Here’s the actual link: https://github.com/pau-minoves/jseats
I think the filtering/smoothing are parts of some electoral algorithms! These are bits of code that do something to the tallies.
I’m not sure this is necessarily a smoking gun, because for whatever reason this piece of software is designed for some electoral processes. Assuming these algorithms are legitimate, the smoking gun is if it was used in our system, because our system implements our own smoothing/decorating with our states/people and the electoral college!
Edit: regardless of any of the academic arguments, the demanding of forensic analysis of the machine should show the smoking gun!
Im reading the clean java API and a command line launcher can you explain to me this in greater detail?
Usage: JSeats [options]
Options:
-c, --candidate
Add candidate to tally. Candidates follow the format Name:Votes.
-h, --help
Print this message.
Default: false
-ic, --input-config
Configuration input file.
-it, --input-tally
Tally input file. Overrides tally provided in configuration via
--input-config, if any.
-itb, --interactive-tie-breaker
Resolve ties interactively on the console. Overrides --tie-breaker.
Default: false
-ld, --list-decorators
List built-in result decorators.
Default: false
-lf, --list-filters
List built-in tally filters.
Default: false
-lm, --list-methods
List built-in seat allocation methods.
Default: false
-m, --method
Seat allocation method to use. See --list-methods for available methods.
-oc, --output-config
Configuration output file.
-o, --output-result
Result output file.
-ot, --output-tally
Tally output file.
-pv, --potential-votes
Potential votes. If not set, defaults to effective votes (sum of all
casted votes).
Default: -1
-d, --processor-property
Processor properties as in -D numberOfSeats=105.
-tb, --tie-breaker
Resolve ties using provided tie breaker
-v, --verbose
Increase level of verbosity.
Default: false
I’d look at the BDD stories (behavior-driven-development) here
Speaking from ignorance, but it looks like other countries would use this for their entire electoral process using these well defined algorithms. For us in the US, they just aren’t applicable and it should just count. If somebody decided to turn it on, and created a “custom decorator”, say, a Biden decorator, it would cause the things we saw!
Yes it does - you have 'candidates and votes' going in, and 'candidates and seats' going out. It is a level of detail in terms of purposeful engineering that has gone into the code itself to change votes.
Counting votes should be just an adding machine. Instead we get a proprietary black box.
While reading late last night it was fascinating to read about Hugo Chavez' input on the software.
Looking it up, it is on page 6, I'll quote it completely.
Chavez was most insistent that Smartmatic design the system in a way that the system could change the vote of each voter without being detected. He wanted the software itself to function in such a manner that if the voter were to place their thumb print or fingerprint on a scanner, then the thumbprint would be tied to a record of the voter’s name and identity as having voted, but that voter would not be tracked to the changed vote. He made it clear that the system would have to be setup to not leave any evidence of the changed vote for a specific voter and that there would be no evidence to show and nothing to contradict that the name or the fingerprint or thumb print was going with a changed vote. Smartmatic agreed to create such a system and produced the software and hardware that accomplished that result for President Chavez.
This is not a data “smoothing” function, is not a smoking gun, is not relevant to the us 2020 election, and only serves to weaken the credentials of the cyber security engineer that included it in his affidavit.
That is a diagram of an algorithm to allocate seats in a political body (parliament, congress, etc.) based on the rules set forth by said body. For example, in most countries with parliamentary systems you vote for parties, not individuals, so the allocation of seats to individuals depends on the vote tally characteristics, e.g. what party got the most votes, by how much, and so forth. That allocation of seats used to be calculated by hand, all this represents is a software algorithm to do the same, in a generic fashion that can use different sets of rules so that it can be used indie different political bodies.
I’m sure someone could use this function to propose some strange allocation of US congressional seats by using invalid, made up rules, but that has nothing to do with our election. The allocation of seats in the US congress is simple, we vote for individuals for each seat and winner takes all. We don’t rely on software to perform any allocation calculation.
Furthermore, the idea that anyone has found a “smoking gun” by simply finding a software design diagram on GitHub is utterly absurd and makes everyone associated with this movement look like fools. This is clearly a case where the cyber security engineer got “out of his lane” and doesn’t understand simple software programming topics.
I’m sure I’ll get downvoted to oblivion, but this is absolutely ridiculous.
No we don’t. This is not part of vote machines or any process that tallies vote results. This is a simple process to take election results and calculate seat allocations. The vote/election results are an INPUT to the process, not an output. It does not modify vote or election results.
However even if it did, the code is right there with the diagram so go read it. That’s what GitHub is for.
Yeah, I'm not convinced either. I couldn't be bothered to read the code on that github myself, but a "decorator" could also be just adding text before and after the numbers.
So say if Joe Biden gets 1000 and trump gets 10,000, what're they going to do, just print out this?
{1000, 10000}
No, it would be something like...
"Joe Biden has " + tally[0] + " votes. Donald Trump has " + tally[1] + "votes."
If this is for presenting the outcome to the general public.
Unrelated, but also a point of interest is CTCL or Center for Tech and Civic Life funded by Mark Zuckerberg. Within their github page (https://github.com/ctcl), one of the programmers holds a government position. The Bipcoop repo shows tanderegg as one of the developers, and he works at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
WTH is this?
Another juicy bit: the Registrar for the www.dominionvotingsystems.com domain is from Hunan China, via godaddy (of all places). Yup, that's right, Hunan China.
The records of China accessing the server are reliable
There's a github for scytl, which dominion is based on. But they probably changed the code after they got it from there, so I don't know what this proves.
Here’s the actual link: https://github.com/pau-minoves/jseats I think the filtering/smoothing are parts of some electoral algorithms! These are bits of code that do something to the tallies.
I’m not sure this is necessarily a smoking gun, because for whatever reason this piece of software is designed for some electoral processes. Assuming these algorithms are legitimate, the smoking gun is if it was used in our system, because our system implements our own smoothing/decorating with our states/people and the electoral college!
Edit: regardless of any of the academic arguments, the demanding of forensic analysis of the machine should show the smoking gun!
Im reading the clean java API and a command line launcher can you explain to me this in greater detail?
Usage: JSeats [options] Options: -c, --candidate Add candidate to tally. Candidates follow the format Name:Votes. -h, --help Print this message. Default: false -ic, --input-config Configuration input file. -it, --input-tally Tally input file. Overrides tally provided in configuration via --input-config, if any. -itb, --interactive-tie-breaker Resolve ties interactively on the console. Overrides --tie-breaker. Default: false -ld, --list-decorators List built-in result decorators. Default: false -lf, --list-filters List built-in tally filters. Default: false -lm, --list-methods List built-in seat allocation methods. Default: false -m, --method Seat allocation method to use. See --list-methods for available methods. -oc, --output-config Configuration output file. -o, --output-result Result output file. -ot, --output-tally Tally output file. -pv, --potential-votes Potential votes. If not set, defaults to effective votes (sum of all casted votes). Default: -1 -d, --processor-property Processor properties as in -D numberOfSeats=105. -tb, --tie-breaker Resolve ties using provided tie breaker -v, --verbose Increase level of verbosity. Default: false
I’d look at the BDD stories (behavior-driven-development) here
Speaking from ignorance, but it looks like other countries would use this for their entire electoral process using these well defined algorithms. For us in the US, they just aren’t applicable and it should just count. If somebody decided to turn it on, and created a “custom decorator”, say, a Biden decorator, it would cause the things we saw!
Not a computer guy, but anything other than vote cast to vote tallied is manipulation.
Yes it does - you have 'candidates and votes' going in, and 'candidates and seats' going out. It is a level of detail in terms of purposeful engineering that has gone into the code itself to change votes.
Counting votes should be just an adding machine. Instead we get a proprietary black box.
Thus Eric Coomer's confidence (from Dominion) that there was 'no way Trump was going to win, I made f*-in' sure of that'. https://twitter.com/HeshmatAlavi/status/1331933769058672640
While reading late last night it was fascinating to read about Hugo Chavez' input on the software.
Looking it up, it is on page 6, I'll quote it completely.
Only in clown world do people trust a black box machine with proprietary software.
Here's how the process should work.
1 voter votes for selected candidate -> vote is tabulated for that selected candidate.
All the other processes should be labeled "fraud" "fraud" and "more fraud"
This is not a data “smoothing” function, is not a smoking gun, is not relevant to the us 2020 election, and only serves to weaken the credentials of the cyber security engineer that included it in his affidavit.
That is a diagram of an algorithm to allocate seats in a political body (parliament, congress, etc.) based on the rules set forth by said body. For example, in most countries with parliamentary systems you vote for parties, not individuals, so the allocation of seats to individuals depends on the vote tally characteristics, e.g. what party got the most votes, by how much, and so forth. That allocation of seats used to be calculated by hand, all this represents is a software algorithm to do the same, in a generic fashion that can use different sets of rules so that it can be used indie different political bodies.
I’m sure someone could use this function to propose some strange allocation of US congressional seats by using invalid, made up rules, but that has nothing to do with our election. The allocation of seats in the US congress is simple, we vote for individuals for each seat and winner takes all. We don’t rely on software to perform any allocation calculation.
Furthermore, the idea that anyone has found a “smoking gun” by simply finding a software design diagram on GitHub is utterly absurd and makes everyone associated with this movement look like fools. This is clearly a case where the cyber security engineer got “out of his lane” and doesn’t understand simple software programming topics.
I’m sure I’ll get downvoted to oblivion, but this is absolutely ridiculous.
Well in order to understand how they did it we need all the information all the code.
Impound the device, disassemble the code! I’d wager there’s no obfuscation.
No we don’t. This is not part of vote machines or any process that tallies vote results. This is a simple process to take election results and calculate seat allocations. The vote/election results are an INPUT to the process, not an output. It does not modify vote or election results.
However even if it did, the code is right there with the diagram so go read it. That’s what GitHub is for.
yes that's correct but we still need that information every code can be tampered with. especially none encrypted code
Yeah, I'm not convinced either. I couldn't be bothered to read the code on that github myself, but a "decorator" could also be just adding text before and after the numbers.
So say if Joe Biden gets 1000 and trump gets 10,000, what're they going to do, just print out this?
No, it would be something like...
If this is for presenting the outcome to the general public.
TLDR:
Similar to redistribution of wealth.
Spamming this all over the place, I hope everyone is doing the same, this is the smoking gun.
Smoking Gun indeed.
In the point below the image,
WTH is this?
Another juicy bit: the Registrar for the www.dominionvotingsystems.com domain is from Hunan China, via godaddy (of all places). Yup, that's right, Hunan China.
Remember to also include a Tinyurl Affidavit https://tinyurl.com/yymnvrd3
to avoid censorship it will come
There's a github for scytl, which dominion is based on. But they probably changed the code after they got it from there, so I don't know what this proves.
More flowcharts please. That is all.