Replies

Great News for the Pillow Guy!

It’s not defamation if the machines don’t work right.

The process of counting the ballots run through the machine and comparing them to the tabulator results should be required on all machines in every election.

That won’t catch a deliberate vote switching code. But it will catch a tabulator dropping votes.

“The process of counting the ballots run through the machine and comparing them to the tabulator results should be required on all machines in every election.

That won’t catch a deliberate vote switching code. But it will catch a tabulator dropping votes.”

When I worked at the NASA AMES research center with the ILLIAC IV computing project, Part of our jobs as System operators was to run periodic full system tests. This was because of the nature of the system’s overall design. The system consisted of 66 processing units: 1 Main; 1 Master; and 64 Processing Units. The original concept used 256 Processing Units, due to its size and complexity and cost, it was downsized to the aforementioned size. As you can imagine accuracy was paramount. It was supposed to work within the sciences using Fluid Dynamics: like weather forecasting, climate change, tide flows, tectonic plate movements, etc.

To ensure each run was “true” we would test the entire system for an hour after each two-hour run. ANY error flagged the entire system for maint downtime, with the entire malfunctioning element being pulled, repaired, RE-TESTED, reinstalled, and ANOTHER system test performed. It also meant the app run had to be re-run, again.

As important as elections are to us all, I believe the same testing should be periodically run on the election “tabulators”. Yes, it would be a pain, but it would force increased accuracy into the process.