TWO EXCELLENT QUOTES
IN THE FIGHT
FOR HONEST ELECTIONS
First, we present the quote on the nature of modern elections in the USA since at least as early as 1988, starting in 1973 with the introduction of computerized vote tabulation. Since 1988, 1/2 of New Hampshire and 100% of the other 49 states tabulate the votes by secret computer programs in the general election and in primaries. Second on this page, we present the relevant quotes from the CBS Evening News Report with Dan Rather and Howard Strauss which aired on November 7, 1988.
Key Quote from Jim and Ken Collier
in their groundbreaking book, Votescam: The Stealing of America
Jim Collier gave me explicit permission to reproduce this quote in my 1992 pamphlet,
"The Greatest Cover-Up of All: VoteFraud in America" and anywhere else I deemed appropriate.
You can read some free chapters of the Collier book, and purchase the book at www.votescam.com
The following is quoted with permission
granted by the late James Collier in 1991:
(The chapter begins by quoting the first words spoken by President-elect, George Bush in his Nov. 8, 1988 victory speech in Houston, Texas. Bush said: "We can now speak the most majestic words a democracy can offer: "The people have spoken . . . ")
The Colliers comment in the following
brilliantly written passage:
It was not "the People" of the United States who did 'the speaking' on that election day, although most of them believed it was, and still believe it. In fact, the People did not speak at all. The voices most of us really heard that day were the voices of computers strong, loud, authoritative, unquestioned in their electronic finality . . .
The computers that spoke in November 1988 held in their inner workings small boxes that contained secret codes that only the sellers of the computers could read. The programs, or "source codes," were regarded as "trade secrets." The sellers of the vote-counting software zealously guarded their programs from the public, from election officials, from everyone on the dubious grounds that competitors could steal their ideas if the source codes were open to inspection . . .
You may ask: What "ideas" does it require to count something as simple as ballots? Can the "ideas" be much more complex than, let's say, a supermarket computerized cash register or an automatic bank teller machine?
The computer voting machines do not have to do anything complicated at all; they simply must be able to register votes for the correct candidate or party or proposal, tabulate them, count them up, and deliver arithmetically correct additions . . .
People with no formal training, even children, used to do it all the time. So why can't the public know what those secret source codes instruct the computers to do?
It only makes common sense that every gear, every mechanism, every nook and cranny of every part of the voting process ought to be in the sunlight, wide open to public view. How else can the public be reasonably assured that they are participating in an unrigged election where their vote actually means something? Yet one of the most mysterious, low-profile, covert, shadowy, questionable mechanisms of American democracy is the American vote count . . .
Computers in voting machines are effectively immune from checking and rechecking. If they are fixed, you cannot know it, and you cannot be sure at all of an honest tally.
If you understand the above quoted paragraphs, you understand the problem.
The Key Quotes
from Dan Rather's report
on the dangers of computerized votefraud
carried on the CBS Evening News in the last 5 minutes of the November 7, 1988 (the night before the Bush41 vs. Dukakis election)
Despite the brutal cover up that has
been conducted for going on three decades by the news media and the major
parties to prevent you from hearing about this issue, some major media news
items have appeared. In a rare but superb news story on the eve of the 1988
Presidential election, Dan Rather of CBS Evening News engaged in this exchange
with computer expert Howard J. Strauss of Princeton University:
Rather: "Realistically, could the fix be put on in a national election?"
Strauss: "Get me a job with the company that writes the software for this program. (ed: Strauss was referring to the most common computer program then in use, which he said was counting 33% of the votes in the country, and which emanated from the company which is now called Election Systems and Software, i.e, E S & S) Then I'd have access to one third of the votes. Is that enough to fix a general election?"
In an earlier clip during this CBS interview, Howard J. Strauss dropped this bombshell:
Strauss: When it comes to computerized elections, there are no safeguards. It's
not a door without locks, it's a house without doors.