Prop 37: The top 7 reasons not to believe the vote-count

PROP 37: THE TOP 7 REASONS NOT TO BELIEVE THE VOTE COUNT

by Jon Rappoport

November 14, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The verdict is in. You would be a fool to accept the vote-count in the California Prop 37 election. I’ll show you why.

Apparently, the CA secretary of state’s office has been getting hit by a lot of calls. People are asking them about the ongoing Prop 37 vote-count. As of last night (11/13/2012), there were still 2,304,250 votes uncounted.

Update: As of 11/14/2012, 5:00pm PT, the number of uncounted ballots stands at 1,891,719.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/unprocessed-ballots-status/

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/nov-general/pdf/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf

I received a call from Shannan Velayas, who works in media relations at the California Secretary of State’s office. She left a message, emphasizing several points.

Among them: The vote-count is open and transparent, and anyone from the public can observe it.

This fact has been used by reporters and “experts” to assure the public that an election can’t be stolen.

They’re absolutely wrong.

So the first reason you shouldn’t believe the Prop 37 vote? The means do, in fact, exist to steal an election.

Here is my challenge. Can I see how the touch-screen voting machines operate? Can I go inside them and check them for tampering, anywhere in the state of California?

Can I see exactly how information flows from each voting machine to successive computers? Can I check to make sure the flow of information is not being intercepted and changed?

Can I see how the tabulating machines absorb and tally vote-count information? Can I examine closely the software and the codes that allow these tabulating machines to do their work?

Can I get inside any of the main-frame computers that collect vote-numbers and examine their software, source-code, and working parts?

Of course, the answer to all these questions is no.

Therefore, I could hire an army of observers, and they would not be able to tell me that the vote-count was done correctly. The secretary of state couldn’t swear to it either.

Some brain-deficient people think these objections are over the top. They think I’m nitpicking.

If I remind them that a team of computer scientists from Michigan went to Washington DC and demonstrated that they could hack into the voting system and reverse the result of mayoral race there, these brain-deficient people would dismiss that as irrelevant, too.

I suggest watching the documentary Hacking Democracy, directed by Simon Ardizzone and Russell Michaels, starring Bev Harris. Then tell me elections can’t be hacked and reversed.

Remember Jonathan James, who at the age of 16 put a back-door into DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s server, and stole software from NASA computers that set temperature and humidity at the International Space Station?

Recall Adrian Lamo, who hacked into security systems at B of A, Citigroup, and Cingular?

Keven Poulsen, who hacked into federal computers that record wiretaps?

Tsuromu Shimura, who used a simple cell phone to to hack into phone calls all over Capitol Hill?

The 18-year-old Greek boy, “n-splitter,” who was arrested for hacking into systems at Interpol, the Pentagon, the FBI, and the NSA?

I won’t even bother mentioning hackers who are hired by the NSA and other agencies.

But no, the 2012 California Prop 37 election couldn’t have been hacked. Of course not. Those computer systems are absolutely impregnable. They’re programmed by advanced ETs from the Rainbow Galaxy.

The media and secretaries of state throw out rhetoric aimed at assuring the public that elections are fair and square. That’s their job.

Pollsters and those hilarious clowns like Chuck Todd (NBC), John King (CNN), Michael Barone (The Examiner), Karl Rove, and Dick Morris are making a living from doing analysis and predictions of elections. They would defend, to the death, the honesty of elections. Of course they would, because if the opposite were shown to be true, they would be out of work.

The Associated Press feeds projections, although they deny it, to media outlets all over America on election night. They, too, would look ridiculous if it turned out that vote-counts had been hijacked.

Then we have professionals who work for candidates and ballot measures and offer their projections to their clients. They, of course, assume all elections are fair and square, because if that weren’t so, they would look like fools.

Worse than fools. Right now, professionals are telling the YES ON 37 people their cause is lost. If they’re wrong, if the election has been electronically stolen, they are giving their clients monumentally bad and destructive advice.

Oh but that’s right, elections can’t be stolen. It doesn’t happen.

Even though every single ballot, whether touch-screen or paper, is eventually turned into a digital record, nothing can go wrong.

I’m saving the best for last.

In 2007, the secretary of state of CA ordered a “Top-to-Bottom Review” of all electronic voting systems currently in use in California elections.

In other words, up to that time, these systems had been considered a very fine way to run the vote count. The systems obviously had been tested and re-tested and checked and approved. They were already being used in the state of California.

However, astoundingly, all the following systems were found to contain fatal flaws: Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold); Hart InterCivic; Sequoia Voting Systems; Election Systems and Software.

The first three systems were disqualified from further use…and then conditionally re-approved, presumably after fixes were done. The fourth system was rejected altogether on Aug. 3, 2007.

What, indeed, does that say about those elections in which these flawed systems had been used?

To suppose that, after this top-to-bottom review in 2007, everything was fixed and perfected is a leap only the foolish and unwary would take—particularly when we are talking about extremely talented hackers who could be employed to change election votes.

You can read the top-to-bottom review here.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/oversight/ttbr/individuals/individuals.pdf

Be sure to go through the comments section at the end. It contains some explosive remarks. For example, there is a discussion of vendors pretending to sell certain voting machines to the state of California…but actually selling other machines…machines that were not certified for use.

Another comment indicates that California lacked a method to ensure the source code for voting-machine software actually belonged to software certified by the state.

So: reason number one to doubt the vote-count on Prop 37? An election can be hacked. It most certainly can be hacked.

Reason Two: The networks made an early, premature, and highly suspect call of defeat for Prop 37 on election night. Roughly six million votes were outstanding at the time, and Prop 37 was coming back from a huge deficit, which had been created by the early vote-count. (Where exactly did those early votes come from?)

Reason Three: The enemy in the Prop 37 campaign was Monsanto and its allies. If Monsanto is ready, willing, and able to patent all foods on the planet and own the food supply, choke populations with its pesticides, and enable the sale of nutrient-deficient GMO food to billions of people, only a moron would refuse to believe it would corrupt an election.

Reason Four: The NO on 37 forces lied consistently in their ads running up to the election. They lied in the California Voter’s Guide, which is a felony. They used the seal of the FDA in those ads, which is another felony. Given the opportunity, what else would they have done?

http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2012/11/07/lies-dirty-tricks-and-45-million-kill-gmo-labeling-in-california/

Reason Five: A few days before the election, YES ON 37 held a press conference, during which they were mercilessly attacked by mainstream reporters on an entirely irrelevant issue: did the FBI actually open an investigation of NO ON 37, or was it an inquiry or a mild expression of interest? YES ON 37, in the press conference, was exposing the particulars of NO ON 37′s lies and crimes, but the reporters didn’t care at all. In the next few days, their stories instead turned the tables on YES ON 37 for “erroneously” suggesting that DOJ was “investigating” NO ON 37. This had all the signs of a coordinated media torpedo. It made YES ON 37 look like a bunch of “sour grapes” losers.

Reason Six: NO ON 37 stealing the FDA seal in its ads? Surrendering its own responsibility, DOJ referred the matter of the stolen FDA seal to the FDA for adjudication. This is cause for investigating the DOJ itself. The FDA has nothing to do with deciding what action should be taken against NO ON 37. The FDA deals with food and drugs, not misappropriated federal-agency seals. The DOJ effectively shelved any action until after the election. The DOJ prevented a public outcry against NO ON 37.

Reason Seven: The DOJ operates under the authority of the president of the United States. Barack Obama is the most powerful supporter of Monsanto in America.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/meet-monsantos-number-one-lobbyist-barack-obama/

For these reasons, the most careful scrutiny possible must be applied to the past, present, and future vote-count on Prop 37, including the now 2,304,250 outstanding votes.

Demands must be made to undertake a complete review—an independent review—of all electronic voting procedures in the state of California.

And then, in full view of the public and the press, the most talented hackers on the planet must be offered a chance to hack into the California vote and steal an election.

We lost” is not a credible comeback to that.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

About these ads

15 comments on “Prop 37: The top 7 reasons not to believe the vote-count

  1. Amber says:

    Maybe I missed this in your article but what is the reason they have given for the uncounted votes?

  2. waldbaer says:

    It’s not new at all (video on hacking german voting computers, 2005):
    http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2005/22C3-1134-en-the_silent_decline_of_public_control.html

    This video just shows what you already said in previous articles, and just a little bit more details.

    Germany 2009: “The Federal Constitutional Court decided today that the use of voting computers is unconstitutional. (…)”
    http://www.ccc.de/en/tags/wahlcomputer

    Even counting the rest of the “votes” on Prop 37 will probably not prove anything.
    These voting computers are black boxes.
    You have to rely on the vendors for this systems to work correctly, since this is closed source hardware and software.

    An open source voting computer, that anyone who wants to, could rebuild at home and checkout – hoping, the one you will vote on will be identical – would be not a perfect idea, but at least a better one, imho. What do you think?

    I could not find this in english:
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1101764
    http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/cs20090303_2bvc000307.html

  3. I have enjoyed many of your interviews and was directed here from solari.com/blog, or through knowledge of Catherine Austin Fitts.

    Proposition 37′s outcome, as presented to us, was quite devastating out of all the things that went on in this election cycle. I was surprised, but this was before I knew the level of resistance put up by Monsanto and other such corporations.

    The most interesting issue that is not referred to much is Montana voting by a 74% margin to end corporate personhood, which should be interesting. -’tarotworldtour.wordpress.com’

  4. arianna says:

    My brother in Florida said the amount of fraud at the poles there is also staggering and he recommends that we all get involved in voter reform in our respective states. No more voter machines, they are fraudulent and from everything I have read unconstitutional!

  5. Anonymous says:

    Can we as a voter demand to know the completion date of the vote count?

  6. TED says:

    In reply to the post above suggesting that we need to get rid of the voting machines, did you hear Peter Jennings (late on election night) going on about how there was no excuse with all the technology we have for it to take so long for votes to be counted and that everyone should be able to vote on their phones? (He was adamant that it must change.) Has our society really been dumbed down so much that people can’t wait a day in order to get an honest vote count? Are people unable to understand the necessity of a paper trail that can be verified? It’s almost like the opposite of technophobia. What should we call the fear of real paper ballots? How about Papyrophobia (a play on the old word “papyrus”)?

  7. Whizerd67 says:

    The top 1 reason that makes it useless to fight anyway.

    1) IT DOESN’T MATTER! I don’t care if Romney, Obama or even RP were to have gained that seat. It Does NOT matter.
    We still would have to stand together and fight the tyranny and corruption. The president’s seat is just a puppet show unless THAT is done.
    And the voting corruption will NEVER stop until then. Inquiries and protests and all that BS is all for NOTHING.
    And people better start to realize that. Or they are as good as dead.
    And there isn’t much time left to do that, and get stuff started in the direction it needs to go.

    ~Blessed Be to all~

  8. Whizerd67 says:

    That is universal for ANY vote for ANYTHING in this country.

    ~Blessed Be to all~

  9. kender says:

    i don’t comprehend your dilemma. you seem to be arguing for the fact that voting machines can be/are fixed in favor of the selected one that someone, but not you, has installed. what i don ‘t understand is why are you even voting???? if you already know that voting machines are not there for your pleasure, but are used against you in favor of someone else’s nefarious agenda…..why do you play the game? even worse, why are you seeking to garner support for a game that has no real winners? it doesn’t make sense that you would even vote when you KNOW they care nothing for the people, and their only god is power, and they seek to steal it from us! and you want to help install one of these sociopaths by a “legitimate” vote…and you seek to keep the vote..”honest” so as long as the vote is fair, it doesn’t matter who gets in, we’ll just “honestly” vote them out in four years…no harm done…. wow.
    to vote at all is treasonous and evil. because the “lesser of two evils”, is still evil

  10. Big M says:

    Kevin Shelley, who was once the CA SOS, was forced out of office because he demanded that touch-screen voting machines in CA have the ability to produce a paper trail.

    Additionally, as of some years ago, only three states — CA, MI and FL — had laws that required that a copy of the source code of these machines be kept in escrow in the SOS’ office, in case there were any doubts about the elections results. Well, guess what?

    None of those states have any mechanism for insuring that the source code in their office is the same code running on election night. And during the certification of the vote, which generally takes up to 60 or 90 days, how easy would it be for somebody to gain access to those machines and manipulate the numbers? But here’s the best part . . .

    Once the code is uploaded onto the computers, it is converted to machine language — that is, the 1′s and 0′s that computers understand — and CANNOT be reverted to the source code. This means that for all practical purposes, the copy of the source code in the SOS’ office is completely worthless.

    Any election official who would certify these insidious machines and their source code, and use taxpayer money to pay for it, should be . . .

  11. Mr. Jonz says:

    I have yet to meEt one person who will admit to voting no on 37. California politics are probably about as corrupt as they come. This last election is the last time I will waste my time and effort voting in these sham elections.

    For people who vote on the computer machines, my only question is why do you bother to vote if it’s not going to register your vote correctly?

  12. [...] via Prop 37: The top 7 reasons not to believe the vote-count « Jon Rappoport’s Blog. [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s