Bringing Occam's razor to the question of voting machines

A few days ago, someone sent me an article from Mark St. Cyr that I've been brooding about ever since. That's because St. Cyr asks one simple question: why are voting machines so complicated?  Looked at from an Occam's razor perspective, they should be simple devices — yet Dominion and ES&S have systems so complicated that they not only count votes, but also prepare a six-course meal for 20 after the voting ends.  That fact alone shows that they were designed to do a lot more than tally votes, and the "lot more" almost certainly includes nefarious activity.

We've heard from multiple sources that the voting systems are incredibly complicated machines that perform an extraordinary number of functions.  Ron, who posts on Twitter under @CodeMonkeyZ, took the time to read the entire Dominion handbook and was stunned by what that machine can do.  This funky video summarizes some of Ron's more interesting tweets:

Ron is an "N" of one.  There's more corroboration, though, about the Dominion System's complexity from Russell Ramsland, the co-founder of Allied Security Operations Group, a Texas-based company that studied the system in 2018.  The video below is a primer, not about the 2020 election, but about the way in which Dominion systems (and other voting machines) are structured to allow bad actors to manipulate votes to achieve fraudulent outcomes:

If you hunt around the internet, you'll find other evidence from knowledgeable sources (Dominion's own materials or experts in the field), all pointing to the machines' complexity.  Indeed, Eric Coomer, the Dominion official who is reputed to be an Antifa member who promised to fix the election outcome, is seen in a video boasting about the voting machines' many properties:

Coomer also apparently installed "update software" on over 30,000 Dominion machines in Georgia before the election, for whatever that information is worth.

Again, Dominion is a complicated piece of machinery that does lots and lots of things.  This gets me to Mark St. Cyr's post.

Mark likes Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.  For those who have never seen this movie (or, as I did, have forgotten the plot), Spock's long-lost half-brother hijacks the Enterprise as he searches for God at the center of the galaxy.  Bones McCoy instantly believes that the Enterprise really will come to face God, but Captain Kirk remains skeptical.  I let Mark take it from there:

Then the moment comes to where they appear to be face to face with the almighty. And in true Captain Kirk form — he begins questioning "God" for what seems lost on everyone else is not lost on a captain when it comes to his ship. e.g., "God" asks them to bring the Enterprise closer so that he can use it to transport himself from his current location, which brings us to the crux of all this when Kirk says "Excuse me, but what does God need with a starship?"

It's in that moment you understand why paying attention followed with logical thought processes is of paramount importance, for most will just reflexively answer dutifully subservient to perceived authority or, will willingly allow the clouding of judgement as to believe preconditioned thoughts or constructs. And anything approaching the threshold of what we collectively call "religious feelings" most times falls into this category.

In other words, Kirk has a perfect Occam's razor question that strikes at the complications this so-called God presents.  If God is indeed the all-powerful creator, Occam's razor says he doesn't need to rely on man-made equipment to transport himself.  If "God" deviates from that principle, that deviation deserves to be questioned.

Mark applies the same logic to the Dominion and ES&S voting systems and comes up with the perfect "Kirkian" question:

Why does a voting machine need an algorithm?

A voting machine is a 1+1=2 tabulating machine performing the most basic math known.

Again: why does a voting machine need an algebraic, or other complex math functioning algorithm to tabulate 1+1 math?

In another post here at American Thinker, David Premo has been thinking ahead to future elections and wants to ensure that they are fraud-free.  As part of that thinking, he posits computers that print up what the voter enters in the screen, and that's all they do, and computers that tally those voters, and that's all they do.  His scenario meets the Occam's razor principle that the simplest way to explain something is the best way.

Voting machines should tabulate votes.  Anything more is either intended for fraud or is an invitation for fraud.  The Democrats have sold us Rube Goldberg machines when all we need are one-function boxes.

By the way, don't take my word about Mark's post — check it out yourself and see if I understood it correctly.

Image: Rube Goldberg's Self-Operating Napkin (1931).  Public domain.

If you experience technical problems, please write to