All Praise to Edward "MathGod" Solomon.
I have watched all of your videos and I know that you are right without a doubt.
In case you are not aware of this, I wanted to share some information that I hope will be very helpful for the case and only adds further proof to your conclusions.
I was looking for an image of the USB Drive that Dominion uses and went down the rabbit hole while scouring through this DemocracySuite manual
CHAPTER 11: RANKED CHOICE VOTING - 11.2.2 Settings discusses the various profiles that can be configured and applied to an election
One in particular stood out on page 65 of the manual
STV: Single Transferable Voting, more specifically the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method, which implements fractional surplus transfer of elected candidates.
After reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
It lines up with your findings
Here are a few eye opening excerpts
The single transferable vote (STV) is a voting system designed to achieve or closely approach proportional representation through the use of multiple-member constituencies and each voter casting a single ballot on which candidates are ranked. The preferential (ranked) balloting allows transfer of votes to produce proportionality, to form consensus behind select candidates and to avoid the waste of votes prevalent under other voting systems
A vote goes to the voter's first preference if possible, but if the first preference is eliminated, instead of being thrown away, the vote is transferred to a back-up preference, with the vote being assigned to the voter's second, third, or lower choice if possible (or under some systems being apportioned fractionally to different candidates).
STV also provides approximately proportional representation, ensuring that substantial minority factions have some representation. No one party or voting block can take all the seats in a district. The key to STV's achievement of proportionality is that each elector (voter) only casts one single vote, in a district election electing multiple winners...
...STV avoids this waste by transferring a vote to another preferred candidate.
There are several algorithms mentioned under Quota and vote transfers section that Im sure you will benefut from looking at
Pros and Cons of STV Advocates for STV argue it is an improvement over winner-take-all non-proportional voting systems such as first-past-the-post...
Others see a vote transfer process that is more time-consuming than in first-past-the-post elections where the result is known within a few hours and say it is not worth using STV just to have more proportional results. However, STV's supporters say that some winners are known in the same period as under FPTP, and that with delays under FPTP caused by mail-in or absentee ballots, any delays in an STV scenario are not noticeable or are no great hardship.
STV provides proportionality by transferring votes to minimize waste, and therefore also minimizes the number of unrepresented or disenfranchised voters.
Difficulty of implementation A frequent concern about STV is its complexity compared with plurality voting methods. Before the advent of computers, this complexity made ballot-counting more difficult than for some other voting methods.
The algorithm is complicated. In large elections with many candidates, a computer may be required. (This is because after several rounds of counting, there may be many different categories of previously transferred votes, each with a different permutation of early preferences and thus each with a different carried-forward weighting, all of which have to be kept track of.)
STV differs from other proportional representation systems in that candidates of one party can be elected on transfers from voters for other parties.
I hope you see this in time to go through before your testimony
The world is depending on you
Thank you for your monumental effort
Eli 5?