can be used. California is taking a more subtle two-pronged approach where the legislature is considering passage of a law similar to the Colorado law, while the Secretary of State is seeking to modify the election code to require that any county seeking to use hand counting must use an overspecified method so onerous and expensive as to make it prohibitive to employ. Of course, the backup is to use the officially approved machine tabulators. It is likely that other states have enacted or are in the process of enacting similar laws.

Hand counting of ballots has been the mainstay of our electoral processes since the beginning of our country until just recently. It was only through the brilliant manufacture of a relatively mild epidemic that those in power could justify replacing our traditional systems with the more easily manipulated electronic ones. Now they are refusing to restore those systems that have served us so well, and instead insist that we adopt ones they can control and manipulate to their advantage. The recent example of the 2022 election in Arizona where machines were unable to properly read slightly mis-sized ballots that would present no problem for hand counting argues against the machines that caused electoral chaos that some were able to use to their advantage.

It has been known for some time that these electronic election systems are unreliable, vulnerable to manipulation, and lack the transparency needed to secure voter confidence in election results. The recent Haldeman report is only the most recent of studies showing how easily our election systems can be compromised. 

Despite claims to the contrary, most of our election systems, from poll books, to tabulators, to voter databases, to election management systems are deeply internet connected

The results of a special investigation commissioned by president Clinton could have been written today as most of the problems identified then still exist today. Having been deeply involved in election integrity investigations for a few years now, as well as having designed and developed computer systems, I know better than many just how easily our systems can be compromised.

The growth of the internet has only complicated problems. Despite claims to the contrary, most of our election systems, from poll books, to tabulators, to voter databases, to election management systems are deeply internet connected, sometimes even without the knowledge of local officials. Various forms of security are applied in vain attempts to ensure these systems cannot be penetrated and manipulated. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) are often used and touted as ensuring our systems cannot be hacked. Yet VPNs can be compromised in a variety of ways, often through human agency, and must be considered to provide only casual security. Almost every government system has been penetrated at one time or another, including high security military systems. Why should we consider our election systems, with only casual levels of security, to be invulnerable?

Of course, for those who seek to control the outcomes of our elections, such vulnerability is a feature. Imagine if China or Iran or some other hostile power were able to influence results to the point that they were able to elect a President who would weaken our military, increase our dependence on foreign energy sources, allow unfettered penetration of our borders by hordes of migrants, including saboteurs, or sap our will with social disruptions around race and gender. Would this not be worth the effort?

Or consider those within our country who hold power and who wish to prevent election of officials who might seek to interfere with their power. Might they not wish to be able to manipulate elections in ways difficult to prove even while being obvious in effect? Why not control the machines to where the push of a button can give them the results they want? All that is needed is that honest traditional methods be outlawed in favor of machines they can control.

Support Canada Free Press

Fair elections are a civil right

What, though, can we, as individual citizens do? We have seen our representatives become our leaders, become our rulers in a seemingly inexorable progression. We are now in the position of asking those who hold power to relinquish some of that power to us. Why should they ever give up any significant measure of the power they have worked so hard to accumulate? They forget that throughout history, those who have accumulated tyrannical powers have always ended badly. Indeed, our country was born out of a rejection of arbitrary power arguably less rigid than that we experience today. The French were even more vigorous in discouraging arbitrary power.

We are fortunate that there is still some remnant of a system explicitly designed to address such accumulations and provide the means to remove power from those who would misuse it. While our judicial system has drifted far from its original impartiality, in certain areas it still retains a sense of justice and a measure of power to effect changes. While some would consider using the justice system to address what might be seen as a misuse of election law, I think there might be a better approach.

Every citizen has a right to fair and honest elections. To the extent that there is fraudulent manipulation of elections, that is a violation of the civil rights of every citizen regardless of whether they are a voter or not. Every illegal ballot counted, every fraudulent vote accepted, every altered choice invalidates a legitimate vote, and is an unacceptable form of voter suppression. Improper election results are a clear injury to the entire electorate, and to every citizen, even if they do not alter the outcome of a contest. With such clearly defined harm to the entire populace, use of manipulation and error prone election systems instead of tried and true methods becomes a civil rights issue and can be addressed as such in court.

A civil rights injunction request can proceed quickly and is difficult to argue against, especially if harm can be demonstrated

I can envision a federal level injunction against enforcement of any law, rule, or regulation that precludes the use of any traditional ballot counting system including hand counting, or any novel system that demonstrates a comparable level of accuracy and transparency to that of a hand count method. In this case, “precludes” includes any law, rule, or regulation that prohibits the use of traditional methods in ballot counting, as well as any law, rule, or regulation that prescribes the use of a ballot counting system to the exclusion of traditional or equivalent methods.

A Federal judge recently enjoined the Executive Branch from infringement of First Amendment rights to freedom of speech whether directly, or by employment of third party agents. There is no reason why a similar injunction against suppression of voting rights could not be emplaced. The Constitution gives states the power to set the time, manner, and place of elections to the legislatures of the States, but reserves all other rights to the people, including the manner by which election results are counted.

It is relatively easy to file for an injunction – far easier than filing a case asserting violation of election laws. Indeed, such election law cases can often be rendered moot by a simple legislative change to an election law. A civil rights injunction request can proceed quickly and is difficult to argue against, especially if harm can be demonstrated.

Perhaps it is time to rage against the machines and those who would use them to our harm. It seems time to use the law to our favor while we still have such tools available. While there is still the chance it will work, it is far preferable to more conventional methods of separating dishonest parties from the levers of power.

VIEW Comments