Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: generally
FWIW, I don't think there is transmission error in vote counting, at any greater rate then transposition or similar error if everything was hand carried. Both sides get to look at the raw data and the summary report.

What having control of the cybertransmission does is give the government (including especially the rogue elements) the ability to snoop on everything.

Election fraud is perpetrated mostly at the precinct level. Just as pickpockets and protection rackets work on a mark-by-mark basis.

554 posted on 02/22/2018 4:08:10 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt; generally
For those of you familiar with spreadsheets such as Excel, or any particular data structure platform, you know there are data attributes that format the 'screen appearance' of say a numerical value entry. For example, an entry of say 0.83674 can be formatted to show only two decimal places on the screen or printout as 0.84. This is done to give a clean appearance to a report. Numbers and fractions are rounded to make a report look tidy. But the original entry 0.83674 is still in the system.

Another thing that can be done for specific purpose is to weight the data to reflect portions of a group, to model accuracy, etc. So for example, take a number 1, define it as a number with two decimal places 1.00 and then multiple it by 0.8 to get a new value of 0.80.

1 = 1.00 --> 1.00 x 0.8 = 0.80; this is called 'weighting' the data.

It is important to note that at the screen, a viewer will see '1'. Inside a computer or programmable memory device, the number '1' is redefined with a two-decimal attribute as 1.00 and then multipled with weighting factor 0.8 to create a new value 0.80. The viewer SEES '1' but the system has created and stored '0.80' because '1' is the output of the function round(0.80).

Weighting has legitimate uses in statistics but there are no legitimate purposes for weighting actual VOTE COUNTs. But weighting vote counts can be a fraudulent means of stealing an election. Weighting can be used to downweight a candidate designated to lose or upweight a candidate designated to win, or a combination of both.

Here are two simple examples of two candidates, one of which is downweighted to lose in County X and the other that is upweighted to win in County Z. There are 5 voters in County X labeled 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 voters in County Z labeled 6,7,8,9,10,11. Note the number of votes cast for both counties together are the same whether weighted or left unaltered.

COUNTY X Candidate A (Unaltered)

Voter Vote Displayed Weight Factor Stored
1 0 0 1.0 0.00
2 1 1 1.0 1.00
3 0 0 1.0 0.00
4 1 1 1.0 1.00
5 0 0 1.0 0.00
Totals 2 2 1.0 2.00

**********************************

COUNTY X Candidate B (Downweighted)

Voter Vote Displayed Weight Factor Stored
1 1 1 0.8 0.80
2 0 0 0.8 0.00
3 1 1 0.8 0.80
4 0 0 0.8 0.00
5 1 1 0.8 0.80
Totals 3 3 0.8 2.40

***********************************************************

COUNTY Z Candidate A (Upweighted)

Voter Vote Displayed Weight Factor Stored
6 0 0 1.2 0.00
7 1 1 1.2 1.2
8 0 0 1.2 0.00
9 1 1 1.2 1.20
10 0 0 1.20 0.00
11 1 1 1.2 1.20
Totals 3 3 1.2 3.60

**********************************

COUNTY Z Candidate B (Unaltered)

Voter Vote Displayed Weight Factor Stored
6 1 1 1.0 1.00
7 0 0 1.0 0.00
8 1 1 1.0 1.00
9 0 0 1.0 0.00
10 1 1 1.0 1.00
11 0 0 1.0 0.00
Totals 3 3 1.0 3.00
***********************************************************

COUNTIES X AND Z TOTALS FOR CANDIDATES A AND B

County Candidate Raw Votes Displayed Total Transmitted Total Rounded for Summing
X A 2 2 2.00 2
. B 3 3 2.40 2
Z A 3 3 3.60 4
. B 3 3 3.00 3
X + Y A 5 . 5.60 6
. B 6 . 5.40 5

Candidate A wins 6 votes to 5 over Candidate B even though raw votes had Candidate B with 6 votes to 5 over Candidate A. Among millions of votes, this scheme would be a nightmare to unravel and with more fraud sophistication, this scheme would very likely never be uncovered. Most cries of voter fraud are met with responses that it's all 'sour grapes'.

Note that Candidate B actually won the unaltered vote count in County X and tied in County Z but lost the overall stored and transmitted-rounded weighted counts. Note also that each country election office will see displayed their actual raw vote counts but they won't see it for other counties in their states. The subtotal sums are altered even though the overall votes cast are the same for altered and unaltered. This is a slick scam scheme for stealing an election and without much doubt, Soros and others have the IT people to create sophisticated algorithms to pull it off. (There is chatter that Soro's satellite uplinks from his operation in Cayman Island were jammed during election night 2016 so that altered results could not be substituted for national totals, hence so-called Russian interference was interfering with Hillary stealing the election).

Now here is the kicker. Counties X and Z don't see what the other did. The weakness is that although counties can check and verify their own totals, they are unable to verify the totals of other counties. This is compartmentalization of county vote totals and it allows the alteration of data to be lost in the sums. One way to counter this weakness is to mandate a statewide display of all real-time counts by county, district, and precinct together with statewide totals so that anyone can check to see that the reported totals are real and unaltered. Weakness still remains at district and precinct levels and those would have to be displayed as well. Needless to say, a lot of eyes would be needed to be checking real-time totals.

However, more is needed. Any particular district or precinct can be compromised and thus skew results of a county. This is where Block Chain Technology can bridge the gap and strengthen the system to an extent that with real-time cross-checking, the voting system becomes highly impregnable to electronic fraud.

Now it would be wonderful if we could mandate by law that every voter dip their index finger into a well of purple ink after they voted so they can't easily vote again. But with our Constitution, I think this would not be a viable path to follow to assure 'one voter - one vote'. Such a system also does not solve weaknesses in vote transmission whether done electronically or by Pony Express.

Slightly revised from 7/31/2017 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3573409/posts?page=13#13

558 posted on 02/22/2018 4:35:35 AM PST by Hostage (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

You may be right.

The problem is that when you have control, you have the means to misuse it. Since I’m not a leftie, I have never sat down to try to figure out how to use all possible means to subvert an election. Hopefully some good guys somewhere have done just that and have then figured out how to combat that subversion.

There are limitless ways to commit fraud. And the more things you control, the more ways you can do it.

It’s like robbing a bank. You can barge in with a gun. You can gain access as an employee. You can co-opt an employee. You can rob it electronically via funds transfers. You can hijack an armored car. .... Those are just things I thought of in the time it took to type. Imagine a democrat task force dedicated to steal votes and what they might come up with.


561 posted on 02/22/2018 4:46:08 AM PST by generally ( Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

That Dilley report said popular vote count was hacked and Hillary had about 7 million votes flipped to her side... would have to go find exact numbers he is saying it is more like 70 mil for trump and 57 mil for Hillary.


675 posted on 02/22/2018 9:48:21 AM PST by AzNASCARfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson