Simple Proof: "Conspiracy Theorist" Attacks Function to Protect SECRECY

[Land Shark]

Let's use vote counting as an example to show how, usually unwittingly, people get sucked into making "conspiracy theorist" attacks on other people (thinking this is a "winner" for them) and yet don't always realize that the primary function of such attacks is THE PROTECTION OF SECRECY:

1. Vote counting was once the most public of all possible governmental functions. (Indeed only the public can check and balance on elections since the government itself gets its money and power from those elections and can not, therefore, watchdog itself, audit itself, etc. (yet that's often claimed adequate anyway)).

2. Altering these public vote counts, electronic voting comes along and sets up a wall of secrecy such that the public can no longer view nor obtain information about vote counting.

3. Concerned citizens use the highly limited available information on vote counting to make hypotheses about what's happening in the vote counting behind the wall of secrecy. (These concerned citizens are necessarily lacking all the information because of the electronic voting wall of secrecy but, have pieced together some info nevertheless from (usually) indirect sources.)

4. Because a "hypothesis" is essentially the same as a "theory," these concerned citizens can now be denounced as "conspiracy theorists" to the extent they suggest that anything might be amiss behind the wall of vote counting secrecy.

5. Thus, attacks on "conspiracy theorists" in the context of elections at least have the direct effect of PROTECTING INAPPROPRIATE SECRECY, and typically have the effect of shutting down debate.

And yet, secrecy has long been anathema to the true spirit of America. And, of course, all conspiracy theories are to varying degrees ventures into the unknown (they are THEORIES). However, unlike, say, national security matters where some secrecy is justifiable, there's no justification for secrecy in elections. But that doesn't stop various people from (in effect) directly protecting secrecy and calling people conspiracy theorists instead of asking the more sensible question:

WHY does this person have to resort to a THEORY, can't we instead just GET ALL THE INFORMATION and confirm, one way or another?

Much more often than not, the missing information is unavailable, i.e., secret....

Indeed, with each charge of "conspiracy theorist" we could profitably ask the above highlighted question. Especially in the case of election vote counting under legal claims of "trade secrecy" used in the example above, there's simply no justification for withholding the information from the public. This question and approach then helps us to focus on the REAL ISSUE: secrecy and its inappropriateness.

“Power corrupts, and there is nothing more corrupting than power exercised in secret.” Daniel Schorr, newsman.

Did I say secrecy was "insppropriate?" Sorry for holding back too much. How about this instead, taking off from a traditional quote (the second sentence is mine):

All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But secret vote counting powers are absolute powers whereby the public is never even allowed to know what powers hit them, and therefore is the most enticing form of absolute power conceivable in a purported "democracy."