In intelligence lingo, an “intel gap” is something that is not fully known, or perhaps not known at all. Analysts may know from which village a convoy is most likely to be attacked, or with which weapons, but may draw a blank when it comes to knowing who pays for or transports said weapons. That key piece of intelligence holds the hidden key for eliminating that threat altogether.
I consider the entire cyber picture an “intel gap” in need or more information. Not one that is completely unknown, mind you, but lacking in quantifiable information as to where and how much. My numbers that have been widely published don’t account for “how.” They simply show disparate data and trends for further investigation.
As with nearly all of the election fraud claims, the approach to putting claims of electronic fraud to rest is simple: put the cards on the table. If there is nothing to be found with ballot marking devices, electronic poll books, tabulators, centralized databases, and all associated equipment, a full review and dissection of all equipment provided by all election vendors should not only put these claims to rest, but utterly humiliate those making them.
Enter Maricopa County.
The Arizona Senate subpoenaed a variety of electronic voting equipment, but the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors withheld logs and routers from the examiners in the course of the first ever full forensic audit in 2021, and continues to withhold them at the time of this writing. Again, if Bill Gates, Jack Sellers, and the rest of the crooked board would like to put the entire question of cyber issues to bed, they would most certainly provide all required materials to do so. To me, this is the single biggest confirmation of the potential for cyber fraud in our elections.
We have also seen several displays from Michigan, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Georgia, and other states that show precisely how outcomes can be controlled at a central location by a single adjudicator. The primaries in Texas were a gigantic disaster. Modernized poll pads with dirty voter rolls connected to them makes it potentially very easy to check repeat, or even imaginary, voters in to cast a ballot under a false registration.
The solution here is simple. Ban all electronic elections equipment. They managed to conduct elections without computers and software for well over a century, so why can’t it be done today? The answers are convenience, corruption, and money.
For convenience - media, and by default, viewers, want results instantly. To some extent, that is a good thing, so long as brevity delays malfeasance that pollutes clean elections. The ability for bad actors to switch votes or manipulate vote tallies electronically are obvious indicators of corruption. Finally, there is big money in government bids for everything the government procures, generally wastefully, including electronic elections equipment. To return to simple ways of tallying election results would devastate an entire industry.
In Nye County, Nevada, the county commission voted unanimously to begin the process of banning all electronic elections equipment, and move to secure paper ballots with anti-counterfeit measures, to be counted by hand. Rio Blanco County, Colorado, is in the process of making similar changes. With little cracks in the dam now present, progress is picking up across counties. Last night, in Clackamas County, Oregon, two county commission candidates pledged similar action, if elected.
The sacrifice will be felt in slower election returns. If we have to wait for an extra day to get accurate results from fair elections, I am fine with that. We already wait for days anyway for states to come up with enough votes in key counties to flip key races as needed, so why should anyone care about delayed results?
What is old must become new again. Return to the old-fashioned way of voting, on paper, and of counting them by hand. Clean elections depend on it.
I agree, we need to go back to paper ballots, and on paper that cannot be fraudulently used, and one day voting with very limited mail in ballots!
Sir, what would be your argument against an open-source solution? It is easy to imagine voting via a biometric-enabled phone app, and if that were open-source, it would provide the visibility necessary for security.