> “... and the sender and receiver both see each other’s use of the whole number, ergo, risk of UNCAUGHT transmission error is or can be low.”
At the local and lower levels, you are correct. It’s the mixing in the sums that is hard to unravel.
For Candidate A:
County X has 43 votes
County Y has 26 votes
County Z has 31 votes
100 = 43+26+31 raw total
Counties X,Y,Z have 103 votes for Candidate B. Candidate B wins the raw vote 103 to 100.
Altered total for Candidate A
103 = 43+26+34 or
103 = 46+26+31 or
103 = 43+26+34 or other combinations.
103 vote total for Candidate B is downweighted by 3 to 100.
Candidate A wins the altered SUM total.
Each county confirms their vote count as true but they can’t verify the SUM totals of all counties because they don’t see the raw data of other counties.
This happened and was revealed in an investigation of GEMS = Global Election Management System which software configuration is controlled by Soros Quantum Group in Cayman.
But the investigators were funded by some democrat citizens to study the 2000 Bush-Gore standoff. The investigation went silent ostensibly because the weighting scheme was a tool by democrats to steal elections.
I'm still lost at how this weighting scheme is supposedly implemented. It seems to me the precinct totals wouldn't add up, and that is an obvious red flag. The sum of all counties is a public document. Everybody has an opportunity to check the addition. The campaigns highly likely check the math. Why can't each county likewise check the sum, in addition to checking that the tally uses the same number of votes it reported?