posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:22 AM
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I've noticed that with many conspiracy theories, when you discuss them with people with a high level of expertise in a particular field, say
high-energy physics or aeronautics, certain aspects are seen as obviously dismissable. Non-credible to anyone moderately schooled in the subject
field. (Not to say not true
, of course, just not mainstream acceptable by 'experts').
Scarily, this does not
seem to be the case with computerized voting. The more 'expert' the person you talk to, the more it seems likely that
they will outright laugh at the concept of creating 'secure' voting machines with the methodologies currently being attempted. In fact, even
scarier, they seem more blasé about the idea of considering all
electronic devices as practically insecure.
Personally, I feel that if electronic means are used to manipulate election results, on a broad scale, it will not
be the benefit of a
particular party. It seems more likely to me that manipulation would be used to add 'credibility' to the entire process
elections. Creating a 'close race'. Not only would that bolster the illusion of Rep-vs-Dem 'competition', but analyzing the specifics of such
motivation would be quite difficult, from within the assumed context of a 'two party fight'. Eg, why would that election official rig the voting
machines? A Democrat won, and they're a Republican! The concept of mutualistic deception
is considered an 'out there' conspiracy theory.
Everything must be seen within a limited sphere of competition.