Resistive
Capacitive
Posted on 08/28/2019 10:11:02 AM PDT by RummyChick
Especially if it was in a sub routine named ‘LogAction’ and it was written in assembly to ‘ make it run faster’. Most developers today couldn’t be bothered with finding out what it was actually doing.
Especially if it was in a sub routine named ‘LogAction’ and it was written in assembly to ‘ make it run faster’. Most developers today couldn’t be bothered with finding out what it was actually doing.
I’m hired at about 180 dollars an hour to analyze things like this.
If someone wanted to code this to change a vote, it’s software. There is no need to let the user know their vote has been changed.
Basically, I could choose my candidate, and watch it submit that candidate. The change would be invisible and instantaneous. It would happen at several points, not at my fingertips.
The democrats are very adept at election fraud. With electronic voting there are multiple ways to cheat. Democrats always use multiple layers of cheating in elections. Phony calibration is likely one. Especially since, oddly enough, these errors almost always go in the democrats favor. Add in ballot harvesting, non registered voters, multiple voting, busing in voters, election boards run by democrats, etc. Multiple layers. And then toss in the republicans who run to their defense. Why would democrats not cheat?
I recall reading during the Obama elections that most voting machines were owned by Soros entities and serviced by SEIU.
Hear.Hear.
...or hare hare...
...for the bunny with a pancake crowd
Software bugs don’t work this way.
It's always nice when folks loudly demonstrate their ignorance.
The screen is probably miscalibrated.
If someone other than a drama queen wanted to vote for Waller, they'd just touch a bit, or a lot, below his name.
It would be very interesting to see an empirical study analyzing the number of tight races that went to Democrats over the past few decades. The data is readily available and would probably show that something is persistently tipping the scales and/or reversing initial voting results.
The RNC should be all over this. But they’re never going to do it.
The system is coded that way, probably not to do it every time but only enough to run up the dems total.
It's OK to read the article.
Resistive
Capacitive
> Everything after that is software
There is absolutely no need for software of any kind in a voting machine. The presence of software in such a machine introduces completely unnecessary uncertainty that is directly damaging to any claim of legitimacy derived from an election conducted with these devices.
If it ain’t 100% mechanical and doesn’t leave a verifiable paper trail... fraud is overwhelmingly likely to be present.
I absolutely agree. It is an open invitation.
Yes, you can still have voter registration fraud and vote harvesting, but the integrity of the vote at the polling location is ensured. New Mexico, with all its problems otherwise, uses this method. One other thing, NM has consolidated precincts so that you can vote at any one of them within a county - closer to work than to home, for example.
This is why paper ballots are so important. Here in Minnesota they get it right, using an optical w/scanner that feeds into a sealed box. The totals at any polling place can can be verified by unsealing the box and recounting the paper ballots with a Mark I eyeball.
Cheating is still possible but it has to be done old school (e.g., the car trunk full of ballots ‘found’ for Al Franken); paper really helps to limit the electronic shenanigans.
It took the vote away from the Republican candidate. As far as Dems are concerned, it’s working perfectly.
JTDC, does anybody read before posting?
It's right in the title:
Shocking video shows touch-screen polling machine malfunctioning and repeatedly changing voter's selection in Mississippi's GOP governor primary runoff
Where are the Democrats screaming that their votes were changed?
Maybe they read the article.
Or didn't vote in the GOP Primary.
-PJ
This is like saying a physical keyboard has to be calibrated. Where you touch the screen is hard coded with firmware in the screen controller and pretty static and accurate. the variables cannot mistake areas on the screen that far apart. “interpretive” software that can be coded as liked “decides” where it “thinks” you touched after that.
The fact that it changed and removed the “write in” button as part of him touching his choice button proves that there were actually “two” software controlled operations that happened at one time, one because of the other. Two simultaneous operations like that absolutely rules out peripheral “calibration” of any kind.
It’s run by a computer. It didn’t malfunction. Machines don’t inadvertently mark a box. The program was programmed wrong. This should be a simple program to write, so my conclusion is that this is deliberately done by a programmer.
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.