Congressman Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, described electronic voting systems as dangerous during an interview on Hill TV that was aired Thursday. Buck Sexton asked Nunes how confident he was that the election process would be secure this fall. Nunes responded:
The one thing that we have been worried about for many, many years on the Intelligence Committee is about the electronic voting systems. Those are really dangerous in my opinion and should not be used.
Nunes added that the danger is increased if the electronic election equipment is communicating over the Web. The congressman also added “that we need a paper trail so that you can go back in case you have to do a manual recount.”
The New American first informed readers of the need for a paper trail in voting equipment going back to its October 13, 1986 issue, and the magazine’s position on that has never wavered.
Protecting our elections from foreign hackers is only part of the concern. Historically, elections have been stolen as inside jobs vastly more frequently than they have been stolen by outsiders. Elections can be stolen by many means, including altering votes in the voting equipment, altering vote totals in the central computer, registering illegal aliens to vote, registering out-of-state college students to vote, casting ballots via legions of repeaters using assumed names, submitting fraudulent ballots as absentee ballots, or any other form of stuffing the box. Any security weakness can be exploited, particularly if the process is behind closed doors and public access is denied or severely limited.
Nunes’ failure to mention the greater danger to our elections from an inside job wasn’t the worst gaffe in the televised interview. Krystal Ball’s closing comments at the end:
There are some states that have gone to vote by mail and I actually think that is a very good system and it has upped voter turnout, so I’d love to work with the congressman on that.
Unfortunately, voting by mail-in ballots is incredibly susceptible to fraud. In addition to the inherent lessening of the security by using the mail, there appear to be additional security weaknesses caused by sloppy procedures, at least in Oregon. John Fund, in his book Stealing Elections, tells of an experience by Professor Melody Rose at Oregon State University:
Rose herself once stopped by a library after hours to deposit her ballot, only to find an overflowing bin of ballots in the lobby. She could have taken all of them to her car and done some creative pruning based on where people lived or their gender.
John Fund should have also mentioned that Professor Rose was not the only person to have after-hours to the bins of ballots. Anyone with a key to the library building in question or other government buildings where the ballots lie around in open bins has access to do creative pruning or even a little last-minute ballot box stuffing.
American elections were once open to public scrutiny by any member of the public at any time without need for prior permission. In recent times, that access to monitor has been seriously curtailed. Many of the vote counting functions that were once performed by teams of American citizens are now being accomplished by computer programs that hopefully have no errors and no trap doors to allow for alterations. Many of the functions that are performed behind closed doors are performed by government employees. The percentages of political donations to the Clinton campaign in 2016 by government employees indicate most are hoping for a leftward shift. Hopefully they will process the votes correctly. Undoubtedly many will, but are some on the Left so unhinged regarding Trump that they would tamper with the vote results given the opportunity?
The zealousness of the anti-Trump movement can be seen by its strident rhetoric. For example, Trump opposition Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) was videoed at a recent protest rally in Los Angeles saying:
Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.
Of course, Waters is by no means saying here that the “push back” should include vote fraud. Yet, do some on the Left hate Trump to such an extent that they would engage in fraud if they see a way of doing so, rationalizing in their own minds that the ends (throwing out the evil Republicans and the Trump agenda along with it) justify the means?
There is, however, no reason to speculate regarding this. To cite just one example, Project Veritas caught a Democrat operative on camera candidly admitting that they have been rigging elections for 50 years.
Nunes made a good point regarding the danger of electronic voting systems. A paper trail is a good place to start, but it doesn’t stop there. It would be wise to remember the threat of stolen elections by insiders is much greater than by outside hackers and that openness of the process is the best disinfectant.