Posts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Saturday, November 28, 2020
Friday, November 13, 2020
Bibliography Voting Machine Vulnerability/Fraud
Post election Video Presentation by Russell Ramsland of Allied Security Operations Group explaining how voting machines are not air gapped and how vote switching can occur. Never mentions Hammer and Scorecard, but if they were real, this might be what they would look like in real time.
More Russell Ramsland this time with Debbie Georgatos on 28 October, 2020
EVEREST: Evaluation and Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards and Testing∗†Final Report December 7, 2007 This one is older, but from what I gather kind of the gold standard in vulnerability analysis. It's long though. 334 pages
How to Rig an Election The G.O.P. aims to paint the country red
By
Victoria Collier Nov 2012
Vote Counts and Polls: An Insidious Feedback Loop
Black box voting (Wikipedia)
Post-Election Audits: Restoring Trust in Elections
Aug 1, 2007 Lawrence Norden 90 Pg Downloadable Report
Republican Primary Election 2012 Results: Amazing Statistical AnomaliesFrancois Choquette, James Johnson August 13, 2012
A Retired NSA Analyst Proves the GOP Is Stealing Elections
Was Election Fraud Predicted for 2012?
January 2014The American Voting Experience:Report and Recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration
What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report on the 2004 Presidential Election Paperback – August 30, 2005
Thursday, November 12, 2020
Wish Biden and Trump Could Both Lose? They Can! It's Not Too Late to Save the Republic.
Consider this scenario to settle the election in accordance with the law while also resolving, to some small extent, the severe partisanship bordering on hatred that we are seeing in the country today.
When Congress meets on 6 January to tally Electoral College votes, they reject enough state's vote tallies to bring every candidate's vote tally below 270. Then by law (12th Amendment) the House chooses the President by a vote of delegations and the Senate chooses the Vice President.
To see how this resolves the partisan issue, you need to pay attention to the mechanics of the process. And it requires at least one "faithless elector" to cast a presidential ballot for someone who is not a divisive figure. Someone who neither party might be happy with, but both parties could live with. If I had to choose that person, I'd choose former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates or former Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb. To satisfy my Libertarian friends, we could even make that choice Libertarian presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen. Here's how it could happen:
Not all states allow by law for an elector in that state to cast a vote for someone who was not the winner of the popular vote in that state. But some do. This website details the law in various states.
Let's go to the top of the list, Alabama, because the law there 1) applies no penalty for a faithless vote, 2) allows the vote to stand, that is it doesn't automatically replace the faithless elector with someone who would vote in accordance with the popular vote, and 3) Alabama voted for Trump, so if Trump is on track to lose in a conventional Electoral College vote, an Alabama elector is more likely to be willing to stray from the norm to prevent a Biden presidency. In my opinion, this faithless elector, though certain to garner scorn from some uber partisans, would probably be praised as the savior of the Republic by the rest of us.
OK. So now we go to the House chamber on 6 January 2021 and a joint session of Congress. The session is chaired by the president of the Senate, the current Vice President Mike Pence. As each state's electoral ballots are counted there is an opportunity for objection to the acceptance of said ballots. By law, that requires at least one House member and one Senate member to file a written objection. That should be a pretty low bar. I'd bet Senators Romney, Collins or Murkowski could be persuaded. When this happens, the Senate retires to it's own chamber and both Houses have two hours of debate followed by a vote. Significantly, the vote in the House is conducted by state delegation, not by individual House members. Currently the Republicans have majorities in 26 of the 50 state delegations and that is not anticipated to change after the new Congress is sworn in on 3 January 2021. So presumably, the House will vote to reject those electoral votes.
Now we examine the Senate, and even if the runoff elections for Senator in Georgia BOTH go to the Democrats, that only gives the Democrats 50 Senators. Now with a Biden presidency, the Senate would be in Democratic hands because the Vice President, Kamala Harris, tips the majority to the Democrats as the tie breaking vote. But this event all takes place on 6 January of next year. Mike Pence is still that tie breaking vote, and presumably the electoral votes get refused.
This same scenario needs to play out in several states in order to accomplish the goal of reducing any one candidate's total of electoral votes to below 270. I'm not sure how the law is written, but the number might need to be reduced to below half the ballots accepted, not simply below the number 270 which is half the ballots cast. I'll let the legal scholars in the Congress figure that out. My suggestion would be to disqualify votes from the states where there are credible allegations of fraud. All the more justification to refuse to accept those votes. Political cover of a sort.
So now we have an Electoral College in which no candidate has the required number of ballots for election to the presidency. Under those circumstances, the Constitution's 12th Amendment is quite clear on how to proceed from here.
The House of Representatives votes to choose from among the top three vote getters, in this case Trump, Biden, and Jorgensen (or substitute another candidate of your choice). Once again, the vote in the House is conducted by delegation. Presumably the candidate introduced by the faithless elector would win the vote if this enterprise goes according to plan. There would be nothing to stop the delegations from voting for Trump at this point, but that would defeat the goal of reducing partisan rancor. Indeed, it would almost certainly be seen as outright theft of the presidency, although it would still be perfectly legal. And since all the actors needed for this scenario to play out are Republicans, it would certainly be possible for this to be used to steal a win for Trump when most would acknowledge it was not deserved. Still, I think few of the Republican participants would be willing to put their careers on the line, not to mention the future of the country, just to save Trump. Most of them will probably be glad to see the back of him, and though some Republicans might blame them for denying Trump four more years, I'll bet there will be plenty of reluctant Biden voters who will forgive them denying those four years to Biden in the name of saving the country.
So next we move on to the selection of the Vice President. That happens in the Senate where each Senator gets one vote, but unlike the House where the choice is between the top three vote getters, the Senate's choice for Vice President is made only from among the top two. Harris or Pence. For my money, Harris is simply an unacceptable choice. Especially among Republicans, and all the key players in this scenario are Republicans. To name Mike Pence the Vice President would be particularly appealing to Republicans if the presidency was to go to one of the prominent Democrats I mentioned, and that would be especially true if the Senate were to end up 50-50, and a Republican Senate could only be narrowly assured with a Republican Vice President at the helm as a tie breaker. Another reason for choosing Pence is his cooperation as President of the Senate during the counting of electoral votes might be necessary, and if the Georgia Senate seats both go to Democrats, his tie breaking vote will determine the Vice Presidency. There's little chance he's choosing Harris over himself. This could work. Who knows. We might even approach bi partisan governance going forward as we seek to heal the partisan wounds of the past.
You might be surprised to learn that I don't see this scenario as a particular long shot. If Trump can prove election fraud of a significant enough magnitude to rightfully claim the presidency, then I would support him. I believe that fraud likely occurred. But if that can't be proven to the satisfaction of most reasonable people, then the divisions created in this country as a consequence of half the population believing the election was stolen no matter who wins is an unacceptable alternative. I hope lawmakers in Congress see the choices their same way I do.
Monday, June 8, 2020
Black Lives Matter: Shibboleth for 2020
Imagine this scenario. You're sitting at home with your wife or husband on the couch next to you, and she/he turns to you and asks, "What do you think about Black Lives Matter?" How do you respond? If you're like me, your response is, "All lives matter." Now what if you were in a group of friends? One of your friends asks the same question. My response would be the same. Would yours? What if it were in a mixed group composed of some friends and some strangers? What if it was a group of mostly strangers or all strangers? What if the strangers were mostly black? What if they were on the sidewalk holding signs that read Black Lives Matter and chanting "I can't breathe?" Do you see where I'm going with this? Am I making you a little uncomfortable?
For some people, how you respond to the question, "Do Black Lives Matter" will define how they think about you. Some people will know by your response whether they like you or not. Some people will know by your response whether they hate you or not. And these days, if you're in the wrong place and among the wrong people, the videos suggest that some people will decide based on your response whether they want to beat you up or not, either verbally or in some cases physically.
I hate that circumstances now demand that I declare that I'm not a racist. I'll further explain that I'm a 67 year old white guy, BUT I'm not a racist. Now there was a time when I could have said I'm a 67 year old white guy AND I'm not a racist. But these days there are some people who are trying to create the common assumption that somebody like me MUST be a racist simply by virtue of my age and my skin color. I'd like to be able to say that I'm 67 years old, AND oh by the way, I'm not a racist, but these days I feel compelled to say, I'm 67 years old, BUT contrary to what we're all meant to presume, I'm not a racist. I will assume that the difference in the language here is not too nuanced to understand. I'm more than just a little bit sick of this!
 |
| Christian villagers of Ungheni, Bessarabia Governorate, displaying icons on their homes in order to defend themselves from a pogrom, 1905 |
For me, the response "All Lives Matter" is a no brainer. Does that mean I think black lives DON'T matter? Of course not. But being "invited" or in reality being compelled, or shamed, or in some cases almost threatened to say Black Lives Matter, as if it were some sort of catechism, stirs more than just a little bit of rage inside of me. It's as if my interrogator is trying to force me to accept his implied premise that in fact black lives matter MORE than any other lives. They don't. They ALL matter. No amount of coercion will make me feel any differently, though I suppose an adequate amount of coercion might compel me to SAY I feel differently. I'm hoping I won't ever have to take part in the experiment to answer that question. I suspect that what the mob really wants though, prefers actually, is to conduct that research independently, on each and every one of us. They're not looking for a true transformation, but a conversion by intimidation, a conversion by inquisition.
So I reject the incantation "Black Lives Matter" while recognizing that it has become a shibboleth for our time. Your chosen three word response to a question about the value of human life will determine if you are a good person or a bad one; if you are friend or foe. A member of the tribe or the enemy "other". I'm happy to utter the words black lives matter in the absence of duress, but while you may think you're hearing Black Lives Matter, if I were to transcribe my utterance onto the written page, they would contain no capital letters. And don't be surprised if I follow it up with, "but then actually, all lives matter." I see Black Lives Matter (with capital letters) as a conspiracy by some to intimidate a political opponent. It may not have started out that way, (then again, maybe it did. I have no way to know), and it certainly isn't that for all concerned. Lots of people marching under the banner of Black Lives Matter are decent, sincere, and well meaning people. But I'm certain there are some for whom the slogan is nothing more than a cudgel with which to intimidate their enemies.
There is a lengthy debate to be had about policing and the black community which should be conducted based on facts not feelings. But today, with calls to defund the police, it is sadly not the time to introduce facts into the discussion. I'm also concerned about who will be taking part in that discussion when it ultimately does take place. Unfortunately, I suspect that the debate will be dominated by callow, pandering politicians and the intersectionality peddling purveyors of race grievance, more commonly known as race hustlers. Neither of these groups will be reluctant to advance the country right up to the precipice of a race war if there was a buck to be made and power to be gained.
Shibboleth. That's a peculiar word, shibboleth. The Wikipedia definition above explains adequately enough what about the phrase "Black Lives Matter" prompted me to write this article. But I prefer the explanation offered the very first time I ever encountered the word in an episode of The West Wing about twenty years ago. There was something so sophisticated and scholarly about Jed Bartlett quoting the Bible from memory. Progressives were so much easier to get along with back then. And occasionally, they could even teach you something. Those were the good old days, huh?
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Government Is Not Done Screwing This Up
Members of Congress, especially on the Republican side, are making noises about instituting some sort of legislative fix to prevent a flood of lawsuits against business owners once virus restrictions are finally relaxed. They’re worried about ambulance chasing lawyers crippling already weakened enterprises with thousands of lawsuits by both customers and employees for failing to take proper measures to ensure the safety of all concerned in the aftermath of the pandemic. They want to both reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and standardize the criteria across all the states.
Some committee of politicians will have to come to a consensus on what constitutes proper precautions. Every petty bureaucrat on the committee will have ideas of their own, and everyone’s ideas must be accommodated to reach consensus. What could possibly go wrong? I’m sure this is how we ended up with TSA guidelines and OSHA rules. Businesses will be forced to comply because either government will compel them to comply, or the newly devised “voluntary” guidelines will become the de facto standard based on what will be labelled “consensus”. Defy the “recommendations” and be prepared to defend yourself in court for decisions that don’t align in some way with the “sound principles” blessed by government bureaucrats in all their wisdom. Instead of a return to normalcy, Congress will end up enshrining some of the stupidest, most cumbersome regulations into a new standard of business practice with which we will be burdened forever. You know I’m right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)