GoodOwl
The 1 Hoo Knocks
Posts: 29,283
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 4900
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse |
RE: So...Georgia...
(12-03-2020 08:28 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: (12-03-2020 08:19 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: (12-03-2020 08:09 PM)bullet Wrote: (12-03-2020 08:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: (12-03-2020 07:58 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote: What does IP networking have to do with Georgia paper ballots.
Your dumb ass assumed people were keeping their print out, this isn't the case.
Nope. What I said was the paper ballot means nothing. And it doesnt if its generated by the electronic voting machine. I can make that ballot read however I want, so that gullible people like you believe its fraud-proof.
Now, I can certainly put certain features in place to make it virtually fraud proof. But they aint running those procedures, because, you know, they need to be able to fraud the system to win.
In Georgia, you mark the ballot on the machine. Then you print a ballot which you can read. At that point you take it to a counting machine and enter it into there. So no, it can't make it read whatever they want. It might count it wrong, but manually counting would identify if it did so.
Wait a minute...I think I see what he's saying. While to the voter's eye, or anyone who sight-reads the ballot, it would appear to say one thing, when just scanned into a machine-reader- it can be done in such a way that the MACHINE reads the votes differently than if that Same ballot was sight-read by a human being. And yes, having been in the tech and scanner business myself, that scenario is TOTALLY plausible and possible to accomplish.
The "beauty" of it is that anyone whop actually looks at the corrupted ballot thinks that what they see is what they get. Now every ballot would not have to be so encoded for corruption to change the election results to fit whatever those in charge of this scheme would want. In fact, they would neither want nor need to do so. And, by intermingling them into the mass of ballots, they become extremely difficult, almost impossible to find and identify, even with random sampling, unless extremely robust, which they have certainly not been. So, recounts do nothing to change results materially, and it makes sense: fake or corrupted ballots are still in there being counted or mis-counted virtually the same way every time.
The ONLY way to find this is to do a through forensic analysis of the machines AND all the ballots. But they knew they could use the pressure of time deadlines to basically eliminate the risk they'd get caught, and lo and behold that is exactly what they are doing now, stonewalling, stalling, not really looking too hard or too close, so they only find small errors that are widely scattered and this supports their 'not enough to matter" argument.
The BIG problem in how they are handling elections is the inclusion of ANY machines in the process anywhere whatsoever. Machines need to be the first thing to go to have more fair and secure elections. Wrap your mind around that, because most people have become sheeple to their technology they can't fathom how bad it really is.
If the barcode created by the electronic marking machine was different from the human readable text the risk limited audit would have found it. They compared scanner counts to human readable counts as part of the risk limited audit
Hmmm, not necessarily. You have too much faith in the technology, and not enough thought that it only does what it is programmed/designed to do. In a risk-limited audit samples can be small and inexpensive if the margin of victory is large; problems ensue when performing such in a situation where the margin of victory is small in a large universe of ballots, which is exactly what we have here.
As I said above, there is no need, even no desire to corrupt every ballot for the reasons of "passing" the risk limited audit. It sounds fancy, but it is no magic safeguard, especially in this kind of scenario. And they did in fact find these small discrepancies, but they certainly have not forensically examined all the ballots, which is where they would need to start. Since time is short, and the universe of ballots has been corrupted to such a point it is difficult for traditional simple auditing to expose, an election re-do would be more prudent and cost effective, especially where "time is of the essence." If nothing else, it would provide a reliable benchmark with which to compare, which we do not have at present. Assuming, of course, that they handled the counting and ballots where they actually watched and supervised everything, which the videotapes in the thread and elsewhere online clearly show they did not. Give unethical people a chance to cheat and don't be surprised when they do.
|
|
