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
EXCELLENT explanation.
Many, many thanks!
Another thing that we ought to do is have voters sign in when they vote.
When I go to vote, they ask for my name and address (and for the past few years my ID). Then they check it off on a master list of voters.
Why would they not also have a voter SIGN IN to verify that he/she voted? That would be a simple step which would help track fraud.
Probably tiny in comparison to the weighting scheme you describe, but every bit helps.
(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).
Smartmatic lone eligible bidder for touchscreen voting system ...
Dec 16, 2014 - The joint venture led by Smartmatic-Total Information Management (TIM) Corporation was the only bidder that passed the first stage of the bidding for the lease of touchscreen voting machines for the 2016 national elections. On Tuesday, December 16, the bids and awards committee (BAC) of the ...
Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers.
As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.
It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS. I urge you to dive into her multi-part series, Fraction Magic (Part-1 here). Here are key Harris quotes. They’re all shockers: “Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”
“This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.”
“GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.”
“Instead of ‘1’ the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.”
“Weighting a race [through the use of GEMS] removes the principle of ‘one person-one vote’ to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.”
“All evidence that [rigged] fractional values ever existed [in the GEMS system] can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the [rigged] decimals will fail to reveal they were used.”
“Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers [i.e., rigging] are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.”
A contact who, so far, apparently wishes to remain anonymous states the following about the history of the GEMS system:
“The Fractional vote [rigging] portion traces directly to Jeffrey W. Dean, whose wife was primary stockholder of the company that developed GEMS. He ran the company but was prohibited from handling money or checks due to a criminal conviction for computer fraud, for which he spent 4 years in prison. Almost immediately after being released from prison he was granted intimate access to elections data and large government contracts for ballot printing and ballot processing.”
I see no effort on the part of the federal government, state governments, or the mainstream press to investigate the GEMS system or respond to Bev Harris’ extensive analysis.
It’s not as if media outlets are unaware of her. From shesource.org, here is an excerpt from her bio:
“Harris has been referred to as ‘the godmother’ of the election reform movement. (Boston Globe). Vanity Fair magazine credits her with founding the movement to reform electronic voting. Time Magazine calls her book, Black Box Voting, ‘the bible’ of electronic voting… Harris’s investigations have led some to call her the ‘Erin Brockovich of elections.’ (Salon.com)… Harris has supervised five ‘hack demonstrations’ in the field, using real voting machines. These have been covered by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and in formal reports by the United States General Accounting Office…”
So far, her analysis of GEMS seems to be labeled “too hot to handle.” Press outlets prefer to report the slinging of mud from both Presidential candidates’ camps. Meanwhile, the actual results of the coming elections—including Congressional races—appear to be up for grabs, depending on who controls GEMS.
I vote for paper ballots, blue ink on finger, observers for your candidate at every precinct, observers during counting of ballots. Candidate election observers must keep the poll workers honest! Sanctity of the vote with picture ID as well. MAGA!