I worry, when I hear Wisconsin officials are going to allow a recount, but not a hand recount. Why, if a recount is paid for to the tune of $3.5 million deep, why not do it right? Are you suggesting it will only be an electronic recount? Is an electronic recount a real recount, or simply flashing all the same numbers and all the same results back on the screen? Why not be fair, and do a real, thorough, honest recount? Why are they not allowing this?
I worry when I hear Pennsylvania's top election official taints his impartiality by saying a recount will not change anything. "When everything is said and done, you're going to see that the results are accurate," Secretary of State Pedro Cortes said. I would rather see impartiality in my election judges, rather than being in position to prove themselves right.
Pennsylvania's ballots lack a paper trail. So, as with Wisconsin's, I wonder if it will be able to be a true accurate recount, or just flushing the same material on the screen again. I suppose there must be some way to undercover false votes, otherwise those calling for a recount wouldn't be doing so. I understand, the malware that could cyberattack the voting system can be erased upon completion of the voteing. Perhaps it is, then, that when an electronic recount is done without the malware being present, the vote would change.
Bless the recounts, wherever they are done, that they will be honestly done, and thorough.
No comments:
Post a Comment