Where Do You Pay for the Votes?

Look far and wide, and listen to the chatter of the (D)emocrats, again ignoring science, reality, truth, all dimensions of askew universes in their minds. Voter tampering of the best technology going seems to be a focus of concern. They want to destroy the new voting machine, the electronic voting machine, the computer.

Which voting mechanism has had more problems, punch cards or computers? Yes, we all know the answer is punch cards, but that is irrelevant. (D)emocrats would like to keep them and keep away from those newfangled electronic contraptions. Sure, it is probably because they do not understand science, how the technology works, but it also could be a bit of fear that an accurate account of election results will give them no excuses. No excuses? Clear Politics?

In California, where money is not a barrier because there is always credit, even bad credit, it sounds like an old, stale technology cannot be supplanted unless whatever is replacing it can be proved perfect. No, it is not good enough if electronic voting machines are better or more accurate than previous systems; the question is are they perfect? Perfect? That is a really big word, especially for a bureaucrat.

What seems to be going on here is that the new technology is taking tampering with elections out of the hands of the election officials. If you want to use a better, newer technology, you have to explain away the “what-ifs” no matter how absurd, a standard insurmountable, until people see it for what it is, Clear Politics.

Sure, the machines are tested before voting, after voting, and randomly during voting, but what if on the 13th minute of each hour the machines added 7 votes for the (R)epublican candidate, because we all know the machines would only be used to shortchange (D)emocrats?

Well, uh…

See, we can’t use this technology!

But what about those that have actually, not theoretically, misplaced of stuffed the ballot box?


Of course it is irrelevant. There are even those who say using computerized voting is racially biased. (Wow, will anyone call that Clear Politics, or do we let it slide, again, and again, and…)

When listening to the conspiracy theorists on the radio I had always thought that the right had a lock on conspiracy theorists, until I realized that on the left you do not listen to the fringe for the conspiracy theories, but just listen. (Remember Hillary’s Right-Wing Conspiracy? I just wish she would tell us all how to do so well in the cattle futures market, a book we could all use in our village.)

Punch cards vs. computers? Why do the (D)emocrats call themselves progressive? Shouldn’t these Luddites be called repressive as the play Clear Politics?

Do not play with razors!
Occam's Razor - The simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

posted at 03:00:00 on 05/12/04 by clearpolitics - Category: Science - [Permalink]

Previous | Next


No comments yet

Add Comments

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it