Shady Elections

Care to comment on "Shady Elections?" Let Us Know!

All elections are shady. It's built into the system and now - with the advent of paperless electronic ballots - there's even less to trust about the system we use. If you want a fair election, you have to make it local and transparent (able to verify). In addition, you have to make the election open to ALL CANDIDATES and STANDARDIZE the requirements for getting on a ballot NATIONWIDE. The two party system is self-perpetuating and purposefully denies admission by other party candidates through "laws" that are near impossible to comply with.

Another problem with elections is that people seem to forget that this is NOT a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic - and there just aren't a whole heck of a lot of Constitutional politicians. Democracies never last - and the US decline into democratic rule is akin to a death knell for the nation. Our leaders are supposed to be chosen for their adherence to the Constitution and the Constitutional LIMITS placed on government.

Making Elections Local:
Start with a reasonable number - say 1000 voters. Use an electronic ballot if you want (for sake of speedy results) but mandate 2 paper receipts per voter. Receipt one goes into the ballot box for local verification, receipt 2 stays with the voter - in case there are any questions later. The ballots will display matching randomly generated numbers. A ballot reader will scan the cast ballot and display the number and cast votes online. The paper ballots are verified and the grand result of all 1000 votes is tabulated on a "Master Ballot." The ballot judge takes it up to the next level and casts the master ballot together with 1000 (or less) other Local master ballots and the process is repeated until all levels are cast and verified.

After all voters have cast their ballot, ANY voter can go online, type in their receipt number and verify their votes. They can check the master ballot for their "district/neighborhood" as well, to make sure IT was cast accurately and counted accurately, and so on.

One Citizen, One Vote:
As a "right-wing, conservative, libertarian," I am avidly against the "papers, please" society. I don't think human beings should be numbered, tracked like cattle, and required to show any manner of ID at any time to anyone. So a few million illegal aliens get to vote - so what? They live here, too - like it or not. Until we figure out a way (without ID's or chips) to solve the problem, we just have to deal with it. But I do believe we have to figure out a system of ensuring only ONE vote gets cast by any ONE person.

I don't suppose it would be too difficult in this day and age to have a system whereby a thumb, or other digit (finger/toe) is scanned and turned into ones-and-zeros and the resulting code placed on each receipt and transmitted to a regional/national database. No names, no ID's - just the digitized digit. If the code comes up twice, the culprit is taken out back and shot. (Just kidding, but they should be arrested.)

I know - not everybody has thumbs, fingers, or toes, but there could be an algorithm created and followed EXACTLY by all polling places that would ensure the same digit is scanned every time. Not too hard to figure out.

30 ways to steal an election There are probably more than thirty, but this is a good page to start investigating and thinking of ways to keep it from happening.

A Theory of Corrupt Elections "I study the incentives leading to corrupt elections. The project is motivated by a disconnect between prevailing views about the conditions under which candidates might engage in electoral corruption, and empirical patterns. The prevailing view associates corrupt elections with small margins of victory, and assumes that electoral corruption ought to be kept secret. In fact, however, many corrupt elections are won by overwhelming margins of victory, and electoral corruption is often perpetrated blatantly and publicly. I propose a theory of elections in weakly-institutionalized settings, using a simple formal model. The central idea is that electoral corruption can influence the vote not only directly, but also via its impact on expectations and consequently on patterns of political participation. This simple idea goes a long way toward explaining observed patterns: When electoral corruption can influence participation, there exist conditions under which candidates may purposefully make their corrupt electoral activities public, and/or pursue electoral corruption beyond the point where it is necessary for victory. I provide some empirical evidence for the proposed mechanisms. Finally, I explore some implications of the theory for democracy-promoting interventions."

Proof of corrupt election software Blogger Brad Friedman interviews Clint Curtis. Clint has testified and taken polygraphs to support his story that Tom Feeney had him write code to rip off the Florida electorate. This is an episode from Sourcecode, one of the top news shows on TV, only found on freespeech tv. Is it proof? I don't know, but it is evidence. Of a sort.

Making Votes Not Count: Strategic Incentives for Electoral Corruption The central question of this paper is, when are rulers and governments more or less likely to engage in electoral corruption? In other words, what are the incentives that give rise to electoral corruption?

Still working on it...

Purchase Links: Food & Seeds    Gear    Medical    Tools
                              Weapons & Ammo      Computer/Internet

US Military Gear: Air Force    Army    Marines    Navy
Also: Coast Guard    Law Enforcement (Working on it)

(Purchasable Item links based on bug-out/preparation lists)

Please Read The Website Disclaimer!
Copyright 1986-2012, The Survival & Self-Reliance Studies Institute (SSRsi), All Rights Reserved
Site conceptualized, designed, created & maintained by MEG Raven
Snail Mail: SSRsi, PO Box 2572 Dillon, CO. 80435-2572