What if they held an election and no one voted, and Bush still won?

And, just so you don't think I've let go of my election tampering theories, this just in from The Brad Blog:

So just to recap: First the voters of Alaska were not allowed to see their own voting data from the 2004 Election because it was the proprietary "company secret" property of Diebold. Then they would be allowed to see it as long as the state and Diebold could manipulate the data" before releasing it. And now finally it's determined that allowing the voters to see how they actually voted in the 2004 Election would be a "security risk" to the state of Alaska.

Alaska, Ohio, Florida ... it's very simple, really. It's not about massive tampering with large numbers. It's the tampering within the alloted margin of error, that + or - that's factored into the vote analysis. You change the swing from Kerry to Bush, a few percentage points here, a few percentage points there, and voila, you have an outcome that should have gone one way (Kerry) and turned out another way (Bush).

As they say, exit pols have never been wrong.

And, now, in California, after all the damning reports, this happens:

But there's no excuse for exposing the integrity of our election system to computer hackers. Yet that's what California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson may have done last week by approving electronic voting machines from Diebold Election Systems for use in California elections through the end of this year.

It's enough to force voters to utilize the absentee vote process, except when one realizes that even those votes were tampered with.

But the experts were plainly troubled by flaws in Diebold's systems. The panel, which included David Jefferson of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and David Wagner of Berkeley, observed that the removable memory cards used by Diebold were vulnerable to undetectable acts of tampering.

The panel found 16 software bugs that could cede "complete control" of the system to hackers who might then "change vote totals, modify reports, change the names of candidates, change the races being voted on," and even crash the machines, bringing an election to a halt. Hackers wouldn't need to know passwords or cryptographic keys, or have access to any other part of the system, to do their dirty work. Voters, candidates and election monitors wouldn't necessarily know they'd been rooked.

What if they held an election and no one voted, and Bush still won?