If the votes were removed from Trump digitally, a canvas and hand count will correct the vote assuming they don’t find enough corresponding ballots to match the machine tabulated votes. A count of actual votes will correct for any “software enhancement of vote switches”.. Even if they tried to hurriedly put thru a bunch of fake votes to cover, I doubt they’ve had time to hide their trails well and these ballots may get discovered or they discover the actual ballots are under the numbers of what the machines originally spat out. I think they’ll simply have not had enough time to “cover fake digital ones” with “fake real” ballots so they are attempting to bluff the numbers. I think of this method as being similar to check kiting. They’ve moved needed virtual votes around and they hope to run out the clock or fake enough real ballots to cover the scheme.
If they have ballots but the initial vote counts are over the amounts of ballots at hand then usually it’s because many of the ballots were run through the tabulators several times...like the type of fraud they found in Detroit in 2016.
Then there is the matter of the number of ballots (either absentee mail in or in person cast ballots) that don’t match the numbers of persons who were said to have voted in any given precinct; the voter visit logs don’t match.
Or the number of ballots are greater than those who were registered to vote in that district or even sometimes greater than the total population of any given precinct. The ballots are supposed to be sealed in special boxes after counting with a manifest describing the number of ballots in the boxes.
The courts in times past have often said such over votes don’t matter in the counting but with the election differences at 30000 or so in Pa...such over votes mean a great deal now and must be dealt with.
Sealed boxes with less ballots in them then what their manifests say are the most correctable. The wrong vote can be erased and the ballots in such a box can be re-counted “once”. So if a box that says “306 ballots” with 300 votes for Biden and 6 votes for Trump on the manifest only has 51 ballots in them(like what happened in one example in Detroit)...then Biden loses 250 votes and Trump loses only 5 because those ballots had been run thru 6 times. Trump actually gains because Biden loses votes.
That type of ballot fraud is the most fixable because at least you have ballots to work with. It’s also the most pervasive because the corrupt elections folks are banking on anyone not checking too close.
Votes that show greater than the registered amounts of voters are trickier to try and fix if ballots match the manifests of the boxes they are in but the visitor logs don’t match. You don’t have anything to go on as to wwhat was a fraudulant tvote and what wasn’t. That precinct is in the most danger of having their entire votes canceled and if other elections say...ward assemblyman are involved a new election for that precinct or ward might need to be ordered just like happened in NJ(and some corrupt people were arrested for fraud)where a new election got orderd.
I imagine a lot of corrupt election people are whistling past the graveyard in the swing states right now and hoping Trump just gives up and goes away.
See you are still concerned with which candidate won which ballot. The easier thing to do is to count the total number of ballots physically, initially. Should the physical count be off from the reported count then do a physical recount of ballots.
Everyone keeps saying that digital is easy to track. However as a DB Analyst, this is furthest from the truth. Digital breadcrumbs can be and have been manipulated before. They could be erased with a simple script that would have no footprint at all. As an example, system dates can be changed to produce a faulty date then all footprints in the system would not be in question as far as dates go. Many ways to get around the writing of a footprint in order to mke it look on the up and up.
If the votes were removed from Trump digitally, a canvas and hand count will correct the vote assuming they don’t find enough corresponding ballots to match the machine tabulated votes. A count of actual votes will correct for any “software enhancement of vote switches”.. Even if they tried to hurriedly put thru a bunch of fake votes to cover, I doubt they’ve had time to hide their trails well and these ballots may get discovered or they discover the actual ballots are under the numbers of what the machines originally spat out. I think they’ll simply have not had enough time to “cover fake digital ones” with “fake real” ballots so they are attempting to bluff the numbers. I think of this method as being similar to check kiting. They’ve moved needed virtual votes around and they hope to run out the clock or fake enough real ballots to cover the scheme.
Remove the issue of what was cast on the ballot. Concern your yourself with the total number of cast ballots. Count those first.
You are zeroed in on what is cast on the ballot versus the actual ballot itself. The number of ballots should match the total of reported results.
If the total count is equal to the reported then you can concern yourself with what is on the ballot. First lets deal with the irregularities reported by the total number of ballots cast not adding up because the same ballots were scanned multiple times. If a ballot is scanned twice you only have one (1) ballot for two votes. If you have 25 ballots scanned four times you have 100 votes for 25 ballots. Thus you would have 75 more total votes than ballots. This is that easy to determine.
If the machines are spot on and they use the scanner to verify from a random sampling of votes that the machine is correct then this is not addressing the real issue. The issue is not the machines. The issue becomes the people feeding the machines.