"...The People Who Count The Votes Decide Everything." - Joseph Stalin


The full quote from Stalin is:

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

The current administration is looking to have the Department of Homeland Security take charge of the 2016 presidential elections.

The ostensible reason given is to protect the voting results from hacking. Recent hacks have penetrated 2 state election systems.

The claim is that with over 9,000 separate voting districts across the nation, centralized control would offer greater security and reduce the potential for voter fraud.

This, of course, is the same administration that has seen recent hacks into the NSA and the DoD. But, specifically in this case, it gets even worse. The very department that is being considered to keep hackers from perturbing our election results, itself, has been hacked. THIS should give us all more than just pause to consider what the "blank" is going on with this administration!

No, such takeover of voting control does the exact opposite.

We're all familiar with the phrase "Divide and Conquer" - actually, the phrase is really "Divide and Rule"; but I digress. That works extremely well in battle-type warfare, etc. The larger force is more difficult to defeat than several smaller ones. However, in the world of hacking the opposite is true.

Software hacking is often tedious and time consuming - even for a single system. Yes, there are many who are really good at it and governments have specialists trained to be very effective in the hacking arts. Any given system, with its firewalls, multiple passwords, database structures, encryption algorithms, etc. often proves difficult to penetrate.

Now, multiply that effort by 9,000; i.e., the number of separate voting systems. The hacker(s) would be faced with (potentially) 9,000 different sets of firewalls, multiple passwords, database structures, encryption algorithms, etc. Not that easy to sway an election the size of a presidential one.

No, the centralization of voting results would not be safer; it would be far less safe.

Let's look at a more machiavellian aspect of centralizing voter results control - especially with this administration - not to include the possibility of hacking.

Let's assume that the DHS took control of all voting "handling". The results of all vote would be in a single database (or, in linked databases). Should a politically powerful force desire the election to come out a certain way, this would be child's play. Just manipulate the data to show what one wanted it to say.

Remember the old adage "Figures lie and liars figure." And, it doesn't take a lot of "fudging" to sway an election. Look at the results from the election of 2012.

As you can see, Obama won with 51.1% of the popular vote. That, of course, means that 48.9% voted against him. In the larger scheme of things that's not a lot of votes separating the candidates.

Now, glance at the electoral votes, or the ones that really count. A much bigger difference there. That's because Obama won those states having the most available electoral votes.

With a centralized data base(s) of voting results, it would be relatively easy to shift a few votes, especially in the states with the most electoral votes, toward the candidate of one's choice.

Having done so, then voila', your candidate won!!!

But, our government wouldn't so such a thing. Right? Wrong! As John Acton put it, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Those in power do not wish to relinquish same. Consider this one, small example for a minute:

For anyone who has studied probabilities and statistics (and even for those who haven't) the fact that 59 voting districts in Philadelphia in 2012 registered 100% for Obama should be alarming. You mean to tell me that NOBODY screwed up and pulled the wrong "lever"! Give me a break. And, I wouldn't even go into the ignorance of someone voting for or against a candidate because of the candidate's race

Even if the results of the 2016 election looked fishy, one could always see the details of the results and do an audit. Right? Wrong!

Just consider that in order to just get a copy of Hillary Clinton's daily calendar from when she was Secretary of State a lawsuit had to be brought and won. Even then the State Department is refusing to release the calendar(s) until after the 2016 election is over.

With a presidential election at stake, how long would you guess it would take to get a lawsuit done, have the government stonewall providing the results - ALL THE RESULTS, and the truth to come out? We're talking years here. Too late then!

With the DHS in control of our voting results, the results most assuredly will be certifiably not honest.

Stalin was right. "...The People Who Count The Votes Decide Everything."