[E. Pluribus Unum]

How does this account for the fact that elections are locally run and the official results then transmitted to state officials? The accounting and tabulating is simply not a Federal responsibility.

According to Savage, a foreign company now owns the vote-counting operation. All results are sent to their central server. There is no way to audit the count once the results are sent.

Makes no sense to me. Each state can still publish their own count, and we can add them up.

[libstripper]

According to Savage, a foreign company now owns the vote-counting operation. All results are sent to their central server. There is no way to audit the count once the results are sent. As we learned from the Wisconsin Supreme Court election back in January (??) there are formal and informal vote counts. In that case AP got early results and called the DemonRat the winner. When the official count came out it turned out one county had been missed and the pubbie won. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that the outfit Savage is talking about is there to do an informal count based on the states' official counts. That could be a source of massive confusion, but not necessarily massive fraud. I want to know a lot more about the actual procedures before I accept what Savage said at face value.

[maine yankee]

Makes no sense to me. Each state can still publish their own count, and we can add them up.

---

Most comunities submit the data directly from the machine. They then receive their ‘local’ data via the internet.

Once the machine is ‘cleared’ there is no trail.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/192687/hacking-democracy