Sorry for formatting, first post happy to re-post with better formatting, but here you go.
I am not linking every single source, research quotes you disbelieve, I copy and paste them, this post is not my job, I am not paid for it, but I'll try to do better than what you see on the news.
Cyber Security / Infrastructure Security Integrity - Can a system be compromised or administrative functions be accessed without permission or without a recorded log and approvals (change control)
Voter Integrity - Can we verify a person that voted, was allowed to vote when and where they voted
Vote Integrity - Can we verify how a person voted against how the vote was recorded
No Evidence - Evidence is the result of investigating suspicious results or activity. If you don't investigate, you will uncover no evidence. As someone in an IT profession, I also understand it is difficult to prove something doesn't exist (looking at you end users, 'slow' is sometimes just a perception based on your anxiety), but that doesn't stop me from collecting evidence the systems are working fine to show the end users (voters), and explain why they had that perception, or maybe I found there was a problem and started a workflow to fix it.
With these understandings, I want to first say, I see no evidence of main stream media investigative journalism of vote irregularities. No evidence. I am fine if we can refute something, let's refute it! Such as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78
I can agree with the information he presentated, in fact the infromation I knew before I saw this video also aligns with what he is saying, in that samples under 2500 were problematic in the use of it and I had scanned "The first Digit Problem", I don't fullyunderstand it, but it made more sense after he explained it, full understanding of math that looks like 5k^2m^4-4km^2+4 divided by something similar is out of my personal depth, I concede to the science of it, thanks for the ELI30 youtuber, if someone has more they would like to contribute I am happy to listen and be educated.
There are 4 very very broad topics listed above.
Cyber Security / Security Integrity, I have not heard or read anyone saying the voting systems were hacked or compromised by a non-affiliated administrator. More simply, nobody is claiming the voting machines were hacked.
This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78
I first want to point out that I see no evidence of investigative journalism, the BBC reporter simply quotes other government bodies that I have not seen any proof of investigation, if this is "investigative journalism" I would like their definition of propaganda.
Second, he touches on the cyber security area "the cyber structure and infrastructure agency, an agency of the department of homeland security". Is anyone talking about or claiming these voting machines were hacked? The person being interviewed certainly wasn't. Using words like "most secure election in history", ok I can buy that, infrastructure security for voting machines has been getting better (I can talk about this too and why it still sucks) and is probably the best it has been overall... ever, thats the nature of improving, I am the best keyboard typer I have ever been right now, the more I do it the better I get. Worthless statement, but meaningful impact by choice of words to those that have not thought through this information and broken it all down.
Compromised in context of that interview has nothing to do with the other 3 topics at the top. The interview went on to say that Dominion had no credible information that the software had affected vote counts, and he cites other media organisations... I say again I see no evidence of investigative journalism.
On the investigative journalism note, and I think this is an easy one, the election has not been certified, the election is still in progress so the question around "Biden has shown he can work around the absence of concession" is a direct example of lack of investigative journalism, the election has not been certified.
Moving on from that single clip and on to other topics, again nobody is saying the voting machines were hacked, out cyber security and infrastructure security is currently in tact as far as I am aware, I don't disagree with the DHS assesment today.
Voter Integrity - There are affidavits, legal documents binding your word against a legal consequence if you lie, that affirm voter integrity has been compromised. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/02/republican-observers-say-detroit-ballots-went-unchecked/5680540002/ Allegations of invalid or unchecked signatures, ballots being ran through multiple times, same signature on multiple ballots, voters not in the database but votes being counted, adding voters adhoc to databases that weren't there etc. Lots of links you all can find, this will tie into "Vote Integrity" as well. A simple test of this theory, what do poll watchers do, from ABC and they are documenting a single city and their guidance (each municiplaity is different, this is one reason it is very easy to claim 'no evidence of fraud' and also complicate the national conversation and the enormous legal battles)
What are poll watchers? "Poll watchers monitor elections in most states. From making sure voters who show up to the polls are registered, to enforcing rules and regulations at voting sites, poll watchers' responsibilities can vary by state.
From making sure voters who show up to the polls are registered, to enforcing rules and regulations at voting sites, poll watchers' responsibilities can vary by state. For example, in Pennsylvania, poll watchers are allowed to keep a list of voters.
In Chicago's latest guidance on poll watchers, that permission is not explicitly stated, but Chicago poll watchers can compare signatures in the poll book with the signatures on the ballot application."
And the media continues on to quote opinions of experts such as Bloomberg without establishing a fact "“The idea that these affidavits could in any way call into question the election result is absurd,” said Samuel Bagenstos, a professor at the University of Michigan who reviewed the affidavits. He is a former senior Justice Department official under President Barack Obama. “This is an abuse of the legal process at this point.”"
And the very next section of the Bloomberg article, same thing, an opinion "Michael Gilbert, a law professor at the University of Virginia, echoed that. “My strong sense is that these affidavits have no bearing on the outcome of the race in Michigan,” he said, adding that he doubts the claims are all true. “But even if they are true, they do not provide evidence of fraud.”"
Nobody cares about your sense, where is the investigation to confirm or deny it? This all reminds me of Southpark and the town cop that says "move along nothing to see here". I don't question if that is actually true, but I have a strong sense that is opposite of his, so yeah, maybe dig in for 2-4 hours and report some findings.
Again I will say, I see no evidence of investigative journalism, the above statement is "someone we suppose is smart has stated something is absurd and you should believe him" no, lay it out that is literally your job, to inform the American people not parrot gut feelings like it is fact.
Vote Integrity - Data in should be kept, data out should be kept, so we can not only hand count to verify, but also verify data in matches data out to VALIDATE the voting software.
This is a big one for me, this is where accusations of weighted voting, verifying signatures, etc all ties in. So I ask myself, what are the STANDARDS required by law for a vote machine and its software to be used in an election.
In PA and like all other states a voting machine must be certified by the state, and like all other states it is up to each county to decide what they want to use within the certified list of voting machines. Take that in for a second, every county can use whatever voting machine they like, based on their own budget. Now because it simply came up first in a duck search I will highlight Utah (even though we are talking about PA), look at all of these certified voting systems.
https://secureourvote.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Utah-Official-List-of-Certified-Equipment.pdf
Also note the certification date, and not a re-certification timeline. Ok, let's move on, lots of options for counties to choose within their budget, state certifies it, so it is ok to use.
Wait, how do they certify it? Is there a test? Do they have to meet certain requirements? Yes they do, but what are they? Each state is different, all states have evolving cyber security requirements, multi-factor authentication, they cannot be conected to the internet during voting, voting systems sealed with locks and keys, during voting equipment is to be inspected to ensure there has been no tampering, security awareness training, pasword management etc. Below is Texas code describing all of that with links within to dig deeper (again I know we are talking PA, I'm lazy and like the top searches, again this isn't my job, someone at CNN should really be doing this shit, but they dont). https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/conducting/security-update.shtml
That all sounds wonderful! Let me quote myself "Using words like "most secure election in history", ok I can buy that, infrastructure security for voting machines has been getting better..." BUT where is the legislation on VOTE INTEGRITY, and where is the enforcement, nobody today that I am aware of is claiming the machines were hacked, that is cyber security, not vote integrity.
More simply, how are we validating systems are properly counting our votes? Well let's look at a certification process! Now I have a PA specific link, now that we have an understanding nationally how it all works (75%).
This report is for GEMS, for those uninitiated, GEMS has been in the news, reported on, researched etc since like 2001, and is still widely in use today and is part of the backend for several voting systems certified by states (I don't know every single one, and I wouldn't blame some for not making that info public knowledge). GEMS in version 1.18.1 introduced 'weighted voting' in 2001, weighted voting is for a simple explanation, instead of having 1 vote for 1 candidate, they made votes fractions of a number, or decimals... Sounds weird right? A vote is a vote, why does it need to be a fraction of a vote? I don't want to use a jump to conclusions board, but anyone remember the movie Office Space? Again I am not math wizard, so I wont describe out of my depth here. But see past research:https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/Documents/Voting%20Systems/ExpressPoll%205000%20w%20EZRoster%202.7.11,%20Bridgepoint%201.6.0.0/Ex%20Rep.pdf
OK BACK TO VALIDATING! Super exciting, I found what PA did in 2013 to certify a GEMS voting machine!
Yes! it even looks like a re-certification, so I assume it may be done annually! Thank goodness! Voting machines are patched and SSL certificates updated until 2030, WE ARE SECURE! YES! NO FRAUD!... Wait... How does that apply to vote integrity? Seriously, did we not test to ensure the update, new features, new default features, best practice configurations of the software etc do not allow for weighted voting or any other type of vote manipulation? OR even run 5000 test scenarios through it and verify input vs output vs results? Really?
They literally just updated software and installed a new SSL certificate, there is nothing around vote integrity, and that is what we are questioning, don't let the media re-phrase or use specific language to say "nope not here" by using ultra specific language against you.
It’s not right to call them “Aunt Tifa” sometimes they have a penis but wish they didn’t and then it’s OK.
But sometimes they are OK with having a penis and we should make sure we use the right pronouns “Uncle Tifa”.
It also is fluid in reverse, wishing they had a penis or ok not having a penis. Either way make sure we ask their pronouns first out of respect.
EDIT: If there is confusion, this is a play on the racist "uncle tom" that is only applied to black men and the obsession of sensitivity for confusion on gender, while making fun of Antifa.