Site Meter

How Are Elections Rigged?

November 3, 20162 Comments


LA County employees being trained as poll workers

The entire structure of our democratic process requires honest and dependable voting systems that are employed by honest and dependable people so that informed citizens can vote for the people and propositions that best represent their interests. Are the systems vulnerable to manipulation? Are the people who deploy those systems accountable for assuring the firmware and software do not manipulate the votes cast on those systems. Are the poll workers free of any motivation to alter the votes cast in their precincts? Are the voters literate enough to understand the values represented by candidates and able to understand how local propositions will affect their communities?

Full Disclosure has investigated the ease with which motivated people could easily sway local, state and even national elections. With testimony from Congress and the California Secretary of State, the vulnerabilities of the Sequoia electronic voting machines used in California and across the country are explained and demonstrated. Plus Full Disclosure challenges the accountability of poll workers to assure the machines are not tampered with. And finally, the literacy of the voters is at an all-time low, as Alex Alexieve points out, with the deluge of illiterate people coming across our borders.

2 comments to “How Are Elections Rigged?”

  1. joebanana | January 25, 2017 | Permalink Reply

    Does anybody remember the 2008 election when the fraud obutthead got more votes in California than there were registered voters? Anybody?

  2. Leslie Dutton | February 18, 2017 | Permalink Reply

    Yes, this is not unusual. I recall a Bond Measure in Santa Monica Community College District for $29 million dollars where the County Registrar of Voters counted 758 more ballots than there were registered voters signing the precinct voter rosters. They claimed the Bond measure passed by 64 votes and when challenged the Superior Court dismissed the case without allowing the citizens contesting the election to present the County Registrar Computer print-out records to verify the unsubstantiated vote count as evidence. In this case our tax supported County Counsel defended the County Registrar-Recorder against the citizens. The case went to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court. Only one lone Supreme Court Justice (Mosk) said the case should be heard. But the Court of Appeal decision was an unpublished decision that held the citizens should have named the sponsor of the ballot measure even though the Election Code required only “candidates” to be named and was silent on “sponsors” of ballot measures. Apparently that is the reason the Appellate Court Justices did not want the decision published, so that unsuspecting future challengers would be unaware of the circumstances that give the County Board of Supervisors complete control of the outcome of questionable Bond elections. Ever wonder why we have so much debt?

Leave a Reply

Make a

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE