Evidence of How Election Hacking Can Happen?
Just posted today by BlackBoxVoting.org
Fraction Magic
Short Version (9 minutes):
The short version did not make sense to me, and I still got lost in the long version.
Long Version (24 min):
If I'm understanding this correctly, this group took a theory about how it might be possible to do wide-scale election fraud, and wrote software to see if they could model it up as an overlay to see if this could work to manipulate the election both on a local precinct and national level. The key to doing it relies on counting votes not just as single-digit integers, but working with those numbers as a percent (where the digits to the right of the decimal points will not be visible). They were able to convince themselves that it can be done this way.
Curious what you all think.
Here's Bev explaining it Alex Jones where she is more clear than she was in the documentary.
Comments
That's the gist of it
One red flag for me is when Bennie says that if he was writing GEMS and wanted a mechanism to manipulate the vote, he'd need double decimal precision. I don't see why. The GEMS has a toggle between double decimal and rounded integer. If someone wanted to allocate a percentage of the vote to one candidate, they could skip right to the rounded integer. I don't know if that would create complications, like total votes fluctuating +- 1 with votes cast.
But I will say this. The fact that the GEMS tabulated in decimals is a W. T. F. and a half. THAT is pretty much proof that the votes hadn't been counted, they'd been derived.
And just to shout it high and wide, all four of the voting machine companies mentioned gave to the Clinton Foundation.
F the F'n D's
I wil make a few points here
One is that the video could be made a lot easier to understand. Bev Harris likes to make things sensational and this often gets in the way of clarity. A second is that the central tabulators have always been the key to vote rigging. There have been a number of reports focusing on how easy individual voting machines are to hack and how you sometimes vote for one candidate but your vote is registered for another, but that is a distraction. If you want to change an election outcome you do it by altering vote tabulation. Why risk hacking a thousand voting machines if you can get the desired result by hacking one tabulator. Fiddling the central tabulators is more efficient and reduces the risk of being found out. The video suggests that a single person could alter votes at will around the country if the right code is built into or inserted into the software. A third is that the central tabulators are not secure and they could be made secure and the security could be verified. The fact that they are left insecure suggests that someone wants them to be insecure. I can think of only one good reason to keep them insecure. Fourth, one thing that flashed by was a suggestion that there would be certain auditable precincts for which the vote totals would not be altered. This is interesting to me because I contributed to the Green and Libertarian funded audit of the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio and received regular updates as the "audit" proceeded. Among the irregularities reported to us (and ignored by the press) was that while precincts were supposed to be selected at random for audit, they were not. Certain precincts were chosen for the auditors over the objections, as I recall, of the Green and Libertarian representatives. Having preselected auditable precincts in which the vote tabulation is unaltered makes a lot of sense if you are stealing an election and do not want to be caught.
Amazing, the things supposedly enforced by random spot checks
that later turn out to have been systematically rigged.
In the 1970s, an insurance company with a high-flying stock was found to be inflating its financial results with a large number of fictitious policyholders. Regulators and auditors supposedly had the power to prevent such practices by calling policyholders at random and confirming the data on file. Somehow the company had no trouble rigging which policyholders were picked and was able to ensure someone in on the plot would always be on the receiving end of the “random” phone call.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Equity_Funding
https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Billion_Dollar_Bubble
So far, I do not detect 'surprise' in the comments.
Oh right! That's what being a part of a reality based community is supposed to be like.
If Voting was really sacred
As claimed by many of the photo-id-is-needed crowd, they would be on the front lines making sure that the Correct Counting was just as protected. Too bad for us that Money is more sacred than either voting or correct counting.
Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.
A Modest Proposal for Counting
Everything's on paper. No electronic voting.
Voters put their Completed Ballots into a big clear box (or boxes) at each polling place.
The ballot boxes are always publically visible and must be seen to be empty when brought to the floor and before any ballots are placed in them.
Full boxes are left in place; no box leaves public view until it's counted.
As soon as the polling place closes boxes are sequentially opened and votes counted by poll workers of at least two parties. No machine counting. Eyeballs. Everyone agrees on the results for a box, or you start over. It doesn't matter how long it takes.
The results of each box are publicly posted as soon as the count is completed for that box. The number of ballots in each box is recorded and posted as well. The counted ballots go back into the same ballot box, which is marked with the results, signed by the poll workers, and sealed.
If the total number of ballots in all the boxes is greater than the number of voters who picked up a ballot, kill all the poll workers, shred the ballots on the spot, and the voting at that location is conducted again later. Okay, some of that part might be a joke. I haven't decided yet.
Absentee ballots are not counted until the polls close. They are counted in a similar manner, and with similar penalties -- e.g., the number of returned ballots (and votes) must not exceed the number of people to whom absentee ballots were sent, or else you shred all the ballots and start over. Since the counters here don't have control over ballot delivery I will not insist they be killed.
Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.