Replies

"...Parikh, who has previously worked with election systems, testified that the settings on either the printers or the laptops at the vote centers that sent the ballot print jobs to the printers had to have been intentionally changed to cause the printer errors that were experienced on Election Day..."

The forensic analysis done in Antrim County in Michigan after the 2020 election showed that in various precincts in the county, 68% of scanned ballots failed to be read (with a failure rate of 90% in at least one county) and the failed scanned ballot images had to be shunted to an adjudication queue, where humans had to manually view them and assign them to various candidates.

If my memory serves me correctly, the critical log files showing the adjudication process (what logged in user adjudicated what votes, for whom, and at what date and time) on the Dominion servers were...gone. Missing. Deleted.

But they did not delete the log file that showed the optical scanning errors. (They probably didn't know it was there, or thought it was unimportant)

And in the log file on the scanning process, they could see the results clearly for successful and unsuccessful scan attempts, resulting in the failed scanned ballots being shunted into the adjudication queue. That gave them the 68% failure rate.

The Federal Election Commission allows a maximum error rate of just 0.0008 percent for computerized voting systems.

Furthermore, the cause was found to be anything ranging from gunk on the lens of the optical scanner (which as anyone knows who has to work with a lot of document scanners as I have...can happen) to the lens of the scanner being out of adjustment.

I found that "out of adjustment" reason to be interesting. Hardware adjustment, or software adjustment? They did not specify. But suspicious minds would wonder about that. If there is a calibration file for a printer (especially very expensive, purpose-built, high end document scanners such as these) then someone could manually edit that calibration file. Even edit it remotely.

Obviously, a hardware setting such as a manual adjustment screw which would require manipulation and then verification via testing that the optics were back within specifications would be harder to do, but...not impossible.

That would render the optics unable to correctly read the scanned document, resulting in a failure.

I said: "...Hardware adjustment, or software adjustment? They did not specify. But suspicious minds would wonder about that. If there is a calibration file for a printer..."

I meant a calibration file for a document scanner, not a printer.

I remember back in 99 when Chavez was elected, people were screaming about the Dominion voting machines.

I don’t understand why our side doesn’t by now have boots on the ground watching to prevent this crap.