Posted on 07/31/2017 8:32:26 AM PDT by davikkm
When former President Barack Obama mocked Donald Trump for suggesting that there could even be such a thing as voter fraud: “What? What does that even mean?” It was clear to all those who had not drunk the Kool-Aid that not only was it possible, but that it was likely, and likely on an enormous scale.
The MSM told us simple viewers how wonderful the voting system was and that the machines couldn’t be tampered with and that the electoral integrity was assured…and don’t forget to laugh at the guy who suggested it. Well we weren’t so silly after all. In Las Vegas, a bunch of tech workers have gathered for their conference and a treat had been laid on for them. They entered into a competition to Hack Voting Machines.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
Not much of a competition. IF you are handed a voting machine, you can ‘hack’ it. The security for voting machines is physical (they are locked up and guarded, and they are not connected to any computer networks during their time of use).
They are also tested randomly, to make sure they don’t come with viruses, although technically you could, if you knew the exact test, write hacked software that would give correct results until the actual vote, and then tweak things a bit.
THere is also supposed to be other safeguards, like comparing total votes, such that your hack really has to be able to modify results in subtle ways, not just generate additional votes. The official s/w can protect against this (like you shouldn’t allow fractional votes).
The hacking contest violated many of the security protocols.
POTUS Donald Trump is proof the powers that be do not have control of the electoral apparatus.
However, there are individual cells of corruption in every state of the Union. And they are of consequence in many cases.
Somehow I don't think anyone is going to get 90 minutes alone with a voting machine and their handy gadgets, never mind the dozen or more voting machines that are actually used on election day.
And wifi? A voting box has no reason to be wifi enabled. They should not even have the capability.
That, I agree, is insane.
Ummmm, voting machines are not connected to the internet, the country does not have only one system, some places still count ballots by hand, how do you hack that?
“The hacking contest violated many of the security protocols.”
Just another round of “fake news” generated to keep stirring the “Russia, Russia, Russia” story to new lows. Too bad so many are so poorly informed or aware as to accept this as being any part of reality.
GEMS = Global Election Management System
Whether a voting machine is connected ot not, it doesn’t matter. All vote tallies are uploaded via GEMS.
GEMS is administered by a Soros company.
The darkweb buzz on election night November 8, 2016 was that Satellite uplinks were tapped by Soros people to skew the counts but were stopped by IT people connected to NYPD/Field FBI who were not going to allow Hillary Clinton to steal the election. Hence, Hillary has launched a ‘Russians hacked her election victory’ to reverse her attempted theft.
The fact of the matter is that election integrity is extremely vulnerable. It’s almost a given that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, the corruption of the voting systems would have been completed. Remember DHS Jeh Johnson claiming he had jurisdiction over election cyber security in the months before the election only to be implicated in the break in of several SOS voter databases.
Watch and learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t75xvZ3osFg
For reliable vote fraud, the old-fashioned ways are better and cheaper.
Just suborn your County Clerk or Election Commissioner and insert a sufficient number of imaginary voters onto the rolls. Then keep track of those names and make sure those ballots get cast for the candidate/issue of your choice.
"Absentee Ballots" and "Mail-in Ballots" make it all so easy.
Avoid getting too enthusiastic with ballot-box stuffing. The regular appearance of precincts with 120% "voter turnout" for the Democrats might raise embarrassing questions.
That seems rather implausible. Each precinct checks the results locally. Even if the results are sent electronically, they are later reconciled with the local tally. IF there are discrepancies, the consolidated counts are adjusted to match the local tally.
So there is no way hacking the vote collection itself could impact an election, it would be caught and corrected with the local results certification.
There are lots of ways to “hack” an election. Only some of them involve hacking software.
We already know there are numerous illegal and zombie voters on the rolls. And you aren’t allowed to ask for ID in most places.
Anyone remember Jill Steyn’s recount? In most of Michigan, the recount revealed that the count had been shaved slightly in Clinton’s favor, but in Detroit the discrepancies were on the order of several hundred percent. That’s when the judges stepped in and shut down the recount.
Numerous precincts around the country will show 100% voter turnout, which is unlikely, and some show more votes than voters. Then there is the Al Franken method, that happens occasionally, where they keep recounting until they get the answer they want.
As for electronic machines, these can be rigged to shave votes and only on the day of the election. A lot of people report the machine registering a candidate other than the one they selected. But if it didn’t show you on the screen, if it just shaves the count in software, how would you know? The only way an electronic machine is trustworthy is if it gives you a hard copy that is also saved for recount.
Democrats have placed a lot of importance on controlling Secretary of State positions at the state level, which controls elections. That gives them a lot of influence over how things are organized.
A lot of areas, even urban areas, no longer have voting places. Everyone in the neighborhood is sent a mail-in ballot. This opens the door to mischief, if you have a database showing zombie voters.
And activists will carry fistfuls of ballots into old-folks homes and jails and “help” people fill them out. They will be local celebrities in the party, as they can be counted on to deliver large blocks of votes on election day. There is no way of knowing, nor any interest in knowing, how many of those ballots are zombies.
Be real...she forgot about the non-black, non-Hispanic, LEGAL WORKING CLASS.
Of course. You think cyber criminals haven't thought of that? You do realize that trillions of dollars are at stake in a national election?
The operative word you used was 'local'.
Results shown back to local offices will match what are expected. But other 'local' offices can't be verified by a particlar local office and vice versa. And therein lies one weakness. The totals of all local offices cause a mix that blanks out actual results of particular localities. Yes, there are IT programmers with fairly high math IQs that write algorithms to do just that.
Below is reposted an extremely easy example where you will see local results agree with what is known but in which the election is stolen. Note that hundreds of scenes and algorithms can accomplish the same goal. Note that only Block Chain Technology can solve the security problem in voting such as being tested now in Australia (Google Block Chain Technology and Australia). Here's the easy example:
*******************************************************************************
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' rounded up from 0.80 but the system has created and stored '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 | 1.20 |
| 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.
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.
We already know the dems are crooks by nature and have no problem at all cheating as long as they win. To them the end justifies the means even if that means we don’t have an honest election. They are criminals and criminals don’t have a conscience or sense of honor or decency to bother them after the fact like conservatives do. Something like that would eat us alive but they just laugh at us for this and think it’s a weakness. I guess in a twisted way; it kinda is.
A simple change in code to the bank of machines before the election could cause votes to be tallied to favor a certain candidate regardless of how we voted. A flash drive, some instruction, and a corrupt dem which are never hard to find, is all it would take. Repeat across the country enough to change the election or just in those toss up states and it’s done deal.
New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes from 2016 Election
The Institute concluded in its report that thousands of votes in the 2016 election were illegal duplicate votes from people who registered and voted in more than one state.
Regarding POTUS elections, patriots are reminded that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly give ordinary citizens the power to vote for POTUS.
The only reason that ordinary citizens now vote for POTUS is because the anti-constitutional republic Progressive Movement successfully spooked the states to stray from the 12th Amendment (12A) procedure for electing POTUS.
Under 12A, the only people who actually have the constitutional authority to vote for POTUS are state electors, only 538 electors having the constitutional authority to vote for POTUS in the 2016 elections, not the constitutionally meaningless 100+ million ordinary citizens, probably also illegal aliens, who voted in 2016.
And in stark contrast to electronic ballot machines that can evidently be rigged, 538 votes is still reasonably (imo) manageable for the President of the Senate to hand count as indicated by the 12A.
Patriots also need to understand that probably the only reason that citizens are so concerned about who is POTUS is because they have never been taught about the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
And as a consequence of not knowing about the fed’s limited powers, they don’t understand that nearly all federal domestic policy and spending is based on unique state powers and state revenues uniquely associated with those powers that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification feds have stolen and continue to steal from the states, state revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
If the states were still complying with 12A as they should be, and only the state legislatures still electing federal senators as the Founding States had intended, then consider the following.
Since one of the very few federal “social spending” programs that the Founding States actually gave the feds the express constitutional authority to run is the US Mail Service (1.8.7), if domestic federal policy were limited to the mail and the very few other services that the feds actually have the express constitutional to run, the states left to caring for the people as the Founding States had intended, then citizens would probably lose interest in the federal government to the extent that citizens would probably have to guess who the current POTUS is.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphasis added]." —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See middle of third column.)
Drain the swamp sewer! Drain the sewer!
Remember in November 2018 !
Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the sewer (imo) that Trump wants to drain, it is actually up to patriots to drain the sewer in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers shown in this post.
Also, unlike incumbent members of Congress who wrongly remained silent while misguided state officials abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens during the lawless Obama Administration, patriots need to make sure that candidates on the 2018 primary ballots commit to the following.
Candidates need to commit to making and enforcing 14th Amendment-related laws to prosecute misguided state officials who use state powers to abridge constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech for example, such actions prohibited by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Again, drain the sewer! Drain the sewer!
Exactly. Give me physical access to a system and all kinds of mayhem can follow.
I am aware of the fractional issue, which is why in my original post I mentioned specifically that your software needs to be written and tested to ensure it does not allow fractional voting.
I would also note that in any close election, there are hundreds of people who grab all the local data and add it up themselves, and also compare the local data to historical data looking for any sign of anomaly, and any one of these people would immediately notice a failure for the numbers to add up.
I have regularly captured the state data and put it into my own spreadsheet by cut-and-paste, which means if they showed the results in whole numbers, that’s what my spreadsheet used. And I would notice if my total didn’t match the total on the web site. And any locality would notice if the numbers shown on the state page didn’t match their locality.
For fractional tricks to work, you’d have to have some way of ensuring that nobody manually tried to add up the numbers themselves. Our elections, especially national ones, are not like that. We all want to capture and use the data
(I tend to use the data to do weird stuff, like check to see what the national vote would be like if every state voted in the same proportion to their total adult population — because one theory I have is that republicans come out low on popular vote because we tend to live in states where it is harder to vote, and therefore allow fewer adults to “represent” our vote since there is no doubt in the outcome. THis of course is what the electoral college does for us.)
Writing the software to avoid this or that won’t prevent cyber breaches.
Like I said, there are hundreds and hundreds of schemes to reach the goal of stealing an election. For example, absentee ballots that are of fake people. And a County elections Officer or Commissioner may be in on it as happened in Seattle King County in 2004 with Director of Elections Dean Logan, and others under him.
There are more than 3000 counties in the United States and not all counties will have people that scrub down every tally as you suggest. Before anyone gets to the truth, the issue is settled long ago. The lawsuit would be horrendously expensive and most judges are not going to decertify an election based on anomalous behavior in a few precincts.
The avoidance has to happen REAL-TIME. There are people that are working on precisely that.
Block Chain Technology is the way to go.
Study it here and in various other sites:
https://followmyvote.com/online-voting-technology/blockchain-technology
And don’t jump to conclusions that Block Chains can be hacked successfully; they can’t because of the mathematics of the process behind them, and Block Chains are a process. What can be hacked are accounts that feed the Block Chain process but that is easy to discover and recover from because there have to be so many account break-ins to make a difference that a computer alarm would be set off to shut down the process and reset to the last known point of validity.
As bad as paper ballots can be, electronic voting is worse, as the crime happens invisibly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.