I'm not a computer guy by any means, but my understanding so far is they could have potentially written a code that when the machine is powered off and then powered on again the code that causes the fraud would be deleted. Something about flash.
I don't claim to know what I'm talking about, but I've been reading up on this some
VERY IMPORTANT PUBLIC NARRATIVE > GIULIANI PA STATE LEGISLATURES GETTYSBURG ADDRESS: Giuliani et al provided OVERLY ABUNDANT OPPORTUNITY of SIGNIFICANT & MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD across the ballot and election system.
90/10 RULE SYSTEMIC PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACH
Breaking down the plethora of permutations of Vote/Election system configurations across each Municipality, County, State & Federal Law it appears unsurmountable with the given constraint of time.
There is the 90/10 rule of decision making. 90% of your problems reside in only 10% of the events. Identify the 10% and dedicated 90% your your resources to tackle the problem.
Example:
1. What States, Counties, Cities appear to have 90% of the "Voter Irregularities"?
Where is there a published list of these?
Is there a published Schematic Diagram of each jurisdictions Election/Ballot Process?
Have all the steps of each process point been identified?
Have all the supporting hardware/software points been identified?
[–] 26560437? ago (edited ago)
The issue here is that floating point arithmetic is not perfectly reversible. The exponent and mantissa are both variable and there are numbers without perfectly round representations which lead to an increase in Epsilon as the number of operations increases. Yeah, we can create a "probable" reversal but with the number of adjustments I've seen it's likely raised Epsilon really high.
The question is how much tolerance for error does an election need? If we cannot accept a single vote error then Epsilon is a serious factor. If not, we'd have to make the estimation so that Epsilon was minimized.
[–] 26556494? ago (edited ago)
Decompiling the code (or even analyzing the machine code) certainly could produce conclusive evidence, however only so if the actually used code is still available (hasn’t been replaced nor tampered with).
However, even without that, we know the software (or firmware) stores each vote as a decimal value, and the documentation touts that an adjustment ratio (multiplication factor) can be set, which would weight votes for one candidate — which both Rudy and Sidney have already alluded to being used.
There is no legitimate reason for having this “feature” at all, except to rig an election.
[–] 26557771? ago
Except in Muslim countries where a male vote equals one, but a female vote equals a third of that.
In South Africa, it is easy to weight the white vote lower than the black vote. Otherwise it is raycist.
It can all be legitimate.
" I will make it legal"