Blind Trust of Leaders

A judge in the state of Florida has recently declared that its voters have no right to verifiable votes on the new touch-screen voting machines. State election officials seem to be saying, "just trust us and have no concern whatsoever about verification." But should we just trust those who rigged the last presidential election by keeping registered voters from voting and refused to accept the mandatory recount?

Or, should we trust the US Supreme Court that stopped the state's right to count and verify the tally of its votes, and says that the American people have no constitutional right to vote? And based their decision on whether their favored candidate might lose?

One quarter of the nation's voters will be using unverifiable touch-screen voting machines this election year that are open to hacking, have been shown many times to have miscalculated ballots, and have no verifiable paper trail. Yet our election officials say the only recount for touch-screen ballots will be to add up the totals used in the precincts and see if they match what the total number of voters should be. What if the totals show a mathematical error and the numbers don't match? Will they then throw out all the votes of a precinct and start over, telling those voters to come back and vote again on many of the same machines? There's almost certainly going to be some discrepancy judging from the recent history of these electronic voting machines that have been foisted upon a generally unwilling public. My main question is, why can't we have a paper trail? Although no system is likely to completely eliminate the possiblilty of fraud, a paper trail should be mandatory on all voting machines. The whole process is worthless without validation of the results.

And what difference does voting make anyway, if the only choices you are allowed to make are between one elite Skull and Bones man and another? For this to happen, the entire system must surely be rigged and the American people just too dumb to care.

------

In other news, Bill O'Reilly has apologized for his Iraq pre-war stance on its WMD. Whoop-Tee-Doo! Does that mean it's alright to be a hate-spewing warmonger who urges this nation to invade and destroy another nation based on lies and innuendos without concern for world opinion as long as you just say "sorry" afterward? It's just a rhetorical question, that I ask generally, about anyone.