The voting systems in use for the nation’s first three all-important electoral contests in the 2012 primary — from Iowa to New Hampshire to Saturday’s South Carolina Primary — go from pretty great to intolerably horrible. And then comes Florida, which deserves its very own special category, thereafter.
The “First-in-the-Nation” caucuses in Iowa allowed voters to vote on hand-marked paper ballots, counted by hand in front of the public at the caucus site, with results announced to everyone right then and there before being called in to GOP headquarters and before ballots were move anywhere. The wonderfully transparent system allowed for Republican voters by the Iowa GOP (which they hypocritically fight against allowing for everybody else in other states, and even in their own during general elections) is just about as close as we general get in this country to Democracy’s Gold Standard. It’s also what allowed reporting errors to be discovered and confirmed by the public after an election with some 122,000 votes counted transparently within an hour or so of polls closing, leading to almost nobody charging “fraud” even though just 34 votes are said to separate first and second place in the certified results of the impossibly, and historically, close election.
As of the “First-in-the-Nation” primary in New Hampshire, however, election transparency for voters and their ability to oversee their own elections began to disappear. While a lucky 10% of voters enjoyed hand-marked, publicly hand-counted paper ballots, the rest of the state’s voters were allowed to vote on hand-marked paper ballots, but forced to tolerate secret tabulation on oft-failed, easily-manipulated Diebold optical-scan systems programmed by a company (LHS) with a history of criminal behavior and convictions. The results from those 90% of Granite State voters may have been tallied accurately by the Diebold op-scanners or, as seen in the disastrous 2008 Presidential Primary, not. Since NH doesn’t bother to actually check to see if their machines tallied the hand-marked paper ballots correctly, we’re unlikely to ever know if they did — barring a recount request where, by then, the secure chain of custody of the paper ballots would be uncertain (to put it mildly.)
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 any candidate on the ballot has been recorded accurately by the ES&S iVotronic touch-screens as per any voter’s intent. Known 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 they inexplicably lost some 18,000 votes in a race ultimately 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 undervotes, 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 candidate in a 2006 run-off election, even though both he and his wife insist they had voted for him, at the very least.
And yes, they’re the very same machines which resulted in a 2008 train-wreck in South Carolina itself, when they failed to even boot up across the entirety of Horry County at the beginning of the day during that year’s Republican Primary election, forcing voters to scramble for pieces of paper — even scraps of paper towels — to try and cast a vote, since there were not enough emergency paper ballots on hand to overcome the disaster.
Other than that — and this long and storied history of other disastrous ES&S failures — the 100% unverifiable voting machines that will be used across the entire Palmetto State in Saturday’s all-important “First-in-the-South” primary election are great!
Since these machines are used across the entire state, expect Election Day stories of machine failures and the usual reports of votes flipping before voters’ eyes on the touch-screens. For those who may have chosen to vote absentee in SC, as the only way to be allowed a vote on a paper ballot, many, no doubt, are disappointed that their votes for Jon Huntsman or Rick Perry were all but “wasted” as those two have both dropped out of the race since voters began mailing in absentees. If only those voters had been allowed to vote on paper on Election Day, like those in the civilized world.
We recommend concerned citizens take photos of voting machine poll tape results printed out at the end of the day when polls close at each precinct. Sometimes that can come in handy if there are questions about reported results later. But other than that, whatever the state and media tell you are the results of the election — no matter how “unexpected” those results may or may not be — will most likely be the results of the election, whether they actually reflect the way voters attempted to vote or not.
It’s a helluva way to run the “World’s Greatest Democracy”, ain’t it?
But, don’t worry, Florida’s primary is just 10 days later, and Early Voting there starts Saturday as well. So what could possibly go wrong?
Now the Supremes have whacked Texas … so … scramble, scramble, scramble … the election process is getting more and more sicko.
Why does South Carolina even bother to vote? They might as well just stay home and let Diebold report the results. The outcome would be the same whether they vote or not.
This is not intended to be an exaggeration.
That OIL friendly boya must go. Ladies, this is your time. We must let our brothers know investment must reflect our concerns. Now not never, balance.
Another great article, Brad.
It would seem almost impossible to throw anything into the mix which could show how outrageously ludicrous “elections” are in South Carolina, but amazingly, Article II, Section 1 of South Carolina’s Constitution states, “the ballots shall not be counted in secret.”
I published an article about that which was headlined on OpEdNews 4 years ago which you and those with a clue might find interesting. See South Carolina Elections Are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!?!
Amazingly, Article II, Section 1 of South Carolina’s Constitution states, “the ballots shall not be counted in secret.”
I published an article about that which was headlined on OpEdNews 4 years ago which you and those with a clue might find interesting. Google South Carolina Elections Are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!?!
So, the conclusion is clear, it couldn’t be too difficult to hack the system to have Greene win THIS one, too!
Maybe “Anonymous” has undertaken this as their latest project.
In Texas, one phrase means “war”, “sex”, and elections:
Now back to your regular programming.
Great work again, Brad.
My hope is that someday when we get to the hundredth monkey on election integrity the floodgates will open and more and more people will come here, look through the archives, and see how the dots are connected and have been being connected by you for years.
The most comprehensive Iowa vote fraud article EVER written! Please help make it go TOTALLY viral! If you’re a true Ron Paul supporter, you’ll do everything you can to make this article go as viral as possible…as if your country depends on it! http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/iowa-vote-fraud-official
Celebs4Truth –
Are you trying to discredit Ron Paul and his supporters? If so, the article you cite goes a great way towards doing exactly that! As its heavily peppered with links to irresponsible misinformation from Alex Jones and others. Keep up the bad work! You’re doing a great job of making sure no one gives a damn about election integrity! Including all the great Ron Paul supporters who have actually worked for positive improvements to our dreadful electoral system.
Lame, dude.
Was Alvin Greene a shill, a con man, or the star of Mr. Greene Goes To Washington ?
From the moment he materialized out of nowhere, I’ve been intrigued by finding out the truth.
It seems like suspicions Greene was involved in election fraud are based mainly on the fact that, despite his glaring lack of cash, charisma, campaign or qualifications, he trounced veteran politician Vic Rawl by 59%-41% in the 2010 S.C. Democratic primary.
An investigation of how he’d paid the $10,400 fee to get on the ballot reportedly confirmed it came from savings derived from his salary as a marine.
More recently, a documentary called “Who Is Alvin Greene?” came and went even faster than its subject. (Google reveals a couple of screenings at miniscule film festivals but not a single review.)
Incredible as it may seem, Greene’s victory may very well have been due to the vast majority of African-Americans in S.C.’s Democratic Party. If anyone knows of any evidence to the contrary, I’d appreciate a link.
Granted that S.C.’s election procedures make investigations impossible. Still, in the spirit of “innocent until proven guilty,” I’d repectfully suggest that making Greene a poster child for election irregularities is unfair.
“In All Fairness” @ 11 said:
Really? Are SC’s African-Americans clairvoyant or something? I’m assuming you’re suggesting they voted for him because he’s black. But as Greene had no campaign, no campaign website, made no campaign appearances before the primary election and his picture did not appear on the ballots, how exactly did SC’s African-Americans know that he was black?
Furthermore, as we reported at the time (too tired to go back and find it for you, but search here and you’ll find it) majority-white counties reportedly voted a bit higher than average for Greene, while majority-black counties voted a bit lower than average for Greene.
If you have any evidence to actually support your assertion, that too would be appreciated. Thanks.
In All Fairness:
In your “search” for evidence, you amazingly, but unsurprisingly ignored the facts that computers count the votes in secret in South Carolina, that there is absolutely nothing to recount to make sure that the secret computer “count” was accurate when votes are “counted” on touch screen “voting” machines, and that amazingly, Article II, Section 1 of South Carolina’s Constitution states, “the ballots shall not be counted in secret.”
The evidence clearly shows that South Carolina conducts “elections” in a manner which blatantly violates its Constitution!
Greene, the folks at ES&S, and officials in charge of “elections” in South Carolina were involved in a criminal conspiracy to steal the primary election from Vic Rawl. Tell them to sue me for defamation if they dare to face someone who can produce the evidence that the votes were not counted accurately in that election.
Oh, if anyone wants me to go get the evidence, I would be happy to do so, and I’ll prove that the SC Republican primary was rigged, too. All I need is some money to cover my expenses, and I can have the evidence in a week or so, just like when I represented Clint Curtis and John Russell in contesting the 2006 elections in the banana republic of Florida. See an example of what we obtained in this article.
Is that fair enough for you?
To InAllFairness:
Yes, indeed. Greene was ALL things you called him PLUS pimp
…… FOR Jim DeMint.
Hey Brad et al, yinz guys do a great job of being honest. I operate on the premise…it is that which you choose to ignore (especially when claiming to know the truth) that winds up ruling you. Nothing is written in stone, but the tendency to repeat history is our lack of togetherness. To err is human, to forgive is divine. It’s great to see fearless truth and discussion of what to do about it here. This gives me hope.
We must not fear our people, continue to love them truly. Non-scripted truth is in us all, and together we mayest.
The SC Constitution says that ballots cannot be counted in secret.
Ballots are counted inside a machine and cannot be verified.
Is this counting ballots in secret and Unconstitutional?
Sorry, but your assessment of voting in Iowa is a bit incorrect. Reports indicated that in many precincts there was no verification of identification, votes were placed into unsealed bins, and taken to back rooms to be counted. The establishment (both parties) need to have a specific outcome in this process, and it has nothing to do with the “will of the people.” I think Kennedy said it best when we said that “if you don’t make peaceful revolution possible, you make violent revolution inevitable.” Clearly they are working to destroy the peaceful mechanism.
MrLiberty charged @ 17:
Really? What “reports”? Got URL?
I was the one who originally reported that no Photo ID was required by the Iowa GOP to vote in the caucuses. That’s good, since there has been no reported problems of voter fraud by polling place impersonation in Iowa (or almost anywhere else), so that means legal voters were not turned away and kept from voting.
Yes, votes were placed in unsealed bins because all of the voting was done at the same time in the caucuses — unlike a primary or general election where votes are cast over many hours throughout the day — and immediately counted by hand publicly thereafter.
But as to “taken to back rooms to be counted,” where are the “reports” you suggest indicate that? I’m aware of no such reports. Thanks in advance!