I have been trying to say that "2 things can be true" to many people for literally years now. Even with my limited knowledge of the relationships between hardware and software, it seems intuitively obvious that the issue is PEOPLE who write PROGRAMS. And unless you have access to the software/programs, you cannot prove anything in a court of law. Enter the vital importance of PAPER. But the question still remains. WHY cannot we get access to the software/programs too? Why can't a whistleblower provide the needed data even if there are proprietory rights and even if the product was created in another country?
Jovan, I've followed your work in elections for a long time. In your video report on the Maricopa forensic audit i recall that you stated that "a quarter of a million ballots were inserted by machine". Was other evidence than you show here used to determine that point? In your opinion, could machine insertion be provable in court?
The misleading term is "machine inserted" The machines do not insert. But there can be digital software programs which insert an image and then that image has to be manufactured into a physical ballot if they get audited. One is consider a hack boo boo and the other is a state and federal crimes but the machines do not insert ballots. Ballots are PAPER and words matter.
There were congressional hearings from the 2012 election, where a country in Philly had 140% of registered voters…all vote for Obama. Not one vote for Romney. I watched the testimony on C-SPAN, the guy from DieBold (no longer a company in business, bought out by another company) stated that you had to have a Ph.,D in computer science, in order to read the source code, to determine if the machines were flipping votes from Romney to Obama. I believe it was this case that started people down the rabbit hole of the machines flipping votes, and swaying elections.
Subsequently, what ever happened with that hearing, where 140% of the vote from 2012, in that Philadelphia county voted for Obama…not one vote for Romney? Nothing. Was the law already in place making the security of a machine voluntary…?
We just about need a law that all voting machines need to have their firmware (or software) open sourced for it to be legal to use in an election.
I have been trying to say that "2 things can be true" to many people for literally years now. Even with my limited knowledge of the relationships between hardware and software, it seems intuitively obvious that the issue is PEOPLE who write PROGRAMS. And unless you have access to the software/programs, you cannot prove anything in a court of law. Enter the vital importance of PAPER. But the question still remains. WHY cannot we get access to the software/programs too? Why can't a whistleblower provide the needed data even if there are proprietory rights and even if the product was created in another country?
Jovan, I've followed your work in elections for a long time. In your video report on the Maricopa forensic audit i recall that you stated that "a quarter of a million ballots were inserted by machine". Was other evidence than you show here used to determine that point? In your opinion, could machine insertion be provable in court?
The misleading term is "machine inserted" The machines do not insert. But there can be digital software programs which insert an image and then that image has to be manufactured into a physical ballot if they get audited. One is consider a hack boo boo and the other is a state and federal crimes but the machines do not insert ballots. Ballots are PAPER and words matter.
I support your work.
thank you
There were congressional hearings from the 2012 election, where a country in Philly had 140% of registered voters…all vote for Obama. Not one vote for Romney. I watched the testimony on C-SPAN, the guy from DieBold (no longer a company in business, bought out by another company) stated that you had to have a Ph.,D in computer science, in order to read the source code, to determine if the machines were flipping votes from Romney to Obama. I believe it was this case that started people down the rabbit hole of the machines flipping votes, and swaying elections.
Subsequently, what ever happened with that hearing, where 140% of the vote from 2012, in that Philadelphia county voted for Obama…not one vote for Romney? Nothing. Was the law already in place making the security of a machine voluntary…?
Buried since it pointed to over inflated voter rolls, and they do not want to look there.