West Concedes In Tight Congressional Race After Recount [A Cruel Result!]

(CNN) - Two weeks after Election Day, Rep. Allen West, R-Florida, conceded Tuesday to Democrat Patrick Murphy following a bitter campaign that resulted in a recount and legal action in Florida's 18th Congressional District.

The first-term congressman made his announcement the same day the unofficial results are to be certified by Florida's secretary of state. West had vowed he would not give up until the results, which consistently showed Murphy with a narrow lead, had become certified.

"Given the extremely high evidentiary hurdles involved in a successful challenge, I will not ask my generous supporters to help fund a drawn-out, expensive legal effort with little chance of success. Therefore, we will not contest the certification or challenge the seating of Congressman-elect Murphy," West said in a statement on Facebook.

West had petitioned the courts for a recount, a request that was denied Friday. However, a canvassing board ordered the retabulation, citing sufficient concern to grant the re-examination of the votes, according to CNN affiliate WPBF. St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections Gertrude Walker ordered late Friday that all early votes in her county be recounted beginning Saturday morning.

Following the recount of all early ballots cast in St. Lucie County, Murphy had 65,841 votes to West's 52,704 in that county. The website for Florida's secretary of state on Monday showed Murphy with 166,257 votes and West with 164,353, a margin of 0.58%. Those numbers, however, did not include St. Lucie's recounted results.

There was absolutely no way West could prove the vote was fraudulent because there is no verifiable vote in any US election precinct. But it was good to try in case his team could find such ridiculous reported counts as found in 59 precincts in Ohio and a large number in Pennsylvania, where more votes were cast than registered voters. West found the election supervisor apparently protecting a block of votes, but not knowing where the big fix was, and having to audit trail, made it unlikely a cherry-picked judge would order a full recount. It was a long shot, but fraud is the rule in US elections and West is a warrior who did what he could.

It is my guess that West was targeted, perhaps as Mia Love, because he is too attractive a candidate for higher office, in Colonel West's case, for president.

What is wrong with our elections? Here is the system we used to have, but which both parties allowed to be replaced for reasons we will leave to prognosticators, but which have been examined and observed for decades. Pundits are paid to talk and analyze, and most don't like the validity of voting questioned because verification is a clear, transparent, and unarguable process. Verification is a bit technical, and isn't affected by rhetoric. Pundits are know political processes, but know that technical details put their audiences to sleep. We will explain what is wrong by describing what used to work - what we once had for our voting process:

1) Voters arrive at a precinct manned by volunteers from both parties where, after identifying themselves, they privately fill in a paper ballot, and deposit the ballot into a closed bin in plain view of all precinct workers.

2) When polling is finished the building is locked and precinct workers begin hand counting the ballots, ballots which never leave the room or sight of other precinct workers.

3) After each ballot is counted, and any observer who wishes has examined the ballot, the votes are added to the tally, which today would be shown on a closed circuit screen for the convenience of other precinct workers. (There is probably not a casino in the world that does not read and record every hand played by every customer, sometimes storing those data for months, twenty four hours each day, every day, meaning that hand counting, which is already the most trustworthy vote counting mechanism, could be made even more secure if need be. A "dome" camera and recorder for a few counting tables would cost considerably less than most scanners or counting machines, which are not verifiable.)

4) Each counted ballot is placed in sequentially numbered secure boxes, which will never be opened without a court order.

5) When counting is completed, which may take more than one shift as ballots have become more crowded, the signatures of the counters and the tallies are placed in the storage boxes and the boxes shipped, with observers present, to permanent, secure storage facilities. The local count is the official count and is sent by any convenient means to state attorneys general to be forwarded to a federal election center. Since the tallies have been generated locally, secure transmission is largely irrelevant. Those numbers should be public information, everywhere. Only the names of voters need to be secret.

The mechanism above was replaced by eliminating local counts, which eliminated any possibility of an audit trail. Once a ballot leaves the sight of local workers, there to protect our right to be part of a representative republic, there is no longer an audit trail and elections may be stolen in any number of ways. No proof of what a voter intended exists.

Today, machines count the ballots, secretly, since no one can monitor how the machines count. Source code has been deemed protected by patent laws. Counts are sent, secretly, to election centers manned by SEIU employees. If paper ballots are used, the ballots are scanned, and there is no way to insure what paper ballots remain after they have been secured by political workers. Very few people know what data are sent or what counts are reported, and there is no verification.

Absentee ballots, a growing percentage of votes in most states, with Oregon going fully absentee, are counted by SEIU workers, presumable with observers permitted. Observers can usually say nothing, and have little impact. I know; I tried, and quickly realized the futility. Elections are not only fraudulent, the process has been fixed to insure the freedom to cheat.

A simple example, one which the pundits usually hate, is the decision of the jury in the OJ Simpson trial. Everyone “knew” he was guilty. The pundits became experts, showing, in spite of the number of attornies involved, their weakness with Aristotilean reasoning. Two criminalists collected all the physical samples, and each testified that he and she had dutifully put his and her signature with a time and date on each sample. But at trial all the data carried only one signature. That is a blatant chain-of-evidence violation and none of the physical information could be trusted. The jury forewoman was black, causing many white pundits to scream jury nullification. She was also a computer system analyst. She understood and trusted the necessary logical conclusion, that there was no valid physical information. All that remained were conflicting timeline report data, insufficient for a conviction.

Today we have no possible chain-of-evidence to indicate voter intent. Many scream “voter fraud” but are dismissed by both sides, because the voting system is so obscure that political gods are uncomfortable using allegations they don't have the tools to support. Allen West discovered that wherever he looked there was another questionable block of votes, and even that include no audit trail. Nothing is verifiable.

What is incontrovertible is that even with paper ballots, once they leave the sight of people interested in protecting voting rights, people representing all parties, the ballots have no validity. Further, any votes recorded by computers are patently unverifiable. Proving hackability of voting machines has been a sport for engineering teams at Universities for many decades. I was one of them, and know I could write code that would appear to mirror voter intent, display it on a screen, print a ballot, and report false numbers. No one could find my code. There are many places to hide executable code. Given the time, I could breach and corrupt any computer-based voting device device. I usually designed secure systems. I could make a secure system that reported whatever I wanted, when I wanted the data reported, and revert to apparently true counting on command, interactively, at the completion of counting, or based upon clock time.

We are unlikely to get crony capitalists to insist upon an old-fashioned voting system. An undeniable truth, as described by Peter Schweiker in "Throw Them All Out" is how the real money is made by our legislators. They seem content with the fraud. Remember, one of Obama’s only jobs was as a trainer for Project Vote, an Acorn offshoot. He knows people whose careers are based upon voter fraud expertise.

One possibility for countering the reality of no representation is to form voluntary vote check organizations, perhaps coordinated by Tea Parties, or perhaps by verifiablevoting.org or truethevote.org. The Tea Parties have larger national representation in place. Secrecy means nothing when votes don't count, so each conservative, or liberal voter - no need to discriminate, and I know many Democrats who wants verifiable voting as much as conservatives - voluntarily sends a copy of his/her sample ballot to our surrogate election board, with phone numbers and addresses.

The Tea Parties are largely founded upon integrity. The voting data are kept secure and private, certainly more private than the enormous amount of data collected without permission by Google and its surrogates. We have thus a verifiable lower bound of votes for this or that candidate in any district with "Lower Bound" votes at work. If the public understood how much we have lost - and I believe the are learning that now - they may be quite willing to allow a lower bound check. No one need reveal social security numbers, ages, or even citizenship. They need to be reachable in case a count is performed to enable validation of a vote that conflicts with the “official” vote.

A supplementary check, a "Lower Bound" vote is not meant to be permanent. The process will hopefully be supplanted by the reestablishment of verifiable procedures at local precincts. The only drawback to paper and local counting is that hand counting will take longer. Large precincts can be divided. Multiple counts can be implemented, as long as ballots don't leave the room. Casino security could facilitate hand count security. I don't think citizens will object to waiting a day. Those who object will simply not participate. A “lower bound count” would be voluntary and private. Unless we quickly pass to the Ortega phase of tyranny, there should be no legal objection to checking the accuracy of our representation privately.

Today, lawless judges have forbidden Republican, but not Democrat, poll watchers from observing votes at any precinct where race might be an issue. That is just one of many mechanisms which have made representative government an illusion. All the talk about why this or that candidate fell short is meaningless. Without verifiable voting elections have become yet another tool in the Alinsky arsenal. Some people believe that Jews in the US voted 69% for Obama. Forgetting that the numbers are meaningless, those liberal Jews, mostly from the same group of upper middle class commumities, who keep the apartments New York and Philly, but chose to live in Israel, voted, according to the most liberal newspaper in Israel, Haaretz, 89% for Romney. Israel is more secular than the US. US Jews know how important Christians are to the survival of Israel. Does anyone believe those differences? They are nonsense, and manipulated to divide Jews, and to make Christians less inclined to support the "suicidal" Israelis.

The 100% votes for Obama in Pennsylvania and parts of Ohio are another example. In California there was a ballot initiative to make heterosexual marriage the law. It was passed by a groundswell of black voters, but has been suspended by one gay, white, judge in the 9th Circuit. The initiative process in California is counted by SEIU employees, mostly, dare I say it, black, working for the Sec. of State (the SEIU counts and/or controls most votes in California). Those SEIU employees may not have been willing to overthrow the Prop 8 decision, or the overlords knew the judge would kill the proposition. Regardless, does anyone believe that none of the traditional black families in Ohio and Pennsylvania would vote against our newly militant GLBT supporter and for a fairly liberal family man who would deny them none of their benefits? Nonsense. All blacks are not racist. Many blacks families have retained the traditional values which once made them the most stable family structures in the US. Voting is completely unverifiable. It is being used as a tool to divide citizens.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.