ELDER PATRIOT- Monday night’s Iowa caucuses proved very little other than that the opportunity for voter fraud existed at every turn.
With record turnouts, the leadership of both parties admitted to running out of voter registration forms as well as official ballots. This presented the opportunity for well-organized ground game such as Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton had built to use unofficial ballots and, with no registrations to compare totals with, to double count votes or even make votes up out of thin air.
Even the technology that was employed to streamline the tabulation process in Iowa is open to questions of legitimacy.
Microsoft supplied the technology to tabulate the Iowa caucuses for free. Really, for free. Okay, not really. The taxpayers will pick up the tab when Microsoft expenses this for a tax write-off.
This led Bernie Sanders’ campaign coordinator, Pete D’Alessandro, to question Microsoft’s motives while being interviewed on MSNBC, “you’d have to ask yourself why they’d want to give something like that away for free”.
According to Brian Fagioli writing for the technology website betanews.com:
“Is Bernie Sanders’ campaign correct to question Microsoft? Absolutely. With that said, I think it is smart to question the motivations of any company whose technologies could influence an election.”
Mr. Fagioli explained:
“Closed source technologies from companies like Microsoft could, in theory, contain backdoors or vulnerabilities that hackers and evildoers could exploit. Even worse, Microsoft or its employees could purposely alter voting software to influence outcomes. Am I saying the company is doing this? Not at all. But with closed source software, there is no way to know for sure. Now, Bernie Sanders’ campaign is questioning Microsoft’s technologies being used in Iowa Caucuses. You know what? They have a point.”
Microsoft’s free work in Iowa ostensibly gives the company a chance to show off its mobile and cloud technology. It also provides a proving ground for the efficacy of any backdoors and whether they can be discovered.
Think this can’t happen? Before you answer watch this expert testify before a United States Senate Sub-Committee on election fraud.
The fact that both Microsoft and Bill Gates have donated heavily to the Clinton and Rubio campaigns raises serious concerns about a conflict of interest that cannot be erased by the wave of a hand. Especially, after Rubio outperformed his polling projections by 37%.
Think about this, prior to the election Real Clear Politics total for all of the candidates’ projected percentage of the vote was 100%. Their percentages of the actual vote only totaled slightly over 97%. What happened to the other 2.6%?
If we assume that the establishment supporters coalesced around Rubio that would only explain less than half of his caucus night “surge” after counting the underperformance of Bush (-1.3), Kasich (-1.0), and Christie (-0.6). That still leaves a 20% surge for Rubio that doesn’t square with the polls.
It’s highly doubtful that Rubio received a disproportionately high share of any of the other candidates who might’ve underperformed. He certainly didn’t get any help from Trump’s voters who are adamantly in support of closing our borders in direct opposition to Mr. Rubio’s history and stated intentions.
The mainstream media is attempting to make the case for Mr. Rubio being a conservative in order to make the data fit the dialogue. Charles Krauhammer insists Rubio is a conservative during all of his Fox News appearances and now Rush Limbaugh has joined that chorus: “I don’t see Marco Rubio as anything other than a legitimate, full-throated conservative. Nobody’s pure, and nobody is ever free of making mistakes.”
C’mon guys, you simply cannot be a conservative and not consider immigration the single most significant issue threatening our country. By comparison every other issue amounts to trimming around the edges.
It’s beginning to llok more and more like the fix is in. This is why Mr. Fagioli has concluded:
“When it comes to government agencies at all levels, and things like the voting process, I am a hardcore believer in open source being necessary. To truly know that votes are being counted correctly by machines, only open source would allow independent auditing. It will also help to prevent unknown backdoors in secure government computer systems.”
The takeaway from Iowa should be relief that no candidate came away with a decided delegate count advantage. The concern as we move forward to more conventional vote counting with its potential for undetected fraud should be much greater.