Legally Enabling Theft

Multiple vulnerabilities and loopholes leave Michigan voters exposed to election fraud.

“I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this – who will count the votes, and how,” (Joseph Stalin, circa 1923). Often this quote is loosely interpreted as, “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

Donald Trump has made clear in multiple speeches that he is under no illusion about being up against a rigged system, and that we cannot expect to correct such a system by relying on the trustworthiness of those who rigged the system in the first place. No, in order to reform a corrupted system, a critical mass of known trustworthy people must be placed inside the system, which often requires overwhelming the system at the ballot box. The problem with doing so is that we are required to rely upon a process where, in spite of clearly demonstrated key weaknesses and vulnerabilities, those charged with protecting the integrity of the process insist upon blaming the messenger rather than correcting the problems.



At the core of the democratic process that underpins our constitutional republic, is the confidence the voters have in the end-to-end integrity of the process. If that trust is ever credibly undermined, then how long would it take, and at what effort and cost, before public confidence in the process is again restored (assuming that it ever could be)? And, given how critical free, fair, and accurate elections are to every level of representative government in America (local government included), how scary is it to honestly contemplate that hypothesis?

“Hacking Democracy” – Not Just A Movie

Recently, an eight-minute video has been circulated through various social media networks. The video shows the end result of what has become known as the “Hursti Hack.” The hack involves (a) modifying the vote counters on the memory card used to run a Diebold Election Systems AccuVote-OS optical scan voting machine, and (b) modifying the card’s operating system script to print a false “zero report” on machine start-up. Harri Hursti’s own report of his findings cites that the exploited vulnerability is, “…an exceptionally flexible one-man exploit requiring only a few hundred dollars, mediocre technical ability, and modest persuasive skills (or, in lieu of persuasive skills, just a touch of inside access) …” directly leveraging “… the mother of security holes …” incorporated directly into the design architecture of the proprietary operating system, without which the voting machine cannot function.

An independent follow-up analysis performed by the University of California, Berkeley, on behalf of the California Secretary of State Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (CASoS-VSTAAB), found that, “Memory card attacks are a real threat … Harri Hursti’s attack does work,” and that “…anyone who has access to a memory card of the AV-OS …” can modify the contents of the card, and thus the election results of the machine in which that card is used, needing “…no passwords, no cryptographic keys, and no access to any other part of the voting system …” to do so. Once complete, the tampering is forensically untraceable, and cannot be detected, let alone corrected, other than by hand-canvassing the original paper ballots, which is almost never done in actual practice. The UC-Berkeley analysis of touch-screen voting systems is even more damning, and effectively makes the case for sticking with systems that require original paper ballots for voter input.

Given that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 mandated that all states and localities upgrade their voting machines, registration processes, and poll worker training, one would think that public officials would insist on voting systems designed with security as a central requirement, and that vendors would be eager to not only design such systems, but to definitively prove that such systems could meet rigorous security testing. Alas, an Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology analysis, published on August 28th of this year, concluded:

More often than not, electronic voting systems are nothing but bare-bone, decade old computer systems that lack even rudimentary endpoint security. As an exponential “security free” attack surface, compounded by the absence of cyber hygiene, black box technologies, and an expansive threat landscape, an adversary needs only to pick a target and exploit at will. Fundamental cybersecurity hygiene dictates that organizations assume their technology is vulnerable until proven otherwise. Despite proven vulnerabilities and a demonstrated lack of security, manufacturers and officials have not improved e-voting systems. Easily exploitable voting machines will continue to plague America’s democratic process so long as manufacturers are able to profit from and covertly obfuscate the vulnerabilities inherent within electronic voting systems. A lack of penetration testing, security-by-design, and comprehensive physical access controls result in lackadaisical security, which enables, rather than hinders, an attack. The antiquated black-box systems become easier to compromise as vulnerabilities are discovered and left unpatched, and as the ubiquity of technology and the internet introduces new attack vectors to the stagnant security posture of the expanding e-voting threat landscape. Nation states, hacktivists, cyber jihadists, insider threats, or anyone with an interest in swinging a local, state, or federal election currently have carte blanche access for the manipulation of America’s democratic process.

. . . which means, in short, that those invested in maintaining the status quo appear in no hurry to actually correct the root architectural problems that have resulted in security deficiencies so easily exploitable that they don’t even require a designed backdoor to access. And until We the People pressure our local and state election officials to upgrade the voting system security (or engineer replacing them with officials who will), we can then safely assume that nothing will change with regard to the insecurity of our voting machines.

Know Thy Neighbor – Or At Least Verify His Identification

If you’ve paid attention to the work of Project Veritas, then you’ll know that James Ananich, Jocelyn Benson, Brian Dickerson, Michael Duggan, Timothy Greimel, Stephen Henderson, Morris Hood, Nancy Kaffer, Marshall Mathers, and David Robertson all have something in common; that something being that during Michigan’s statewide primary election back on August 2nd, each of them was impersonated by undercover reporters from Project Veritas, who demonstrated that a loophole in Michigan’s Election Code (specifically MCL 168.497c(2) and MCL 168.523(2)) enables anyone with knowledge of a registered voter’s basic information, to fraudulently obtain a ballot in that voter’s name.

Yet another critical element of ensuring the integrity of the democratic process is a reasonable means of ensuring that those applying to cast a ballot actually are who they say they are, and actually live in the precinct where they wish to vote. Toward this end, the Michigan Secretary of State maintains a master Qualified Voter File, which is regularly updated and distributed to county and local clerks. Also toward this end, MCL 168.497c provides that prospective voters are to present valid identification in order to initially register to vote, and MCL 168.523 provides that voters must also present valid identification in order to receive a ballot at their polling location.

The problem with each of these is the common proviso that anyone who happens to not have appropriate identification when registering to vote, or filing a change of address, or requesting an absentee ballot, or applying to vote in person, can still complete the process . . . by signing off on an affidavit swearing that they are who they say they are . . . because they say so. Bad enough we allow the affidavit loophole at the polling stations, but even integral to the entire process? Do we really think it wise that there is no point at which we actually require a prospective voter to affirmatively prove identity, citizenship, and residence (or are we okay with enabling identity theft)? And, just to complicate matters, even though MCL 168.523 specifies that a voter who fails to present suitable identification is subject to challenge under MCL 168.727, the advisory opinion of the Michigan Supreme Court (Docket # 130589, filed 18 Jul 2007) is that such a challenge must have some supplemental justification before being issued. That’s right, a legal loophole wide enough to sail a battleship through, yet well-trained and duly-credentialed election inspectors and/or poll challengers are required to provide some supplemental justification in order to challenge such a voter. Is it my imagination, or does this actually fail the common-sense test?

Contrary to the subsequent posturing of public officials otherwise, Project Veritas convincingly demonstrated that Michigan’s election process has a glaring and well-known single point of failure, by which anyone with sufficient organization can, by way of en masse identity theft, steal enough precincts to effectively steal an entire election. And unless such a failure is the intent, the system in fact did not work as designed.

Voter identification reforms enacted in Arizona (2004) and Indiana (2005) have become the reference standard for other states desiring to enact similar reforms. (The Indiana law has been subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.) At the core of both the Arizona and the Indiana reforms is the absolute requirement for anyone wishing to register to vote to affirmatively prove identity, citizenship, and residence in order to complete the registration process. Additionally, if a prospective voter happens to show up at their local polling place without appropriate identification in hand (but is on the local voter roll), then that voter casts a provisional ballot (kept in a separate bag, and not scanned by the voting machine), and then has five or six calendar days to report to the County Clerk with appropriate identification in hand, or the provisional ballot is discarded. Since then, at least eight additional states have enacted similar reforms (and three more have court appeals pending). Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson included advocacy for such reforms as a key plank in her campaign platform, but in six years of a republican-controlled legislature, and a “republican” governor, I don’t recall such reforms having seen even a committee hearing, let alone a floor vote.

What You Know, and What You Can Prove

Before I get started on this section, some full disclosure is in order, in that this will include a firsthand account of the events being discussed. On the day of this year’s statewide primary elections (Tuesday, August 2nd), I was credentialed by the Michigan Republican Party as a poll challenger in Nelson Township, Kent County.

To clarify a point, at least under Michigan’s election laws, the terms “poll watcher” and “poll challenger” are not interchangeable. A poll watcher, under the Michigan Election Code, has no “behind the table” access, has no authority to actually do anything about any observed irregularities, and is confined to the “public area” of the polling station while the polls are open. However, a poll challenger, under the Michigan Election Code, is specifically credentialed to be behind the table while the polls are open, has broad authority to act on pretty much any irregularity in the polling station, and can do just about anything except handle the ballots or the poll book. The MIGOP instructs its poll challengers to not allow themselves to be referred to as only watchers, as doing so tacitly surrenders the authority and access that they need in order to do their jobs.

I’ve been a poll challenger on behalf of the Michigan Republican Party since and including 2010. It’s been my experience that the initial reaction to my presence, by the election inspectors in the precinct to which I’ve been credentialed (especially the Precinct Chair), will tell me much about how I can expect the day to go. Laura Hoffman, the incumbent Nelson Township Clerk, was prohibited by MCL 168.677(3) from serving as an election inspector in Nelson Township that day, because she was facing a primary challenge. However, because Precinct 2 was using a room at the township office building as the polling station, it was Mrs. Hoffman who let me in at 05:45 that morning . . . and she seemed quite not-pleased to see me. Her rearrangement of the tables behind the table containing the poll book and the ballots, nominally to provide me with a working area, kinda sorta made that clear . . . a full hour before the polls would even open that day.

Around 4:30 that afternoon, I issued my third challenge of the day, this time for an address mismatch (which MCL 168.523(2) stipulates as mandatory). The Precinct Chair, Arlene Cook, left the polling room to seek guidance from Hoffman as to how to handle an address mismatch. When Hoffman entered the polling room, she promptly stepped behind the table, physically interposed herself between me and the poll book operator, told me that she would not allow my challenge to be entered into the poll book, and then assisted Cook in issuing a ballot to the voter I had just challenged.

Because of this incident, and because Hoffman had been observed, by both myself and the other challenger credentialed to Nelson Township (Kent Boersema), in the AV Count Room, while there were voted ballots either exposed or in unsealed bags, a criminal complaint was filed, resulting in the Michigan State Police requesting a copy of my annotated post-action report as evidence in an election fraud investigation. Because of the criminal complaint, plus evidence that the absentee vote count was mishandled, Jami Norton petitioned for an every-precinct recount, and paid the $750 required by MCL 168.867(3) to effect the recount ($125 × 6, because the absentee ballots were counted separately from the three precinct polling stations, thus doubling the number of precincts to be counted). About the only thing that Matt VandeBunte got right in his hatchet-job write-up in the Grand Rapids Press was that the recount petition was prompted by alleged irregularities in the absentee ballot handling, other than that . . .

Now, on the day of the recount, the process was personally overseen by Mary Hollinrake, the current Kent County Clerk (according to Jason Briscoe, one of the three witnesses present for the process). The hand count of the three polling station bags matched the election night machine tapes, so no big deal there. However, the bag containing the absentee ballots wasn’t sealed properly (more correctly, the transport container for the bag wasn’t sealed), and so, Sue deSteiguer, the Kent County Elections Director, who was conducting the recount, cited MCL 168.871(1)(c), and declared the absentee precincts “unrecountable,” which, under MCL 168.871(3), means that the machine tape absentee counts stand as is, without recourse (other than to refund Norton’s $475 for those three precincts). Briscoe confirmed this with the State Board of Canvassers.

You’re reading that correctly. A recount that was prompted by irregularities in the handling and reporting of the absentee ballots, could not be legally completed because the transport container for the absentee ballots was found to be improperly sealed. This means that Hoffman’s claim of vindication, as reported in Justin Hicks’ follow-up article in the Grand Rapids Press, leaves out a critical detail. The unreported truth is that Mrs. Hoffman wasn’t actually vindicated; rather, the honest reality is that a technical flaw in the Recall Chapter of Michigan’s Election Code likely saved her seat. Whether or not I personally suspect that an honest and proper recount of those absentee ballots would have ultimately vindicated Mrs. Norton is irrelevant . . . because now we will never actually be certain. My personal take is that Hoffman and deSteiguer using a cooperative press to openly denigrate the key material witness in a MSP criminal investigation tells me all I will ever need to know.

This Is Why The “Silent Majority” Matters

Between provably vulnerable voting machines and known legal loopholes, I submit that public confidence in Michigan’s democratic process is either a minor miracle, or collective ignorance.

Those with a vested interest in maintaining the political status quo have the easier road, as the deck is most definitely stacked in favor of the professional establishment, and it has always been thus. But all of the shenanigans in the book cannot account for one basic reality of human nature . . . the pendulum always, eventually, swings back. Sooner or later, those who have maintained their positions of power through corrupting the process, or allowing others to corrupt the process, will find themselves on the business end of the one thing that their flimflam cannot – ever – account for.

Call it the silent majority, the sleeping giant, the monster vote, or whatever else you please, the truth is that all We the People have ever needed, whether at the local, state, or national level is an actual transformational leader to rally around. Once that’s done, all of the cheating and mudslinging in the world won’t save the cheaters . . . it never has.

Actually, substantively reforming a rigged system has always come from the outside . . . always.

You Betcha! (10)Nuh Uh.(0)

  13 comments for “Legally Enabling Theft

  1. Duhders
    November 1, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Well written article. I didn't even have a choice for a paper ballot and it scares the bejesus out of me that so many blindly accept that everything is honest and forthright. Considering the system that was used for my precinct I would suggest every single voter take a photo of their ballot with the number they were given to access the ballot. At the very least we would know the number of ballots were counted correctly and not manipulated by any machine. Physical voter fraud can only be reduced via photo ID requirements and poll workers that are honest.

    You Betcha! (6)Nuh Uh.(0)
  2. 10x25MM
    November 1, 2016 at 11:12 am

    Eluction of absentee ballots seems to be the preferred method of voter fraud in West Michigan. Why the absentee ballot container was not sealed. You know there is a problem when the numbers of absentee ballots sent & returned are not posted in public view, in the polling place during voting hours.

    You Betcha! (6)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • Kevin Rex Heine
      November 1, 2016 at 11:40 am

      I agree with your observation regarding the preferred method of election fraud in West Michigan. Couldn't tell you why the absentee ballot bag wasn't properly double-sealed, but can tell you that it wasn't a bag that I personally observed that night. I think that there's a long list of Election Code reforms that need to be made . . . we should talk soon.

      You Betcha! (6)Nuh Uh.(0)
  3. Sue Schwartz
    November 1, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    Since 1994, in the first election using the scanners, we found so much election fraud it resulted in the following publication:
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/election2k/computerized_voting/pandora.htm.

    Phil O'Halloran published Revelence and this "Pandora's Black Box" was his final publication. In 1994, was the first time I remember votes being shown in percentages instead of actual votes. The rigged election figure used back then was a 70/30% split. This was our cue that the election was rigged.

    A Hand recount in that 1994 election (resulting in the 70/30 split) commenced for the first two precincts. One precinct had 30 votes uncounted, and the second precinct had 70 votes uncounted. 100 votes wherein the machine did not count. The County Clerk came in, took all county employees to lunch and when they returned, advised that the hand-count would not be continued and the two hand-counted, up 100 vote precincts were run through the machine with the totals coming out exactly how they did on election night.

    We learned that the program running the machine was "proprietary" and no one in government know what was in those machines. Also, we proved that the machines had phone modems meaning they could be called from outside the precinct. In fact, I witnessed this and its reported in "Pandora's Black Box". This issue has again resurfaced--and it's not like everyone doesn't know this. The only way to overcome this type fraud, is to get out more voters than the polls say. The machines are programmed to rig a certain percentage of votes and more voters than the machines are programmed for, ABSOLUTELY SKEWS the predetermination programmed into the software. And, BECOME CREDENTIALED CHALLENGERS. If electricity goes out--stay put, that's one of the ways they reboot the machines. AV precincts are locked at 4:00 and stay that way until 8:00 PM. AV precincts are ripe for fraud--in fact most of the fraud we found was in AV precincts. Start a phone chain to make sure folks vote--call anyone you can to pick up an AV ballot and get it returned. We must get back to paper ballots and hand-counting the ballots. NO EXCEPTIONS.

    You Betcha! (7)Nuh Uh.(0)
  4. JD
    November 2, 2016 at 6:15 am

    Given that (and please correct me) 'only' established political party members of 'good standing' may become poll challengers..what **IS** the overall strategy of the MiGOP to thwart voter fraud next week? Details? And why has running the (Romney) 'ORCA' data gathering machine in our precincts been so much more important than obvious voter fraud in the past? Am I more worried about ANYBODY in my polling place with a data gathering machine in their hand (complete with 'taped over' camera) than I am a poll challenger actually there to challenge the vote?

    For those of us out there on Tuesday observing those in 'good standing' with ANY political party standing behind our polling book...how are we making a judgment call as to their intentions? Dime-a-dozen data miner or guardian of the vote? Should we be simply comforted that 'The Party' (who at least TeaPartiers have long sought to oh-so-nicely 'change') 'likes' you enough to sign the affiliated card needed to stand there all day (by the way, and as you well know, you were lucky to be afforded a "work space' let alone a chair or a space for one during those 13 hours).

    There have been a number of thoughtful comments expressed here as to how voter fraud can possibly be tackled in a meaningful, coordinated and verifiable manner before Tuesday.

    My question is pretty simple:
    Which legal/extremely simple voter fraud strategy has the MiGOP **CHOSEN** less than a week away from this election to solve this problem and (more importantly) exactly 'why' haven't a single one of us **HEARD** of them choosing even 'one' community/statewide coordinated method..to date?

    You have to remember that there are many who have been claiming (for years) that the MiGOP is the entire problem here given their obvious legal stranglehold on any solution as election law reads today. The number of poll challengers needed to combat this must come from but one Party WITH THOSE NUMBERS. Voter fraud in one of the top traditional states for it has been long documented here, ignored and even promoted by some within the Party (this year) due to both a rogue candidate upsetting the applecart and this state's electoral college importance.

    When you invest 100's of millions (ORCA) in to calling Joe Six Pack's wife because she hasn't voted (yet) on Tuesday vs concentrating those millions/manpower on physically being in the absentee counting room or (less likely) catching people in the act?

    You frankly lose the trust of those of us out here continually prodded to believe that a Party is undergoing transformational change, that our vote is indeed being (meaningfully) fought for or that any country club (Party) castle across this state is indeed (effectively) under siege with less than a week to go.

    You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(5)
    • Kevin Rex Heine
      November 2, 2016 at 7:59 pm

      Okay, johnnie downer, normally, I wouldn’t waste my time on a known wet blanket, but you did invite correction on your (many) errors, so . . .

      The MIGOP EDO app is derived from the same concept as ORCA, but I can tell you from firsthand experience that it’s an exponentially better platform. Yes, we do use it to track turnout (or returns, for the observers in the AV count rooms), but poll challengers also use it to record their observations and notes throughout the day (including opening and closing), as well as to file incident reports of each challenge issued. If you’ve actually served as an actual MIGOP-credentialed challenger at any point in the last quadrennium, then you’d already know that.

      And about that, let me personally assure you that those credentialed as poll challengers aren’t there because they’re “members in good standing” within the party. (My “standing” within the MIGOP depends entirely upon whom you talk to, and I do have my fair share of enemies.) Rather, the common defining character trait of those credentialed by the MIGOP as poll challengers is . . . integrity . . . plain and simple. The republican poll challengers are people who can be trusted to protect the integrity of the ballot box, including challenging irregularities when they occur.

      As to strategy details, that currently qualifies as “none of your damned business.” Even if I knew it, I also know that that’s not something that should be shared in the open. Yes, there are those within the party who are themselves corrupt and in need of removal, but that’s another matter to be handled another day. More importantly, how – if at all – are you going to get involved and do your part to ensure an honest electoral outcome in Michigan?

      Because, honestly, I have better things to do with my time than waste words on an armchair asshat masquerading as a concern troll.

      You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(0)
      • JD
        November 2, 2016 at 9:56 pm

        "..The MIGOP EDO app is derived from the same concept as ORCA, but I can tell you from firsthand experience that it’s an exponentially better platform.."

        We were told in 2012 that "ORCA" (at several hundred million dollars in hard-earned average Joe donations) **WAS** the 21st century "platform" from which everything else (data-wise) would be built. If this new "app" is indeed "exponentially better"???
        How much average Joe donor money was spent 'this' time around...what were the (devastating) lessons learned 4 years ago (when it failed miserably) and why would anybody trust the obvious self-serving data mining of 'their' poll visits **VERSUS** an effort focused SOLELY on those who are actually throwing these elections through fraud? Michigan Republicans are currently refusing to walk and chew gum in terms of exposing their candidates to public questioning before the election and/or addressing ANY issue involved in our fast approaching lame duck.
        You would like us to believe that challengers can (arrogantly) stick their noses in to our business when we show up at the polls with their recording tablets AND (at the same moment) 'fight' the very same voter fraud that they have never seriously even ATTEMPTED to tackle...ever.
        How STUPID do Republicans believe us all to be??

        "..Yes, we do use it to track turnout (or returns, for the observers in the AV count rooms), but poll challengers also use it to record their observations and notes throughout the day (including opening and closing), as well as to file incident reports of each challenge issued. If you’ve actually served as an actual MIGOP-credentialed challenger at any point in the last quadrennium, then you’d already know that...."

        Anyone who votes (regularly) has witnessed these "challengers" clutching recording devices previously (before Snyder instructed his SOS to 'tweak' election day recording device interpretations) OUTLAWED in our polling precincts. Anyone who has ever questioned what the MiGOP pulled in this regard 4 years ago (or who has ever asked ANY question involving Republican precinct leadership/challengers) isn't 'allowed' to be a MIGOP-credentialed challenger (period).

        "..And about that, let me personally assure you that those credentialed as poll challengers aren’t there because they’re “members in good standing” within the party. (My “standing” within the MIGOP depends entirely upon whom you talk to, and I do have my fair share of enemies.) Rather, the common defining character trait of those credentialed by the MIGOP as poll challengers is . . . integrity . . . plain and simple. The republican poll challengers are people who can be trusted to protect the integrity of the ballot box, including challenging irregularities when they occur..."

        I don't consider "integrity" to be defined as some lap-dog Republican sitting in a small town precinct having no record whatsoever of fraud (ever) or ever voting Democrat (even close)...claiming that he is there "to protect the vote" VERSUS furiously recording whatever he possibly can involving his very own neighbors and/or friends.
        That is exactly what happened in many precincts last time around and it is more than likely to happen again vs any meaningful (expensive) effort where it is most needed in terms of preventing fraud.

        "..As to strategy details, that currently qualifies as “none of your damned business.” Even if I knew it, I also know that that’s not something that should be shared in the open. Yes, there are those within the party who are themselves corrupt and in need of removal, but that’s another matter to be handled another day. More importantly, how – if at all – are you going to get involved and do your part to ensure an honest electoral outcome in Michigan?..."

        **News Flash**:
        Going after voter fraud in any meaningful manner (vs blatantly data mining your own brothers in arms) does not require a top secret meeting or ay 'blood oaths' to be taken and you full well know this. Every fraudulent election cycle previous has afforded at least 4 years of hard (expensive) between to debunk this "last minute needed strategizing' crap 6 days before showtime.
        When you then shift gears to "corrupt..(Republicans)..need...removal" ...yet (similarly) immediately defer to "..but that’s another matter to be handled another day..."(???) 6 days before the most important election in our lives and 7 years AFTER those exact same individuals were targeted (by TPers) for theat exact same removal???

        ..."The *NEW* MIGOP EDO app" (in our most fraudulent election ever) will certainly go down in Michigan history as the “none of your damned business.” (arrogant) Republican voter fraud strategy that it truly never needed to be...or was never meant to.

        "..Because, honestly, I have better things to do with my time than waste words on an armchair asshat masquerading as a concern troll..."

        We were there, Kevin.
        As much as you would like to believe that we weren't or that "there is always tomorrow" for this movement after Tuesday and a fast approaching crushingly destructive lame duck (which nobody will even 'mention' lest 2012 be brought up)...it's over.

        We lost (ironically) because "none of your damned business" ruled and "I am willing to sacrifice for my children" did not.

        We'll see who the man upstairs favors when the time comes ('name-calling' notwithstanding).

        You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(3)
  5. JD
    November 3, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Picture walking in to your local poll this Tuesday in rural Michigan (where everybody knows each other) and being confronted with some stuffed shirt 'poll challenger' sporting MiGOP credentials/a recording device giving you 'the once-over' while claiming to **ONLY** be there for "challenges" or to "preserve your vote".

    Tea Partiers had the opportunity to raise all holy hell about not only these recording devices in the polls but those within their own Party pulling this crap under obvious false pretenses.

    The fact that they chose 'not to' (lest they anger those who sent them) is exactly why the average Joe Michigan conservative receives: "none of your damned business" when any issue concerning the overseeing of our precincts this Tuesday is brought forward.

    Again, we first-hand witness what these people attempt to pull (for literally years)....yet it is as if every Tea Partier 'left' in the Republican Party....is (now) merely there to either call us all liars or to write the revisionist history of a failed grassroots movement doomed to not even so much as debate bad legislation in real time ('before' it is passed or when needed opposition can actually be rallied on a moment's notice).

    So when you see that Republican or Democrat furiously typing away after he or she gives you the 'once over 'as you walk in the door?

    They're not there to 'profile you' as someone attempting to throw the election (they either already know who is and/or don't care).

    You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(2)
  6. Sue Schwartz
    November 3, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    JD--go to the Michigan GOP page and sign up to be a challenger. There a class tonite at 7:00 on line. Who cares where your credentials come from, but you cannot speak without them to a precinct captain. I've been a Challenger many times over the years and have reported numerous cases of election impropriety. One time we registered with the Secretary of State to be able to credential challengers at a non-partisan election (School Bond). And, yes, you can thank me for a registered voter of this state having the ability to enter and be a challenger in any precinct in the state or for that matter, being able to circulate a petition anywhere in the state. Powerful weapon that voter registration. NOW USE IT!

    You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • Kevin Rex Heine
      November 3, 2016 at 10:03 pm

      Were I you, Sue, I wouldn't waste my time on J.D., as "DNFTT" is an appropriate flag for him.

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
      • JD
        November 4, 2016 at 6:12 am

        Were I you, Kevin...I would look at the 'optics' concerning any overt discouragement by Michigan conservative leadership (or even childish 'name-calling' which you somehow non-professionally 'mimic' from others here) involving simple debate sprinkled with real life experiences involving both the MiGOP and TeaParty local efforts in general over the past 7 years or so.

        Whether 'country bumpkins' out here in the rural areas of Michigan attend fancy V.I.P only expensive conservative events or are invited to the local country clubs for closed door MiGOP meetings or not?

        Discouraging the 'unwashed' to obviously not speak with each other only feeds the out-of-touch'narrative.

        You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
        • JD
          November 4, 2016 at 6:37 am

          It is not 'hard' to pinpoint exactly why a grassroots movement ultimately failed when you are still arguing (years later) that people shouldn't use bad language against each other or continually insisting that nobody attempt to silence another for simply speaking the truth.

          Perhaps our problem from the beginning has been acting in public like we would in the country club (which the other side evidently has no problem with) rather than in the barn or school yard.

          You have to imagine Michigan Republicans observing:

          "...so you say that you're "anti-establishment", eh? How's that working out for you all when (obviously) you all can't even talk (civilly) with each other in the first place or debate even upcoming legislation (which 'we' authored) for our fast upcoming (critical) lame duck?..."

          "Best of luck to you!" 😉 + elbowing his fellow stuffed shirt...

          You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
  7. JD
    November 3, 2016 at 8:20 pm

    I have went through the training, Sue.
    Instructor acted if she couldn't get through the class fast enough so that she could talk with the stuffed shirt 'patiently' waiting for her to push the peons out of her way/bend her ear.

    What happened afterwards mimicked (exactly) the "none of your damned business" false political piety which Kevin just exhibited for all of us to imagine.

    First hand witnessed election impropriety/incompetence at a GOP dominated precinct?

    Don't even get me started.

    It's about shamelessly data mining your very own neighbor and absolutely nothing else unless fraud or incompetence literally falls in a challenger's lap.

    To depict these illegally allowed 21st century recording devices 'suddenly' allowed in precincts 4 years ago as anything else is just plain horse hockey.

    since 2012...and everyone who went through it 4 years ago (as with the

    You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *