Dominion Voting machine and system in action. It'll even scan a batch of blank ballots and vote for whoever you tell it to!
(streamable.com)
🛑 STOP THE STEAL 🛑
Comments (1029)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
The fact that a modern society would even consider using this crap shows how corrupt they are.
Source videos from Coffee County, Georgia (thanks to PezzShivers): https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=46CAKyyObls https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ijjwS6h-PyU
Digital faggotry has no place in elections!
I'm fine with primitive digital tabulators on the level of a scantron machine, they can be made low-complexity enough to 100% audit. I'm talking a 8-bit microcontroller with a few K of program memory stored in an immutable ROM on the chip, basically early 80s level of tech.
This shit with interactive GUIs, networking, a full OS...FUCK NO.
Yeah an election machine has no place even having internet built in. So updating is hard? How fucking often do you need to change the software on a voting machine? Should be almost never.
It's like buying a calculator that needs firmware updates for addition or subtraction lol
Never if it's never online. If it breaks you just replace the machine.
but the internet of things, the touch screen, the sci fi aesthetics...
Voter ID, paper ballots with blockchain traceability, ink pad, fingerprint on the chosen candidate, military supervision roaming around the place.
Maximum capacity for every voting station no more than 5000 ballots. If it's a big city, do more voting stations. Workers selected and distributed across counties at random.
Results communicated by phone to central command, on loudspeaker, with witnesses, without knowing how the other stations are doing.
Cameras all over like in a casino + every official with a body cam. All footage remains stored for 24 months
Total cost: probably 5% of what was spent on Dominion
Blockchain needs to be done in a way that the vote cannot be traced to the voter. It must remain anonymous. If the voter can confirm how he voted, he can sell his vote with his receipt. This will immediately ruin any election. If the government can track it, a hostile government can track down dissenters and supporters of the "evil" candidate and add them to the naughty list.
Based on what happened in the key cities of key swing states, it's almost like you need a poly and a background check to be a ballot counter.
Dominion was paying people off
Those are the easiest to scam. Just run the same ballot through 10 times.
Simple analog fix. Prior to leaving the machine a row of holes is punched at the bottom of the ballot.
There's easy ways around that even on a very small, very simple system - output a log of all ballot serial numbers scanned in the batch along with the batch tally.
For extra assurance, sign all the output data with a machine-unique private key to ensure it can't be tampered with upstream in the processing chain. Signature bad on a batch -> reject all ballots from that machine and send it off for forensic analysis. Validated crypto engines are available even on very simple platforms now, so this doesn't conflict with low-complexity hardware.
They don't even need to do that. They can just insert a thumb drive and upload a fake database of ballots as if they were scanned, without ever scanning a single ballot, or scan real ballots as normal then upload from a thumb drive to replace the ballot database with a fake one made months ago. Then after the election is over, they erase everything and go into the physical ballot storage and switch hand made fraud ballots in for the next week after the election, so even a recount wouldn't show anything.
Like those note counting machines at the bank. You physically count the stack first, then toss it in the counting machine to verify. No other information.
Isn't it great to realize that the shittiest truckstop Injun casino in Nevada almost certainly has a more secure count process than our national election?
Almost like Big Chief Counting Cash cares more about getting his money right than Uncle Sam cares about getting the election right.
So correct me since I’m not IT goon. Wouldn’t her computer(s) be connected to the Internet if she’s using what looked like a Windows desktop setup and furthermore anything connected to the Internet is hackable (especially Windows)?
Not necessarily connected to the internet at large (private net is entirely possible), but almost certainly so. There should be an airgap (logical if not physical isolation of this network from any other lower security network) but I have no reason whatsoever to believe there was one given the general incompetence or malice on display here.
The workstation could be compromised, but as far as remote exploitation, honestly I'd be more concerned with the tabulator itself. Unless explicitly designed with security in mind, embedded systems are usually really good targets because they often run core software (networking/parsing/whatever) libraries that are out of date and have not just security flaws, but security flaws that have been in the wild for years. Embedded systems can be a yuge pain in the ass for corporate infosec, printers have led to major compromises.
What most concerns me about this system is not so much external actors attacking, but that nothing about any of it indicates security was in mind when it was either designed or configured/deployed. Even trivial UI stuff like it doesn't even ask for a password (or better, a user AND supervisor password), when changing a vote is deebly goncerning. There's not even anything in the voting machine software stopping the office janitor from sitting down at the workstation and changing votes while the election manager was taking a shit, and if the election manager herself is the bad actor, she can just do anything she wants. There might be an audit trail, but without confirming and logging the identity of the operator when the change is made there's no way to prove who made a change or why. Just the fact that it lets the user change a vote at all is insane - that should be a formal process where the questionable ballot is shunted into an entirely different queue for manual review, or just rejected outright. It's not an election staffer's place to be interpreting who some idiot that marked both boxes intended to vote for.
This system, or at least this system as configured, is shockingly permissive.
(My background is information security, held multiple senior titles in that field, and I do embedded systems for fun.)
The more I think about this the more I could add to it, but it's already a wall of text. As a security guy this is absolutely horrifying on so many levels.
you have to understand, you're crying for paper ballots but that's exactly what these are
they're paper
handled by a person
who has absolutely all the capability in the world to nullify your vote
don't cry for paper, you should be crying for open-source blockchain voting
Ok. But if your machine counted 100 votes, but there are only 10 paper ballots, we know something is very wrong.
Their cheating involved vote switching in real time, and the double/triple counting of Biden votes.
Also ballot stuffing, also destroying Trump ballots.
There's always a way to cheat but however they do it, there must be full transparency.
Exactly. Dominion also has "Ballot Marking Devices" that are used everywhere. They can stick a stack of ballots in and have them marked in seconds.
Exactly, they could also just bring them in in suitcases prefilled out weeks before the election.
And I don't know, maybe hide them under a table.
Not to mention they can just steal someone's ballots from their mailboxes, or from a ballot collection box or use people's actual ballots on the day, change the vote to whatever they want and change the entire outcome of an election.
If you're in a big enough county and have enough time you can change 200,000 votes. It's literally two clicks per ballot to change the vote from 'Trump to Biden' or 'Jorgensen to Biden' or 'Biden to Trump' or 'whatever candidate to another candidate'.
I think you could easily do a ballot every 3 seconds. So to do 200,000 ballots and change an entire State, one person could do it in around 166 hours, thats 7 days. ONE person can change 200,000 ballots in 7 days. Now imagine if 10 people decided to change the ballots, thats under a day, a few hours to eradicate an entire legitimate election in a state. 10 people can literally change an election.
There's no widespread voter fraud needed. Just 10 election officials deciding in a large county to change the votes. Zero oversight, zero accountability and complete freedom to adjudicate as you please as an election official. How fucking corrupt...
You can see why such features might be a given and useful under the right circumstances, but the real problem is that there are zero safeguards. The easiest way to go about it even slightly more secure, is for the scanner to individually separate an error ballot and route it to another tray where it can be put in an adjudication pile. But it doesn't even do that.
On top of that, there are no safeguards to even know who adjudicated what. As she demonstrated, you can know that a batch had some issue and was adjudicated, but you don't know which ballot, and if it doesn't know which ballot, then it also clearly doesn't know what the adjudication was. So it won't even tell you that someone changed a ballot to Biden.
That's why they say this system was designed for fraud, because it's soo insecure that it would only be that way because it's designed to allow fraud. While at the same time it doesn't even keep a record beyond marking that a batch was adjudicated somewhere.
And yeah, under NO circumstances should a ballot even be allowed to be adjudicated without spoiling that ballot and forcing them to throw it out or find the person to redo their ballot.
I could see how maybe a bad mark could have an issue being read, but machines are insanely good at reading marks. Even all of your mail gets run through a machine for writing recognition to know how to route it, and even bad chicken scratch writing has no issue going through the mail system sorting machines. But we're talking about a single mark in an oval. The notion that those would need extra adjudication and made easy to adjudicate, has to be 1 in a million ballots that could have an issue somehow.
And even then, it should be a spoiled ballot. That means, tops, in an election, we shouldn't have to adjudicate more than a couple hundred ballots across the whole country combined for a marking error, other than over votes...which can't possibly be adjudicated because there's no possible way for an adjudicator to know the voters intent if 2 candidates in the same box are marked. So we don't even need a system that can adjudicate ballots this easily, because 99% of ballots shouldn't need adjudication at all when it comes to reading marks (minus over voting).
It's like if a top website put an admin panel on their front page that anyone can access, just to make it easy in case the actual admins need to get in and do stuff. Access to such features simply shouldn't be necessary enough to warrant even having it there, and when it is necessary, the ballot should be rejected from the system entirely, permanently, and be considered spoiled, requiring humans to physically sort out what to do with those ballots, with strict records.
These systems also have the Weighted Race Voting feature. That feature is absolutely used in Michigan for the Democratic Party Voting between sectors. Just google Michigan Democratic Rules for voting and elections - ah hell...here it is: https://michigandems.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Rules-for-Voting-and-Elections-converted.pdf
2.6 weighted voting: using the State Allocation of Delegate Vote (SADV) process, whereby each county’s (or portion thereof) delegates within a multi-county Congressional District Convention, caucus, or meeting, or at the State Convention, have a voting strength proportional to the number of Democratic voters from that county (or portion) at the last General Election relative to the total number of Democratic voters in the District or the state, regardless of how many delegates are present at the convention, caucus, or meeting.
So, not only do you have extra ballots, adjudicated ballots, you also have weighted voting. Add in that nobody audits the machines, the logs aren't available for auditors, etc. We aren't getting away from Electronic Tabulators, our politicians are too embedded with Big Tech. The swamp runs deep AF.
I'd add that Federal Election Law needs to add public transparency - log files available in real time, vote counts available in real time, source code available for auditing, block chain watermarks on all ballots, the list goes on!
Also no way to audit the dominion system to see who changed or added votes beyond a red highlight
Nope and you can't even know which ballot was audited. All the red highlight does is say "A" ballot in this batch was adjudicated. Most batches are batches of 50 ballots.
Texas did, and they said "fuck no!"
This is what's supposed to happen when States are deciding on which voting company/software to buy. They do have Republican and Democrat representatives that meet in every county to inspect a machine and check off weather they approve of it or not, but all they're doing is checking the machine. They arn't checking the voting software like the software of this elections supervisors computer.
There is. The uniparty did all the testing they need.
It looks like a batch is flagged red as having been adjudicated if the operator touched at least 1 ballot in the batch. But if you were to scan a batch of 50 it wouldn't tell you which votes were changed, how they were changed, or how many in the batch were changed. Now imagine in every batch of 50 there is likely at least 1 that honestly needs adjudication (smudges etc), and every batch is flagged red. All record of vote changes is lost. This looks designed to avoid any paper trail of the operator changing votes.
Jesus, I didn't even think of it from that angle. Totally designed to create uncertainty.
"This batch of 1000 is red? Oh yeah I had to correct one of them, don't worry I didn't touch the rest of them and you have no way to check if I did."
That's basically already available with Dominion's "Ballot Marking Devices"
Yeah. It's easier to change votes than it is for me to get Admin access to my own laptop. At least my laptop makes me type in my windows PIN number. Crazy.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the system being digital. Adjudication could happen the same with paper ballots. The common flaw is that you're trusting the human doing the adjudication.
Agreed, but even worse: there's no audit trail for the user/operator who did the adjudication.
If I can blanket adjudicate 10,000 votes to Biden out of thin fucking air, and the system won't even recognize who I am? I'm bound to do it. But if it attaches my full name, log-in credentials, date/time of adjudication, etc... to each and every ballot I adjudicate (along with taking a corresponding image of every single adjudicated ballot?) THAT might stop me.
Especially if the Admins could call up a "Number of adjudications by user ID" report and see where the fuckery happened all at once.
I still agree we should go back to paper ballots, double witnesses, etc... But the very fact there's THIS much technology and it's not associating the adjudication with a name or user ID# to keep things honest is... well... totally fucking dishonest.
Of course this would embolden a insider threat. Cybersecuity 101. A Wandrea Moss can go in adjudicate 138000 ballots and flip them all for Biden.
Then the answer is simple: adjudication must be approved by 2 of 3 vote counters.
Or
No adjudication. If your vote is illegible, your ballot is tossed.
Honestly, I prefer the illegible route, but that is fatally flawed, what prevents these commies from double marking every Trump supporter ballot and then invalidating them all in that prices.
So triple approvals, and adjudication must be Livestream to the public and they can't raise red flags
Yes and full.audit logs and saved image showing what changed were made as well as a justification.
Indeed. For me, the use of complex and many-featured voting machines are capable of meeting our public needs, but that is IF all of the machines are properly vetted and do not have major problems like what was shown in the video.
The adjudication ABSOLUTELY needs to have a proper audit trail to guarantee that the job is done right. It is astounding that there is no owner tagged to that.
The box for overvotes is incredibly sketchy if you are allowed to hide it as the supervisor. you are creating a record that is no longer 1-1 between the paper and the actual ballot.
The fact that the supervisor has this much power over the votes shows that watching is absolutely critical at adjudication.
That's why observers were at least 30m away.
I mean this can be an easy fix if we had checks and balances. Each ballot has a barcode that works ONLY in that county. When the system scans the ballot it cannot be scanned again. If for some reason it needs to be scanned when it cannot, a supervisors can manually fix this I guess. But that's when you have 2 mfs sitting next to you watching. Or even better, each state invests in having hq cameras streaming over the machines. That way you don't even need someone watching next to you, if you're afraid of covid. Everyone in the world can participate as poll watchers. Also by live streaming it, even if the machine lies, we can go back and watch each ballot one by one.
I dunno I watch too much sci-fi and murder cases lol
Exactly. Ballots can be scanned ad many times as they want
But, but how else can Dims get elected.