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.

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 a study.

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.

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.