Witnesses Document Potential Vote Fraud in S.C. Primaries
After Newt Gingrich’s stunning victory in the South Carolina Republican primaries on Saturday, there are now questions surrounding the vote counting process that took place Saturday night.
Indeed, some individuals who witnessed the actual certification of the vote are beginning to question whether or not the outcome is a result of clever campaigning, or that of voter fraud.
Although no one is pointing fingers at the Gingrich campaign, or any other campaign at this point, the anomalies that are arising from the accounts of eyewitnesses call into question the certainty and the credibility of the final count in South Carolina.
Indeed, some individuals who witnessed the actual certification of the vote are beginning to question whether or not the outcome is a result of clever campaigning, or that of voter fraud.
Although no one is pointing fingers at the Gingrich campaign, or any other campaign at this point, the anomalies that are arising from the accounts of eyewitnesses call into question the certainty and the credibility of the final count in South Carolina.
At
this time, the most serious questions are centered around the precincts
in Pickens County. It was in this precinct that Chris Lawton,
representing the Paul campaign, came to the Pickens County elections
office to witness the vote certification and noticed a series of
situations that were either in direct opposition to State voting laws,
or, at the very least, highly questionable.
Mr.
Lawton stated to me that he arrived at the Pickens County elections
office around 7:10 pm, where he was then ushered into the County Council
chambers. Mr. Lawton claims he was told that he had to remain in this
area and watch the vote tabulation on the projector in the council
chambers, not in the room where the actual counting was taking place.
However,
Lawton noticed that, even as he arrived, the projector was displaying
726 -746 votes which were broken down by candidates. He says he then
inquired as to where these votes came from and was told that the votes
were tabulated at 9:00 am that day and as mail came in. He claims he was
then instructed that he could not be in a secure area.
Eventually,
he stated, he gathered himself together and decided to assert himself
as per his rights to witness the count personally under State law. He
says, “[They were] very unfriendly and appeared agitated at my presence.
When I got my wits I went back and declared State law allowed me to
witness all aspects of this process. I was told there was little space
and [to] stand out of the way and not be talking on the phone.”
Mr.
Lawton then states that at 8:00 pm a precinct which he believes to be
Prater’s Creek came into the office without the “zero” tape; the device
that shows the voting machines were started at a vote count of zero.
Without the “zero” tape, there is no certainty that the voting machines
did not begin operation loaded with votes for specific candidates, a
very serious issue to say the least.
Mr.
Lawton states that, at 8:02 pm, the Paul campaign called the elections
office and was hung up on and given no information regarding the
vote-counting process.
At
8:05 pm, Mr. Lawton claims that a box of ballots arrived (Box 216)
which he believes were also from Prater’s Creek. This box had a broken
security seal. When Lawton asked for the serial number of the machine
that these ballots came from, he says he was told to wait.
Shortly
after a Deputy from the Pickens County Sheriff’s office arrived (as a
result of the campaign being hung up on) Lawton claims that around 8:55
pm, a lady from Clemson Precinct 1 stated that the boxes and machines
for this precinct were actually dropped off at another precinct – Stone
Church at University Baptist Church in Clemson.
Lawton
says that he asked when the machines and ballots would arrive at the
correct precinct and was told that the votes had already been tabulated
and would be coming in later. He claims that he was then told, later on,
that the machines and ballots would be stored at the church. Lawton
says that he never found out where the ballots and machines ended up
before he departed his precinct Saturday night.
At
9:10 pm, Lawton claims he was given the serial number for the first box
of ballots that arrived with a broken seal – Box 216 (Serial #
V5124783).
At 9:30 pm, Lawton says he left the precinct with the tabulations and names of the county poll workers.
Yet Pickens County is not the only location where the method of counting votes is questionable.
In
Florence County, for instance, a confidential source informed me that
the vote certification was seriously flawed and essentially conducted in
secret. Those individuals who came to witness the certification were
not allowed into the room where the votes were being tallied and could
only view the process through a glass window.
The
process itself was conducted behind closed doors and witnesses could
only view individuals working on computers (there were no paper ballots)
– but they were unable to actually see what was on the computers
themselves. Because the vote counting took place in a closed room, there
was no sound available to any of the witnesses either. Only a computer
screen tacked onto the wall was available for witnesses in order to view
what was allegedly happening on the computers in the next room.
This is particularly concerning since the South Carolina State Constitution states that, while votes are to be cast in secret, they are to be counted in public.
It
is important to note that, at no time, did the witnesses have access to
the room in which the ballots were being counted to either corroborate
or contest the process in Florence. There was no way for them to even
ask questions regarding the vote counting.
As
the source stated, “The system is designed so that just a few people
have access to the votes and only a few people know what those votes
actually are.”
The issue of lack of access granted to vote count witnesses seems to be a trend all across South Carolina.
Interestingly
enough, in South Carolina, all election results are transmitted through
a Spanish owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, before they are reported
to the public. This company’s software has been implicated in voter
fraud in the past when, in Broward County, Florida, a candidate who had
been winning the election was entirely vaporized in mid-count.
Hillsborough County, Florida and Dallas County, Texas also had votes
disappear as a result of the Scytl/SOE Software.
Of course, the software is not the only issue with South Carolina vote counting that could point to fraud. As Bev Harris, an elections and vote fraud expert, writes on her website BlackBoxVoting.com,
Well,
you have to put an asterisk alongside “the right results” because in
South Carolina you get a two-fer. Results could be incorrect at either
end of the pipeline - - from the ES&S iVotronic paperless
touchscreen voting machines, which have a history of incorrect totals,
or from the private results reporting firm Scytl/SOE Software, which has
centralized control over what gets reported.
She
also writes “There is only one way to immediately find out whether
Scytl/SOE reported the right results*, and that is for members of the
public to capture evidence of reported precinct results when polls close
tonight.” Essentially, Harris is echoing the sentiment of the source
quoted earlier who stated that the system is not geared toward
transparency in vote counting.
Neverthless, the ES&S iVotronic vote machines have had quite a history of fraud themselves, even being the subject of a special report by Dan Rather in 2001.
Yet,
even putting aside the Scytl/SOE Software and ES&S voting machines,
vote fraud would still be a major issue in South Carolina.
For
instance, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson recently sent a
letter to the U.S. Department of Justice which was dated Thursday,
January 19, 2012, and contained details of voter fraud in South
Carolina. The analysis of the fraud was conducted by the Department of
Motor Vehicles and was sent to U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles.
As reported by the Associated Press and FOX News,
“In a letter dated Thursday, Wilson says the analysis found 953 ballots
cast by voters listed as dead. In 71 percent of those cases, ballots
were cast between two months and 76 months after the people died. That
means they ‘voted’ up to 6 1/3 years after their death.”
Even
on the day of the primary itself, fraud was documented by the State
Attorney General’s office. It was reported by WTOC Channel 11 on
January 21st 2012, that at least 953 votes had been cast by people who were listed as dead. SLED has been asked to investigate.
It
is an unfortunate reality that election fraud has become commonplace in
every state in the Union and South Carolina is no exception. Although,
at this time, it is unknown to what extent fraud has been committed in
South Carolina or which campaign was hurt the most, one thing is for
sure – whenever there is vote fraud, the inevitable losers will always
be the voters.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies and Five Sense Solutions. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment