Category Archives: Presidential Campaign

Secretary of State certifies Wyoming candidates

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — The Wyoming Secretary of State’s Office on Thursday certified six presidential candidates for the 2016 General Election ballot.
The names of the following presidential candidates will appear on Wyoming ballot: Republican Donald Trump; Democrat Hillary Clinton; Libertarian Gary Johnson; Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party and independent candidates “Rocky” Roque De La Fuente and Jill Stein.

The office on Thursday announced that it also has certified four candidate’s in Wyoming’s race for the state’s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Certified candidates in the House race are: Republican Liz Cheney; Democrat Ryan Greene; Libertarian Lawrence Gerard Struempf and Daniel Clyde Cummings of the Constitution Party.

Source: http://www.heraldcourier.com/news/secretary-of-state-certifies-wyoming-candidates/article_1aba2654-73fd-5ec6-ba78-9a1ab4949f08.html

Libertarians hope for good performance in Wyoming

CHEYENNE – Several electronic billboards in Cheyenne tell drivers Gary Johnson, a Libertarian, is the “absurdly honest” presidential candidate.

And in a year when the two major party candidates are among the most disliked in history, the Libertarian Party is trying again to push its message that there are more than two choices for president.

Johnson is currently the leading minor-party candidate nationally and in Wyoming.

His campaign is making ad buys, including in Wyoming and other Mountain West states, telling voters they have an alternate choice in the general election.

Nicholas Sarwark, the chairman of the national Libertarian Party, told the Tribune Eagle he thinks 2016 will exceed past Libertarian performance.

Sarwark expects Libertarians to have their largest-ever share of the popular vote and have “numbers far beyond what we’ve had in previous years.”

In 2012, Johnson had about 2 percent of the vote in Wyoming.

But in a state-by-state poll released by The Washington Post earlier this week, Johnson reined in the support of 15 percent of Wyoming respondents.

Donald Trump had 57 percent, Hillary Clinton had 21 percent, Dr. Jill Stein had 3 percent, and 4 percent had no opinion.

Though the poll has limitations, Johnson’s double-digit performance was reflected in other Mountain West states.

Johnson polled 25 percent in New Mexico, where he was governor; 23 percent in Utah; 19 percent in Idaho; 16 percent in Colorado and 14 percent in Montana.

Jim King, a professor at the University of Wyoming, said voters are looking for an alternative to Trump and Clinton.

“There’s enough dissatisfaction with the Republican and Democratic nominees that third-party candidates are becoming more attractive,” King said.

Keeping with trends seen in The Washington Post poll, the Libertarian Party has traditionally found stronger support in the Mountain West than in other regions, King said.

The Johnson campaign could not be reached for comment.

Sarwark, the national party chairman, said he thinks there’s a good chance Johnson can have high enough poll numbers to be able to participate in debates with Trump and Clinton.

Johnson needs to poll nationally at 15 percent before he can participate in the major debates.

Sarwark said he thinks Johnson can get more support if he can debate, and noted the Libertarian Party is the only other party besides Republicans and Democrats to have ballot access in all 50 states.

In addition to Johnson, Trump, Clinton and Stein, Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle and independent Rocky De La Fuente will be on the general election ballot in Wyoming.

Sarwark remained optimistic about this year’s election result, especially in Mountain West states, where he said voters think independently more so than other regions.

“They don’t fall in line when they’re told to,” he said.

Source: http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/libertarians-hope-for-good-performance-in-wyoming/article_af722322-06f4-5d62-9452-d04f86de27ea.html

Author: Matt Murphy, Wyoming Tribune Eagle – Updated Sep 8, 2016

Presidential Ballot Set in Florida as Evan McMullin Falls Short

The presidential ballot is set in Florida as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will battle for the Sunshine State’s 29 electoral college votes in November. Florida is, once again, expected to be the largest swing state on the map.

Trump and Clinton of course made the ballot in Florida. So did former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson who is, once again, the Libertarian presidential candidate. Johnson will be joined by another minor party candidate from 2012 as Green Party nominee Jill Stein will return to the Florida ballot.

Tennessee attorney and Marines veteran Darrell Castle is also on the Florida ballot. Castle had been the running mate of Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin back in 2008. At the time, Baldwin was a pastor based in the Florida Panhandle but he moved to Idaho after the 2008 election. After falling short against former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode to be the party’s nominee last time out, Castle is the Constitution Party’s candidate this year and will be on the ballot in Florida.

Some voters in Florida will be pardoned if they experience a little bit of deja vu. Businessman Rocky De La Fuente pulled 5 percent in last week’s Democratic primary in the U.S. Senate place, putting him in fourth behind Patrick Murphy, Alan Grayson and Pam Keith. Earlier in August, De La Fuente beat out Florida based historian and political activist Darcy Richardson to be the Reform Party’s nominee. The Reform Party has, over the years, nominated some prominent leaders including Ross Perot in 1996, Pat Buchanan in 2000 and Ralph Nader in 2004 but they have grown less prominent in the past two election cycles.

Six write-in presidential hopefuls will be recognized in Florida: Andrew Basiago, Richard Duncan, Cherunda Fox, Zoltan Gyurko, Laurence Kotlikoff and Tony Valdvivia.

One of the more prominent minor party candidates did not make the cut in Florida. Evan McMullin, a former CIA operative and Republican congressional aide who is trying to appeal to anti-Trump Republicans, was not nominated by any of the minor parties in the Sunshine State.

At Ballot Access News, Richard Winger, one of the nation’s chief experts on how minor parties and independent candidates can make the ballot, noted that McMullin would not be on the ballot in November.

“Florida has several ballot-qualified parties that have not nominated anyone for president,” Winger wrote on Wednesday. “It had been thought plausible that either the Independent Party, or the Independence Party, might nominate him for president. But the Florida Secretary of State’s office said neither of those parties nominated anyone for president.”

Several candidates were removed from the final ballot including Gloria LaRiva from the Party of Socialism and Liberation and conservative Tom Hoefling, back again as the candidate of America’s Party which ran Alan Keyes back in 2008.

Author: Sunshine States News
Publisher: Sunshine States News
Date: September 7, 2016

Just link directly to: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/presidential-ballot-set-florida-evan-mcmullin-falls-short

Vowing to Fight On, Reform Party Candidate Promises to ‘Restore Democracy’

ORLANDO — Fresh from a 61,000-vote showing in last week’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary in Florida, the colorful “Rocky” Roque De La Fuente has turned his attention to his fledgling third-party bid for the White House — a contest in which the determined political outsider hopes to find himself on the ballot in as many as twenty-five states in November.

“I understand that the odds of me winning the presidency are remote,” said the wealthy real estate developer in eagerly resuming his presidential candidacy late last week. “However,” he quickly added, “there is a crisis in our country that will continue to go unaddressed if someone doesn’t stand up and say something about it.”

De La Fuente’s words sort of reminds one of the late Eugene McCarthy, the low-key and modest poet-politician from Minnesota who famously risked his political career by courageously standing up alone in 1968 — and something remarkable happened.

Unlike the tragic war in Vietnam, which needlessly and unforgivably wiped out a vital part of an entire generation of young working-class and poor Americans, the current crisis, maintains the ubiquitous Rocky — a kind of minor-party version of Donald Trump, but in an endearing and very positive way — involves the integrity of the country’s entire electoral process.

We’ve reached a point, explained De La Fuente, where the American people don’t have “a legitimate choice” when it comes to candidates, and where there is no guarantee that one’s vote will even be counted, or at least counted accurately.

Despite being virtually ignored by the mainstream media, the 61-year-old businessman, who tirelessly competed against Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in more than 40 Democratic caucuses and primaries earlier this year, insists that his third-party candidacy isn’t about himself.

“It’s not about me,” said the amiable and deep-pocketed Reform Party candidate in a September 3rd press release. “It’s about the American people. The parties have stripped away the power of their vote, and I’m not going to let that continue without a fight.”

Those issues, he continued, are the same ones that he confronted during his uphill battle for the Democratic presidential nomination when he was arbitrarily denied access to the primary ballot in several states, including populous Florida. Like Sen. Bernie Sanders and many of the Vermont lawmaker’s supporters, De La Fuente was highly critical of the Debbie Wasserman Schultz-led Democratic National Committee during the primaries, accusing the party’s leadership of manipulating — or rigging — the nominating process.

While Bernie deeply disappointed many of his most ardent followers by throwing his support to the highly unpopular Democratic nominee, a warmongering creature of Wall Street whose husband saddled the country with NAFTA, virtually destroying America’s middle class, it’s more than a little refreshing that there’s at least one candidate out there still fighting for the country’s better self. After all, this is supposed to be a democracy where every vote counts and where playing by the rules should matter.

As the WikiLeaks dump of nearly 20,000 DNC emails earlier this summer revealed, Rocky was proven correct.

The entire electoral system is undeniably rigged.

The contrived nature of the system is even more abundantly clear when it comes to the discriminatory burdens placed on the nation’s minor parties and independent candidates, whether the issue is unfair ballot access laws or the arbitrary and exclusionary 15 percent polling threshold imposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) on the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson and Jill Stein of the Greens — or any other third-party presidential candidate, for that matter — to appear in the nationally-televised debates this autumn.

“We’re at a point where we need to restore democracy,” said the soft-spoken yet determined Reform Party candidate who, unlike most of this year’s third-party aspirants, is looking neither left or right, but forward in the tradition of John F. Kennedy’s presidency — one of the most prosperous periods in American history.

In addition to appearing on the ballot as the Reform Party’s nominee in his recently-adopted state of Florida, De La Fuente’s name will also appear on the ballot in several states as the nominee of his own recently-created American Delta Party and in some states as an independent. He is also expected to wage write-in campaigns in approximately a dozen other states where his name won’t be on the ballot in November.

Author: Darcy G. Richardson
Publisher: Uncovered Politics
Date: September 6, 2016
Copyright © 2016 — Uncovered Politics

Just link directly to: http://www.uncoveredpolitics.com/2016/09/06/vowing-to-fight-on-reform-party-candidate-promises-to-restore-democracy/

BLOG: Latest Idaho poll shows little change in Trump, Clinton support since July

A poll released Monday shows support for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in Idaho hasn’t changed since early July, with Trump ahead by almost 2-to-1 but still at under 50 percent support.

The latest poll, which was done from Aug. 18 to 31, shows 44 percent support for the Republican presidential candidate Trump and 23 percent for the Democratic candidate Clinton. A poll from early July came up with the same numbers for both candidates.

The poll of 602 people, which was done by Dan Jones and Associates and has a 4 percent margin of error, showed 13 percent support as of late August for Libertarian Gary Johnson, 2 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, 12 percent saying they would vote for some other candidate and 5 percent undecided.

Trump’s support among self-identified Republicans has stayed basically the same in Idaho since early July, with 75 percent of them saying they would vote for him and just 2 percent saying they favor Clinton, but Clinton appears to have made some progress in locking down her party’s faithful — 86 percent of self-identified Democrats in the poll said they would support her, up from 76 percent in the last poll. The number of Democrats saying they would vote for Trump has fallen from 5 percent in the last poll to 1 percent now; the number saying “someone else” fell from 9 percent to 6 percent, while the number of Johnson supporters among Democrats grew a bit, from 4 percent to 6 percent. (Given the size of the poll and the number of Democrats in Idaho and in the sample, which would be smaller than the number of both Republicans and independents, I would be cautious about reading too much into some of the smaller swings.)

The numbers among independents are basically the same in the latest poll as they were in the one before — 31 percent for Trump, 24 percent for Clinton, 18 percent for Johnson. Seventeen percent of independents said they would vote for someone else, 6 percent undecided and 3 percent Stein; these numbers were at 16, 7, and 5 percent, respectively, in the last poll.

Although the poll only asked about those four candidates, there are going to be eight people on the presidential ballot in Idaho — these four plus Scott Copeland on the Constitution Party line; Darrell Castle, who is the national Constitution Party’s nominee but is appearing on Idaho’s ballot as an independent; Evan McMullin, a conservative who is running for president as an independent; and Rocky De La Fuente, a businessman who campaigned unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Both McMullin and Johnson have set up their campaign headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, a normally reliable Republican state where Trump isn’t polling as well as a Republican presidential candidate should, which some are attributing to Mormons being put off by Trump’s personal style and by his rhetoric and policy proposals on immigration and Islam. McMullin is Mormon himself, a Provo native and Brigham Young University graduate.

According to Dan Jones’ latest poll, 51 percent of Mormon respondents in Idaho said they would vote for Trump, and only 6 percent said Clinton. Sixteen percent said Johnson, 18 percent said someone else, 6 percent are undecided and 1 percent said Stein.

Regardless of who they are voting for, Idahoans are very divided on who they expect to win the election nationally — 37 percent think Clinton will be the next president, 36 percent said Trump, 21 percent don’t know and 6 percent said they expect one of the third-party candidates to take it.

Author: Nathan Brown
Publisher: magicvalley.com
Date: September 6, 2016
© Copyright 2016 Times-News

Just link directly to: http://magicvalley.com/blogs/agenda/blog-latest-idaho-poll-shows-little-change-in-trump-clinton/article_5d5b4f5e-6723-58b8-9b46-2dbe5417e737.html

The “Shocking” Truth About Election Rigging in the United States

RICK: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
POLICE CAPTAIN RENAULT: I’m shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
CROUPIER (handing Renault a pile of money): Your winnings, sir.
CAPTAIN RENAULT: Oh, thank you, very much… Everybody out, at once!
(Scene from Casablanca.)
If there is anything positive to say about the 2016 elections, it’s that they have finally forced an end to the official denial of computerized election rigging. In the past month, the fact that our voting technology is a hacker’s paradise has been validated by no less than all the major TV news networks: NBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Atlantic, USA Today, The Hill, The Guardian, Mother Jones, Politico, and a dozen other outlets.

Of course, the corporate media and political parties are now professing “shock” at the very prospect that US elections can be manipulated, and yes, even stolen.

Yet it has long been an open secret that game-changing races have been decided not by voters, but by insiders; from the presidential race of 1960, appropriated for John Kennedy by Democratic muscle in Chicago, to the two victories secured for George W. Bush by GOP fixers in Florida and hackers in Ohio. Among other suspect elections in recent years are key Congressional races hijacked by combinations of voter suppression, gerrymandering, dark money and the ugly little secret of American elections: rigged voting machines.

Sadly, it took a perfect storm of events to propel this crisis into the public spotlight, bringing no small amount of chaos. Today, the internet is flooded with election-rigging conspiracy theories and frantic official responses, all under the shadow of a looming contested presidential election.

As the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton camp reel from repeated computer hacks, the Obama administration has pointed the finger at Russia, giving rise to a wave of 11th hour fears that foreign agents could hack our voting systems. Yet, Julian Assange came a wink and nod away from outing DNC staffer Seth Rich as his insider source for the email leak, stoking paranoia by heavily suggesting whistleblowing was the cause of his recent murder.

As Bernie Sanders’ stunned supporters continue to sort through the wreckage of the primaries, they are overwhelmed by the mess of partisanship, voter suppression, electronic voting results that deviated widely from the polls and disastrous elections administration nationwide. Evidence suggests a bewildering mix of incompetence, party manipulation and outright fraud. Was it all enough to derail a Sanders victory? And if so, who is responsible? In our current system, these are very difficult questions to answer.

Meanwhile, back at Donald Trump’s Doomsday camp, after the reckless nominee actually invited the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s computers, Trump confidant and former campaign adviser Roger Stone has threatened a rhetorical (so he says) “bloodbath” of civil disobedience to shut down the government if Trump supporters conclude that the November election was rigged against them.

In this maelstrom, the assurances of President Obama and elections officials that our voting processes are honest and secure is not likely to assuage voters from any camp, nor should they.

We don’t need assurances. We need truth and ultimately, we need reform.

Elections are, to put it mildly, a wonky subject. Few Americans care to tackle their complexity, and most are eager to believe someone responsible is minding the store. While most elections officials are decent, underpaid public servants with integrity, many in positions of power are not. Over the years they have enabled — and sometimes profited from — deep structural security breaches that are not going to fix themselves.

To understand what’s happening and what we can do about it, we need to speak some uncomfortable truths and also dispel a few persistent myths.

It’s Not Voter Fraud, It’s Election Rigging

Numerous studies, such as the Brennan Center’s “The Truth About Voter Fraud”, prove that the supposed rampant scourge of phony voting is a myth. “It is more likely that a person will be struck by lightening than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls,” reads the report. However, right-wing forces have used a trumped up fear (no pun intended) to justify a glut of racist voter suppression laws that are now being challenged. Some of these have been overturned by state courts.

Donald Trump has perpetuated a common misunderstanding by conflating the terms “voter fraud” and “election rigging.” Clearly, he doesn’t yet know the difference, though in a recent piece for The Hill, Roger Stone seemed to be getting his sea legs on this issue (still, the article was muddled with factual errors and partisan attacks).

Trump’s calls to his base to monitor the polls in November will result in nothing more than chaotic voter intimidation and possible violence. Their actions may also violate a long-standing court consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee (RNC) from engaging in certain voter fraud prevention activities, particularly if they could be racially or ethnically motivated.

To add more confusion, Trump’s accusations have led to assertions that widespread election rigging is impossible. The truth is that, while widespread voter fraud is impossible, election rigging is a different matter.

Widespread election rigging is possible at the county and state levels, by elections insiders or hackers who can penetrate their systems. This can flip state, congressional and even presidential elections.

How is this possible? Because over many decades, our public elections have been privatized and outsourced to a handful of corporations and dozens of private service vendors. This is bad enough without their key players also having deep ties to political parties and religious extremists. Some have even been convicted of crimes, including bribery, bid rigging, kickback schemes, lying to voting officials and computer fraud.

In turn, these shady corporations have sold us billions in “proprietary” computerized voting systems. This includes electronic poll books, touchscreen voting machines, optical ballot scanners and central tabulators, Internet voting systems and online vote reporting networks.

Election laws have slowly been altered to facilitate this quiet transition to more “expedient” private control. In most states public oversight has been curtailed or removed entirely, including the ability to witness a full, secure public tally of paper ballots; the international gold standard of democratic elections. In jurisdictions in 14 states, ballots have been eliminated and only the secretly programmed machines remain.

Cyber security experts and “white hat” hackers, who have gained access to the machines over the years, report that every component of these electronic voting systems are ridiculously vulnerable to fraud:

• Machines are not safeguarded and sit vulnerable for weeks leading up to an election
• The shoddy locks and keys on the machines are easily opened and replaced
• Machines can be breached without breaking official security seals
• The secret software can be rigged with malicious, self-deleting code to steal elections
• The rigged code will not be detected by standard security tests
• Vote-rigging viruses can be spread from one computer through an entire network
• The administrative passwords are often easily hacked or missing entirely
• One person can access voting systems and others can enter behind them
• Last minute “patches” to (supposedly) update software can harbor malicious code
• Wireless connections are insecure and aren’t always evident
• Vulnerable hacking points include voter registration lists, any machines that are linked to the internet, any digital vote results that are transferred wirelessly to central tabulators, and all final vote tallies transferred to the websites of secretaries of states
Dozens of technical reports and studies, books, films and videos, articles, investigations and even congressional whistleblower testimony have exposed the depth of this crisis.

Both Touchscreens and Optical Scanners Can Be Rigged

Here it gets a little wonkier, so hang in there.

There are two kinds of vote tabulating systems in use: Approximately 20 percent are Direct Recording Electronic (DRE), called Touchscreens, which look something like an ATM. DREs both record and tally votes within their internal computers. The other ubiquitous machines are Optical Scanners, which scan paper ballots filled out by the voter, including absentee and vote-by-mail ballots.

The Touchscreens were an inappropriate technology purchased by states with funds from the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), a $3.9 billion pork barrel promoted by the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who served six years in prison for conspiracy to bribe public officials, tax evasion and mail fraud. Touchscreens immediately violated democratic elections by providing no paper ballot to audit or recount. Many Touchscreens were later retrofitted with a Voter Verified Paper Trail (VVPAT), essentially a glorified toilet paper roll of flimsy receipt paper that has proven both expensive and useless for verifying elections.

The VVPAT myth has also been a sorry source of confusion for voters who were misled into believing a personal vote “receipt” is sufficient protection against fraud. The truth is that an individual receipt tells us nothing about the total vote tally inside the DRE computer, and in no way verifies the final election results. VVPAT receipts have also compromised voter privacy.

The final, and possibly most dangerous myth to placate and mislead concerned voters, is that the Optical Scanners are safe. In fact, they are also computers that can miscount and can be secretly programmed or hacked to rig elections. The only difference in safety is that the paper ballots are available for hand-count audits. Some scanners also provide digital ballot images that can be used for a separate audit.

However, without actually auditing these records in public, with a secure ballot chain of custody, they offer nothing but a false sense of security. And here’s the rub: twelve states use Touchscreen voting machines that provide no paper record at all. Where paper is used with Optical Scanners, most states do not conduct meaningful audits. Many fail to uphold even the most common-sense standards, such as mandatory random selection of precincts (some are chosen weeks in advance), and public oversight.

Bad auditing practices may easily be nothing more than a cover for rigging.

In 2004 elections workers in Ohio were convicted of felony rigging in the statewide recount where legally mandatory random sampling was not done. Poll workers illegally pre-selected sample precincts for manual recounting, then recounted the rest of the ballots by machine, which rendered the audit meaningless. Elections Chief, Michael Vu, resigned after overseeing the corrupted election. He was quickly hired on as Registrar of Voters in San Diego, California, where he was recently sued by election integrity advocates for leaving 285,000 ballots out of a 1 percent manual audit of the 2016 primaries.

One Person, One Vote? Or 3/5 of a Vote?

Making a new case for 100 percent manual audits is a disturbing new report called Fraction Magic by investigator Bev Harris, author of the book Black Box Voting, and the Emmy-nominated 2006 HBO film, Hacking Democracy.

Fraction Magic exposes the presence of “fractionalized” programming in the GEMS software Harris says is currently counting approximately 25 percent of the votes in US elections. The programming can be used to “invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes.”

A fractionalized vote means that, instead of the whole number “1,” the recorded vote is allowed to be any other value that is not a whole number. This allows “weighting” of races, removing the principle of “one person, one vote.”

Weighted votes, for example, could look like this:

One person, 3/5 of a vote: “0.60”
One person, one-and-a-half votes: “1.5”

Why would anyone want to program code that makes a vote less, or more than one?

The report claims that the use of fractionalizing, specifically the way it is programmed into GEMS, could allow for an “extraordinary amount of rigging precision.” This could be by specific voting machine, absentee batch, precinct, or even by polling places in predominantly Black or Latino neighborhoods, college areas, or religious and partisan strongholds, for example.

Candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44 percent of the votes, Candidate B 51 percent, and Candidate C the rest.

Is any of this proof that elections are being rigged? No. But it is yet more absolute proof that they can be, and that without manual verification of the machines, we will never know.

According to Harris, use of the decimalized vote rigging feature is invisible to observers and unlikely to be detected by current auditing or canvass procedures. Only a full hand-count of the paper ballots would definitively prove the veracity of the machine count.

For this reason, after decades of monitoring American elections, many integrity advocates like Harris promote nothing less than a full and secure hand-count of paper ballots done at the precinct, something the American public is likely to support, if given all the facts. What’s missing, however, is the political will and public resources to carry out this kind of fully verified election.

Apparently, in the United States, we can conduct multiple trillion-dollar wars around the globe, but counting our own ballots on election night is simply an overwhelming proposition.

Some hope is now dawning with far-seeing officials like Democratic Election Commissioner Virginia Martin in Columbia County, New York, who has worked with her GOP counterpart to ensure that all or most of the machine-cast votes are hand-counted.

“Some told me you can’t count the votes, it’s impossible,” says Martin. “I say you can. New York City has 100 times the voters we have, but also 100 times the resources and people. It’s just a question of managing the process, setting up the procedures. It certainly is doable.”

Yes, Election Rigging Can Happen Here

Given all of the above, the most difficult hurdle in repairing the dysfunction and corruption in our voting system is not designing solutions, and it certainly isn’t proving the problem; the evidence is overwhelming.

Instead, the problem is that the press, the political parties, the elections establishment and even some fleeced candidates, have aligned in a policy of never questioning election results. Even when — or especially when — all signs point to criminal fraud.

Though candidates like Richard Nixon, Al Gore, John Kerry and even Bernie Sanders, had reason to call foul and challenge the results of their races — or at least question the processes — they all chose to remain silent and continue their political careers without willingly donning the albatross of “sore loser” status.

The rationale given is always an unwillingness to undermine a peaceful and stable transition of power.

The press typically goes one step further in actively disparaging as “tin foil hatters” anyone who questions election results or claims they can be rigged. This necessarily includes not only actual conspiracy theorists, but also the technical experts, and even the government officials and candidates who have had the courage to speak out.

Over the years, these attacks have chilled public discussion and fostered the ultimate Orwellian myth that stolen elections “can’t happen here.” This is not only factually disproven, it simply flies in the face of our Republic’s history.

As chronicled in “Deliver the Vote,” from George Washington onward, vote rigging has been as interwoven in the fabric of American culture as bank robbery. The two are alike in that both are high-stakes crimes with big pay-offs, and both have evolved with technology. Computers now allow for invisible cyber-heists of billions in cash. On a similar scale, thousands, even millions of electronic votes can be siphoned from one candidate to another through malicious internal coding in the voting software.

The standard defense from electronic voting proponents is that “no one has ever proven the elections are rigged.” Of course, that is the entire problem. We can’t prove it. The design of these “black box” systems prevents the detection of insider fraud. It’s the perfect crime.

Here is what we must remember: It’s not the responsibility of voters or candidates to prove a non-transparent vote count was fixed. It’s the job of legislators and election officials to provide transparency and uphold basic standards of democracy, and it’s their failure to do so that’s truly shocking.

The nation’s 9,000 voting jurisdictions and 50 states need ironclad, uniform standards for non-partisan election oversight, ballot security and counting transparency, and a final end to paperless and privatized voting.

This crisis is reaching a tipping point. If we Americans fail to act to secure our elections, as Bogart warned at the end of Casablanca: “You will regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But soon, and for the rest of your life.”

Maybe, as soon as this November.

Author: Victoria Collier
Publisher: Truthout
Date: 05 September, 2016

Source: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37486-the-shocking-truth-about-election-rigging-in-america

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Arkansas Secretary of State Won’t Print Rocky De La Fuente on Ballot, Even Though He Had Enough Valid Signatures

The Arkansas Secretary of State, like the Alabama Secretary of State this year, checked Rocky De La Fuente’s petition and determined that he had enough valid signatures. Then, he noticed that De La Fuente had run in the Democratic presidential primary this year and wrote him a letter saying he could not be on the Arkansas ballot. He sent the letter on August 9, but the letter was never delivered, so this news was not discovered until this past week.

The Arkansas Secretary of State is aware that Arkansas let Lyndon LaRouche on the November 1992 ballot as an independent, even though LaRouche had run in the Arkansas Democratic Party presidential primary in 1992. The law has not changed since 1992 in any material sense. The Arkansas Secretary of State, in a new letter, now says that even if De La Fuente had not run in the presidential primary, he still couldn’t be on the ballot, because both he and his vice-presidential candidate live in Florida. The Arkansas Secretary of State’s letter says the 12th amendment does not permit people to be president and vice-president if they live in the same state. This is not true. The 12th amendment only says that presidential electors from a particular state can’t vote for individuals for both offices who currently live in the same state as the elector does.

The Connecticut Secretary of State had come to the same conclusion about the 12th amendment in July, but then when it was pointed out that the 12th amendment does not bar a president and vice-president from living in the same state, Connecticut had the good grace to withdraw its objection. Another flaw in the argument is that if De La Fuente carried a state in November, he or his running mate would be free to move to another state before the electors vote in mid-December. The 12th amendment does not relate to the past residence of any presidential or vice-presidential candidate, just the residence as of the mid-December electoral college meeting.

Arkansas has already printed its November 2016 ballots, so there are practical problems with any potential lawsuit.

Author: Richard Winger
Publisher: Ballot Access News
Date: September 3, 2016

Source: http://ballot-access.org/2016/09/03/arkansas-secretary-of-state-wont-print-rocky-de-la-fuente-on-ballot-even-though-he-had-enough-valid-signatures/

Rocky De La Fuente Pennsylvania Case Will Explore “Sore Loser” Issue for Presidential Candidates

Rocky De La Fuente this year is being kept off the November ballot in three states because of state laws on “sore losers” and prior affiliation with a major party. See the underneath posts on Alabama and Arkansas, where no court challenges have been filed. De La Fuente does have a pending case in Pennsylvania on the same issues, although the Pennsylvania case does not involve a state that has contradicted itself in the past over whether presidential primaries are covered by sore loser laws. The Pennsylvania case is De La Fuente v Cortes, m.d., 1:16cv-1696. It has a status conference on October 31, 2016, far too late to restore De La Fuente to the ballot, but a vehicle for resolving the issue.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes it utterly clear that the candidates in November, for states that choose to allow popular voting for president, are the candidates for presidential elector. In the early years of the 20th century, this was obvious to everyone, because general election ballots listed all the candidates for presidential elector, and voters could vote for individual candidates for elector. Thus voters could even split their tickets, and express support for more than a single presidential candidate.

Another issue is whether the U.S. Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, from 1995, means that sore loser laws for federal office are unconstitutional for candidates for president and congress.

Author: Richard Winger
Publisher: Ballot Access News
Date: September 3, 2016

Source: http://ballot-access.org/2016/09/03/rocky-de-la-fuente-pennsylvania-case-may-explore-sore-loser-issue-for-presidential-candidates/

Fight for Election Reform

Orlando, FL, September 03, 2016 –(PR.com)– “Rocky” Roque De La Fuente has launched a new presidential campaign. The former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination is continuing to run for that position but, this time, as an independent with multiple parties backing him. What makes his candidacy unique is that he is not necessarily running to win but rather to expose the need for major election reform.

De La Fuente said, “I understand that the odds of me winning the presidency are remote. However, there is a crisis in our country that will continue to go unaddressed if someone doesn’t stand up and say something about it.”

He continued, “You aren’t being given a legitimate choice of candidates, and in very many ways, your vote doesn’t count. We’re at a point where we need to restore Democracy.”

De La Fuente has posted three blogs on his website that expose the challenges that confronted him in the Democratic primary: a denial of ballot access, election manipulation, and election fraud. His website also lists a variety of solutions he is proposing to rectify each of these issues.

When asked why he is running if he knows he can’t win, De La Fuente says, “It’s not about me. It’s about the American people. The parties have stripped away the power of their vote, and I’m not going to let that continue without a fight.”

In that regard, De la Fuente noted, “Senator Sanders didn’t experience the ballot access or election manipulation issues that I did, but he did experience the election fraud. I had hoped he would use his position to expose what happened, but he withdrew from cause. I can’t do that because the issue is too important.”

De La Fuente has also been gathering party nominations to expand his ballot access. The Reform Party and the new American Delta Party have already named him as their presidential candidate. He says he will continue to reach out to other parties for their support as well.

In many ways, De La Fuente is reminiscent of the Reform Party’s first candidate, Ross Perot. De La Fuente is not a career politician, but he is a very successful businessman who has created thousands of jobs across the country. He brings a pragmatic perspective with him much like Perot.

According to the Green Papers, De La Fuente has already qualified on 17 state ballots; a number that is only exceeded by the nominees of the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green and Conservation Parties. He hopes that his single issue initiative will attract additional support amoung Bernie Sanders’ supporters who have been disappointed by the Senator’s lack of interest in bringing the issue of election reform to the forefront.

Background

“Rocky” Roque De La Fuente is living proof that the American Dream can be achieved by those who are inspired to pursue it. He has an amazing record of overcoming obstacles and achieving success. From being licensed by the FAA to fly single engine planes at the age of 20 to owning 28 automobile dealerships and becoming Chairman of the National Dealers Council for the third largest automobile manufacturer in the world by the age of 28, Rocky is in a league by himself. He also created a banking network in 1982 to help address an economic crisis in Mexico and established impressive real estate holdings throughout the United States while generating thousands of new jobs along the way. Rocky holds a bachelor’s degree in Physics and Mathematics (Magna Cum Laude) and exudes a passion for his country and for those who seek the opportunity to fulfill their version of the American Dream.

For more information, please visit: https://www.rocky2016.com/
Twitter: @VoteRocky2016
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/voterocky2016
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwWkeiS23HBvDgPBqbBzyQA

Author: pr.com
Publisher: pr.com
Date: September 3, 2016

Source: http://www.pr.com/press-release/686126

Virginia Elections Board Says Evan McMullin Has Enough Valid Signatures, but Rocky De La Fuente Does Not

On September 2, the Virginia Board of Elections determined that Evan McMullin has enough valid signatures on his petition, but Rocky De La Fuente does not. The Virginia Board had previously determined that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have enough valid signatures.

Author: Richard Winger
Publisher: Ballot Access News
Date: September 2, 2016

Source: http://ballot-access.org/2016/09/02/virginia-elections-board-says-evan-mcmullin-has-enough-valid-signatures-but-rocky-de-la-fuente-does-not/