Saturday, December 22, 2018

Primordial Chicken Soup.

Where do we come from? How did we get here? So asks almost every child. And thinking adult. Customers in the Tavern offer answers, and few, if any, seem to satisfy the critics. Especially the atheistic ones.  Offer the most compelling - (well, to me )- that my Supplier made us, and a chorus arises from beyond the hedges. No. It has to be 'nature' they shout.

We come from the Primordial Soup !

Hah ! Even the most uncritical have a problem with that. Where did the soup come from : and is it chicken soup or egg soup?

So the question still stands. What is the Origin of Life?

Some folk think that Life is and was always 'Inevitable' simply by the workings of blind chance.

Hmmmm. Inevitable in a Universe of physical and chemical 'Laws', that is, where randomness seems to be a feature.

But is it so? Is it that simple.?

A fine fellow, Phillip C, showed up to give us a run down on the state of the scientific and mathematical arts in this pursuit of the facts......

He opened with a statement of closure from James Tour – a mate of his'n and one of the top ten leading chemists in the world:
We have no idea how the molecules that compose living systems could have been devised such that they would work in concert to fulfill biology’s functions. 
We have no idea how the basic set of molecules, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins, were made and how they could have coupled into the proper sequences, and then transformed into the ordered assemblies until there was the construction of a complex biological system, and eventually to that first cell.
Nobody has any idea how this was done when using our commonly understood mechanisms of chemical science. Those that say they understand are generally wholly uninformed regarding chemical synthesis. Those that say “Oh, this is well worked out,” they know nothing, nothing about chemical synthesis – Nothing!
Further cluelessness – From a synthetic chemical perspective, neither I nor any of my colleagues can fathom a prebiotic molecular route to construction of a complex system. We cannot figure out the prebiotic routes to the basic building blocks of life: carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. Chemists are collectively bewildered. Hence I say that no chemist understands prebiotic synthesis of the requisite building blocks let alone their assembly into a complex system.
That’s how clueless we are. I’ve asked all of my colleagues – National Academy members, Nobel Prize winners -I sit with them in offices; nobody understands this. So if your professors say it’s all worked out, your teachers say it’s all worked out, they don’t know what they’re talking about. It is not worked out. You cannot just refer this to somebody else; they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
The Origin of Life: An Inside Story - March 2016 Lecture with James Tour .
Let a more presentable chap than I do the presenting. 

If you want to go to Dr Tour then please do. It is a tad longer though.

Now, I have to admit to limitations. I serve a fine-topped ale and old Knights know a sharp sword edge from a dull one but physics and chemistry and deep maths are not really my forte. Not even my thurte. So I sat back and listened to some explanations.

Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the vid above) Origin
Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful.
You can follow that up here....  

The other bits below are also referenced in the YT notes for the video so go there too.
Minimal Complexity Relegates Life Origin Models To Fanciful Speculation - Nov. 2009 
Excerpt: Based on the structural requirements of enzyme activity Axe emphatically argued against a global-ascent model of the function landscape in which incremental improvements of an arbitrary starting sequence "lead to a globally optimal final sequence with reasonably high probability". For a protein made from scratch in a prebiotic soup, the odds of finding such globally optimal solutions are infinitesimally small- somewhere between 1 in 10exp140 and 1 in 10exp164 for a 150 amino acid long sequence if we factor in the probabilities of forming peptide bonds and of incorporating only left handed amino acids. 
Today, origin of life research continues under the assumptions of materialism. Researchers believe that if they can explain the formation of a building block or a possible energy source, they are making progress toward solving one of the most baffling mysteries of science. The major factor they consistently fail to address is the source of the information that is the hallmark of life. It’s not enough to get the building blocks of a cell any more than it is to get iron ore for a skyscraper. The building blocks need to be assembled and arranged in a purposeful way. That’s the sequencing problem for RNA, DNA and proteins.
Since protein machines do most of the work in living cells (both modern and primordial), their existence merits explanation.
As discussed in Origin, proteins are constructed from precisely sequenced chains of amino acids. Most proteins in the simplest life forms (Achaea) range from 156 to 283 amino acids in length.a Some shorter proteins exist (more accurately called “polypeptides”), but most of them have simpler roles in the cell, acting as signaling molecules or cofactors. Some proteins contain many hundreds or thousands of amino acids. We chose a smaller-than-average protein of 150 amino acids to illustrate the difficulty of sequencing any protein by chance—including those required in the first living cell.
The estimated probability for a 150-amino-acid protein comes from the work of Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer. Axe published a paper in 2004 that calculated the fraction of useful proteins in random chains of amino acids. A “useful” protein must be able to fold into a stable structure to perform any function. Compared to the huge number of random chains that would not fold, the number of proteins with this ability is miniscule.
After carefully measuring the tolerance to change in particular enzymes, Axe estimated that only one in 1074 chains of 150 amino acids would fold and be functional. This implies that you would have to search through 1074 chains of that length to find a single useful protein. So we start by looking for one protein (any chain of 150 amino acids) that could be useful in a primitive cell by spontaneously folding into a stable shape.
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 
Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin."
Hey, look, I take the view that God made us.

It sounds so simplistic, doesn't it?

My Supplier makes the Rules. He is quite able to do the probable, the improbable, the totally impossible.

He, and only He, created the Universe..... and Life.

Argue against it amongst yourselves ( as mankind has done interminably) while I pull a few pints for you. 

Give me a hoy if you come along with a better answer.

Oh, by the way, He chose to enjoy some of the 'life' bizzo He created too. Its the anniversary of His Birthday in a few days.

Believe it.


Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Lost Civilisations? Atlantis Staring Us in the Eye.

One day our civilisation may be a myth, like Atlantis. The remains may be as difficult and exciting to uncover as Roman Britain is today. Just as individuals with dementia may not even be aware of their demise, or the average Roman going about his day with visigoths and sundry barbarians in his midst, so we may be living through Western Civilisation disappearing before our eyes and many people remaining largely unaware of the impending doom. Will there be anything to show we were here?

The past few weeks have seen Europe in high fever with its vital organs being eaten away by corruption, viruses, bacteria in high places fighting Yellow Vests in the streets, and many a pock-marked black face staring down as a plague attacks the healthy. Frankly the old Tavern Keeper has been laid low for a while too, but amid the grumbles this week came some quite odd news. 

Some folk think that The End is Nigh. Western civilisation is being flooded with very unchristian hordes and my Supplier observes from on high. Just whether He will permit another world-wide destruction like the last time He sent a Flood, who knows? I am close to one of His messengers who has not whispered anything like that in my ear when he delivers the Good Ale. Little remains of what was before.

Greenies, of course, have been threatening a flood for a few decades now. The rising sea levels, they wish upon us, would swamp and destroy quite a bit of our civilisation. They want us to sink beneath the waves and become a myth. I don't know of greenies being around back in Atlantis' day and no slow rise was predicted back then as far as we are told. It was supposed to have happened overnight. There yesterday: gone the next day. Our greeny-wished flood is a tad slower. Glacial in fact.

I was hobbling around the bars  a week or two back when I came across the first hints. Graham Hancock is a British writer and journalist who specialises in theories involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments, megaliths and the like, and was settled in a quite corner speaking of the Lost City civilisation, Atlantis. He has little truk with the Wikipedia writer who barely conceals his disdain and dismissal of the notion of Atlantis altogether. 

Giving the positive a little preference, let us hear briefly from Graham before looking at the 'general' version.

His position is clear. As it that of the Wiki miserable who said: Atlantis (Ancient Greek:"island of Atlas") is a fictional island mentioned within an allegory on the hubris of nations in Plato's works Timaeus and Critias, where it represents the antagonist naval power that besieges "Ancient Athens", the pseudo-historic embodiment of Plato's ideal state in The Republic. In the story, Athens repels the Atlantean attack unlike any other nation of the known world, supposedly giving testament to the superiority of Plato's concept of a state. The story concludes with Atlantis falling out of favor with the deities and submerging into the Atlantic Ocean.

Despite its minor importance in Plato's work, the Atlantis story has had a considerable impact on literature. The allegorical aspect of Atlantis was taken up in utopian works of several Renaissance writers, such as Francis Bacon's New Atlantis and Thomas More's Utopia. On the other hand, nineteenth-century amateur scholars misinterpreted Plato's narrative as historical tradition, most notably in Ignatius L. Donnelly's Atlantis: The Antediluvian World. Plato's vague indications of the time of the events—more than 9,000 years before his time —and the alleged location of Atlantis—"beyond the Pillars of Hercules"—has led to much pseudoscientific speculation. 

As a consequence, Atlantis has become a byword for any and all supposed advanced prehistoric lost civilizations and continues to inspire contemporary fiction, from comic books to films.

While present-day philologists and classicists agree on the story's fictional character, there is still debate on what served as its inspiration. As for instance with the story of Gyges, Plato is known to have freely borrowed some of his allegories and metaphors from older traditions. This led a number of scholars to investigate possible inspiration of Atlantis from Egyptian records of the Thera eruption, the Sea Peoples invasion, or the Trojan War. Others have rejected this chain of tradition as implausible and insist that Plato created an entirely fictional nation as his example, drawing loose inspiration from contemporary events such as the failed Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC or the destruction of Helike in 373 BC.

So then, into the bar comes young Jimmy. He has some 'pedigree' too.  Youthful and exuberant Jimmy is an  Independent researcher - Former Corporate Theft/Fraud Investigator - Army/Iraq war vet with an MBA, who has been around a bit.

I shall show you Jimmy in his engaging full flood. That word again !! But first his view is easily summarised.
Not only did the lost city of Atlantis actually exist, but its true location has been hiding in plain sight for thousands of years, completely unnoticed, as we’ve been looking in all the wrong places...Since everyone assumes that it must be under the ocean somewhere, such as in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean or the Mediterranean Sea, which have long been considered to be the most likely places for its existence. 
And no, I am not about to suggest that Antarctica is the hidden location of Atlantis, either. 
Because here I am going to connect the dots on the exact words that Plato used to describe Atlantis, its location, and the geographical land features that surround it, which were recorded in Plato’s dialogues, the Critias and Timaeus. And the details that Plato shared of Atlantis, which I’m about to share with you in side by side comparison, will show you that the Richat Structure located in Mauritania, Africa, also commonly referred to as the Eye of the Sahara, or the Eye of Africa…is the most likely location for the lost city of Atlantis.
So, go for it Jimmy. Tell us about it.

He gives an entertaining and plausible account, in my opinion. (My opinion is open to question, of course, as long as you pay for a round).

Now, you might be thinking that he has not given you enough to be 'convincing': so he came back a few days later with more.

The Bible does not mention Atlantis. Neither did Assurbanipal from his Assyrian perspectives and tales. He mentioned the Flood, of course, an ancient myth even for his mob, but then he was very unlikely to have even known of Atlantis, which was well out of his way. But the timing is quite important. 

Perhaps one day soon some internet billionaire will do as the 19C explorers and arhaeologists did and go dig around a bit. It would be about time.

Meanwhile I think Jimmy deserves a few days free run of the bars to drink his fill. His account is fascinating stuff. Fair took my mind off my ailments.

I shall raise a tankard to his efforts to date.


Monday, November 26, 2018

The Black Peanut

It is an anniversary, but one few realise.  We raised our glasses in the Tavern as 50 years ago, this year, saw the introduction of Franklin Armstrong into the Hall of Everyday, Ordinary Heroes, And he sits alongside Harriet Glickman, of whom you have very likely never heard. And also with a bunch of very familiar characters you will all have counted amongst firm friends. 

On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions.

What they saw was Franklin Armstrong's first appearance on the iconic comic strip "Peanuts." Franklin would be 50 years old this year.

Franklin Armstrong is a character in the long-running comic strip Peanuts, created by Charles M. Schulz. Introduced on July 31, 1968, Franklin was the first African American character in the strip. 

He goes to school with Peppermint Patty and Marcie. In his first story arc, he met Charlie Brown when they were both at the beach. 

Franklin's father was a soldier fighting in Vietnam, to which Charlie Brown replied "My dad's a barber...he was in a war too, but I don't know which one." Franklin later paid Charlie Brown a visit and found some of Charlie Brown's other friends to be quite odd. His last appearance was in 1999, the year before Schulz's death.

"They'd never met before because they went to different schools," adding, "but they had fun playing ball so Charlie Brown invited Franklin to visit him. " Franklin quoted the Old Testament, and had no anxieties or obsessions. Franklin and Charlie Brown also enjoyed sharing stories about their grandfathers.

Franklin was "born" after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room.

Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say.

She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, 'I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.'”

Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society.

She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that.

Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn't sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn't want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color.

Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. 

This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to
 check her newspaper on July 31, 1968.

On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Charlie Brown meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Charlie Brown. 

Franklin also mentions that his father was "over at Vietnam." At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Charlie invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship. 
The Little Red-Haired Girl.

There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin's father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz.

Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, 

“I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.”

(No doubt, a Democrat.)

It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic's distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz' popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip.

Schulz' response: "I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin -- he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, 

"Well, Larry, let's put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How's that?"

Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team.

More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving" appears.

Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone on the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. 

ABC's annual "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving" special was slammed as racist by some on social media, with some viewers - in typical mealy-mouthed 'Lucy' style-  objecting to the dinner-table seating of its only black character. 

The scene in question has four characters from Charles M. Schulz’s iconic “Peanuts” cartoon — Sally, Charlie Brown, Peppermint Patty and dog Snoopy — sitting on one side of a makeshift outdoor table for Thanksgiving dinner, with Marcie at one end of the table and Linus at the head.

The cartoon's lone black character, Franklin, is on his own side of the table seated on a lawn chair. 

But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers.

But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question.

Glickman would explain later that her parents were "concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people . . . 
The Feminazi Lucy ! The Architype for many women today.

And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit . . . Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them . . . and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time."

Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.

And the Hall of Everyday, Ordinary Heroes in the Tavern gives them honoured places.

Meanwhile the spirit of Lucy - she who snatches away Charley's football at every opportunity - looms increasingly over a society that Rosa Parks and Martin L King did much to bring curative care. 

The 'Race' card seemed almost a 'far past' issue a decade ago but now it is played, along with so many other 'minority rights' cards, at every opportunity. Maleness and boyhood are targets du jour, despite 'coloured' favour where it suits.

In Oz we have a version - amongst many - of Lucy. Clementine Ford, the hater of anything male. She happily snatches footballs and anything else a chap might enjoy. She gets space in newspapers too.

There are always those who bring nastiness, even against small black boys and white boys, and we must laud those that counter them.

Drinks on the house in Franklin's memory.


Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Elections: Democracy's Achilles Heel.

The case for Kings has long been voted out. The problem with Democracy is that all votes are equal, so the vote of the King was (is) worth the same as that of the average taxpayer. And the half-wit who does not know her/his own gender, the mentally deficient dole bludger who holidays in Bali on the taxpayer benefits he gets fortnightly, and the Muslim fellow down the road who wants all Infidels to do as Allah said 1400 years ago, or else: and his four wives, who will all vote as he tells them or get a beating. He and they are all on benefits too. 

The taxpayer weeps. The King too.

Then we have the election process. The pre-selection of toadies: branch stacking; gerrymandering. The average punter has little effect on who is being voted for. And 'the system'. Designed by clods in order to conflate.

More weeping and gnashing of teeth have been heard from America in the past few weeks, such that normal conversation in the Tavern has been all but drowned out. The Land of the Free has never been known for clean elections. They have barely moved on from the  Rotten Boroughs that blighted Britain.

Not that Britain under the high heel of Mrs May can claim anything like representation of the Will of the People. Brexit betrayal on one side of the Pond and the ghost of Clinton's many victims buggering up the 'mid-terms' on the other side.

But over the hubbub we heard from several cogent souls talking of elections. Some 'advice' and perhaps admonishment came from one Arthur Chrenkoff who thinks we have it fine in Oz. And another from John Misachi who pointed out that in America 'twas ever thus.  Oz customers received a bit of an education in US matters of little fundamental interest but served as a precurser to an Oz POV. 

We were entertained, too, by Edmund Blackadder and his little friend Baldrick, who had to be hosed down several times before being allowed in the UK Room.

First, John, with a short run down on buggered elections in the Land of the Freedom to bugger elections. Of course, I cannot attest to the veracity nor the political orientations of Mr Misachi. That I shall leave to you to figure. But I can say, as I did to m'self listening to him, that the US experience is chickenfeed compared to the madness that infects Tasmanian elections.
Most Rigged, Fraudulent, And Corrupt U.S. Elections In History
Since the United States was founded, it has seen a number of controversial ballots, candidates, and outcomes.
In the United States, Presidential, Congressional, state-level, and municipal elections alike have often been characterized by fears that a candidate would steal votes or that they would otherwise be rigged. 
Accusations of stolen or rigged elections have been common in the history of the country, some candidates have accused their opponents of cheating them out of the U.S. Presidency, such as in the case of Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson in 1800. 
Throughout the 19th Century, almost every candidate claimed that an electoral fraud was committed. 
Even in 2016 the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, has claimed that there is a plot to rig him out. However, sometimes the accuser was right because the electoral process is never fraud proof. Some of the most controversial presidential and state level elections in the history of the United States of America are looked at herein.
10. U.S. Presidential Election of 2004 -
The US Presidential Election of 2004 was the country’s 54th and was held on November 2nd, 2004. The race was between the incumbent president George W Bush, and John Kerry, the Democratic candidate. Bush won with a small margin in the popular vote. However, the ballot papers and the voting were marked by error, omission and mistakes. In Minnesota, one elector cast a ballot with the name John Edward instead of John Kerry. In New York, the certificate indicated that 31 presidential votes were marked John L Kerry instead of John F Kerry. Also, there was an allegation of data irregularities and flaws during the voting process, particularly in Ohio. 
The Democrats dismissed the Ohio results claiming voter suppression and unreliable machines. They also accused the Republicans of engaging in unethical activities to manipulate the elections. There were also discrepancies in the number of votes obtained by Bush in counties where touch-screen Machines and other voting equipment were used.
9. 2002 New Hampshire Senate Election -
The 2002 New Hampshire Senate Election was held on November 2nd, 2002, following the incumbent Senator Bob Smith's decision to step down from his seat to run for the U.S. Presidency as an independent candidate. He claimed that the Republican Party was not ideal, a remark which would later deny him the nominations when he rejoined the party for the Senate election.
The Republicans nominated John Sununu while the Democrats nominated Jeanne Shaheen with the Republicans’ candidate winning the final elections. The campaign was characterized by phone jamming scandal by a telemarketing firm hired by the Republican Party to tamper with the elections. The operation involved using call centers to jam phone lines of the Democratic call centers. Four men have since been persecuted (sic) for their role in the scandal.
8. U.S. Presidential Election of 1960 in Illinois
The US Presidential Election was the 44th and was held on November 8th, 1960. The presidency was contested by Democrats’ John F Kennedy and Republicans’ Richard Nixon. The election was closely contested with Kennedy winning by 0.17% of the votes despite Nixon winning popular votes in 26 states. Kennedy’s victory was credited to the Roman Catholic support base, the economic recession of 1957 to 1958 which had affected the ratings of Republican, and his campaigning skills. However, most people believed that Kennedy was a beneficiary of vote fraud, especially in Illinois and Texas. He won Illinois by a margin of 0.2% with Nixon winning 92 of the 101 counties. The Republicans rejected the results while 650 people were arrested and charged with voter fraud.
7. 2006 Virginia U.S. Senate Election - 
The 2006 Virginia US Senate Election was held on November 7th, 2006, with the Republicans’ George Allen losing narrowly to the Democratic candidate Jim Webb. Allen who was initially favorite to win the race was caught on videotape using ethnic slur in reference to one of Webb’s campaign team member who was of Indian ancestry. The allegations considerably affected his campaign leading to his defeat by a margin of only 0.3%. The election was characterized by controversies involving both candidates, but Allen’s dramatic drop in the approval rating was his making. With the margin below 0.5%, Allen had an option of requesting for a recount but opted to concede defeat because he did not want to be labeled “sore loser” in case he lost the recount.
6. 2010 Maryland State Governor Election -
The 2010 Maryland State Governor Election was held on November 2nd, 2010 to elect the Governor alongside the members of Maryland General Assembly. Martin O’Malley and Anthony G Brown, the incumbent Governor and Lieutenant Governor, pursued a successful reelection on a Democratic ticket, becoming the first candidates in the history of Maryland Gubernatorial elections to receive more than one million votes on the way to defeating the Republican candidate, Robert Ehrlich, by almost 15% of the votes. The Republican candidate resorted to Voter Suppression techniques where the Democrat’s African-American voters were tricked into staying at home with the claim that their candidate had won thus there was no need of them coming to vote. The message reached about 112,000 voters with majority failing to vote. Some members of Robert Ehrlich’s campaign team were convicted of fraud in 2011 because of the calls.
5. New York State Senate Election of 1891 -
The New York State Senate Election of 1891 was held on January 20th and 21st by the New York State Legislature to elect a senator to represent the districts of New York in the State Senate. The elections were organized to replace Republican William Evarts whose term was coming to an end on March 3, 1891. The Democrats nominated David B Hill as their flag bearer while the Republicans nominated the incumbent William Evarts unanimously as their candidate. Both the Houses of Senate took their ballots separately on January 20, 1891, with Senator Evarts winning in the State Senate while Hill won the Assembly vote. Both houses could not agree on whom to give the seat and proceeded to a joint ballot. Hill won the contest with majority 2 votes garnering 81 votes to Evarts’ 79.
4. Kansas Territorial Legislature Election of 1855 -
The first Kansas territorial election, held in 1855, was one of the most disputed and controversial territorial elections in the history of the United States. Border ruffians forced their way to Kansas and demanded the election of the pro-slavery legislature. Despite the number of votes cast exceeding the number of registered voters in Kansas, Andrew Reeder, who was the governor of Kansas, approved the elections in an attempt to avert further violence. The political confrontations began with the approval of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 by President Franklin Pierce. The question as to whether the Kansas will allow or abolish slave trade led to political confrontations. The pro-slavery defrauded the elections leading to the formation of Kansas Free State. In April of 1856, a Congressional Committee was set up to investigate claims of voting fraud. The committee discovered that non-residents had participated in the election, a claim President Pierce refused to recognize.
3. U.S. Presidential Election of 1876 -
The US Presidential Election of 1876 is among the most disputed in the annals of American history, with the results being arguably the most disputed ever. 
Samuel J. Tilden won the first count of votes garnering 184 votes against Rutherford B Hayes’ 165 votes. However, 20 electoral votes from four states remained unresolved with each party claiming victory in the four states. The controversy remains on who should have been given these votes. A Compromise of 1877 that awarded the votes to Hayes was reached. The compromise also relinquished power in the Southern State to the Democratic Redeemer. 1876 was the first election in which a presidential candidate garnered more than half of the votes but was never elected by the Electoral College and also one of the three elections in which the winner of most popular votes failed to win the election.
2. New York State Governor Election of 1793 -
The New York Governor Election of 1792 was held in April to elect the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor of New York. The elections pitted John Jay against George Clinton with John receiving more votes. However, the votes from the counties of Otsego, Clinton, and Tioga were disqualified on technicalities and thus were not included in the final tally giving George Clinton a slight majority. The votes from the three counties were canvassed by a joint committee of 12 members, six each from Senate and Assembly. The canvass committee could not agree on whether the ballots be recounted or not. The issue was forwarded to the US Senators, Rufus King and Aaron Burr for arbitration with the King suggesting that all the votes be canvassed while Burr suggested that only ballots from Clinton ought to be allowed. The Majority of the canvass committee rejected all the ballots handing George Clinton majority of the votes.
1. U.S. Presidential Election of 2000 -
The US Presidential Election of 2000, the country’s 54th, was held on November 7th, 2000. The contest was between Republican’s George W Bush and the incumbent vice president and the Democratic candidate Al Gore. The campaigns focused on the domestic issues including tax, reforms, budget, and social insurance reforms. 
The current black mark on Florida

The outcome of the 2000 election was the closest presidential election in the history of the country. The election results were pegged on Florida with the margin of victory triggering a recount. 
Litigation in some counties also started further recounts, with the US Supreme Court awarding the Florida vote to George W Bush granting him victory. However, further studies have given conflicting opinion on the legitimate winner of the Florida votes since the recount was not allowed to proceed by the Supreme Court. Al Gore also blamed his failure to win the presidency on the sex scandal on the then-President Bill Clinton as having affected the ratings of their Democratic Party.
That is what John presented. The tales of woe will no doubt continue until America finally falls to the Yoof voters of Antifa and their champion  
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 
who gives every evidence of brain damage whenever she opens her mouth. 

In almost every election there are counts and recounts, arguements and even fist-fights, accusations of fraud and the odd individual sent to jail for corruption. The eventual result  may take weeks to be announced.  Meanwhile Tattslotto, the betting empire, can take the money and number-votes of millions of people from tens of thousands of locations and have a result in an hour.

Are things better in Oz? Well Arthur Chrenkoff thinks so.
An open letter to my American friends, re: 
your shambolic election process
Dear American friends
You probably don’t need those pesky foreigners butting in and telling you that the recent – and continuing – controversies in Florida and Georgia (themselves only the latest in a seemingly never ending succession of controversies surrounding election enrolments, procedures and counts) are sad and pathetic.
Nevertheless, take it from this pesky foreigner: 
they are sad and pathetic. 
And worst of all unnecessary. The leader of the free world and the world’s largest developed democracy can do better than have the results of its nation- and state-wide elections constantly overshadowed by the allegations of electoral fraud. It’s tearing the United States apart and it’s doing nothing to your international reputation.
I write this not with condescension or glee but as a friend who wants to help. 
Furthermore, I write as an Australian, from a country, which has always been on the forefront of electoral best practice and thus has much to offer by way of experience and example. 
In 1856, the state of South Australia adopted universal male suffrage as well as secret ballot as a way to conduct election, the latter reform adopted later that year by Tasmania and Victoria and over the next few years by the remaining states. 
Throughout the second half of the 19th century, political reformers in the United States and Great Britain would fight – eventually successfully – for the adoption of “the Australian ballot”, as it became known overseas. 
It is now the international standard. 
It seems to me that it’s time for America to again look Down Under for inspiration on how to improve its democratic process. Our Australian system is not perfect and it’s not 100 per cent foolproof (what is?) but it has been by and large free of fraud or the perception of fraud and its integrity is acknowledged by all sides of politics as well as the general voting public (voting in Australia is compulsory but I don’t recommend it for the US).
There are, in my mind, four different elements of the electoral system in Australia, each making a significant difference towards the transparency and reliability of the democratic process. 
Each one, if adopted and adapted, could make a great deal of positive impact for the American democracy, never mind all four.
Genuinely independent electoral commissions –  Governments and political parties have no role to play in the conduct of the elections, except for the parliaments setting up the general legal regime governing the process. 
Australia has a federal electoral commission and each state has got its own state body; the former handles nation-wide elections and referenda, the latter conducts elections at the state and local level (as well as, increasingly, trade union ballots). The commissions are strictly apolitical; there are no partisan appointments to their management and personnel and there are clear and precise policies regarding political neutrality of their employees. 
I’ve dealt with hundreds of federal and state commissions’ workers over a quarter of a century and have never encountered any issues of political bias or interference. 
To what extent completely independent and apolitical electoral bodies would be feasible in the United States where partisan politics is much more pervasive and divisive than in Australia is debatable. Where the proverbial county dog-catcher is an elected position it might be difficult to built a depoliticised bureaucracy, but the least you could do is try. Anything will be an improvement on the disgrace that is Broward County.
Secure enrolment – Tired of non-citizens enrolling (and voting Democrat (allegedly))? Or counties where more people end up enrolled (and voting) than are actually eligible to vote? Easy – to enrol to vote in Australia you need to present a driver’s licence or a passport or have someone who is already enrolled confirm your identity. This last option potentially opens the door to mischief, since you could make a chain of fraudulent enrolments based on the first, genuine link, but even with that proviso, the Australian system seems to me a lot tighter than the American seemingly free-for-all. 
Before an election, every person on the electoral roll is mailed a little card by the electoral commission with the voter’s details and a unique barcode. To be able to receive a ballot at the polling station you need to either present the card to be scanned or if you have forgotten to bring it with you you need to show a valid ID for your name to be marked on the voters’ list. 
Failing either, you can query your absence on the electoral roll and lodge a provisional vote, whose validity will be carefully assessed as part of the overall count, but it is a relatively rare occurrence. 
To an Australian, an argument that requiring an ID to vote is tantamount to “voter suppression” seems pretty ridiculous. Virtually everyone has got some sort of an ID; the tiny remainder can be accommodated separately.
Paper ballots – Forget about e-voting and voting machines, which can malfunction or get hacked – nothing beats a piece of paper and a pencil (or a pen). It might take a lot more time and human resources to count the votes, since it has to be done manually, but isn’t that worth an absolute piece of mind? 
Not every technological advancement automatically equals progress, and electronic voting is a perfect case in point. Go back to basics as fast as you can.
Hmmmmm. See Tattslotto !! 
Scrutiny of the vote counting – Every candidate standing for the election in a given district can nominate a certain number of their supporters per each polling station to be the “scrutineers” at the vote count. While the voting is conducted by the electoral commission staff, nothing connected with vote tallying takes place without the presence of the scrutineers. 
Before voting opens in the morning, the boxes where the voters drop their paper ballots into after filling them in are sealed with special seals in the presence of the scrutineers, and after the vote is over the boxes are opened in the presence of the scrutineers, who ensure that the seals have not been tampered with during the day. 
Then the electoral commission staff commence the vote count. Scrutineers can’t touch the ballots but they can observe the process from up close (usually the two major parties will have a scrutineer each for every staff member counting the ballots). Potentially invalid votes can be challenged, counters can be alerted if they put a ballot in the incorrect pile or where a staff member otherwise makes a mistake counting. Scrutineers stay in the polling station until all votes are counted, the number of ballots issued tallies with the ballots received, and the results are officially calculated and communicated by the staff to the commission headquarters. 
If all ballots cannot be counted that evening, they are sealed again in boxes and the count resumes on Monday (all the elections in Australia are held on Saturdays). 
There is virtually no way the electoral fraud can be committed during this process, ...
....even if the commission officials were somehow secretly acting on a party’s behalf; no new boxes or piles of ballots can magically be discovered in the aftermath of an election as all the ballots issued during the day are accounted for on the election night. The fact that a candidate’s scrutineers witness everything that happens during the count guarantees that everyone has got an absolute faith in the integrity of the count and knows that nothing untoward has taken place. The count of absentee, pre-poll and provisional votes happens at the commission HQ for each district and can likewise be witnessed by the scrutineers.
Since becoming an Australian citizen some 27 years ago, I have voted as well as scrutineed in over two dozen federal, state and local government elections. I am reasonably certain that only real, alive people who were eligible to vote actually cast their ballots, and I’m absolutely certain that the ballot counts I have witnessed were 100 per cent accurate and not a figment of the counters’ imagination, putting their fingers on the scales of democracy.
If you never want Florida to happen again, you have to go to Australia. The climate is similar but the elections are anything but.
Nevertheless, fraud occurs. 

It is enough to drive a chap to drink.

When I was the King I ran a fine small Kingdom where folk were treated well and right. But there are always those who want to 'fix' the system to their own advantage. They organise ne'er do wells, hold meetings, rabble rouse and protest.

My response was to hand the whole shebang over to them, retire, and open a pub.

I keep the rabble outside the hedges.

Drinks, for fine folk, are on the house.