Don't just ask why there are weighted counts. They have an explanation for that. It's supposedly for elections where you can vote for multiple candidates for the same office. So you can vote for candidate A as your first choice, B as your second choice, etc.
What needs to be asked is:
Was that option in use (fractional votes suggests yes)?
Who set the system up to use that option in an election where it's not used?
Where the election officials aware of the option and it's use? If not, why weren't they aware? If yes, why did they allow it?
I think the most important aspect of the machines to ask about and draw people's attention to is adjudication and how the recounts are done.
Why is the system able to adjudicate in batches?
Why does it store the adjudicated version as the image for that ballot (pretty sure that's how it works, if not let me know)? This is a serious thing since many (all?) of the recounts that were done used the printed ballot images from the machines.
What oversight is there for the adjudication process? The election worker can completely change your vote, and there's no way to know without a hand count of the original ballots. So what process is in place to make sure that doesn't happen.
Why where the had recounts of the original ballots in New Hampshire stopped when they found a 6% discrepancy between from the machine count? Why isn't that enough evidence to warrant hand recounts of the original ballots everywhere tabulation machines were used?
Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding of weighted votes is similar to a company holding a stockholder election. Bob owns 100 shares while Tom owns 10. Bob votes and it counts as 100. Tom votes and it’s counted as 10 ( .1 of Bob’s vote).
Regardless, I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation for weighted voting in a Presidential Election.
I agree about adjudication. I’ve posted earlier how paper ballots are converted into ballot images when scanned. The Tabulator software reads the darkness (pixel count) of the ovals on a ballot image to determine if it’s valid. So let’s say that on every third image ballot the algorithm adjusts the pixel count to a low number that is below the threshold of a valid vote. Off it goes into the adjudication bin with all the others.
I’m not saying this is how it was done but it does illustrate the dangers of working with proprietary software in our elections. The Antrim, MI audit determined that roughly 65% of ballot images were sent to adjudication. I’ve yet to hear Dominion dispute that finding.
The excuse for weighted votes would be that they designed it to work for a broad range of usages. I think example you would see is in an election where you can choose multiple candidates.
For example, you might be able to pick your top 4 candidates out of a list of 20. Then mayne your vote is weighted as:
1 for your 1st choice
.75 for your 2nd choice
.5 for your 3rd choice
.25 for your 4th choice
Does that mean that how the software works makes sense? I couldn't say. The point is that they can explain why it's like that. That's why we need to ask the questions I mentioned. Because even if they can explain why the option exists, they need to explain why it was used at all.
As for adjudication, one of the officials from Georgia (I forget who) said that 90% of the mail in ballots had gone to adjudication. He didn't say that explicitly. He gave the number of mail in ballots (around 100k) and the amount that had gone to adjudication (around 90k).
I personally think adjudication is one of the main vectors of fraud. It seems like the system is basically designed to be able to choose the "correct" candidate via forcing ballots into adjudication, and then batch adjudicating.
Computer security and election integrity experts agree that the best way to address the problems in election software is to implement a solution that is software-independent. The clearest solution lies with paper ballots and post-election audits.
We’re fighting a Marxist regime right now so reforms are going to be an uphill battle. Hopefully the massive fraud of 2020 will be exposed and push legislation along. Jan 6th was just a shot across the bow if we don’t get this fixed.
Don't just ask why there are weighted counts. They have an explanation for that. It's supposedly for elections where you can vote for multiple candidates for the same office. So you can vote for candidate A as your first choice, B as your second choice, etc.
What needs to be asked is: Was that option in use (fractional votes suggests yes)?
Who set the system up to use that option in an election where it's not used?
Where the election officials aware of the option and it's use? If not, why weren't they aware? If yes, why did they allow it?
I think the most important aspect of the machines to ask about and draw people's attention to is adjudication and how the recounts are done.
Why is the system able to adjudicate in batches?
Why does it store the adjudicated version as the image for that ballot (pretty sure that's how it works, if not let me know)? This is a serious thing since many (all?) of the recounts that were done used the printed ballot images from the machines.
What oversight is there for the adjudication process? The election worker can completely change your vote, and there's no way to know without a hand count of the original ballots. So what process is in place to make sure that doesn't happen.
Why where the had recounts of the original ballots in New Hampshire stopped when they found a 6% discrepancy between from the machine count? Why isn't that enough evidence to warrant hand recounts of the original ballots everywhere tabulation machines were used?
Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding of weighted votes is similar to a company holding a stockholder election. Bob owns 100 shares while Tom owns 10. Bob votes and it counts as 100. Tom votes and it’s counted as 10 ( .1 of Bob’s vote).
Regardless, I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation for weighted voting in a Presidential Election.
I agree about adjudication. I’ve posted earlier how paper ballots are converted into ballot images when scanned. The Tabulator software reads the darkness (pixel count) of the ovals on a ballot image to determine if it’s valid. So let’s say that on every third image ballot the algorithm adjusts the pixel count to a low number that is below the threshold of a valid vote. Off it goes into the adjudication bin with all the others.
I’m not saying this is how it was done but it does illustrate the dangers of working with proprietary software in our elections. The Antrim, MI audit determined that roughly 65% of ballot images were sent to adjudication. I’ve yet to hear Dominion dispute that finding.
The excuse for weighted votes would be that they designed it to work for a broad range of usages. I think example you would see is in an election where you can choose multiple candidates.
For example, you might be able to pick your top 4 candidates out of a list of 20. Then mayne your vote is weighted as: 1 for your 1st choice .75 for your 2nd choice .5 for your 3rd choice .25 for your 4th choice
Does that mean that how the software works makes sense? I couldn't say. The point is that they can explain why it's like that. That's why we need to ask the questions I mentioned. Because even if they can explain why the option exists, they need to explain why it was used at all.
As for adjudication, one of the officials from Georgia (I forget who) said that 90% of the mail in ballots had gone to adjudication. He didn't say that explicitly. He gave the number of mail in ballots (around 100k) and the amount that had gone to adjudication (around 90k).
I personally think adjudication is one of the main vectors of fraud. It seems like the system is basically designed to be able to choose the "correct" candidate via forcing ballots into adjudication, and then batch adjudicating.
One of the best articles I’ve read concerning election integrity.
https://tnsr.org/2020/09/fixing-democracy-the-election-security-crisis-and-solutions-for-mending-it/#article
We’re fighting a Marxist regime right now so reforms are going to be an uphill battle. Hopefully the massive fraud of 2020 will be exposed and push legislation along. Jan 6th was just a shot across the bow if we don’t get this fixed.