I posted a comment similar to that of on the cusp above. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/203811#comment-203811

I have lost all faith in the integrity of our elections. There is no doubt that Hillary will win the election regardless of whether or not she gets the most votes. Our government is totally captured and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. My only hope is that she is indicted or if not, that Congress impeaches her.

Hillary Clinton is a very dangerous psychopath who should not be anywhere near the levers of power. I truly believe she wants a hot war with Russia..

Steven D, you have done an excellent job of explaining how this fractional system works. Thank you.

I've handled thousands of surveys with weighted numbers but I never considered that actual voting would or could be treated this way.

What a great argument for paper ballots that can be recounted.

knows this and they do nothing.
They will just wait their turn to use it. Their dream is President Kaine.

Social Security benefits disappear into a Wall Street banker's deep pocket.
Unless a nuke renders me blind or dead.

The link re: Ft Bend County, in essay, names Frank Kaplan as having his hands all up in this. The name was familiar from wikileaks. Yes, Jordan Kaplan is (was?) DNC Finance Director.

Frank Kaplan, whose name appears on some of the original e-mails pertaining to weighted fractionalized elections in GEMS, now works out of his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico and has been paid for independent election services for Colorado locations9. Kaplan sometimes does business under the name Automated Ballot Concepts, and Automated Election Concepts. Documents from Fort Bend County, Texas and Boulder County, Colorado list Kaplan as Election Services Manager for a larger firm called Integrated Voting Solutions.

Are these two guys related? I think I recall that I read exchanges with Jordan and his mother, but it seems like I poked around and found a brother too. I'll look on my phone bookmarks, but it's been quite a while.

I guess the primaries prove that the Dems can also adjust election results, but this article provides interesting counterarguments:
Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Election
Among the points,
1) The reported collapse of Clinton's bogus lead makes it more difficult to fake the results in her favor. The polls were bogus, but designed to make the adjustment of results more plausible.

2) The massive exposure of corruption will just continue and the leaked documents come under wider scrutiny for years to come if Clinton is placed in office, which could draw attention to and even damage the oligarchs who would place her there, making her to damaged to be worth installing.

how you can have whatever election results you want.
At the low, low, cost of losing the future of life on this planet.

There seems to be requirement for a paper trail. Does "fractionalized voting"defeat this safeguard?

Auditing
HAVA requires all voting systems be auditable and produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity available as an official record for any recount conducted.[8]

Of course you have to get that paper produced, which would likely require court action.
I think such a fraud will be hard to stop if there is a plan to cheat and they are ready to go.
As you suggest, they may have pulled it already in elections. They would be even better at it now.
ow, but thanks.

Now's the time.

stein - baraka
2016

So don't be surprised if Hillary outperforms the pre-election polls and defeats The Donald handily on Tuesday.

Just like she "outperformed" Sanders in the primaries in at least half of the states, totally blowing past the error margin of the exit polls.

The only thing which might change the outcome would be the Republicans cheating harder than the Democrats despite their dislike for Trump. I guess that's why he recently adopted a very standard GOP platform.

I don't believe fractional magic is how a person determined to manipulate elections would go about altering the results.

First, fractional magic isn't magic, it's inherent in the way a computer calculates and different formats a computer can use to store numbers. Most people would assume that the value 100.00 would be stored in the computer using just 5 digits of space and if you specifically store the number in an integer format, it could. The problem with this is that you can never store a value of anything greater than 999.99. If you try to store 1000.00 in the are, you end up with zero because the 1 has no place to be stored. I'm not going to go into detail, but you can read Wikipedia for a discussion of Floating Point Numbers for the details on how numbers are stored in Floating Point format. The benefit to Floating Point is that a huge range of numbers can be stored in the same amount of space. Anything from zero to numbers in the trillions can be stored in the same space.

The issue with floating point is that the number stored is not "exactly" the integer representation of the number. It is a representation of the number carried our to an extreme number of decimal places so that in practical use, it's value is the same as an the integer for example, the integer 1 might actually be represented in floating point as .9999999999999999999999999726. It's close, but not exactly equal to 1. My first encounter of this was in my very early years when I was writing a simple report that did internal calculations with decimal values of 4 digits and then printed the results in 2 digits. I first noticed this on a report that showed a value of zero with a minus sign. I'd never heard of a negative zero vs. a positive zero, but understanding how a computer stores a value in floating point format. Zero is not really zero and could be represented by being slightly larger than zero, or slightly less than zero.

If you're still with me, I'll explain why using this fractional method to alter the vote totals is a very poor choice and why there is a much cleaner method that is just as easy to change the value as the fractional method.

The reason the fractional method is a bad choice is that any paper backup would expose the discrepancy. Lets take a look at a machine rigged to make Hillary win. A vote for Hillary could be valued at 1.01 votes and vote for Trump valued at point 99 votes. For every 100 votes for Hillary the total will show 101 and every 100 votes for Trump the total would show 99. Assuming this particular voting machine received exactly 100 votes for each candidate, Hillary wins by 2 votes. But the paper audit trail would not show the same results. If they go back through the 200 ballots recorded on the paper trail, they'll find each received 100 votes and chaos would ensue!

So how would reflections, the old time programmer approach this problem? I would allow the factor to be just as easily applied as the fractional method, but my program would simply help the voter make a "mistake". Let's say I set my factor to a 2% win for Hillary. The machine is tallying votes and is behaving normally as long is Hillary is ahead by 2%. But once her lead drops below 2%, my program starts helping the voters make a mistake. This easy to do and can be far more difficult to detect. There are 2 components to a touch screen device. One is the screen where the selection boxes and names are displayed and there is an electronic screen the records where you touched on the screen. They can and are programmed independently. So, I can make the box to touch on the screen one size and program the area that you touch on the screen a different size. In normal mode they would both be the same size but as soon as Hillary's % drops below 2%, my program makes some changes. It makes the touch area on the screen that records a vote for Trump, much smaller. The voter now has to press in the exact middle of the Trump selection box or the vote records for Hillary. If the voter doesn't notice they continue on and I just helped them vote for the wrong person. If they do notice, I'll let them try again assuming that they will be more cautious this time and make sure they press the Trump box, but unless they press in the correct location, it will again register a vote for Hillary. Now to make sure no one knows the program is doing this, I'll only do this twice as it's now apparent the voter knows the machine is flipping the vote and by this time he has probably called of an election official so they can watch the machine record their vote for the wrong person. I'll put the program back in normal mode for this voter and when they try the third time with poll watcher standing by their side. They press the button for Trump and it records for Trump. The poll watcher walks away mumbling something under their breath about stupid Trump voters. As soon as this voter is done, I go on to the next voter and the machine continues to try and help that voter make a mistake until Hillary is leading by 2%. With this method, the paper trail will always math the votes totaled in the machine and the voters who voted for the wrong person will never even notice.

I think this explains many of the things people report with machines flipping votes and it also explains why our election contests are always trying to keep the numbers close. You can't believably alter an election when the % difference between candidates is large, but it's real easy if you only have to move them a percent or two!