To Tucker Carlson –

the best anchor / analyst on Cable TV Today – “America turns its Lonely Eyes to You” –

Seriously. On this page, we, just a few of the many volunteers who have worked with WatchTheVoteUSA.com and GuardiansForLiberty.com over the past five to ten years, suggest to you a few guests related to two issues you have already covered, and that we are hoping you develop. And a third concept which we should have all been taught about in the 7th & 8th grade as part of civics class, but remains virtually unknown to the average American who wants desperately to influence our nation’s destiny beyond writing letters and screaming for change at rallies.

We will be as brief as we can, and list the in-depth websites that go deeply into each of these subjects.

1.  Restoring Honest, Verifiable Elections

We are in a kind of “dark ages” when it comes to the election day vote counts in the USA. The state of the computer counts in our nation’s elections could hardly be worse. 20% of the nation doesn’t even use paper ballots, but relies totally on bleeps of energy.

Some of the absurd results are detailed in Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the book,”Black Box Voting” by Bev Harris, free online at BlackBoxVoting.org. Bev Harris is also the “heroine” of the HBO documentary, “Hacking Democracy” which is about $19 on Amazon, and should be viewed by every American.

You have been the only major figure on television anywhere to suggest the solution to the computer hacking of USA elections in several interviews. One was on the May 24, 2018 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox Cable News, in a segment with former Hillary Clinton advisor Richard Goodstein. You broke ground, as far as we know, on the Election Integrity issue among major media hosts, anchors, reporters, and commentators, when you asked your guest concerning Russians hacking into the 2018 elections, “. . . If we believe  that the Russians are going to do this again, and they really are a threat, then why aren’t we doing something about it? Why are we allowing electronic voting? Why don’t we go back to paper ballots? . . . Why wouldn’t we say ‘paper ballots only’ . . . ?”

Wow, Tucker! We’ve been waiting for 20 years+ to say this out loud on national TV. Richard Goodstein back-peddled and comically said that we shouldn’t do that. Ha! Ha! The guests we are recommending would greatly advance the public understanding of how our nation could start moving back to honest, transparent, verifiable election counts.

Before recommending two potential guests for your cable show on this subject, let us detail just how bad the situation is. In November elections, even in the 80% of the nation which use paper ballots, all ballots are effectively taken out of public sight before they are counted, with the exception of 5 small counties in New Hampshire, and perhaps a few other very small venues.

The five counties in New Hampshire count the votes properly: hand-counted paper ballots counted BEFORE the ballots leave the public sight. This could be easily done in every neighborhood polling place for about $1 billion per year, a small fraction of our national budget, especially when one considers that those who are published as the winners of the election decide how to spend the entire budget, and much else that affects our nation’s destiny and our individual lives. How votes should be counted are treated in depth at WatchTheVoteUSA.com, in parts 2, 3, and 4 of the Report sent to President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Committee on Election Integrity before it was unfortunately shut down.

In the rest of the country outside of half of NH, ballots are counted (?) out of public sight, which secret vote counts violate several still standing US Supreme Court decisions (See below, or the menu tab at WatchTheVoteUSA.com). The US Supreme Court has logically held that our right to vote consists of two parts: a) the right to cast a ballot; and, b) the right to KNOW that it was counted accurately. Secret vote counts conducted inside a computer on privately owned software, which the election officials sign a contract not to inspect, violates the second part of our right to vote.

Right before the 2016 election, Ohio Secretary of State, John Husted, went on every major news network to assure the American public that it was impossible for anyone to rig an election from a central location, because there were 3000+ different elections run by 3000+ counties in the USA. This sounds pretty good until you find out that about 3000 of our 3141 counties in the USA hire one of three companies to conduct the secret vote counts. These three mega-election-vendors are: Election Systems & Software (ES &S) based in Omaha, Nebraska, Hart Intercivic based in Austin, Texas, and Dominion (bought the election division of Diebold and Sequoia), based in Colorado and Canada.

A website of impeccable integrity with prestigious sponsors, VerfiedVoting.org, details which computer election vendors have been hired by each county. For instance, in Ohio 86 of the 88 counties hire one of these three mega-vendors. In Alabama, all 67 counties have hired ES &S. Even the handful of smaller companies are found to have the exact same rules to which they bind the local boards of elections and Secretaries of States. (Another place the handful of election vendors were spotlighted was in the 2004 article by veteran reporter, Ronnie Dugger, entitled “How They Could Still the Election this Time” appeared in The Nation magazine in July 2004. Some of the first lines are worth quoting:

“On November 2 millions of Americans will cast their votes for President in computerized voting systems that can be rigged by corporate or local-election insiders. Some 98 million citizens, five out of every six of the roughly 115 million who will go to the polls, will consign their votes into computers that unidentified computer programmers, working in the main for four private corporations and the officials of 10,500 election jurisdictions, could program to invisibly falsify the outcomes. …

“The potential for fraud and error is daunting. About 61 million of the votes in November, more than half the total, will be counted in the computers of one company, the privately held Election Systems and Software (ES&S) of Omaha, Nebraska. Altogether, nearly 100 million votes will be counted in computers provided and programmed by ES&S and three other private corporations: British-owned Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland, California, whose touch-screen voting equipment was rejected as insecure against fraud by New York City in the 1990s; the Republican-identified company Diebold Election Systems of McKinney, Texas, whose machines malfunctioned this year in a California election; and Hart InterCivic of Austin, one of whose principal investors is Tom Hicks, who helped make George W. Bush a millionaire.

“About a third of the votes, 36 million, will be tabulated completely inside the new paperless, direct-recording-electronic (DRE) voting systems, on which you vote directly on a touch-screen. Unlike receipted transactions at the neighborhood ATM, however, you get no paper record of your vote. Since, as a government expert says, “the ballot is embedded in the voting equipment,” there is no voter-marked paper ballot to be counted or recounted. Voting on the DRE, you never know, despite what the touch-screen says, whether the computer is counting your vote as you think you are casting it or, either by error or fraud, it is giving it to another candidate. No one can tell what a computer does inside itself by looking at it; an election official “can’t watch the bits inside,” says Dr. Peter Neumann, the principal scientist at the Computer Science Laboratory of SRI International and a world authority on computer-based risks.

“The four major election corporations count votes with voting-system source codes. These are kept strictly secret by contract with the local jurisdictions and states using the machines. That secrecy makes it next to impossible for a candidate to examine the source code used to tabulate his or her own contest. In computer jargon a “trapdoor” is an opening in the code through which the program can be corrupted.”  (End of Quote from Dugger article in the Nation.)

As we stated above, a company called Dominion bought the election divisions of Diebold and Sequoia circa 2013, bringing the mega-vendors from 4 in number down to 2.

(If Columbo, Sherlock Holmes, or Jim Rockford were real, they would ask: “Who are these three election vendors that are counting 95+ of our counties and our national vote?)

An inspection of any contract between a local county Board of Elections which hires one of these vendors, and the vendor, will uncover that the local election officials disgracefully agree not to inspect the source code of these software programs which tell the computers what to do on election night. The secrecy of the software is based on “proprietary information”.

As the late James Collier, author of the 1992 book, Votescam: The Stealing of America”, asked (paraphrase): What’s this claim of proprietary information for a public election? It’s one for you, one for me, and so on. Why the need for secrecy, except to build trapdoors and mischief into the computer programs so that votes can be potentially switched or falsified. (End of paraphrase from Jim Collier.)

But, then, any logical person may ask, “Can’t we get at the ballots, or ballot images, and double check that the published computer counts are true?” The answer is basically “NO”, at least not in a timely manner. The question itself is wrong. We don’t need to check the paper ballots for the re-count, but for the original count, as it used to be through the first 180 years of our nation. But, as things stand, neither citizens, nor candidates, nor press reporters – can get at the ballots or ballot images in a timely manner.

 

Dr. Laura Pressley, the first guest we are recommending for your show on the Election Integrity Issue, now has her case before the Texas Supreme Court. She, a conservative Republican, is being opposed by the Republican Secretary of State and the local Board of Elections in Austin, Texas. The Texas Attorney General, also a Republican, has come in with a friendly brief on Dr. Pressley’s side.

Laura Pressley, and engineer and computer analyst by profession, was running for Austin City Council in 2016. She had been a decades long activist and was promising if elected to make sure the city had been run properly in the previous years. Near the election, the local establishment brought in a very young candidate who purportedly upset her according to the published computer count.

Since there were no paper ballots in Austin, Dr. Pressley went a few days after the election and asked to see the ballot images created by the touch screen computers. Since there were only 16,000 ballots casts in this city council election, Dr. Pressley and her team could have quickly determined whether or not the ballot images supported the published computer count.

The local Board of Elections refused to allow her to see the ballot images, a violation of both Texas state law and Federal Law. Both bodies of law demand under penalty of felony that election officials preserve all election evidence for at least 22 months after each election. It is unclear whether the ballot images are destroyed, or whether they are in the election machines somewhere, perhaps unbeknownst to the local election officials.

At the first level, the Judge ruled against Dr. Pressley and fined her $100,000 for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit. Laura Pressley, at great cost to herself, did not give up, but has persisted until her case is now before the Texas Supreme Court. She is fighting for all Americans and the right to open, honest, and verifiable elections. She does not deserve to be mugged in the dark, as has happened to so many others who have fought the deplorable state of our elections over the last 45 years, since the advent of computers in USA elections. Dr. Laura Pressley’s website is PressleyForAustin.com.

The other suggested guest is John Brakey, a man who is right now involved in numerous efforts to educate the public on how to understand ballot images in modern day elections.

Brakey motivated the lawsuit filed 4 days before the special election for US Senate in Alabama in December, 2017, in which the published computer result showed Democrat Doug Jones defeating the Republican candidate, Judge Roy Moore. The lawsuit was filed by a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian and an Independent voter from Alabama. They asked the court to order the Alabama Secretary of State, Republican John Merrill, to preserve all the ballot images. Merrill appeared on CNN, under duress from Moore spokesman, Janet Porter, to state that they would preserve the ballot images of the write-in ballots, but not the main body of ballot images, in this case made from the actual paper ballots.

At the first level, the lower court ordered the election officials of Alabama to preserve all the ballot images, if they could. Even with this weak decision, Alabama Secretary of State Merrill rushed the case to the Alabama Supreme Court, which ruled 6 hours later that the election officials in Alabama did not have to preserve the ballot images. (!) This decision was reported in the mainstream media internationally right before the December 12, 2017 special election. This decision was also in flagrant violation of the federal law, which can be found at the website WatchTheVoteUSA.com. An appeal was dismissed a few months later on the most puerile grounds imaginable.

In the meantime, there is no way to get at the actual paper ballots in a timely manner for a manual recount to check the published computer count. First of all, the disappearance of the paper ballots for weeks or months before they are inspected breaks the custody of evidence standard for any court case. And, in every case we are aware of, the challenging candidate must specify at least weeks in advance what precincts he or she wants to inspect and count, giving the Boards of Election in conjunction with the mega-election-vendor it hires to “prepare the ballots” for public inspection. Not acceptable. Without paying something like $1 million dollars, the Moore campaign could not get at the ballots because the published computer result said that Moore had lost by slightly more and 1/2 of 1%, the standard to get a free recount — but that recount only provides that the paper ballots will be run through the computer again. (!!!)

And John Brakey was involved in the aftermath of the 2016 Democratic Primary in Broward County, Florida between incumbent Debbie Wasserman Schultz and challenger Professor Tim Canova. Wasserman Schultz had become so unpopular that she had resigned right before the 2016 Democratic Presidential Convention, at which she was booed repeatedly for suspicion of doing what she could to favor Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the Convention. Canova’s campaign workers were shocked that Canova lost because Wasserman Schultz seemed to be so unpopular as they walked the neighborhoods. As in Austin in the Pressley case, the Board of Elections in Broward County refused to allow the Canova campaign to see the ballots or the ballot images, eventually admitting to destroying both before the Court, well in advance of the 22 months in which federal law demands that all such election evidence must be preserved for the very purpose of checking the election results. The Judge expressed displeasure but did nothing to bring the election officials to any kind of accounting or justice.

One last quote before we move onto the second subject, from Dr. David Dill, also quoted by Ronnie Dugger in “How They Could Steal the Election This Time”:

“Why am I always being asked to prove these systems aren’t secure? The burden of proof ought to be on the vendor. You ask about the hardware. ‘Secret.’ The software? ‘Secret.’ What’s the cryptography? ‘Can’t tell you because that’ll compromise the secrecy of the machines.’… Federal testing procedures? ‘Secret’! Results of the tests? ‘Secret’! Basically we are required to have blind faith.”

—Dr. David L. Dill
Professor, Computer Science
Stanford University

---

2. Issuing Money Scientifically in This Age of Plenty — in the Age of Technology, Computers, and ever escalating Inventions  

Issuing Money Scientifically in This Age of Plenty to restore Free Enterprise on an even playing field. The coming crisis of jobs for the Middle Class as Technology, Computers, and ever escalating inventions displace human labor

You have also conducted several important interviews on the increasing “crisis” of modern technology, computers, (robots?), and ever escalating inventions displacing human jobs. In reality, freeing mankind from unnecessary drudgery should be a welcome development. This should allow human beings to develop their personalities mentally and spiritually. It should allow them to develop skills or endeavors in line with their aptitude, inclinations, and God-given talents.

But without the proper, scientific issuing of money into our society, we are headed to an every widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots — between those who are in a position to benefits from this new world of technology, and those whose jobs are being displaced by these developments.

Others who have done major media shows on this subject include CNN, MSNBC, Steve Hilton on FOX’s “The Revolution will be Televised”, NFL Star Rocky Boiman (three Super Bowl rings) on WLW radio in Cincinnati, and Bill Bennett during an episode of his “The Wise Guys” show on FOX.

But none of these shows have offered a FREE ENTERPRISE solution to the gathering crisis. The only solution that has been offered is the Socialist solution of the “Guaranteed Income.” Ari Fleischer, former press secretary of President George W. Bush, offered the guaranteed income solution on that edition of “The Wise Guys”.  One of the candidates, a socialist, running against Senator Diane Feinstein in this last cycle during the primary season had as his main issue the “Guaranteed Income” solution. Both this socialist opponent of Feinstein and Ari Fleishcher suggested a guaranteed income of $20,000 per year.

Charles Murray, author of “The Bell Curve”, favors some kind of a similar solution. As essay he wrote for the Wall Street Journal is here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586

In that article Murray incorrectly states that the idea of a guaranteed income was first introduced by economist Milton Friedman right after World War II. This is wrong. The idea was introduced to the world in 1918 by C.H. Douglas of England, but Douglas did not advocate a guaranteed income, but rather a Dividend issued to every adult based on the GNP, the goods and services, in existence in a given country in a given year. The idea and system was unfortunately dubbed, “Social Credit”, a terrible name for the United States of America, because it sounds like you’re going to say, “Social —– ism”. Yikes!

In fact, the words “Social” and “Credit”, as Douglas was using them, have changed in meaning. What he was intending them to mean was “Heritage payments”, or a “Heritage Dividend”. Douglas was recognizing that every succeeding generation should inherit the accumulated progress of previous generations. As machines then, and machines, technology, and computers now, progressively replace humans in doing all kinds of work, less wages are paid to humans, and the gap between the haves and have-nots increases.

People who study the Douglas ideas today tell us that we have a GAP between the goods and services available, and the money in circulation at the street level, in the hands of everyday Americans.

We were given the example of the year 2014 in the United States of America. Whether these numbers are precisely correct is beside the point, as long as they are basically correct. As we were told, the GNP in 2014 was about $16 trillion dollars. But the money in circulation at the street level from wages, welfare, unemployment, and Social Security, etc. was only about $9 trillion dollars. This left a gap of $7 trillion dollars. Once these two realities (both GNP and money in circulation) are calculated each year, then the GAP is filled by issuing a Dividend to each adult. According to the Social Credit, or Heritage Payments, experts we were consulting, that would amount to about $1600 per month in that year of 2014, or about $19,200 per year per adult, very close to the guaranteed income being suggested by many of the socialists and others.

However, the Heritage Dividend system has two decisive advantages over the socialist suggestions. First, it would bring the money issuing system into the open where everyone could see what was happening. Unlike the money issuing system now, under the Federal Reserve Board, which operates largely in secrecy, even from the Congress, the new entity (perhaps the National Monetary Office, or whatever) would do all its calculation in the light of day, and would be audited from many angles – maybe by three governmental agencies such as the Government Accounting Office, and by three external private companies. When fraud was found (because fraud would warp the system, of course), then the perpetrators would face stiff jail terms, like no less than 20 years in prison, and those who find the fraud would each be rewarded with $1 million dollars or some amount to make these people financially independent.

In fact, both Presidents W. Bush and Obama issued a one time dividend to every adult in the USA who did not owe the IRS tax money. This was boldly described as a check to stimulate the economy. It was a start, but not nearly enough to fill the GAP.

For years, many have known that Alaska issues a Dividend to all its citizens because of the gas and oil income which comes to the state due to Alaska’s natural resources.

On October 31, 2018, on “FOX NEWS @ NIGHT with Shannon Bream”, just as we were preparing this part of this Open Letter, a spot focused on the Governor race in Alaska between Mark Begich (D) and Mike Dunleavy ( R ), with Dan Springer reporting in Anchorage.  Part of the report said this: Begich is pledged to “lowering Oil and Gas Fund DIVIDEND checks to every Alaskan” to help the Alaskan State Budget.

Why does this longstanding, mostly yearly Dividend, not cause inflation? Because it is issued scientifically based on real goods and real services, in this case sold to others.

As far as the technological revolution is concerned, when a machine or computer or robot is doing the work a human being used to do, the salary that would have been paid to a human being can be put in a fund from which the dividend is issued. This does not have to be figured company by company, but would be determined by the GNP vs. money in circulation at the street level.

Nothing would change for the way companies operate. If a machine or computer breaks down, the company would still fix it or replace it. No money would be taken from those getting rich by providing goods and services. Nothing would change, except the money-issuing entity would issue money against the goods and services available, and send it to the resulting Dividend to adults in the nation, who would spend their Dividend however they wanted. The “National Monetary Office” would be like a census bureau of money, with the power to determine the economic realities and issue the resulting Dividend checks, but with no power to order anyone around, or tell them what to do with their Dividend check.

The one page website, ThisAgeOfPlenty.com, has about 22 questions and answers that answer relevant questions about how the National Dividend system would work.

The Catholic Church under Pope Pius XII in 1939 appointed at committee to look at “Social Credit” to determine whether it was socialism. They determined it was not, but was in harmony with free enterprise capitalism.

The book, “In this Age of Plenty” by Louis Even, free online, is linked at the ThisAgeOfPlenty.com website.

A guest you could have on this subject is Oliver Heydorn, Ph.D., who has authored several books, such as “Lives of Our Own”, on the subject, and also several of his presentations are on YouTube.

The more important issue is that someone get this system to President Trump, who may have the guts to do something about it. Even if we postulate the best motives on the part of the Federal Reserve Board and those currently in charge of the money issuing system in the USA (and we don’t), the way we are issuing money has been out of date and hopelessly behind the times since Henry Ford perfected mass production of the automobile, and every else tried to copy what he did in their own sphere.

C.H. Douglas said in the early part of the 20th century that “the men of the right have come to the people with empty hands” — and this is why starry-eyed socialists like the Cortez lady out of New York strike a chord with many young people. They sense that the system is increasingly leaving them behind, and the turn to the siren song of socialism, which leaves the 1%ers in control to determine what the guaranteed income is, if any, instead of figuring the Dividend in the light of day scientifically like would be the case with the National Heritage Dividend.

Pope Pius XI in 1931, in his encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, stated in so many words that monopoly capitalism, or vulture capitalism as Pat Buchanan dubbed it in the 1996 campaign, leads to the most unscrupulous and greedy centralizing more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands, which leads to the same place as Communism, and makes the people so desperate they start to listen to the siren song of socialism. And this is what we see happening today — because the Republicans come off as WREAKING of Wall Street, and Republicans and conservatives don’t seem to realize that Vulture Capitalism and socialism/communism are two bad alternatives. The solution is free enterprise capitalism on an even playing field, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. But to reach that goal we must issue money scientifically in accord with the new technological age.

If President Trump, or some world leader, LEADS and explains this to the American people or the people of the world, then that leader will go down as one of the greatest leaders in recorded history, and will be greeted as a hero everywhere he goes. As long as the money issued to the public via the Dividend about equals the goods and services available, there will not be inflation or runaway inflation. Today we have a kind of deflation/stagnation because the goods and services available greatly  surpass the money in circulation at the street level. The stores are bursting with goods, and the factories are lying dormant because what they have already produced are sitting in the stores or car lots unbought, even though the people want to buy the goods. Money is lacking to equal the goods and services available, which can easily be remedied. Not having food, clothing, shelter, cars, computers, etc. — that’s a problem. To have all these things in great abundance but not have the money in circulation to buy them — that a problem created by men in authority either through lack of vision or greed.

Tucker, your new book, Ship of Fools, — does an excellent job of showing the difference between socialism/communism/Vulture Capitalism on the one hand, and free enterprise capitalism (with a heart for the middle class) on an even playing field as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Every class, every race, every nation would rise if money were issued scientifically in this new age of technology, computers, and ever escalating inventions. And, as President Trump would say, it would happen fast.

3. The Most Important Office in the Land: The Precinct Strategy (The Neighborhood LightHouse Strategy)

Citizens are not involved in the Precinct System and therefore are not involved in running the two parties that determine largely what candidates we see at election time.

There is a Youtube Video called, “There is a Plan” which is a cartoon video and describes the precinct system. There is another YouTube video called “The Strangest Political Secret”, the first ten minutes of which describe how the precinct system work, i.e. people run in their neighborhoods for Precinct Captain in the party of their choice (if the party has official status in their state, but the Republicans and Democrats control every county and every state in the nation.

The guest we are recommending is an attorney, Dan Schultz of Arizona. By the way, none of the guests we are recommending are part of our groups, nor do any of them necessarily endorse what we are saying on any particular point, or even know that this Open Letter to Tucker Carlson is up on the internet yet.

Perhaps KellyAnne Conway or somebody near President Trump will tell him about this strategy. If President Trump would set up ten people and ten telephones at Trump for President 2020, and make the call for everyone to call in and find out how to run for precinct captain, then everyday people of all walks of life and of all parties would realize where to go to really make their influence felt. It would be a good thing for the for the entire nation, and every citizen. People would finally realize how to make their influence really felt. The Party Bosses know how powerful the Precinct Strategy is, but the everyday American does not.

Heck, Trump could urge the Trump Democrats and some of the conservative African-Americans to enter the precinct system in the Democratic Party. There’s nothing written in stone that the socialists and communists should control the national Democratic Party for the rest of our lives. Is there?

One last very short article: in 1988 an activist named Rick Herron gave a short speech to pro-life activists in the Greater Cincinnati area. That speech was transcribed in a 4 page article, “The Most Powerful Office in the Land”, and detailed the Precinct Strategy. This article is available online, and is viewed as a “classic” in the effort to make the Precinct Strategy known in America. Brian Thomas, host of the morning show on WKRC Am radio (550 AM, also known as 55krc.om) has been probably the best radio talk show host in the country at trying to empower everyday Americans in all walks of life through making known the Precinct Strategy. Tea Party members used it to takeover the Republican Party in Warren County, Ohio in the last few years. Brian Thomas, who regularly has Judge Napolitano, Senator Rand Paul, and Congressman Thomas Massie on his morning radio show, would also be an excellent potential guest. So would Rick Herron.

---

Those who prepared this Open Letter to  Tucker Carlson volunteer for these two groups, which are totally groups of volunteers, and we can be contacted through these websites or through Network America, PO Box 11339, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211; a phone number would be 513-602-0627; another email: LetFreedomRing247@gmail.com

WatchTheVoteUSA.com

GuardiansForLiberty.com

 

---

For more information about electronic votefraud, please visit:

www.electionnightgatekeepers.com

---

Also see what was sent to the Trump Presidential Commission on Election Integrity at www.WatchTheVoteUSA.com

---

votefraud.org, especially the articles down the right hand column.

---

Three Supreme Court Decisions have ruled clearly and emphatically that your right to vote consists of TWO parts:

1) the Right to cast a ballot, i.e., put a paper ballot into a ballot box, and;
2) Right to KNOW that your vote was counted accurately.

We are still allowed to cast a ballot, but we HAVE NO IDEA if our ballot is being counted accurately or not on these mysterious, secret computerized programs. In fact, you will see that these Supreme Court decisions make secret computer counts illegal, precisely because no one can see what’s happening inside the election computer.
(For exactly what these US Supreme Court decisions said, click here .)