Rick Potvin's Interesting Topics / Email: rick_potvin@yahoo.com
Public posting no longer allowed as of Dec. 15, 2021 due to uncontrolled spam... Will update later.

You are not logged in. Would you like to login?

11/15/2020 10:17 am  #1

LAROUCHE pointed out fallacy of computer voting in 2004


I'll email this article to DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS
sales@dominionvoting.com, security@dominionvoting.com, media@dominionvoting.com

Computerized voting inherently fraudulent?

I went over some of your company's latest counter-claims for vote fraud but here's one you have not addressed that might actually be the coup-de-grace: Computerized voting in INHERENTLY by it's nature, fraudulent. This article is by Lyndon Larouche in 2004. If you dare, can you comment on it? I think we're now getting into the philosophy of digital vs. manual systems and much more.

Rick Potvin, General Issues Blogger and Piano Teacher/Performer/Sales.
Previous resident of Toronto, now in Arizona

In 2004, Lyndon LaRouche Warned Computer-Controlled Voting Devices Are Designed for Fraud

Nov. 14, 2020 (EIRNS)—Executive Intelligence Review, March 12, 2004, carried a call by Lyndon H. LaRouche to ban the use of computer-controlled voting machines. Headlined, “LaRouche: For Fair Elections, Ban Computer Voting Now!” LaRouche said what’s crucial is “ ‘to eliminate the use of computer-controlled voting devices—absolutely!’ This is necessary because computerized voting machines, by their nature, cannot be audited, LaRouche said.

    ‘You have no protection against massive fraud. And computer-based voting is the simplest way to carry out fraud. Diebold machines, and similar kinds of machines, are inherently fraudulent. They’re designed for fraud. They’ve been tested: Hackers can get into these machines, and change the vote! Change the total vote, in a machine, by going into the relevant computer.’ ” (Emphasis in original.)

The article continued: “Therefore, LaRouche is calling for a return to a universal paper ballot, which is hand-counted. If that requires more people to count the votes than computers, all the better. The more people involved, the more impediments to carrying out vote fraud. And secondly, LaRouche says, each voter should get a copy of their vote; this is the best deterrence to vote fraud.

“To those who would object that this would be a slow, inefficient system of counting votes, LaRouche responds that a slow, ponderous vote-counting system, where people can watch what is going on, is the best way to prevent vote fraud and election-rigging.”


Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum