Let me preface this by saying that I don't necessarily buy into the conclusion of the blogger .... there are numerous problems with his attempt to "reason" his way to his pre-assumed conclusion.
As but one example, the event that he referred to that Gingrich cancelled was also attended by Ron Paul - who spoke to an audience of 25 to 30 people .... the attendance was reflective of the event - and not who spoke there.
Given the demographics of the state, I don't think the results are impossible ..... indeed taking into account the amount of campaigning Dr. Paul didn't do, and a number of other things (the paid SC staff were in Iowa leading up to the Iowa caucus, and possibly in NH after that) the result is not outside of the realm of possibility.
Having said that:
Always could be some voter fraud,
We have gotten to a point where we, as a nation, are going to have very big problems with our elections due to the introduction of
unverifiable, electronic technology which can be
easily manipulated - unless something is done to reverse it.
This is covered pretty well in the two documentaries that I linked in another thread: "Hacking Democracy" and "Murder, Spys, and Voting Lies"
This is a
non-ideological and
non-partisan issue that should concern every citizen - since at the moment your vote no longer matters, we have lost our democratic republic.
but even at 50 percent, which is huge, he comes up well short of the 40 Gingrich recieved.
You need to work on your math:
Reported Results:
Gingrich - 40.4%
Romney - 27.8%
Santorum - 17%
Ron Paul - 13%
Total .... - 98.2%
Alternative:
Gingrich - 26.4%
Romney - 22.8%
Santorum - 12%
Ron Paul - 38%
Total .... - 98.2%
You need to understand
how it can be gamed electronically - the electronic systems can be programmed to do
whatever a coder wants them to do.
Every vote gained by one candidate is subtracted from another. That way the total number of votes is always correct.
It's just bits and bytes in the digital ether - in most cases there is no audit-able paper trail.
While it still has some potential to be gamed (almost any system would), we need to move back to a paper ballot election system, with votes
counted in public in a
fully transparent manner.
And of course, this guy is a Paul activist.
Who he is has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the system can be gamed - as has been demonstrated repeatedly (watch the documentaries)
Whether or not it actually happened in this instance is irrelevant to whether it can and will be done in others. It isn't the important issue. Again:
It is a
non-ideological and
non-partisan issue - unless one subscribes to the ideology of theft and the party of criminals.
In this case it looks like "sore-luzer syndrome".
Undoubtedly the gentleman is disappointed.
We may see in November whether others are similarly disappointed ......
while we listen to indignant cries of ".... Chicago theft ....."
