Well… Isn’t that interesting.

More than a handful of people that read this blog are programmers. Anyone know the best way to get this into the hands of people that can actually do something about it?

Considering Washington State is an entirely vote-by-mail bubble-form and counted by machine state, the possibility of rigging by this method is more than a little plausible.

For what it’s worth, I found it from a Drudge link to Infowars, so it’s not like nobody else will hear about it, but…..

Banana Republic, anyone?

Update: Looks like YouTube’s view-count is getting messed with, just like the vote-count 🙁
After more than two hours with a DrudgeReport link, it’s only at 909 views, and 276 likes. Not bloody likely.

19 thoughts on “Well… Isn’t that interesting.

  1. Well, Stalin did say “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” We’re screwed.

  2. sirs:

    a serious comment.–

    the only way to get rid of election fraud on the scale we now experience, is to go back to the old precinct voting stations, “manned” with glinty eyed little old ladies, a democrat on one end of the table, a republican on the other, with paper registration documents. and, voter identification in conformity to the registration documents.

    and, a supervising manual counting, w/ canvassing board members present and supervising.

    it will take longer. but, it was fair and accurate in the old days, and it would be far better than what we have now, which is easily rigged. personally, i don’t think most democrats much more honest than hillary, or bill, or george soros. sorry dems, but, you are crooks to the core.

    john jay

    • 60% to 70% of people in prison identify as Democrat. This means that twice as many people in prison identify as Democrats as all other political parties combined.

      So, yes, it would appear Democrats are much more likely to be “crooks” than others.

      I, and many others, have a hypothesis and a considerable amount of evidence that it is even more serious than that. That hypothesis is that Democrats/Progressives/Socialists/Communists at least collectively, if not most individuals, have a mental disorder.

    • Agreed. Preferably with the purple finger to prevent double-dipping, too.

      I sent a polite letter with appropriate links to the King Country elections lady expressing my concerns. I’ll let people know what I hear back. Because according to This Link Washington State is one of the states that uses the questionable GEMS software.

  3. To quote from “What constitutes an election audit”
    “In my judgment, based upon three years’ experience auditing a rigged presidential election, the solution is this: paper ballots, counted by hand, in full public view, at the polling place, on Election Night, no matter how long it takes. In this way the counting takes place before any chain of custody questions have arisen, which effectively prevents the opportunity for wholesale election fraud associated with central tabulation. If this seems old-fashioned, so be it. When one is on the wrong path, a step backward is a step in the right direction.”

  4. The fractional vote thing is almost irrelevant. There may be a valid reason (“weighted races”, whatever that is) for using floating point numbers in the vote tallies. What is important is that the database appears to be easily modified. There should be some cryptographic protections for the state of the database. Perhaps hashes of all configuration and data files and preliminary reports saved after the system has passed tests and after every few minutes during the voting period.

    The big question I have is, are there at least any log files that could show the database has been modified? If not, then someone should go to jail.

    • I cannot cast a fractional vote, so there there be no reason to have fractional tallies. You vote for X, or Y, or not at all. integer math. The only place that floats or longs should show up is in the output summary fields for percentages of total. Everything else should be integer. The only reason to have “weighted voting” is if you are trying to skew an outcome by a certain percentage, or desire a particular percentage difference in the outcome.

      But yes, log files are an absolute rock bottom minimum, as long as they are verifiable. Part of the problem there, though, is that the number of people qualified to verify them is very small. I could teach a small team of average 6th graders to administer and verify a properly designed paper ballot voting system.

      • If you watched the entire video at the end there is some text with Q&A. When asked about the fractional results the answer was so the system could handle weighted votes. I presume this might show up in a case something like where a school bond vote could have different weights for voters with school age kids than from those who did not have school age kids. I don’t know where such voting occurs but it seems plausible that something like that is done someplace.

        • Depending on what such a vote weighted by school-aged dependents was for, that could either be a slam-dunk no problem or be a severe violation of equal protection and one-person-one-vote principles of the Voting Rights Act.
          You can bet the Leftists would remember the Joe Stalin quote if the Hated George Bush were to propose such a thing because of proportion of skin in the game.

        • A person has one vote per issue. If they are anonymous, then you cannot know who has kids or who doesn’t, and it doesn’t make any legal difference – I get the same vote for the bond with 2 kids as you do with three as the neighbor with zero. One person, one vote, one time. No weighting. If they have some sort of ‘special’ election situations that they are used for, I’ve never heard of it, and it’s likely not a public election.

        • I read the Fraction Magic Part 2 section and it mentions weighted elections, where weightings are applied to individuals, but that is a tiny, rare, subset that could easily be tallied by hand and done in Excel, because in those elections you have to have the voter and the vote connected and known. Lots of background there.

  5. A couple of decades ago I knew a WSU professor that quit using the machine-read mark-sense forms (fill in the bubble) for large class exams because the error rate was excessive. Not good enough for issuing student grades.

    But good enough for voting in Washington.

    • One detail: it’s not fill-in-the-bubble but connect-with-line. I’m not sure whether the two methods have notably different error rates, though.

  6. Is there a legal justification for disqualifying voting results from a jurisdiction if that jurisdiction cannot substantiate sufficient accuracy in the recording and tabulating of votes?

    I realize “substantiate” and “sufficient accuracy” are weasel phrases because they are not quantitified. Not to get into the Hanging Chads thing again, but even with paper ballots if it’s humans that are marking them there will be a certain percentage of errors requiring a certain number of ballots be disqualified (marking two selections in one category, a selection mark that is sufficiently incomplete as to sufficiently question selection intent, etc. Some of this can be avoided by adding a “none of the above” option, which seems eminently reasonable as an indicator of “I choose to not make a selection in this category,” voter dissatisfaction with the choices, and improving the integrity of the ballot by eliminating the ability for corruption of the ballot by nefarious means after the legitimate voter has submitted the ballot).

    I recognize that not all parties to an election share an equal desire for accuracy in recording and tabulating of votes, but I suspect this is an issue that will require resolution if the republic intends to continue leadership selection through an election process; I doubt adequate resolution will be achieved through utilization of any electronic vote recording and tabulating. If it takes longer to tabulate votes cast on paper ballots, first, increase the number of voting precincts to reduce the number of ballots per precinct (which would also have the advantage of reducing the potential for fraud, or error, because a particular precinct reporting results a standard deviation (or multiple standard deviations) from the area mean would immediately be suspect, and a mandatory recount procedure by external auditors could be activated), and, second, if accuracy is to be valued above immediacy it’s not unreasonable to have to wait 12-24 hours for final results.

    Standardization of paper ballot format across a jurisdiction – an entire state, for example (since the Constitution assigns to states the responsibility for holding elections) would, over time, acclimate voters to a consistent procedure for casting accurate and non-disqualifiable ballots.

  7. I watched a portion of that video hoping in vain to find meaningful content. None was there to be found, even though there were plenty of opportunities. PCs carried out of the building surreptitiously, election officials objecting to being filmed…
    Some examples. The fractional vote thing is obviously bogus, and there is no such thing in law as a “fractional vote”. But I don’t see how you can hang anything on that. I’m not sure what they attempted to hang on it; something about picking percentages of made up votes? They didn’t make the connection.
    The bit around 7:15 looking at a computer, saying “they won’t let us download recovery software” — so what? The way you do forensics on a computer is by making an image copy of the disk, then analyzing the copy.
    Re Rolf’s comment on a properly audited election: exactly. I made that point in a letter to the editor in the WSJ which they published a few weeks ago. The NH practice (at least in the smaller towns such as the one I live in) of using paper ballots but a scanner to count them is pretty reasonable; you still get a clean audit by hand counting if you decide a recount is needed. By contrast, recounts with voting machines are utterly meaningless. The other issue is the new fad of early and mail-in voting, aggressively pushed by Democrats for the same obvious reasons that they object to voter ID.

Comments are closed.