Voter Fraud: Manipulating the Vote

The New American
by Kurt Hyde


A casual observer who watches only mainstream-media news coverage might reasonably conclude that American elections are in grave danger from external hackers, that the principal source of such hackers is Russia, and that the principal beneficiary of such election hacking is Donald Trump. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no evidence that Russian hackers changed the vote count on election day. In fact, this is not even the claim, which is that Russia was responsible for the leaked DNC e-mails and manipulated social media on behalf of Trump. That said, American elections have had integrity problems having absolutely nothing to do with foreign intervention, but these election frauds have been known for years.

So the question is, “Why the sudden controversy regarding elections, and why is the sudden media attention mistakenly focusing on outside hackers while ignoring the greater danger of the inside job in election fraud?”

Much of the current Russian hacker controversy can be traced to the 2016 presidential campaign trail, when candidate Donald Trump was making a facetious point regarding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s careless lack of proper safeguarding of classified information on her e-mail servers. Responding to charges from Clinton and the media that he is chummy with Putin, Trump, during a nationally televised campaign address, asked in frustration: “What would I have to get involved with Putin for? I have nothing to do with Putin. I’ve never spoken to him. I don’t know anything about him.” Then, in what was obviously a facetious dig not only at Hillary Clinton but also at President Barack Obama and the FBI/DOJ, which were supposed to be investigating Hillary’s e-mail scandal (but were instead giving her a free pass), candidate Trump said: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

The Clinton campaign immediately feigned outrage and charged that Trump’s sarcastic comment was itself proof of collusion with Russia. “This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,” the Clinton campaign said in a widely quoted press statement. Wolf Blitzer and Jim Acosta, two of CNN’s anti-Trump commentators, immediately called the Trump comment “astonishing” and “jaw-dropping,” giving credence to Team Clinton’s spin on the matter. The New York Times, PBS, and the rest of the establishment media, likewise, took what was clearly a mocking comment and transformed it into a treasonous comment.

The Russian Hacker Conspiracy

On multiple occasions during the election cycle, Hillary repeated the accusation that the Russians were conspiring to aid Trump. Then when Trump won the election, virtually every major-media personality glommed onto the claim, doing their utmost to discredit Trump’s victory and set him up for impeachment. But the entire theory verges on inanity.

The “Russian interference” meme regarding the 2016 presidential elections is actually a tangled complex of wild conspiracy theories by the same folks who regularly deride conspiracy facts as “crazy conspiracy theory.” The most ludicrous and easily disprovable claim of Russian hacking and Russian collusion is the charge that Russians somehow hacked our voting machines and changed votes across the country. There has been no evidence offered to show this has happened. For this to have happened nationwide, with the many types of voting system technologies, it would have to have involved a major conspiracy. The accusers need to present evidence.

Though it is possible that some voting equipment has Internet access, either wireless or by direct electrical connection, during the voting or the processing of election results before the results are made public, allowing hacking, it’s not only unlikely, but such questions do not appear to have been answered.

The more common charge by the Democrats and their media allies is that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign servers and then disseminated the dirt they found to WikiLeaks, which in turn disseminated it to the American public. First of all, that theory has been totally debunked by some of the most noted technical analysts, including former top NSA analyst Dr. William Binney. These experts point out that according to the technical data, the DNC data was not “hacked” and downloaded via the Internet, but was physically downloaded onto an external device, such as a USB memory stick or thumb drive. That means someone on the DNC staff with access to the data did it. And this is what WikiLeaks has claimed, that they were given the material by a source at the DNC. Thus, the source was an internal leak, not a Russian hack.

It certainly should be noted, however, that the WikiLeaks accusations, along with the information that Hillary Clinton illegally used her personal Web server for classified State Department business — despite previously signing two disclosures that made clear such behavior was illegal and a major national security risk — were all true. Those revelations were so devastating that Clinton and her media collaborators knew that the best damage-control strategy would be to shift attention away from the damning facts exposed by the leaks to false charges about how the evidence was obtained: by Russian hacking. The second part of the strategy was then to link the Russian hacking to her opponent, Donald Trump.

The Russian hacker conspiracy theory positing that Russians hacked the U.S. election to aid Donald Trump lacks credibility in many ways, not the least of which is motive. Why would the Russians enter into a conspiracy with Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton when the Russians were beneficiaries of such sweetheart deals as Uranium One and the transfers of U.S. technology to help Vladimir Putin build Skolkovo, Russia’s version of America’s high-tech Silicon Valley?

As a brief refresher, Uranium One is the incredible deal in which the Obama administration — with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a lead player — sold 20-25 percent of U.S. uranium mining reserves to Putin’s Rosatom, the Russian state-owned atomic energy company, in 2010. Talk about national security and treason implications! This Obama-Clinton “Uraniumgate” scandal surely fills the bill. It may be topped by Skolkovo, however. Skolkovo is Putin’s prize hi-tech showpiece, his version of Silicon Valley. Disregarding warnings from the FBI and other intelligence agencies that the Skolkovo project presented national security threats to the United States, Clinton and Obama approved and promoted the transfer of prime technology from Cisco Systems, Boeing, Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, General Electric, and other U.S. tech giants to this strategic Kremlin program.

Further, even the left-wing New York Times admitted in a long article on September 20, entitled “The Plot to Subvert an Election: Unraveling the Russia Story So Far,” which is meant to paint Trump as guilty (yet lacks proof of virtually everything it claims to be true), that it is believed that fewer than 100 Russian spammers posed as Americans and sent messages to Facebook or designed websites to encourage people to vote for Trump. The fact is that it just is not realistic that those 100 spammers influenced the public to any appreciable extent. The left-wing Columbia Journalism Review put the numbers into perspective in its article “Don’t Blame the Election on Fake News. Blame It on the Media”:

A New York Times story reported that Facebook identified more than 3,000 ads purchased by fake accounts traced to Russian sources, which generated over $100,000 in advertising revenue. But Facebook’s advertising revenue in the fourth quarter of 2016 was $8.8 billion, or $96 million per day. All together, the fake ads accounted for roughly 0.1 percent of Facebook’s daily advertising revenue. The 2016 BuzzFeed report that received so much attention claimed that the top 20 fake news stories on Facebook “generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments” between August 1 and Election Day. Again, this sounds like a large number until it’s put into perspective: Facebook had well over 1.5 billion active monthly users in 2016. If each user took only a single action per day on average (likely an underestimate), then throughout those 100 days prior to the election, the 20 stories in BuzzFeed’s study would have accounted for only 0.006 percent of user actions.

Even recent claims that the “real” numbers were much higher than initially reported do not change the basic imbalance. For example, an October 3 New York Times story reported that “Russian agents … disseminated inflammatory posts that reached 126 million users on Facebook, published more than 131,000 messages on Twitter and uploaded over 1,000 videos to Google’s YouTube service.” Big numbers indeed, but several paragraphs later the authors conceded that over the same period Facebook users were exposed to 11 trillion posts — roughly 87,000 for every fake exposure — while on Twitter the Russian-linked election tweets represented less than 0.75 percent of all election-related tweets. On YouTube, meanwhile, the total number of views of fake Russian videos was around 309,000 — compared to the five billion YouTube videos that are watched every day.

Moreover, Columbia Journalism Review pointed out that large left-wing media dominate social-media posts, so their views would have easily overwhelmed posts by Russian spammers.

Even the New York Times noted in its September 20 article, “Mr. Trump’s frustration with the Russian investigation is not surprising. He is right that no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money.”

Interestingly, even while Donald Trump was being accused of being a puppet of President Putin by Hillary and the left-wing media, most big-name media chastised Donald Trump for a comment he made in a debate with Hillary Clinton in which he wouldn’t come right and out say that he would immediately concede defeat if the vote count didn’t go his way, because he worried that there might be lots of vote fraud.

Mainstream Media Does a Flip-flop

During the campaign, Donald Trump was derided when he mentioned his suspicions that the election might be rigged. He cited, for example, statistics that showed there are millions of voters on the rolls who should not be registered to vote. Negative media coverage about Donald Trump’s concerns of electoral fraud hit a crescendo during and shortly after the Third Presidential Debate. When asked in the debate on October 19, 2016 if he would accept the results of the election, rather than contest them, Trump said: “I will look at it at the time.”

Fox News’ Chris Wallace, who should have been impartial, grilled Donald Trump, saying:

But, but sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard fought a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?

Hillary Clinton jumped on the bandwagon:

That is not the way our democracy [sic] works. We’ve been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election.

… He is denigrating, he is talking down our democracy [sic] and I, for one, am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position.

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch also joined the chorus, as reported by the Wall Street Journal for October 21, 2016:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, speaking to reporters in Italy, said that “we don’t see [ballot fraud] as an actual threat.”

Mr. Obama, speaking at a Clinton rally in Miami, ridiculed Mr. Trump and then asked the crowd to stop laughing. “When you suggest rigging or fraud without a shred of evidence, that is not a joking matter. That is dangerous.” He said, “When you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people’s minds about the legitimacy of our elections, that undermines our democracy [sic].”

While Donald Trump was castigated by the political Left for bringing up the topic of election fraud (though he presented evidence that it takes place), Hillary Clinton and media personalities have claimed continually since her election loss that Russia hacked the election to elect Trump (without a shred of credible proof that the Russians actually affected the election results), and the claim has been treated as gospel. It’s a blatant double standard and complete hypocrisy, hence why more and more of the public doesn’t believe politicians, the major networks, and news publications.

Real Dangers to Our Elections

Just because there is no evidence damning Trump’s electioneering in the last election, doesn’t mean that all U.S. elections are aboveboard affairs. American election safeguards have experienced erosion in such areas as reducing or eliminating public access to witness the process, voter registration lists being inaccurate, same-day voter registration, lack of a paper trail in the ballots, elimination of precincts in favor of voting by mail, early voting, not making precinct-level election results public immediately, and not counting the absentee ballots in public at the proper precinct.

On August 16, Direct Action Texas, a group that strives to clean up voter rolls, announced that 280,000 legal-resident, non-citizens in Texas are illegally registered to vote. And four million registered voters in Texas cannot be verified in the database of the Texas Department of Public Safety databases, as is required by law, or by other government databases. That’s 30 percent of all registered voters in the state. It is likely that a large number of those registered are illegal immigrants.

In addition to illegally registered voters, there are glaring flaws in the system: the company Election Systems and Software admitted that it put remote access software on some voting machines between 2000 and 2006.

And there are the cases of insider fraud. In July, it was reported that Alabama is starting a vote-fraud investigation because of glaring discrepancies in vote counts during its July 17 primary election.

Big League Politics reported:

The Secretary of State’s office became aware of possible voter fraud after being made aware of irregularities by voters in both counties. Once you get down to the numbers, it is easy to tell why there was suspicion.

In Wilcox County, 4,167 of 9,383 registered voters turned out to vote. While 4,167 ballots were returned in total, less than 100 of those ballots were Republican ballots.

Comparing this primary to the 2016 general election, it is easy to tell where the discrepancy comes from. In 2016, Wilcox County had 64.78% turnout, with 4,329 votes going to Hillary Clinton and 1,737 going to Donald Trump. While the district clearly leans democrat, it doesn’t seem likely that over 4,000 Democrats voted on Tuesday, while less than 100 Republicans voted in the same county.

The Secretary of State’s Office believes that the inordinate amount of Democrat ballots could be because of an “absentee broker operation.” That method of committing voter fraud involves exchanging gifts or cash in exchange for absentee ballots that the buyer could then fill out however they like.

Perry County faced a similar situation, but had suspicions raised prior to the election results coming in, with intimidation tactics being reported. In Perry County only 200 Republicans showed up to vote in a race where only state-wide races were on the ballot. But in contrast, 2,763 ballots were cast by Democrats, where a Circuit Court race was seen as the most contentious race. The Circuit Court race resulted in Mia Jacobs-Turner winning by 95 votes against her opponent.

According to, Perry County absentee ballot manager Mary Moore admitted that there was “a high number of absentees” in the race, stating that there seems to be reasons to question the results.

Along with the irregularities in the vote count, [Alabama Secretary of State John] Merrill stated that there were more than 200 absentee ballots in Perry County that “did not meet” the state’s standards. Some of the ballots were returned unsealed, meaning that they could have been tampered with.

An election observer in the county also blew the whistle to the Secretary of State, recounting threats she received from a Perry County Commissioner that was unnamed.

Another case in Alabama corroborates the depth of the fraud:

When former Alabama State Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore ran in the special election for senator, trying to gain the position from outgoing Senator Jeff Sessions, he lost by fewer than 22,000 votes, out of 1.3 million votes cast. His campaign credibly alleged that “systemic election fraud” was the deciding factor in the race.

Indications of fraud in that race include the finding of a bundle of premarked sample ballots, marked for Moore’s opponent, Doug Jones; Democrat-funded advertisements that were investigated and ordered removed; a multitude of out-of-state driver’s licenses that were accepted for identification purposes; and a verbal admission that people came from across the country to vote in the statewide election. Also, in several Republican-dominated precincts in Jefferson County, Moore received more than 30 percent fewer votes than the number of Republicans who voted a straight party-line vote, whereas in the majority of counties he received more votes than were cast in a party-line vote; the turnout in Jefferson County was unusually high; the voting machines could not ensure that vote alterations had not been done; Jefferson County reported in its vote totals long after other counties had reported theirs; and the vote totals did not match with the results of exit polls.

The Roy Moore campaign’s lawsuit included an affidavit by election expert James J. Condit, Jr., stating that he believes that many computerized voting machines “have access by wireless technology to all their computers which are counting the votes, and they can monitor, query, and even ALTER the election results inside their computers during election day and election nights.” Unfortunately, the Moore v. Merrill lawsuit was dismissed. But Moore went about this the right way. Rather than use the news media as a sounding board for making claims of possible hacking without evidence, the Moore v. Merrill lawsuit would have used due process to bring this controversy into the open and learn the truth, as both sides would have presented evidence and the question would have been answered.

Other evidence suggests large-scale problems with U.S. vote counts. In 2016 in Detroit, hundreds of precincts registered more votes than there were voters reported to have checked in to vote. In Georgia, a federal lawsuit that was brought owing to complaints by voters being told to go to other precincts or of having voting machines freeze, and other problems, was found to be a nonstarter because “servers that were thought to be key evidence for the same federal lawsuit that has led to this week’s news were wiped, then repeatedly degaussed,” reported Ars Technica. The group Judicial Watch reported in 2017 that it found “462 counties where the registration rate exceeded 100 percent. There were 3,551,760 more people registered to vote than adult U.S. citizens who inhabit these counties.” And that was just in the 38 states that provided enough information to check the numbers. The evidence of fraud is overwhelming.

Allegations of Russian hacking, made by Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) about problems he believes Russians could cause in a future election, are more credible than the ones claiming Trump worked with the Russians. The allegations made by Nelson on August 8 that Russian operatives have hacked their way into Florida’s voter-registration databases are potentially more serious because, he said, hackers might be in a position to alter data in election databases. Nelson said:

The Russians are in the records and all they have to do if those election records are not protected is to go in and start eliminating registered voters and you can imagine the chaos that would occur on election day.

Nelson’s ambiguous statement “The Russians are in the records” could quite easily be true. While such access would not likely allow “bad actors” to alter people’s votes, it could disrupt the voting process. Sadly, Florida has recently implemented Internet voter registration, and Internet voter registration is an inherently insecure technology — anybody could be “in the records.” Another of Nelson’s statements — “if those election records are not protected” — is indicative of the weak protections of the registration database because, if he knows as much as he says he knows about the dark side of this controversy, he would certainly know what the level of protection is on the voter-registration databases. If he doesn’t know, all he needs to do is ask.

Ironically, Senator Nelson is directly responsible for increasing some of the vulnerabilities of U.S. elections: He helped pass legislation that undermined safeguards against voter fraud. As a freshman senator he voted for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. That’s the blatantly unconstitutional law that dictated to the states that they must use HAVA-compliant electronic voting equipment, much of which lacked a paper trail meant to allow meaningful recounts and double-checks.

The state of Florida has denied that it has been hacked, and Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner has sent multiple official letters to Senator Nelson and other federal officials requesting further information including specific identification of the supposed hacks. Florida Governor Rick Scott has made similar requests. As of press time, neither has received the specific answers requested.

A second concern is the usage of fake people, deceptive websites, and bots (automated fake personages masquerading on the Internet as if they were real people) to create an illusion of supporters for candidates. Creating the illusion of support for something is as easy as finding people who are willing to join an online discussion group multiple times using assumed names. Such fake personages can become very effective neutralizers in many ways. They can make racist comments that cause the discussion group to lose members or even get shut down. They can start fake arguments that spam a discussion group and shut down its effectiveness. They can also be used in false-flag scams where someone wants to make it look as if foreigners are interfering in an election.

Fake personages and deceptive websites are real problems, problems that are caused by the inherent insecurity of the Internet, problems that the Democrat Party laid the groundwork for: During the Iowa Democratic Caucuses, the Iowa Democratic Party implemented satellite caucuses, as well as what they called their tele-caucus in the 2016 Democratic Caucuses. Both of those new usages of Internet technology were touted as improved use of technology to result in easier involvement in the caucuses when compared to in-person involvement, but they also increased the chances of some portion of that increased involvement to be fake personages rather than real people.

Both of the above problems with voting security — and many others — are easy to fix: Eliminate to as great extent as possible the ability of people to use technology to influence the vote by assuring that vulnerable electronics are removed from the voting process and that all remaining electronic devices are double-checked manually, as well as decentralizing the political and voting processes.

One example of controlling a possible bot problem without the use of centralized authority was demonstrated when a disagreement occurred in a Ron Paul discussion group in North Texas. The disagreement resulted in about 10 or 20 e-mails per day between the two disagreeing members. The discussion group organizer suspected it was fake personages deliberately neutralizing the discussion group. He put an end to the disagreement by announcing that he was considering requiring all members who wanted to post in that online discussion group to give their names, addresses, and telephone numbers. It turns out that at least one of the disagreeing persons was a real person. She immediately gave the organizer her contact information. The other disagreeing party vanished. Was the vanishing party a bot that was in the discussion group in order to cause disruption in the Ron Paul movement? Perhaps it was a real person who realized his mistake and vanished to avoid embarrassment. In either case, the problem was solved in the private sector at the local level without government involvement.

Solutions to Vote Fraud

Nowadays, instead of securing election results from tampering by counting votes in public and making the results public immediately, many states use encryption and other forms of secrecy in a manner not unlike those used by dictators who restrict access to election results until they are reviewed and approved by deep-state central authorities. Other degradations of America’s elections include early voting, same-day registration, automatic voter registration via the Motor Voter Act, and mail-in only balloting. In addition, some of our voting equipment and software comes from foreign countries.

Most states now don’t allow the public to watch the votes being counted or observe the processing of the vote totals. There are procedures that allow for observers to be appointed to watch these processes, but in most states these procedures have become restrictive.

Undoing the list of electoral weaknesses will first require educating the public. Many of these security flaws have been foisted on the American people as ways of supposedly enhancing electoral integrity. The American people have been conned into thinking encryption of precinct election results is the best way to protect them from tampering. It isn’t. Traditional American elections used openness of the process to protect against election fraud, whether that fraud be done via fraudulent repeater voting, tampering with the vote count, or tampering with the precinct election results. The proper solution, then as well as now, is to open the process and let the voters monitor their elections. Also, no matter how it’s done, it is essential that there is a paper trail that can be referenced should there be any questions of fraud. Elections belong to the American people. They are not the property of the deep-state people who run them.

Getting rid of all voting or vote counting machinery as soon as possible would be a good option. The American people have been conned into thinking paper ballots are no longer feasible because of the awful stories of vote counts going into the night and sometimes days after. This writer worked as a vote counter in Weare, New Hampshire, in the 1980s. The people who ran the elections in that town maintained a list of local citizens who would count votes. The vote counters were assigned in pairs, a Republican paired with a Democrat if possible. A certain number would definitely be needed to count votes after the polls closed. They also had a list of additional pairs of vote counters who were held in reserve in case turnout was greater than expected. The additional pairs of vote counters were notified by early afternoon if they would be needed based on voter-turnout numbers at mid-day.

When counting commenced, the ballots were spilled out onto long sets of tables joined end-to-end. The pairs of vote counters were on one side of the tables and the other side had a roped-off area providing about five or six feet of separation. Any member of the public was allowed to walk up to the roped-off area and observe the vote count. Because of efficient planning based on experience, and the flexibility offered by having additional vote counters in reserve, the votes were counted, including the absentee ballots, and the paperwork was completed within an hour or two after the polls closed. This efficiency also speaks for having elections run by towns rather than counties, and in having absentee ballots delivered to the precincts and counted there in public on election night.

Liberals don’t like this type of openness in elections and criticize such efforts. But paper votes can be counted quickly and efficiently with proper planning. In fact, it is likely the counting of paper ballot votes in some cases took days because the inefficiency was deliberate, to “prove” to the people that they needed to scrap the low-cost local vote counters and buy computerized voting equipment that is not only expensive to buy but also expensive to maintain, such as pre-programming in preparation for each election — machines whose results can be compromised.

Another paper tiger of opposition to paper ballots is the claim that not enough ordinary citizens are willing to work at the polls or count the votes after the polls are closed. Already in 1908, a grand-jury report in Chicago had the solution for that problem by selecting ordinary citizens at random in a manner similar to a jury call. If done like a jury call, it would include interviewing prospective counters to determine their skill levels and their availability.

Another impediment to hiring election workers is the absurd election-day work schedules, frequently 14 hours long. This practice seems less seriously designed to hire poll workers than it is to deliberately discourage ordinary citizens from working at the polls, thereby paving the way for political hacks and government employees to fill the void. Why not schedule the poll workers for half-days and bring the ballot counters in just prior to the poll closings to get prepared to start counting votes as soon as the last ballot is cast in that precinct?

If electronics are to be used, optical scan voting equipment is almost as good as paper ballots, provided the process is open to the public and there are some representative recounts to be sure the equipment ran properly. They should be considered where people absolutely won’t approve of hand-counted paper ballots.

Getting rid of early voting should also be done. Early voting is an open invitation for electoral fraud both by repeater voting and the temptation to alter vote totals sitting in unattended computer databases for days, even weeks, depending on how long the early voting period is. The American people have been conned into accepting early voting as a solution to the horribly long waits in lines to vote on election day, but those long lines are not unavoidable, whether they are by inefficiencies at voter check-in or voters needing to wait after check-in for a computerized voting machine to come available.

The example to follow is that of New Hampshire, where there is no early voting. The New American interviewed New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner regarding efficiencies in the way his state runs elections. Secretary Gardner believes his state has the two largest voting locations in the United States. In the 2016 presidential election, the town of Londonderry had 12,794 voters who voted in person, and the town of Hudson had 12,457 voters vote in person. When asked why they didn’t have long lines at voter check-in, Secretary Gardner explained how efficient the voter check-in process is at these locations, where they have as many as 15 tables arranged alphabetically for voter check-in. It should be added that because of New Hampshire’s paper trail law, the only computerized voting equipment allowed is the optical scan type. With optical scan equipment the ballots are marked by the voters in the privacy of simple booths and then fed into the optical scan system, where the votes are tabulated immediately, tying up the piece of equipment for only a few seconds for each ballot cast. Contrast this with a computerized voting booth where the voter ties up a piece of equipment for the entire time he is reading the choices and making selections. Secretary Gardner also added that New Hampshire has 320 polling locations; 189 of them use optical scan ballots and 131 of them use paper ballots that are counted manually.

Clearly, computerized equipment is unnecessary and can be replaced by following proven procedures of efficient check-in, efficient methods of counting paper ballots and, if a state insists on computerization, using optical scan paper ballots with representative recounts to ensure the computer did what the voter told it to do. The most important thing of all is to take the elections out from behind closed doors and once again require that all aspects of our elections except the marking of secret ballots are open to observation by the public without interference.

The bottom line is that voter-registration lists and the lists of which voters voted are designed to be public information.

Unfortunately, the federal government is unconstitutionally involved in the election business, and it is causing many of the problems we see.

A Danger to American Elections

There is a very real threat to American elections, but the danger is not from Russian hackers or any other external sources. The greater danger is from an inside job, and much of the danger is thanks to the federal government.

Many of our voter-registration problems were caused by the Motor Voter Act, which forced the states to implement automatic voter registration simultaneously with applying for driver’s licenses or applying for public assistance, and enacted other provisions that have led to explosive growth in inaccurate voter registrations. Congress should repeal Motor Voter.

Much of the paperless computerized voting equipment was purchased due to the dictates of Congress in the unconstitutional HAVA law that forced the states to buy HAVA-compliant voting equipment. The equipment was compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, but much of the electronic voting equipment the states were forced to purchase in panic-buying mode lacked a paper trail and had technology problems. Congress should repeal HAVA.

Election results should be printed on paper, posted at the precincts, and made public immediately to prevent tampering with vote totals by insiders as well as external hackers. Early voting and same-day registration should be abolished. Paper ballots should be reinstated and the public should be allowed to witness the vote counts, including absentee ballots. Studies should be done showing the cost difference between paying local people to count the paper ballots compared to the high cost of high-tech computerized voting equipment. Internet voting, as well as Internet voter registration, should be abolished.

Congress has the authority to require the states that use mail-in-only balloting to reinstate precinct voting when electing congressmen and U.S. senators. They have that authority under Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution and as explained in The Federalist Papers, No. 59.

The states are also partly to blame. States should reinstate the openness of our electoral process by once again making every aspect of elections, except the marking of the secret ballot, open to the public with no requirement to pre-register as an official observer. That alone would cure many electoral ills because the problems encountered during elections won’t be hidden behind closed doors.

U.S. Ambassador to Poland Arthur Bliss Lane documented the communist takeover of Poland in his book I Saw Poland Betrayed. The final event of that takeover was a fraudulent election. Let’s not let that happen here.

The New American