by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:

This story was shared by B.H., but I had to laugh and blog about it, and that’s something, as I don’t like talking about American politics very much. The reason for that is very simple: it has that hysterical-eschatological-insane asylum quality to it. In a word, it’s nauseating and disgusting, as are most of the people involved with it. I have no use for the Dummycrooks whatsoever and precious little use for the do-next-to-nothing Republithugs who haven’t done much of anything since the interstate system, nor done much to roll back that “big government” they’re always complaining about.  Their other big success was the Civil War. Senator Taft complained about it (big government, I mean, not the Civil War) and would’ve done something about it, but they sidelined him, and we’ve been stuck with the Raw Deal ever since then.

Moreover, since the 2016 election, we’ve been subjected to three years of Muellerism. About the only thing I have said about American politics in general, or Swamptington, D.C., is that I thought the 2016 elections were significant in one very important way, and that was that both candidates were “deep state” candidates, but that it appeared that there were now deep rifts or divisions in that deep state, such that one faction was backing one candidate (recall that strange episode with the military on President Trump’s inauguration), and that another faction was backing the other(think of the “intelligence complex”).

But just when you think it couldn’t possibly get any more hysterical than this Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump circus, something happens to rob you of all your certainty, and thrusts you into a whole new level of eschatological Angst (and make sure you’re not swallowing a drink when you read this one, because it will make you spew it all over your computer screen in laughter):

Now, I can think of several reasons why having Mr. Gates anywhere near our computer-rigged elections is a very bad idea:

(1) He’s Bill Gates;

(2) He was a big sponsor of Common Core, trying to make more money selling computer software to the Amairikuhn quackademic edugarchy;

(3) He’s trying to do the same thing here, make money at the government trough by selling computer software  (oink oink);

(4) Did I mention he’s Bill – oink – Gates?

(5) Do we really want to be in the middle of voting only to read on the computer screen “Please do not turn off this computer; your update will be done soon”?  (Or maybe that’s all part of the P.L.O.T.: get the voting lines to become so long while people are waiting for the latest Microcrud update to load, they’ll get so frustrated and simply stay home and not vote at all, which will make the job of fabricating the acceptable results on the part of the programmers and technocrats at Microcrud so much easier);

(6) Do we really want to be turning our computer-rigged elections over to the designer of one of the worst opera-  please be patient and do not turn off your computer while we update Windows – ting systems ever?

(7) Did I mention that he’s Bill Ga-please be patient and do not turn off your computer, your spyware update is being installed – tes?;

(8) While we’re installing your spyware update, and you’re waiting to vote, we can go ahead and give you your mandatory vaccine which you’re required to have so that you can vote…

Well, you get the picture. Now, to this long litany of mercantilist globaloney billionaire busybodyism and vaccimania that is Bill Gates, add the fact that this cyber-miracle of computerized voting is being – please be patient and do not turn off your computer, your spyware update is being installed – done in conjunction with the military, and I’m sure you, gentle reader, are probably as alarmed as I am: votes can really be rigged, and the whole system can become the target of cyber attacks as well. Think of all the nightmare scenarios that could result: election results that were “unacceptable” could be quietly and truly covertly over-turned: votes could be made literally to disappear with the push of a button. Records could be falsified or erased altogether. Add to this the fact that no cyber-system has integrity or is completely secure, and elections could be altered by anyone, or endlessly contested to the extent that one would have a “de facto postponement” of installation into office of the “winner” (think Florida 2000).

Worse, down the line, why even bother about representative bodies at all, when one can have computerized voting which promises a truly participatory democracy? Why have a Congress, or a state legislature at all? Why not allow everyone to propose and vote on  every measure, and allow a megacorporation, a billionaire busybody, and the military to be the custodians of the whole thing? (After listening to “congresspersons”, it’s actually a tempting idea.)

Of course, there’s an obvious solution here, one that is neither very expensive and wouldn’t have to involve the likes of Mr. Gates or the military, and that’s good old fashioned paper ballots. Of course, those old analogue methods can be hacked too and ballot boxes can be stuffed (just ask Lyndon Johnson) or go missing altogether (think Cook county, 1960), but in the main, it’s much more difficult to do. We’d have to wait a couple of months before results were announced, but given the “quality” of candidates in recent years, I could live with that.

Or to put all this is Microsoftese (a dialect of busybodyism spoken outside the confines of Swampington DC):

Microsoft’s press release announcing ElectionGuard highlights its claim that its system would make elections more verifiable, secure, and auditable; be open source-based; and improve the voting experience. While all of these things sound nice enough, there is reason to believe — based on the description given by Microsoft — that some of these claims are dubious and misleading. Unfortunately, for now, analysis of ElectionGuard is restricted to Microsoft’s description of the software as it is not yet available for public examination. The ElectionGuard software kit is expected to be released later this year on the GitHub platform.

The first aspect of the “verifiable” claim relates to a voter tracking system, where each voter is given a unique tracking ID which allows them “to follow an encrypted version of the vote through the entire election process via a web portal provided by election authorities.” Voters can choose the option of confirming “that their trackers and encrypted votes accurately reflect their selections.”

Yet Microsoft notes that “once a vote is cast, neither the tracker nor any data provided through the web portal can be used to reveal the contents of the vote,” meaning that while a person can track whether their vote was counted, they cannot verify whether the content of the vote (i.e., who they voted for) is counted correctly or not. Microsoft goes on to note that only “after the election is complete” will the tracker page allow the content of the vote to be seen.

The second “verifiability” component of ElectionGuard “is an open specification – or a road map – which allows anyone to write an election verifier.” Microsoft then notes that this open specification would mean that “voters, candidates, news media and any observers can run verifiers of their own or downloaded from sources of their choosing to confirm tabulations are as reported.”

…

Election forensics analyst Jonathan Simon, author of CODE RED: Computerized Elections and the War on American Democracy, was not fully persuaded by the E2E-V claim. “Pardon my skepticism,” Simon told MintPress, “but I’ve read Microsoft’s ‘good news’ ElectionGuard flyer and it reminds me very much of the flyers and PR material long served up by the vendors and programmers of the current voting equipment — the very computers that IT experts discovered could be hacked by outsiders and programmed to add, delete, and shift votes by insiders.”

Simon continued:

Right now, for example, they’re hawking expensive and completely unnecessary ballot-marking devices (BMDs) that turn your votes into a barcode, a code that no voter can read or verify. Very slick but yet another level of non-transparency, another step away from public, observable vote-counting, and another vector for fraud.

Read More @ GizaDeathStar.com