I have been wondering, since 2000, when I first heard the assertion, how people know it's easier to steal a close election that an election with a substantial margin? First, if you can't get an accurate vote count, how do you know it was "close"?
And what are the parameters of "close"? I would agree that 537 votes in a state with the population of Florida is "close". But 2% of the voting population of Ohio comes out to 154,000, if 100% of them vote. If 69% of them vote, we still have over 106,000 of the little devils deciding things for the country, while we still have the Electoral College in place.
We all know, I hope, how easy it is to manipulate opinion polls. So our information on how close an election will be in the run up to it is rather shaky. The MSM will, we assume, try to convince us it will be a "close" election, because if they didn't cast their stories as a breathless horse race, they would have little to fill up air time with. We know that the exit polls are the most accurate of polls, and we know they were adjusted to fit the announced election result in Ohio in 2004, despite glaring reasons to doubt the Ohio results. Given the absence of accurate polls, and the inability to get a verifiable vote count, how do we know how close an election was, or will be?
Not to put too fine a point upon it, how do we know who won? Or by what margin?
The problem with our current voting system is that once the results have been announced, it appears impossible to get an accurate recount, or sometimes any recount at all. In short, neither the winners nor the losers can prove their case. This strikes me as being the moral equivalent of trying to hit a target at 20 feet while blindfolded. The results of your shot will be announced, but the target will have disappeared by the time you take the blindfold off.
= new reply since forum marked as read