The only problem with this piece is its presumption that, if Clinton has “won” several primaries through electronic fraud, her team must have committed it.
While HRC is (of course) the short-term beneficiary of such apparent fraud, HRC certainly is not the only interested party in this contest. Any theory of computerized election fraud today that doesn’t mention Karl Rove’s party is, to put it mildly, insufficient, since they, and not the Democrats, have long had what it takes to rig elections electronically (and otherwise):
Since, with their extreme agenda, they can’t win elections democratically, they have the motive.
Since their partisans control the private companies that largely “count” the votes from coast to coast, they have the means.
And since the Democratic Party, and the press (both corporate and left/liberal), have long refused to face this all-important issue, the GOP always has the opportunity.
And why would Karl Rove’s party “fix it” for Hillary? Need you ask? Just as they evidently helped her “win” New Hampshire in 2008 (a huge surprise to everyone, including her), because they wanted not to run McCain against Obama, so are they probably now helping her “win” all those primaries, since they want not to have Herr Trump face Bernie Sanders, since she’s so much more “beatable,” as anyone with eyes can clearly see.
This certainly is not to say that Clinton’s team would never do that sort of thing—a ludicrous idea, considering their showy appetite for every other kind of dirty trick that Karl Rove also plays. (Election theft is not a simple crime.) It’s just to say that there’s no evidence of their particular involvement in this recent serial manipulation of the e-vote-counting apparatus nationwide.
And that’s the crucial point here, since our responsibility is not just to identify which party rigged those votes, but to confront the fact that anyone could do it, at any time, so that we’ll finally take the necessary steps to make the US voting system worthy of a real democracy.
Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests: Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders Election Fraud Allegations
by Doug Johnson Hatlem
At the end of the climactic scene (8 minutes) in HBO’s Emmy nominated Hacking Democracy (2006), a Leon County, Florida Election official breaks down in tears. “There are people out there who are giving their lives just to try to make our elections secure,” she says. “And these vendors are lying and saying everything is alright.” Hundreds of jurisdictions throughout the United States are using voting machines or vote tabulators that have flunked security tests. Those jurisdictions by and large are where former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is substantially outperforming the first full wave of exit polling in her contest against Senator Bernie Sanders.
CounterPunch has interviewed hackers, academics, exit pollsters, and elections officials and workers in multiple states for this series taking election fraud allegations seriously. The tearful breakdown in Hacking Democracy is not surprising. There is a well-beyond remarkable gap between what security experts and academics say about the vulnerability of voting machines and the confidence elections experts and academics, media outlets, and elections officials place in those same machines.
In Leon County, Bev Harris’ Black Box Voting team had just demonstrated a simple hack of an AccuVote tabulator for bubble-marked paper ballots. Ion Sancho, Leon County’s Supervisor of Elections, also fights back tears in the Hacking Democracy clip: “I would have certified this election as a true and accurate result of a vote.” Sancho adds, “The vendors are driving the process of voting technology in the United States.”
In 2010, and this reminder will pain those of you who can remember when Nate Silver’s outfit did real data journalism rather than primarily yay-Clinton boo-Trump punditry, a FiveThirtyEight column argued that hacking was one of two possibilities for statistical anomalies in a Democratic Senate primary in South Carolina: “B. Somebody with access to software and machines engineered a very devious manipulation of the vote returns.”
Joshua Holland’s column in The Nation “debunking” claims of election fraud benefiting Clinton rests its case on a simple proposition: why would Clinton need to cheat when she was winning anyway? Apparently, Mr. Holland has never heard of an obscure American politician named Richard Nixon.
More importantly, entering the South Carolina primary, the pledged delegate count was 52-51. CNN’s poll two weeks out projected an 18 point Clinton win. Ann Selzer, the best pollster in the United States, projected a 22 point Clinton win. RealClearPolitics’ polling average projected a 27.5% win. FiveThirtyEight was much bolder in projecting a 38.3% Clinton win. The early full exit poll said Clinton had won by 36%, pretty close to FiveThirtyEight’s call. Tellingly, white people in that exit poll went for Sanders 58-42. But the final results said Clinton won by 47.5%, an 11.5% exit polling miss. And the exit polls had to adjust their initial figures to a 53-47 Clinton win with white Democrats in South Carolina.