17 January 2007: Some Primary Questions

In the last eight years, insiders have discovered every form of election corruption conceivable, as if this phenomenon were new. It isn’t.

     I was even assured that lever machines were tamperable.

     What seems the most pristine alternative toward ethical elections is the wholesome rustic evening count of machineless paper ballots, with the entire process visible to congenial groups. Paper counts in the recent New Hampshire primary weren’t questioned. The optical scanners took the heat.

     But the minute we try to expand the rustic scenario to more of this country, of course the numbers swell and with that the integrity shrinks. The beer-drinking congeniality is for small groups only.

     And by the way, does anyone dispute the results of caucuses, that outdated alternative? They seem to be the closest thing to the folksy gatherings in New Hampshire. Why not bring them back?

     Why not divide the country into smaller precincts?

     Because other problems would evolve.

     There’s that conglomerate of money, media, and how the votes are counted—I wrote about that yesterday, the conclusion of the latest edition of Voice of the Voters—an expert opinion.

     That machinery is all. Solche Machinerie ist alles.

     It seems that the minute one theft mechanism becomes too evident, another springs up in its place. But wait, electronic nonsense is still alive and well, with optical scanners. It seems like precincts need a nudge to worry much about whether machine results are consistent with the paper output, the beauty of opscan voting.

     But now an outcry and some money have forced a recount, which will take two weeks. I owe this information to last night’s Voice of the Voters. What will happen in two weeks, even if the finding is that Obama won, which is highly unlikely in that a lot of tampering can occur in two weeks, more than on an election night if inconsistencies are promptly attended to. But there are even monkey wrenches in that scenario.

     There are two strong forces that will guarantee that the January results will prevail.

     First, Hillary needed the victory desperately after the Iowa caucuses.

     Second, the Republicans want her to win, in that her excess of baggage will decimate her if she is nominated.

     So there is an unlikely alliance between Hillary people and Neocons.

     In other words, several primaries will have occurred and distracted the public from the New Hampshire recount, whatever the results. The election integrity movement will bust arteries and the money-press-machinery conglomerate will use their whisk broom to sweep them away and draw attention elsewhere. They will feed Lou Dobbs, the only potential MSM advocate, with lots of news about illegal immigration and perhaps by then he will scream even louder about the humanistic Democratic approach toward the issue.

     Even though the public is becoming aware of election corruption, the conglom will wave new examples at it, like proverbial red cloth before a bull. Perhaps they will make sure that scandalous evidence elsewhere guarantees distraction from New Hampshire, now ancient history. And Super Tuesday (how do they refer to it most lately?) will be on the horizon, like an irresistible mirage. Maybe here those election-integrity, unsexy pests will have no complaints.

     Oh, for that day.

     Beyond everything above, it’s human nature that trumps even the conglom. As nice as people can be, well some of them, in extremis, that’s as despicably as they usually behave.

     I hope that this blog has supplied new perspectives on this age-old issue.

     It’s not only election integrity, but everything else as well.

©