Dominion vote switching physically impossible

[Tanj]

On the contrary



Was the US Election Stolen?

From inline sources: Critical Flaws in Election Security Confirmed by Dominion Voting Executive

Does this table tampering also magically alter the paper printout? If so how? If not your counter example is nonsense.

 

[98cwitr]

Does this table tampering also magically alter the paper printout? If so how? If not your counter example is nonsense.

They would need to destroy the paper ballot to make it work. Make the ballot count match the machine. Then it would be on the citizen who had their ballot destroyed to have the concern to ask for the county or precinct where they voted to reproduce their ballot.

 

[Tanj]

They would need to destroy the paper ballot to make it work. Make the ballot count match the machine. Then it would be on the citizen who had their ballot destroyed to have the concern to ask for the county or precinct where they voted to reproduce their ballot.

So in a paper only election the evil schemers only need to destroy the ballot, but in the Dominion system they have to destroy the ballot and alter the machine, and it's still your argument the latter is easier.

When the evil shemers were a tamperin' and destroyin', why didn't they at least keep the house majority and take the senate?

I am also interested in how in a private ballot system which the US and all western democracies use in which the ballot is anonymised before counting how, without divine, magical help, the ballot can be "reproduced", and I once again wonder how it is possible for anyone to have such a poor understanding of the basics of how democracy works.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So in a paper only election the evil schemers only need to destroy the ballot, but in the Dominion system they have to destroy the ballot and alter the machine, and it's still your argument the latter is easier.

When the evil shemers were a tamperin' and destroyin', why didn't they at least keep the house majority and take the senate?

I am also interested in how in a private ballot system which the US and all western democracies use in which the ballot is anonymised before counting how, without divine, magical help, the ballot can be "reproduced", and I once again wonder how it is possible for anyone to have such a poor understanding of the basics of how democracy works.

The only ballot reproduction I know about are ballots that are damaged and can't be read by the machine are carefully copied (with at least 2 people) to a clean ballot that is fed to the reader, or special ballots like Braille ballots for the blind copied onto standard forms.

 

[Tanj]

The only ballot reproduction I know about are ballots that are damaged and can't be read by the machine are carefully copied (with at least 2 people) to a clean ballot that is fed to the reader, or special ballots like Braille ballots for the blind copied onto standard forms.

That certainly follows the dictionary definition of the word "reproduction" but in no way assess the ability for a voter to reproduce their own vote, or anyone to reproduce the vote of a specific voter.

 

[SimplyMe]

There were new rules imposed just before the election, illegally, to make it easier for illegal votes to be cast. Never heard of your cash reward story, many witnesses have sworn affidavits under threat of perjury and five years in prison.

You use this idea that the "threat of perjury and five years in prison" is somehow evidence that the affidavits all have to be true. The fact is, that isn't the case. Instead, the Trump campaign solicited most of these affidavits and, the issue is, many that the affidavits the Trump campaign received were proven false.

The best example of this is video from one of the Trump campaign's trials in Arizona, where the judge talks to Trump's lawyers about the affidavits, and it is very telling.

While the video is short (only a minute or so), to give you an even briefer recap -- the judge confirms with the Trump lawyers that they solicited the affidavits and that the Trump campaign admitted that many of the affidavits they received were proven to be false claims, though those were not included in the case.

The Trump lawyer makes sure to point out that the affidavits included in the lawsuit are sworn statements and it would be perjury if these are untrue. The judge then points out, the affidavits that the Trump campaign could prove were false were also given under oath, with the same penalties for perjury. As such, that when their method of obtaining the false affidavits would appear to unreliable, since it generated affidavits proven to be false.

This has been an issue in all the Trump lawsuits -- affidavits frequently being found to be "inaccurate" (I'll avoid saying they lied, since most likely did not). Instead, it shows that they didn't understand the process, didn't understand what they were seeing -- though some (as the Trump lawyer's found) were outright fraudulent. In one of the cases the Trump campaign brought in Michigan, they found that most (from what I recall) of the affidavits were wrong, the judge found that if the Trump election observers had merely attended the orientation that occurred prior to the election, that most of them would not have been submitted -- they would have understood what they saw happen rather than call it "fraud."

It is also worth noting that most of the things alleged in press conferences by the Trump lawyers -- particularly about actual fraud -- have never been brought up in court, in any of the states. I'm going to assume that they lawyers got "excited" thinking they found real evidence, but when they got the signed affidavit and investigated, they found these were some of the fraudulent affidavits -- where the claims were not true or had an innocent explaination. For example, my recollection is that one case where claims were made of "boxes of ballots" being brought in through the back door, ended up just being a catering truck, bringing in boxes of food for the election workers.

The truth is Republican observers were prevented from doing their jobs by Democrat officials--a blatant violation of law. No other election in the U.S. has come close to the law- breaking we have seen.

I'd believe it if you claimed that, no other election has generated the number of affidavits -- but again, the affidavits have largely been proven to be false or not actual cases of fraud. In fact, most of the "true" affidavits have to do with being able to "observe" elections; and those cases have almost all been dismissed by the courts. Yes, in one case, a court allowed the observers to get closer -- lowering the distance from 10 feet to 6 feet. Though, it is also worth pointing out that the Trump campaign appealed that decision -- both because they didn't like the decision and "issues" obseverers claimed where they believed Philadelphia wasn't following the court's orders -- and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision, ruling completely against the Trump campaign. The Supreme Court ruled that keeping observers 10 feet away did not violate Pennsylvania law.

When you look at the actual evidence -- such as what Homeland Security and the DoJ has done -- they have found this, as I pointed out, as one of the safest and securist in US history. As the courts have kept pointing out, despite the "penalty of perjury," the affidavits (to this point) have not been found to show any reliable claims of voter fraud in the election. Instead, the judges keep dismissing the lawsuits and even chiding the Trump lawyers for their lack of actual evidence or even actual claims of fraud.

The attacks by left wingers, such as during the MAGA march in Washington D.C., were horrific-whether against the elderly or families.

Great, I can agree that violence is wrong. At the same time, I would hope you would condemn the numerous right wing individual that has phoned in death threats to the various election boards, the Georgia Republican Secretary of State, etc. Not to mention the "disruption" tactics that have been used by Trump supporters outside of election halls (which is what caused Philadelphia to block the windows), such as banging on windows and loud chanting outside the rooms where the vote counting was taking place.

The latest polling shows 79% of Trump voters believe the election was stolen. To the other 21%, please take the time to read through the affidavits that have been filed.

Again, many of which the Trump lawyers own investigations proved were false. If you can find one that held up in court as actually being evidence of fraud, I'd love to see it.

We know Democrat officials prevented legal Republican observers from doing their jobs --in violation of U.S. law.

As I mentioned above, it was found that many of the affidavits did not actual show where illegal events occured, instead it showed that the person who made the claims did not understand election law or the election process.

Your above statement appears to show you don't understand election law, as there is no "US law" on observing elections. Instead, every state has their own laws governing elections, and so each state determines what kind of access observers get, how close they are entitled to be, etc. And what has been found in every case so far, filed by the Trump campaign, is that election boards have, with very few exceptions, followed their state's laws. Again, even the case where the Trump campaign "won" in a lower court, where observers were allowed to move closer, they lost on appeal.

Your claim has literally been proven false, at least going by the court rulings.

The affidavits fill in some of what happened during that time. No matter the results of the election, we need to see the law-breakers are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law so that this never happens again.

I will agree, there has been some fraud in this election and the people responsible should be prosecuted. For example, there are at least a couple of cases of Trump supporters that were found to have illegally requested ballots, such as this case.

As I pointed out in another post -- Trump claimed fraud in 2016, yet despite being President and forming a commission to find that fraud, he never found any evidence of the "massive fraud" he claimed. He was then President the last four years and never proposed any real tightening of the election process, to prevent the fraud he claimed occurred but couldn't prove.

Now, in 2020 -- even before the election -- he was predicting that same type of fraud, fraud he had not worked on preventing, was going to occur again in this election. Instead, the election occurred and Trump is out looking for anything that one of his supporters suspects might be fraud -- not really concerned if true or not until after the affidavit is signed. He then uses those stories, many false, to "energize" his base and get them upset about "voter fraud."

Of course, then his campaign investigates and finds that the fraud claims pan out. Instead, they use the affidavits of "irregular" things that various Republican election observers claim to have seen. None actually claim "fraud," merely that they weren't allowed "close" enough, or that some poll worker didn't follow the rules correctly, etc. And, after a judge reviews the affidavits they find that there is no evidence of any election issues -- and the Trump lawyers haven't even brought any claims of fraud.

I won't try to claim to know why Trump keeps making these "fraud" claims. What is clear, however; is whatever his reason it is something he has done in two elections now and, despite the power of the Presidency, he has never been able to show any actual fraud occurred in either election.

 

[98cwitr]

So in a paper only election the evil schemers only need to destroy the ballot, but in the Dominion system they have to destroy the ballot and alter the machine, and it's still your argument the latter is easier.

When the evil shemers were a tamperin' and destroyin', why didn't they at least keep the house majority and take the senate?

I am also interested in how in a private ballot system which the US and all western democracies use in which the ballot is anonymised before counting how, without divine, magical help, the ballot can be "reproduced", and I once again wonder how it is possible for anyone to have such a poor understanding of the basics of how democracy works.

Sure, it's more overhead, but key states are key states.

 

[Arcangl86]

Sure, it's more overhead, but key states are key states.

What? Nobody is talking about overhead. We are talking about securing ballot secrecy. There is no way to have a secret ballot and be able to find specific ballots after they have been counted.

 

[98cwitr]

What? Nobody is talking about overhead. We are talking about securing ballot secrecy. There is no way to have a secret ballot and be able to find specific ballots after they have been counted.

Do you know if your county's election board can and is willing to reproduce your ballot once the election is certified in your state?

 

[Arcangl86]

Do you know if your county's election board can and is willing to reproduce your ballot once the election is certified in your state?

No, they can't. Because for them to be able to do so, they would need to connect a specific ballot to me. That defeats the whole purpose of a secret ballot.

 

[trunks2k]

No, they can't. Because for them to be able to do so, they would need to connect a specific ballot to me. That defeats the whole purpose of a secret ballot.

Which is why in a routine audit you take a sample of the physical ballots count them manually and see if they are a statistical match to the the electronic count. Any vote switching would be apparent by doing that.

This is the problem people (including myself) had with electronic voting machines back in the early 2000s when they were starting to become a thing. Many of the machines getting put into use did not produce a physical, paper copy of your ballot that can be used for auditing. When I was an undergrad, I wrote at least two papers as part of my Computer Science degree as to why those sorts of machines are a bad, bad idea.

However, things have largely changed. In my area (Philadelphia) we put in our blank paper ballot into the machine, make our selections, then hit a button. The machine prints out the ballot and displays it to you under glass so you can't touch it. If the ballot looks good to you, you hit "Submit Vote", the machine then drops the physical ballot into a secure container and the vote is recorded electronically. If I find a problem with the ballot, I can hit a button to reject it, then the vote is electronically cancelled and the paper is spit back to me so I can hand it to an election worker to be spoiled and start all over. This system lets us do fast counts and easy, verifiable audits. That's a good system.

 

[Arcangl86]

Which is why in a routine audit you take a sample of the physical ballots count them manually and see if they are a statistical match to the the electronic count. Any vote switching would be apparent by doing that.

This is the problem people (including myself) had with electronic voting machines back in the early 2000s when they were starting to become a thing. Many of the machines getting put into use did not produce a physical, paper copy of your ballot that can be used for auditing. In my area (Philadelphia) we put in our blank paper ballot into the machine, make our selections, then hit a button. The machine prints out the ballot and displays it to you under glass so you can't touch it. If the ballot looks good to you, you hit "Submit Vote", the machine then drops the physical ballot into a secure container and the vote is recorded electronically. If I find a problem with the ballot, I can hit a button to reject it, then the vote is electronically cancelled and the paper is spit back to me so I can hand it to an election worker to be spoiled and start all over. This system lets us do fast counts and easy, verifiable audits.

I agree that all electronic systems should have a paper backup. In Boston they use a physical ballot that you fill out with a pen and then is read by an optical scanner. So physical voting, but electronic counting. But same thing, they can hand count if there is suspected issues with the machines.

 

[trunks2k]

I agree that all electronic systems should have a paper backup. In Boston they use a physical ballot that you fill out with a pen and then is read by an optical scanner. So physical voting, but electronic counting. But same thing, they can hand count if there is suspected issues with the machines.

And as has been noted, Georgia uses Dominion voting machines extensively. They did a hand recount of the physical ballots, and found no discrepancies. Assuming the voters get to actually see their physical ballots before the vote is cast, then that shows there's no vote switching going on.

 

[Desk trauma]

Do you know if your county's election board can and is willing to reproduce your ballot once the election is certified in your state?

That would be impossible as all ballots, once cast, have no means of being tracked back to the voter who cast them. Were you unaware of that?

 

[Valletta]

You use this idea that the "threat of perjury and five years in prison" is somehow evidence that the affidavits all have to be true. The fact is, that isn't the case. Instead, the Trump campaign solicited most of these affidavits and, the issue is, many that the affidavits the Trump campaign received were proven false.

The best example of this is video from one of the Trump campaign's trials in Arizona, where the judge talks to Trump's lawyers about the affidavits, and it is very telling.

While the video is short (only a minute or so), to give you an even briefer recap -- the judge confirms with the Trump lawyers that they solicited the affidavits and that the Trump campaign admitted that many of the affidavits they received were proven to be false claims, though those were not included in the case.

The Trump lawyer makes sure to point out that the affidavits included in the lawsuit are sworn statements and it would be perjury if these are untrue. The judge then points out, the affidavits that the Trump campaign could prove were false were also given under oath, with the same penalties for perjury. As such, that when their method of obtaining the false affidavits would appear to unreliable, since it generated affidavits proven to be false.

This has been an issue in all the Trump lawsuits -- affidavits frequently being found to be "inaccurate" (I'll avoid saying they lied, since most likely did not). Instead, it shows that they didn't understand the process, didn't understand what they were seeing -- though some (as the Trump lawyer's found) were outright fraudulent. In one of the cases the Trump campaign brought in Michigan, they found that most (from what I recall) of the affidavits were wrong, the judge found that if the Trump election observers had merely attended the orientation that occurred prior to the election, that most of them would not have been submitted -- they would have understood what they saw happen rather than call it "fraud."

It is also worth noting that most of the things alleged in press conferences by the Trump lawyers -- particularly about actual fraud -- have never been brought up in court, in any of the states. I'm going to assume that they lawyers got "excited" thinking they found real evidence, but when they got the signed affidavit and investigated, they found these were some of the fraudulent affidavits -- where the claims were not true or had an innocent explaination. For example, my recollection is that one case where claims were made of "boxes of ballots" being brought in through the back door, ended up just being a catering truck, bringing in boxes of food for the election workers.



I'd believe it if you claimed that, no other election has generated the number of affidavits -- but again, the affidavits have largely been proven to be false or not actual cases of fraud. In fact, most of the "true" affidavits have to do with being able to "observe" elections; and those cases have almost all been dismissed by the courts. Yes, in one case, a court allowed the observers to get closer -- lowering the distance from 10 feet to 6 feet. Though, it is also worth pointing out that the Trump campaign appealed that decision -- both because they didn't like the decision and "issues" obseverers claimed where they believed Philadelphia wasn't following the court's orders -- and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision, ruling completely against the Trump campaign. The Supreme Court ruled that keeping observers 10 feet away did not violate Pennsylvania law.

When you look at the actual evidence -- such as what Homeland Security and the DoJ has done -- they have found this, as I pointed out, as one of the safest and securist in US history. As the courts have kept pointing out, despite the "penalty of perjury," the affidavits (to this point) have not been found to show any reliable claims of voter fraud in the election. Instead, the judges keep dismissing the lawsuits and even chiding the Trump lawyers for their lack of actual evidence or even actual claims of fraud.



Great, I can agree that violence is wrong. At the same time, I would hope you would condemn the numerous right wing individual that has phoned in death threats to the various election boards, the Georgia Republican Secretary of State, etc. Not to mention the "disruption" tactics that have been used by Trump supporters outside of election halls (which is what caused Philadelphia to block the windows), such as banging on windows and loud chanting outside the rooms where the vote counting was taking place.



Again, many of which the Trump lawyers own investigations proved were false. If you can find one that held up in court as actually being evidence of fraud, I'd love to see it.



As I mentioned above, it was found that many of the affidavits did not actual show where illegal events occured, instead it showed that the person who made the claims did not understand election law or the election process.

Your above statement appears to show you don't understand election law, as there is no "US law" on observing elections. Instead, every state has their own laws governing elections, and so each state determines what kind of access observers get, how close they are entitled to be, etc. And what has been found in every case so far, filed by the Trump campaign, is that election boards have, with very few exceptions, followed their state's laws. Again, even the case where the Trump campaign "won" in a lower court, where observers were allowed to move closer, they lost on appeal.

Your claim has literally been proven false, at least going by the court rulings.



I will agree, there has been some fraud in this election and the people responsible should be prosecuted. For example, there are at least a couple of cases of Trump supporters that were found to have illegally requested ballots, such as this case.

As I pointed out in another post -- Trump claimed fraud in 2016, yet despite being President and forming a commission to find that fraud, he never found any evidence of the "massive fraud" he claimed. He was then President the last four years and never proposed any real tightening of the election process, to prevent the fraud he claimed occurred but couldn't prove.

Now, in 2020 -- even before the election -- he was predicting that same type of fraud, fraud he had not worked on preventing, was going to occur again in this election. Instead, the election occurred and Trump is out looking for anything that one of his supporters suspects might be fraud -- not really concerned if true or not until after the affidavit is signed. He then uses those stories, many false, to "energize" his base and get them upset about "voter fraud."

Of course, then his campaign investigates and finds that the fraud claims pan out. Instead, they use the affidavits of "irregular" things that various Republican election observers claim to have seen. None actually claim "fraud," merely that they weren't allowed "close" enough, or that some poll worker didn't follow the rules correctly, etc. And, after a judge reviews the affidavits they find that there is no evidence of any election issues -- and the Trump lawyers haven't even brought any claims of fraud.

I won't try to claim to know why Trump keeps making these "fraud" claims. What is clear, however; is whatever his reason it is something he has done in two elections now and, despite the power of the Presidency, he has never been able to show any actual fraud occurred in either election.

Please don't assume beyond what I stated or add additional meaning to my words. The "threat of perjury and five years in prison" is NOT "evidence that the affidavits all have to be true." Those are your words, not mine. Fraud is only one type of wrongdoing. Of course it would be foolish to assume that an individual who may have actually committed fraud has been charged, prosecuted, and found guilty of fraud in the days since the election. Criminal courts often move rather slowly.

Judges, unfortunately, too often have their own biases. The lead litigator on a case I filed told me one day that half the federal judges would have automatically dismissed the case because it was against federal government agencies. Fortunately the judge was big on civil rights and the case was quite successful, although the government dragged it out for years.

 

[DaisyDay]

Fox Stars Privately Expressed Disbelief About Election Fraud Claims. ‘Crazy Stuff.’

Newly disclosed messages and testimony from some of the biggest stars and most senior executives at Fox News revealed that they privately expressed disbelief about President Donald J. Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, even though the network continued to promote many of those lies on the air.

The hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, as well as others at the company, repeatedly insulted and mocked Trump advisers, including Sidney Powell and Rudolph W. Giuliani, in text messages with each other in the weeks after the election, according to a legal filing on Thursday by Dominion Voting Systems. Dominion is suing Fox for defamation in a case that poses considerable financial and reputational risk for the country’s most-watched cable news network.

What a surprise.

 

[FenderTL5]

Fox Stars Privately Expressed Disbelief About Election Fraud Claims. ‘Crazy Stuff.’



What a surprise.

Since they knew better, it means those hosts literally preyed on the gullibility of Trump supporters.

 

[Pommer]

Fox Stars Privately Expressed Disbelief About Election Fraud Claims. ‘Crazy Stuff.’



What a surprise.

On Nov. 12, in a text chain with Ms. Ingraham and Mr. Hannity, Mr. Carlson pointed to a tweet in which a Fox reporter, Jacqui Heinrich, fact-checked a tweet from Mr. Trump referring to Fox broadcasts and said there was no evidence of voter fraud from Dominion.

“Please get her fired,” Mr. Carlson said. He added: “It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.” Ms. Heinrich had deleted her tweet by the next morning.

For profit journalism isn’t.

In papers filed with the court on Thursday, lawyers for Fox called the $1.6 billion sum “a staggering figure that has no factual support and serves no apparent purpose other than to generate headlines, chill First Amendment-protected speech.”

We didn’t do it and even if we did we’re allowed to and they’re asking for too much!!1!!
Mercy!

 

[Vanellus]

I was wondering whether any of the posters in this (and any similar) thread(s) are still maintaining that the election was a "steal"?
If so that would remind of the Japanese soldiers who continued to fight years and even decades after the surrender in 1945.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I was wondering whether any of the posters in this (and any similar) thread(s) are still maintaining that the election was a "steal"?
If so that would remind of the Japanese soldiers who continued to fight years and even decades after the surrender in 1945.

I believe polls are still showing that a slight majority of Republicans believe Biden didn't win fair and square. But this is down from something like 75% a couple years ago, so things are improving. Small steps.