To a fair degree the counting system is just meant to be an optimisation. To streamline. You're supposed to have parallel processes. It's just adding a slow lane and you can do both.
If you retain the hard copies you can also to a random selection then a manual count. You actually don't need to count all of them to detect issues in the machine. There's a mathematical system people who audit systems like me can use to home in very quickly.
This is more problematic when systems are used not just to count ballots but in producing them. The fractional voting is just a feature and not a concern. You have that from Dr Shiva. They are subordinate to me. I'm more senior than them.
If anything the fractional problem highlights how little people understand about these systems and how difficult it is to truly secure them. In this line of security you don't operate on the basis of believing you can create an impenetrable barrier. Instead you add as much impediment as you can but then you have things like systems that can verify each other. You have fallbacks at each level and layers of contingencies.
The problems with DVS are more deeper than that. When they say they don't get involved in how people run their elections they're not hired to necessarily assist with the cheating because they don't want liability. They're hired to turn a blind eye while others cheat. DVS serves to corrupt countries and this is heavily embedded in their company culture. If you look at their hands off approach they make it clear they do not get involved in election integrity. They provide machines and that's it. They behave the same how as the printer company isn't responsible for what you print out.
If you ask someone at DVS how to cheat the first thing they will say is don't use that fractional voting feature you'll get caught. In fact DVS can assist with cheating simply based on insider knowledge and access.
It's should not be possible to cheat with DVS alone. You can hack in and change the numbers but if the election is properly conducted that would be detected easily. I'm not even seeing the processes being done that would be required to detect that and all kinds of holes in the system.
People are treating DVS like a single point of failure and that should not be possible though I say never say never (as the system becomes more integrated there's a disturbingly larger amount that can be done by fewer people).
It's the same principle as the border wall. It helps but it's useless if you don't man it. If people simply don't bother to check then it does become a single point of failure. It's not enough to say in theory it isn't possible, it has to be established that the procedures that would make it impossible or near enough have taken place. We don't know that at all. There's no point having a car alarm if you never turn it on.
A proper audit will not only tell you if they found fraud or not but also the blind spots. It would involve a full analysis of the system, the process, etc and not only in theory but in practice. They would come back out with a huge list of exploits.
It's swisscheese and fractional voting is a distraction. From what I'm seeing the adjudication process is far more serious as it may allow backfill. Regardless the audit needs to first verify the books match, that what's on paper matches what came out of the machine. If you get beyond that point the audit isn't finished.
There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of ways to cheat. You start of with the easiest checks and through a process of elimination reduce the search space until you're left with the most difficult things which also now reside in a reduced search space.
It's swisscheese and fractional voting is a distraction. From what I'm seeing the adjudication process is far more serious as it may allow backfill. Regardless the audit needs to first verify the books match, that what's on paper matches what came out of the machine. If you get beyond that point the audit isn't finished.
This. You're focused on a specific detail. Personally I would turn that feature off for a market where it's not relevant or perhaps ship a build without it. For a presidential election you would pull out all the stops.
To put it simply, if the system as a whole were properly orchestrated the fractional voting feature would be completely immaterial and impossible to pervert the results. The process would involve doublechecking, cross referencing. You usually have redundancy.
It's similar to running a shop in some ways. You might have your inventory on a spreadsheet but that's backed by the real inventory and you do stock counts to keep the systems aligned. If the voting system were properly setup then it would not simply be a process of counting the votes but it would also be self verifying with processes double checking.
Dr Shiva got one thing right which you might be skirting over. The system is a blackbox on multiple levels. That in itself means you have to have faith in the magic that goes on out of sight. The system in its entirety is unverifiable and unreliable from what I've seen. I wouldn't approve it for production.
When you run a system like a shop or warehouse, etc you don't just focus on the computer system but the system as a whole. How everything works, the people, how they interact with everything, the rules they follow, the whole system. DVS is only a piece of the puzzle and if you only focus on that you may never figure out how they really cheated.
It's not always necessary to figure out how sometimes though. If you've ever worked in gambling you don't necessarily detect cheaters by looking up their sleeves but instead you track who is winning too much (improbably). Shiva has tried to do this but does a bad job sometimes. He is subordinate to me because I have worked with all these systems. He's more of the studying type or someone who buries themselves in books.
Like, keep your eye on the lady - the rest is smoke and mirrors.
TBH - the way you don't answer a straight question, straight - you have to be a politician.
Or greek, and I don't trust either.
Redundancy in voting?
All of this stuff is your bag - carry it yourself!
I shouldn't be rude. I should say that I don't have to trust any of this, and can write it off as eye-glazing details.
Further, I think I could get enough support to support the idea of manual voting, or
some crypto solution, removing the need to trust in black-boxes on many levels.
We could pay for such a system with the savings of not spending hundreds of millions on systems that run Windows 2000 (SP 2). Systems that don't have wifi, but do. Systems that cost millions but, can be undermined by a $1 memory stick.
But, don't leave it up to me - I would see all of these clever people, hung, and publicly.
It cuts through the eye-glazing small-talk, and restores trust, all round.
Actually..!
Fractional voting, as displayed by DVS, is for absolutely no other reason than voter fraud.
I don't say this, ever but..
Change my mind!
To a fair degree the counting system is just meant to be an optimisation. To streamline. You're supposed to have parallel processes. It's just adding a slow lane and you can do both.
If you retain the hard copies you can also to a random selection then a manual count. You actually don't need to count all of them to detect issues in the machine. There's a mathematical system people who audit systems like me can use to home in very quickly.
This is more problematic when systems are used not just to count ballots but in producing them. The fractional voting is just a feature and not a concern. You have that from Dr Shiva. They are subordinate to me. I'm more senior than them.
If anything the fractional problem highlights how little people understand about these systems and how difficult it is to truly secure them. In this line of security you don't operate on the basis of believing you can create an impenetrable barrier. Instead you add as much impediment as you can but then you have things like systems that can verify each other. You have fallbacks at each level and layers of contingencies.
The problems with DVS are more deeper than that. When they say they don't get involved in how people run their elections they're not hired to necessarily assist with the cheating because they don't want liability. They're hired to turn a blind eye while others cheat. DVS serves to corrupt countries and this is heavily embedded in their company culture. If you look at their hands off approach they make it clear they do not get involved in election integrity. They provide machines and that's it. They behave the same how as the printer company isn't responsible for what you print out.
If you ask someone at DVS how to cheat the first thing they will say is don't use that fractional voting feature you'll get caught. In fact DVS can assist with cheating simply based on insider knowledge and access.
It's should not be possible to cheat with DVS alone. You can hack in and change the numbers but if the election is properly conducted that would be detected easily. I'm not even seeing the processes being done that would be required to detect that and all kinds of holes in the system.
People are treating DVS like a single point of failure and that should not be possible though I say never say never (as the system becomes more integrated there's a disturbingly larger amount that can be done by fewer people).
It's the same principle as the border wall. It helps but it's useless if you don't man it. If people simply don't bother to check then it does become a single point of failure. It's not enough to say in theory it isn't possible, it has to be established that the procedures that would make it impossible or near enough have taken place. We don't know that at all. There's no point having a car alarm if you never turn it on.
A proper audit will not only tell you if they found fraud or not but also the blind spots. It would involve a full analysis of the system, the process, etc and not only in theory but in practice. They would come back out with a huge list of exploits.
It's swisscheese and fractional voting is a distraction. From what I'm seeing the adjudication process is far more serious as it may allow backfill. Regardless the audit needs to first verify the books match, that what's on paper matches what came out of the machine. If you get beyond that point the audit isn't finished.
There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of ways to cheat. You start of with the easiest checks and through a process of elimination reduce the search space until you're left with the most difficult things which also now reside in a reduced search space.
Man, your job is dull! No wonder you're into muslim porn, eh?!
Which bit is meant to change my mind?
It would've suited me just to hear a valid reason for fractional vote counting, in a voting system of such vast expense.
Cos, as I skim-read all of that, I know that they did use it, despite what they might tell you not to use.
Occurs to me that they did use every means to cheat, in addition to fractional voting.
What do I know? I don't get paid stupid money to develop stupid systems to repress the will of the people.
No. That requires somebody far more 'flexible' than than I might ever be.
This. You're focused on a specific detail. Personally I would turn that feature off for a market where it's not relevant or perhaps ship a build without it. For a presidential election you would pull out all the stops.
To put it simply, if the system as a whole were properly orchestrated the fractional voting feature would be completely immaterial and impossible to pervert the results. The process would involve doublechecking, cross referencing. You usually have redundancy.
It's similar to running a shop in some ways. You might have your inventory on a spreadsheet but that's backed by the real inventory and you do stock counts to keep the systems aligned. If the voting system were properly setup then it would not simply be a process of counting the votes but it would also be self verifying with processes double checking.
Dr Shiva got one thing right which you might be skirting over. The system is a blackbox on multiple levels. That in itself means you have to have faith in the magic that goes on out of sight. The system in its entirety is unverifiable and unreliable from what I've seen. I wouldn't approve it for production.
When you run a system like a shop or warehouse, etc you don't just focus on the computer system but the system as a whole. How everything works, the people, how they interact with everything, the rules they follow, the whole system. DVS is only a piece of the puzzle and if you only focus on that you may never figure out how they really cheated.
It's not always necessary to figure out how sometimes though. If you've ever worked in gambling you don't necessarily detect cheaters by looking up their sleeves but instead you track who is winning too much (improbably). Shiva has tried to do this but does a bad job sometimes. He is subordinate to me because I have worked with all these systems. He's more of the studying type or someone who buries themselves in books.
I am, with a laser-sight!
Like, keep your eye on the lady - the rest is smoke and mirrors.
TBH - the way you don't answer a straight question, straight - you have to be a politician.
Or greek, and I don't trust either.
Redundancy in voting?
All of this stuff is your bag - carry it yourself!
I shouldn't be rude. I should say that I don't have to trust any of this, and can write it off as eye-glazing details.
Further, I think I could get enough support to support the idea of manual voting, or some crypto solution, removing the need to trust in black-boxes on many levels.
We could pay for such a system with the savings of not spending hundreds of millions on systems that run Windows 2000 (SP 2). Systems that don't have wifi, but do. Systems that cost millions but, can be undermined by a $1 memory stick.
But, don't leave it up to me - I would see all of these clever people, hung, and publicly.
It cuts through the eye-glazing small-talk, and restores trust, all round.