Voting is a whole process that has many opportunities to manipulate the outcome. The closer the voting results are, the more the opportunity that a subtle manipulation can swing the vote one way or the other. One motivation for fixing elections is that a declared winner will be almost impossible to remove from office.
Manipulation has been an accepted practice in the voting process. It does not change the status of the winner unless they can be seen as proven guilty in courts of law, usually a lengthy process that allows the manipulator to legitimize the vote result as long as they hold the office.
Targeted voting processes, targeted classes of people and targeted geographical districts can be dismissed as not pervasive, minor aberrations, accidental or as legitimate process and do not affect the manipulated election result. So, chances are high to get away with the crime. Targeting specific classes of people, geographical districts and voting process seems to be the best methods of successful manipulation and avoiding the basic security processes of – protection, – detection, – reaction.
Many of the tools of manipulation are easily used by groups currently in power to influence vote outcome.
Massive manipulation is not needed in applying most strategies and tactics; rather, the application of several narrowly targeted techniques is probably more effective to swing the vote in close elections and is much easier to apply with minimum detection or any legal or political damage if caught.
Manipulation can be used by groups out of power too, the strategies and the tactics can overlap with the in power group but are arguably much less effective. The opportunities and resources to manipulate are much greater for the in power group which can control paramilitary, military, legal and bureaucratic resources including the infrastructure of the election process itself.
It has become standard practice in many parts of the world for opposition candidates to decry as fraudulent election results that favor the incumbent. Charges of vote fraud are routinely leveled against governing parties that win elections contested by opposition parties.
(Stephen Gowans at
During each election cycle, news stories emerge of voter irregularities and ballot malfunctions, prompting volunteer organizations to fight what they say is rampant fraud, while many authorities and other organizations dismiss the charges as unfounded.
(Election Day fraud found all over U.S. at
The public right to validate its own election lives at the very core of our constitutional right to self-govern. It is our tax money that pays for our government; we own it. If government workers are allowed to be in position to install them and choose representatives for us, we do not have true control over selecting our representation. If we lack the ability to see and authenticate our own choosing process, we actually are choosing our representation only if those holding certain positions inside government want to allow it. In a word: Unconstitutional.
Secrecy is antithetical to democratic systems, but if secrecy is allowed in the choosing process itself, it crushes the bedrock on which the democratic system sits. The public can never cede the choosing process over to government insiders, based on “trust”, because to do so actually removes the democratic system, quietly replacing it with a pseudo, a con, a wish, a pretender.
The public must be able to see and authenticate four things in public elections:
1. Who can vote (voter list)
2. Who did vote (participating voter list)
3. Chain of custody
4. The count
You can NEVER secure a system against its own administrator — but rather, the right to self-government. It is smack dab front page in the Constitution that representatives shall be chosen “by the people”, and what has happened with our election system is that the choosing system for any governance has been usurped by the government itself, removing it from the public.
Back to hacking: You cannot secure a computer from its own administrator. Its administrator is an insider in a government office, and/or the vendors he selects.
(Bev Harris at
Electoral fraud committed by individuals:
• Voting in the name of deceased persons. A variant of impersonation is an attempt to vote more than once, first using one’s own identity to cast a ballot and then using the identity of a deceased person. This type of fraud may be prevented by keeping the voters list up to date and making sure that names of deceased persons are removed promptly. Fines may also act as a deterrent.
• Impersonation. A common form of electoral fraud is an attempt to vote more than once, either by obtaining a second voter identification card or pretending to be another voter. Penalties for impersonation or double registration usually are set out in the electoral code; they include fines, imprisonment or both.
• Mail-in ballot fraud. In a system that allows voting by mail-in ballot, there is a risk that the ballot will be requested or completed by someone other than the eligible voter. Integrity may be safeguarded through a prohibition against requesting a ballot for another individual, a signed declaration confirming the identity of the voter, and heavy penalties for breach of these regulations.
Electoral fraud committed by groups or governments:
• Double counting (miscounting) of ballots. One way of stealing an election is by counting ballots incorrectly or stuffing the ballot box with votes not validly cast. Various measures may be used to deter these fraudulent practices: allowing only election officers to deposit ballots into the ballot box; using see-through ballot boxes; and counting the ballots in the presence of political party representatives as well as independent domestic and international observers, who attest to the fairness of the process.
• Intimidation. Those wishing to sway the outcome of an election may engage in intimidating activities to discourage voters from registering or, if they have registered, from casting a ballot on Election Day. Intimidation may sometimes be difficult to perceive because of the many forms it takes, explicit and public as well as more subtle. Nonetheless, the election authority needs to be aware of efforts to intimidate voters. It may receive help by encouraging reports of intimidation. It may also work with civil society groups and with domestic and international election observers to monitor intimidating activities.
• Exclusion from the voters list. To be free and fair, an election must allow all voters who meet the eligibility criteria to express their preferences by casting a ballot. Attempts may be made to exclude some groups of citizens from the voters list, particularly if they are known to support a particular political party. The election authority needs to be aware of plans for any such attempt and must ensure that it does not succeed. The risk is that by trying to include a certain group of people on the voters list, the election authority may be perceived as seeking to influence the outcome of the election in their favor.
Commonly acknowledged types of vote fraud are:
• Voter registration fraud
• Dead people voting
• Felon vote fraud
• Absentee ballot vote fraud
• Voter suppression
• Voter caging and purging
• Electronic voting fraud
• Voting more
• Voter impersonation
We live in a fractured society pitting a few million ideologically savvy people against a growing majority of ill-informed voters whose ideas are manipulated by the media. Almost all voters are dissatisfied with the status quo, but often for the wrong reasons.
Predictably, they always vote for change, but change never comes. This is because we are rarely presented with a candidate who understands the totality of change necessary.
The system is rigged for secrecy, and takes advantage of the average citizen’s dependence upon the half-truths and distortions we are fed by the establishment media, public education and conventional political theory. Thus, the typical voter holds an almost infinite variety of ignorant and irrational ideas about both cause and effect of our national crises and thus becomes easy prey to false solutions and media manipulation.
We saw all these things play out in the media, including some last minute manipulation and vote fraud–signs that the Powers That Be (PTB) are having to scramble to control this race.
If the establish media does its job right and if the power brokers have selected an electable candidate (with name recognition, charisma, and lack of principles sufficient to follow orders), the election is usually a done deal by the time the early primaries are finished. The anointed ones from each party are designated “front runners” before the primaries and that is usually enough to sway the voters of the first few primaries to ratify that view. Then the media declare the respective winners as “unstoppable” –having a “mandate from the people.”
(Adapted from Skousen – Election Manipulation in Full Swing by Joel Skousen, Editor – World Affairs Brief at


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s