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.
Redundancy in records and processes. There's a pipeline.
Basically if I have a spreadsheet of all the stock and there's also the stock on the shelves those are two records that can be compared. The master record is the stock or in this case what people actually voted for. Everything else after that is derivative.
Verifying, auditing and analysing a system like this can get pretty boring, complex, etc but if you do, if you notice something like there's a point where the count goes downstream and can't be verified back upstream then you may have a problem.
You need to connect all the dots. Actually they should have a dummy system as a honey pot. On of the reasons for using the counting machines is speed. It makes things so efficient you can actually have two sets of people counting with two sets of machines from two suppliers. You then compare results. You also have human counters doing random sampling to further verify the results. All three processes happening in unison then you compare the results of each.
We can argue until the cows come home and that's by design. We're kept in the dark, there's a lack of transparency, another case of priority rape as they will say secrecy is a security measure and we can speculate forever but the point is that we don't know and that's by design.
That's a unified problem. What we're seeing is a show and what really goes on backstage is anyone's guess. That is the weakness of the system. We should have to same demand, to blow the lid of this thing so we can find out.
Their obstruction is sufficient to effectively prove they cheated or proof of the same remedy as if they did. At this point I'm not sure it matter's how anymore. A lot of what I'm talking about was relevant before, during and shortly after the election.
At this point we shouldn't give up but the chances of finding anything are rapidly dwindling as there's plenty of time to get rid of the evidence, a lot of it is perishable and the system has been rigged to allow fraud potentially without leaving evidence.
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.
Redundancy in records and processes. There's a pipeline. Basically if I have a spreadsheet of all the stock and there's also the stock on the shelves those are two records that can be compared. The master record is the stock or in this case what people actually voted for. Everything else after that is derivative.
Verifying, auditing and analysing a system like this can get pretty boring, complex, etc but if you do, if you notice something like there's a point where the count goes downstream and can't be verified back upstream then you may have a problem.
You need to connect all the dots. Actually they should have a dummy system as a honey pot. On of the reasons for using the counting machines is speed. It makes things so efficient you can actually have two sets of people counting with two sets of machines from two suppliers. You then compare results. You also have human counters doing random sampling to further verify the results. All three processes happening in unison then you compare the results of each.
We can argue until the cows come home and that's by design. We're kept in the dark, there's a lack of transparency, another case of priority rape as they will say secrecy is a security measure and we can speculate forever but the point is that we don't know and that's by design.
That's a unified problem. What we're seeing is a show and what really goes on backstage is anyone's guess. That is the weakness of the system. We should have to same demand, to blow the lid of this thing so we can find out.
Their obstruction is sufficient to effectively prove they cheated or proof of the same remedy as if they did. At this point I'm not sure it matter's how anymore. A lot of what I'm talking about was relevant before, during and shortly after the election.
At this point we shouldn't give up but the chances of finding anything are rapidly dwindling as there's plenty of time to get rid of the evidence, a lot of it is perishable and the system has been rigged to allow fraud potentially without leaving evidence.
I'm not arguing - not at these rates!
I'm saying that, as sophistication grows, trust diminishes.
I could deliver a secure system, for half the price, and that's bona-fide. Non-citizens, dead voters, maiden-name voting, oversees, all considered.
But I don't get invited to those meetings, and I don't specify the systems, and I don't get told the real requirement, just how it should present.
Secure voting, isn't what they ordered - they got what they ordered and now, we must all live by it!