Let me introduce a hypothetical construct here--the "True Vote."

[Jackpine Radical]

The True Vote is, like the "true score" of a psychological test, a theoretical entity that you never actually see. (In other ways, the True Vote is not like a True Score, but I'm not getting into that.) The True Vote is the fair electoral result that one would obtain under ideal circumstances, with no systematic attempts to bias the results through miscounting, selective vote suppression, etc.

Now, my question is this: Is there any True Vote majority that is so overwhelmingly large that it can't be skewed by vote theft technologies into a win for the side that would have lost under fair conditions?

I suspect that any election, even a True Vote landslide, can be stolen with existing technologies, which include corrupted voting machines, felons lists, caging, voter ID, and a complacent mainstream media.

If I'm right, we might as well all go to Invote and plunk down our $$ on McCain. $37 there will get you $100 in the fall if the old man wins.

[bryant69]

1. So you are saying even if the truevote was something 70% Obama or Hillary

McCain could still steal it?

Can a system be created that is incorruptible? I mean a system in which the True Vote is always the actual vote?

Do the Republicans have the will to steal this election? All of the recent contests they've lost including some in states where they would be expected to win. Why didn't they steal those elections?

Would you say that volunteering for or donating money to the eventual Democratic nominee is a waste of time and/or money.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I don't have the answers to any of your questions.

I do want to start people thinking about what it would take to create a reasonably fair electoral system.

And I'm scared.

I think 55-45 could be stolen. Hell, I think that's about what Kerry got.

60-40? Obviously harder.

70-30? Have we ever had anything that close?

The presence of minor candidates (Paul, Barr, McKinney, etc.) may make it easier because you can push some of the vote into those categories through various means & reduce your opponent's vote without suspiciously inflating yours.

As to your last point, Hell no. I'll certainly be donating, but then I'm used to fighting for lost causes, and will often do so on principle, even when I know I'm beating my head against a wall.

[AndyTiedye]

5. They May Not Have Thought They Needed to Steal Those Elections

[havocmom]

3. With such maleable technology doing so much counting..

I fear the only really safe method to assure an accurate vote would be a system similar to caucuses where one publicly STANDS for their choice, but that would take some serious changes and I could STILL see weaknesses: Who watches those who do the addition of all the standing votes?

Unless people take to the street to defend their choices, I don't see how to be really secure. And if we take to the streets, how long before the Corporate Masters send Blackwater out to 'put down riots' when we make our sentiments known in tamper proof demonstrations of sheer numbers?

Don't know how to assure the vote unless more citizens get seriously involved int all stages of the process.

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport.

[AndyTiedye]

4. Making the Voting Public Has Different Issues

If the votes are public, they can be bought or sold, or coerced.

[havocmom]

7. Yep. No method is fool proof

Humans are flawed. Only when MOST in a society have a higher ethical standard will there be much chance at fairness.

We ain't there at present.

[AndyTiedye]

6. With the MSM On Their Side They Can Steal Anything

How would we ever know there had been a landslide?