2020 Presidential Race

#83,254
#83,254
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Literally not even a week ago, I heard ad nauseam about how fraudulent mail-in votes were. Even the President proclaimed as much. Now that those have been proving demonstrably false, the story switches to the computers. It’s all very convenient. What’s next? Mind-control drugs were administered during our COVID tests that made us vote for Biden?
Click to expand...

Maybe Russian memes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#83,256
#83,256
volfanhill said:
I am confident their numbers will be down tremendously all week compared to last. And I suspect they will struggle when compared to last year. Once Biden is in charge people will come back. Plus OAN is just one step removed from getting your news from Alex Jones.
Click to expand...
CNN hasn't been a news organization since the early 2000's. MSNBC never. But comparing OAN to Alex jones is laughable, even for you.
 
#83,258
#83,258



Listen at about 2:300 to the stipulation in one Dominion contract--i.e. software capability. (County of Santa Clara, point 2.26) Software is to allow clerks the ability to alter vote tallies.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/rov/Documents/CW2232168 Dominion Final.pdf


Also, Powell is claiming that the author of her affidavit is a former high ranking Venezuelan military officer who now lives in the US, recognizes the patterns that he'[s seeing in this election, and doesn't want to see happen in the US what happened in Venezuela.
 
#83,259
#83,259
RockyTop85 said:
There are several problems with this:
1. Emissions tests don’t have a paper ballot, GA elections do.
2. The person designing the software would need to know the number of votes cast in the county where the machine was to design this software to implement vote swapping after x ballots or
2b. They would need to know the number of test ballots used by the SOS, or
2c. The county/state in question would have to be without the technical expertise to run the machine without the machine knowing it was a test. Does Georgia have any reputable technical institutions that might be capable of deciding such a control test?
3. The counties where Biden picked up ground were generally smaller, red counties, some of which didn’t even have 50,000 votes. (That means more widespread and more easily detectable fraud. And also more difficulty in the built in on/off switch, if necessary.)
4. The results still have to amount to the number of people who actually voted.
5. The results have to be within reason for the historical and publicly available (see the county in MI that figured out that they had made a mistake because their county went hard blue).
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that.

Does the entire state of Ga do computer ballots? or just part of the state? Do the computer votes end up getting printed out into paper form?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#83,260
#83,260
reckon why Trump gave the face palm to the SEE EYE AY Director Gina Haspel this week on a mandatory Department Head WH briefing? I'm sure it was just hurt feelings and ego that got to him. He's probably still on his fit after firing #1, #3, * #4 @ DoD that just didn't satisfy his love me thirst....or maybe it's something else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
#83,263
#83,263
RockyTop85 said:
There are several problems with this:
1. Emissions tests don’t have a paper ballot, GA elections do.
2. The person designing the software would need to know the number of votes cast in the county where the machine was to design this software to implement vote swapping after x ballots or
2b. They would need to know the number of test ballots used by the SOS, or
2c. The county/state in question would have to be without the technical expertise to run the machine without the machine knowing it was a test. Does Georgia have any reputable technical institutions that might be capable of deciding such a control test?
3. The counties where Biden picked up ground were generally smaller, red counties, some of which didn’t even have 50,000 votes. (That means more widespread and more easily detectable fraud. And also more difficulty in the built in on/off switch, if necessary.)
4. The results still have to amount to the number of people who actually voted.
5. The results have to be within reason for the historical and publicly available (see the county in MI that figured out that they had made a mistake because their county went hard blue).
Click to expand...

The first one - the printed ballots - preserved raw input is the real important factor as long as there is some sort of recount by another means. Doing the same thing with the same input is nuts. You are right; in theory the ability to recount from the raw data should mean it would be dumb for election officials to screw with the count. That's like a lock on your door - it just keeps honest people honest.

We saw votes change in the middle of the night. That's disturbing. Negative counts aren't possible unless you diddle with the software. We don't have negative ballots.

The thing is you don't find errors or fraud unless you actively look. If Trump lost, OK. But you don't get to say that just because one 737Max made if from point A to point B that the software obviously works. Or worse that after it landed at point B the software was open to change before it took off for point C.

I don't doubt that you want honest elections even though we likely want different outcomes. It's just that several of us saw something on election night that didn't make sense because there is no straightforward explanation. It's no more unreasonable to demand a real explanation for that than to want the same when there's faulty software in a new airplane. Configuration control that we keep talking about means the SW is debugged, tested, documented, and not open to change after acceptance. That seems in doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave
#83,264
#83,264
AM64 said:
The first one - the printed ballots - preserved raw input is the real important factor as long as there is some sort of recount by another means. Doing the same thing with the same input is nuts. You are right; in theory the ability to recount from the raw data should mean it would be dumb for election officials to screw with the count. That's like a lock on your door - it just keeps honest people honest.

We saw votes change in the middle of the night. That's disturbing. Negative counts aren't possible unless you diddle with the software. We don't have negative ballots.

The thing is you don't find errors or fraud unless you actively look. If Trump lost, OK. But you don't get to say that just because one 737Max made if from point A to point B that the software obviously works. Or worse that after it landed at point B the software was open to change before it took off for point C.

I don't doubt that you want honest elections even though we likely want different outcomes. It's just that several of us saw something on election night that didn't make sense because there is no straightforward explanation. It's no more unreasonable to demand a real explanation for that than to want the same when there's faulty software in a new airplane. Configuration control that we keep talking about means the SW is debugged, tested, documented, and not open to change after acceptance. That seems in doubt.
Click to expand...
Here is my question. How do you "hand count" votes that were entered into a computer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, AM64 and Orangeslice13
#83,265
#83,265
RockyTop85 said:
Maybe “skis,” “crashing,” and “valid” have different meanings in “engineer” world too?
Click to expand...
Look “counselor” an audit only serves to confirm the examined system matches a reference design configuration. It does nothing to validate the reference design functionality or conformance to the requirements. It only works if you TRUST the reference design.

Powell’s whole argument questions the validity of the reference design. Thus only a design review can accomplish that. That requires design source data like software source, firmware VHDL, and hardware schematics.

They conducted an audit. An audit is useless if the reference design is in question. The review of the reference design takes information that I KNOW the SoS didn’t have he had no need for it to use the machines. Ergo the audit was worthless at debunking Powell’s claims.

Go see if you can find some new boots and skis to wipeout on I’m guessing you busted the current set 😂
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and AM64
#83,266
#83,266
RockyTop85 said:
There are several problems with this:
1. Emissions tests don’t have a paper ballot, GA elections do.
2. The person designing the software would need to know the number of votes cast in the county where the machine was to design this software to implement vote swapping after x ballots or
2b. They would need to know the number of test ballots used by the SOS, or
2c. The county/state in question would have to be without the technical expertise to run the machine without the machine knowing it was a test. Does Georgia have any reputable technical institutions that might be capable of deciding such a control test?
3. The counties where Biden picked up ground were generally smaller, red counties, some of which didn’t even have 50,000 votes. (That means more widespread and more easily detectable fraud. And also more difficulty in the built in on/off switch, if necessary.)
4. The results still have to amount to the number of people who actually voted.
5. The results have to be within reason for the historical and publicly available (see the county in MI that figured out that they had made a mistake because their county went hard blue).
Click to expand...
How do they "hand count" the votes entered on the computer screen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and ***RoadVol***
#83,269
#83,269
Rasputin_Vol said:
Here is my question. How do you "hand count" votes that were entered into a computer?
Click to expand...
In Texas the machine squirted out a paper ballot with like multiple choice check marks. It also is serialized to you. That ballot is fed into a counting machine. You watch them feed your ballot in. The ballot is retained though and can be hand counted.

No idea what they did in GA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarcoVol and AM64
#83,270
#83,270
Orangeslice13 said:
That’s what I’d like to know.
Is there some form of paper backup. Like a print out receipt?
Click to expand...
Exactly. And if this "receipt" is what they are re-running through the counter, then of course the numbers are going to match up. However if 1000 votes were cast and 700 originally went to trump, but a few were "changed" to Biden, I'm certain that the software would print out the changed vote on the receipt, not the original vote cast, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#83,271
#83,271
Rasputin_Vol said:
I can't argue with that.

Does the entire state of Ga do computer ballots? or just part of the state? Do the computer votes end up getting printed out into paper form?
Click to expand...
The whole state did paper ballots and counted them by machine. They “audited” the machines and found them to be working as intended. They’re still recounting the ballots by hand and expect to be finished by tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#83,274
#83,274
#83,275
#83,275
NorthDallas40 said:
In Texas the machine squirted out a paper ballot with like multiple choice check marks. It also is serialized to you. That ballot is fed into a counting machine. You watch them feed your ballot in. The ballot is retained though and can be hand counted.

No idea what they did in GA.
Click to expand...
Well I know in TN, or at least in my precinct, we voted on a touchscreen. How do you "hand count" all of the votes in that situation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orangeslice13
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top