The counting machines are being retested by putting a quantity (let’s say 200) into the counters to compare against a known hand counted quantity. That number may come out fine.
-However-
If the software “glitch” is complex enough, it may flip “x” number of votes every thousand votes or so.
In other words, the accuracy tests need to be of a greater quantity of known, hand-counted ballots, and the test should be repeated a few times to guarantee accuracy.
I was reading on a twitter thread that the "glitch" may have manifested during transmission of vote totals to a central server, with nothing suspicious visible locally at the polling place? But then when the results are transmitted, it shaves a percentage of the votes for Biden in order to ensure that the state gradually goes to him. Probably coordinated algorithm working with machines at multiple sites around the state.
The counting machines are being retested by putting a quantity (let’s say 200) into the counters to compare against a known hand counted quantity. That number may come out fine. -However- If the software “glitch” is complex enough, it may flip “x” number of votes every thousand votes or so. In other words, the accuracy tests need to be of a greater quantity of known, hand-counted ballots, and the test should be repeated a few times to guarantee accuracy.
I was reading on a twitter thread that the "glitch" may have manifested during transmission of vote totals to a central server, with nothing suspicious visible locally at the polling place? But then when the results are transmitted, it shaves a percentage of the votes for Biden in order to ensure that the state gradually goes to him. Probably coordinated algorithm working with machines at multiple sites around the state.
That would be a much better way of concealing the anomaly. Worth looking into.