cj#351>Byers re: trapdoors & voting


Richard Moore

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 08:07:57 -0800
Sender: "R. Byers" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#350> re: spying trapdoors & voting

        While speculations about trapdoors and other micro-manipulations
might help us focus our attention in the right places in the future, I think
there is danger in getting caught up in this stuff when there isn't any
evidence.  You don't have to look any further than U.S. support of the
Contras to see how the Nicaraguan elections were "manipulated".  As I
recall, the U.S. was saying loud in clear at the time, "Vote for the
Sandinistas and the war continues.  Vote for our candidates and the war
will end."  In conjunction with the war, there were the economic sanctions
imposed by the U.S., and the two together provided a powerful reason to
vote against the Sandinistas (who still got a little over 40% of the
vote, I believe).
        Maybe the CIA/NSA were dinking around with software as a side
project, but I don't see the need for speculating about that when there
are perfectly good reasons for the outcome of the elections right in
front of our faces.

Randy Byers                             •••@••.•••


Dear Randy,

Yes I remember clearly the media stories around the elections.  The first
thing they got wrong was the bit about it being the first genuine elections
faced by the Sandanistas -- in fact the previous election had been
monitored approvingly by a very credible international commission.  The
second thing they got wrong was to simply assume, as an axiom of human
behavior, that people would vote for their oppressors when living under
siege conditions.  I don't recall that as being the attitude of the British
in the blitz.  Nicaragua had been through hard times in the past, and had
shown courage and determination.  Hatred of the Contras was strong, I got
the impression stronger than fear.  _Perhaps_ the Nicaraguans had a
different psychology than the Brits did, or perhaps they had more reason to
feel hopeless -- but media repetition of such a conclusion by no means
establishes it.

So I just don't accept the seige as an obvious explanation for the outcome,
in fact it seems highly questionable.  As a cover story to explain the
result, it has evidently worked effectively, but is it any more than that?



 Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland
 •••@••.•••  | Cyberlib=http://www.internet-eireann.ie/cyberlib