Unless you’ve been off the grid for the last three years, you know that Russia attempted to meddle in our 2016 presidential election. Both parties on the left and the right are guilty of not focusing enough on this disturbing fact.
Although it can be said that while President Trump has been weak in public on what Russia did, behind the scenes he enacted some of the stiffest penalties for their actions. He kicked out dozens of Russian diplomats from the country, imposed sanctions on several Russian organizations and individuals, seized Russian properties across the country and shuttered the Russian consulate in Seattle.
Since the last presidential election, we’ve also learned that big tech companies like Google and Facebook meddled in the 2016 elections. There was the leaked tape of Google heads moaning about how their attempts to help Hillary failed. There’s also CNN’s Chris Cuomo’s on-air statement that “Hillary’s basically gotten a free ride from us.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Today, Silicon Valley is doing more than just trying to rig search results in Democrats favor, they are also meddling in elections by elbowing conservatives off of social media. As anyone with more than a few thousand followers on any of the major social media platforms will tell you, the censorship is very real, and very heavy handed.
No matter what you think of Alex Jones, his full spectrum deplatforming served as the blueprint. He was banned from a dozen platforms in the space of 12 hours.
All of the platforms he was banned from in the first stage of his depersoning are headquartered in the San Francisco area. Yeah, nothing suspicious to see here.
If we have learned anything about the left over the last three years, it’s that anything they are guilty of, or anything they plan to do themselves- they will accuse conservatives of.
Now, we’re seeing the overt corroboration with ranking Leftists and digital brownshirts to enshrine leftist, big-tech election meddling in the law.
“After the Mueller report was released, our president called Vladimir Putin, spent an hour on the phone with him,” said Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke on CBS’s Face The Nation. He “described the report as a hoax, giving Putin a green light to further interfere in our democracy.
Kamala Harris tweeted, “Russia interfered in the 2016 election. If we don’t do anything to upgrade our election infrastructure, we will leave our nation vulnerable to future attacks.”
The real threat Kamala Harris is talking about is conservative opposition to the left wing agenda. They are calling for the installment of electronic voting machines on the basis that this can somehow prevent election tampering. This, of course, is wrong.
The blue checkmark approved news outlet, Roll Call, tweeted, “Lawmakers worry that elections will be held on woefully outdated voting machines and that any tampering by adversaries could lead to disputed results.”
The caption beneath the picture that accompanied the tweet read, “Americans may vote in 2020 using old, unsecured machines. Lawmakers and experts worry elections will be held on voting machines woefully outdated and that tampering by adversaries could occur.”
They are saying that the voting machines we are voting on now are out of date, prone to abuse, and easy to hack. The answer we’re getting from the people most vocal about this issue is a call for more heavily computerized voting machines.
While it would be unfair to automatically assume that everyone calling for more advanced voting machines is ill-intentioned- there are some obvious problems with fully computerized voting booths. The more dependent on computerization a voting machine is, the more opportunities exist for hackers to access, alter, and otherwise exploit voting data.
You have to give the devil his due… Even left wing rags like the Guardian recognize the problem with fully computerized electronic voting machines. In April, they wrote, “The purchases replace machines from the turn of the century that raise serious security concerns,”
“But the same companies that made and sold those machines are behind the new generation of technology, and a history of distrust between election security advocates and voting machine vendors has led to a bitter debate over the viability of the new voting equipment?—?leaving some campaigners wondering if America’s election system in 2020 might still be just as vulnerable to attack.”
There are software and computer network infrastructure technologies that could- in theory- provide more protection for election results. Blockchain technology is a network of servers that makes it impossible for a single node in the network to be permanently hacked. When a node in a blockchain network is tampered with, all of the connected nodes correct the deviance. This is highly robust, but there are still weaknesses.
In the end, there is no electronic technology that is more secure than paper ballots and hand counting. Until, the Blockchain is truly secure- we would prefer to take the Amish approach to quantifying election results.
