Time to fess up. I’ve never been a big fan of electronic voting machines.
As a country, we do billions, maybe trillions, of dollars of commerce every day, most of it over electronic systems. If we can do that, why can’t we vote that same way? Because unlike the money system, there is no receipt or paper trail on these machines. I get no piece of paper telling me that my vote counted and that it was accurately recorded. When I go to the bank to make a deposit, I get a receipt. I can even pull it up online and check to make sure that the bank gave me credit for my deposit. Not so when it comes to electronic voting.
Were I interested in cheating my way to an election win, I’d rig the voting machines. Oh, who’d do that you say? Anyone interested in grabbing power is my answer. Capt. James T. Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru test by changing the program. He didn’t cheat, instead he changed the program because he didn’t believe in a “no lose” scenario. He always believed there was a way out. But while that might work at Star Fleet Academy, it’s not so good when applied to elections.
It has recently been revealed that George Soros, a uber-wealthy socialist and big supporter of Democrats, may own an interest in voting machines used in sixteen states. This allegation arose of the result of a Wikileaks email hack, which was quickly attacked by Dems as being the fault of the Ruskies. When sources reveal that Republicans have been up to the usual dirty tricks, or women come forward with 20 year old allegations, the Dems have no problem with believing the credibility of those accusations. But let emails, hacked from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s email come out, and somehow it’s not fair to even discuss those. The Dems say it’s like breaking into someone’s house and discovering their secrets, then revealing the same. But I digress.
So back to Soros. Maybe he owns or controls 50,000 voting machines, maybe he doesn’t. I just don’t like the system of no checks and balances. During the “hanging chad” farce that was Gore v. Bush in 2000, at least there was something to look at, to examine, to contest. Today, how could that be done? If, and that’s a big if, “if” the election came down to my vote and the machine says I voted for X but I insisted I voted for Y, how would an objective outsider ever know?
In Ireland, which you’ve probably heard I just visited, they still do paper ballots. They do a thing called a transferrable vote, that is, you vote for your first choice, then second choice, third choice and on down the line. One, it’s on a piece of paper. Two, it’s the end of runoffs. Three, while it may take a bit longer to tabulate, it’s accurate.
Yet we persist in electronic voting that is ripe for corruption, manipulation and fraud. Sometimes just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. This, to me, is one of those times.