Rigging the 2016 Presidential Election


william.scherk

Recommended Posts

The fraud was committed and reported on in July. Sure, she deserves the comeuppance from this new dredging. The people counted on for continued support of Clinton who havent heard of the latest are low information voters and not news watchers in the main. Does anyone know what its like to summon up the energy for something you care little about, as in an election when you have your life to live? What good a blackout would do if there is one is anyones guess.

As of this moment on Google.

Google News front page.

Clinton campaign wages new war against James Comey

CNN  - ‎8 hours ago‎
(CNN) Hillary Clinton on Saturday questioned FBI Director James Comey's decision to write to congressional leaders about emails uncovered in the bureau's probe into Anthony Weiner, saying the timing of such a move was "unprecedented" and "deeply ...

 

Digging deeper under "Clinton" in main menu.

A Scandal Too Far? Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and a Test of Loyalty

New York Times  - ‎9 hours ago‎
Huma Abedin boarded the Clinton campaign plane in Westchester County, N.Y., on Monday. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times. In the summer of 2013, Hillary Clinton had just left the State Department and returned to New York. She planned a quiet year, ...
Campaigns Scramble to Shape Race's Final Days Amid Surprise FBI Email Probe
New poll: 34 percent 'less likely' to vote for Clinton after new email revelations
Politics|Emails in Anthony Weiner Inquiry Jolt Hillary Clinton's Campaign
The Clinton email probe: Questions and answers
A Scandal Too Far? Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and a Test of Loyalty
 
Google search reveals plenty if one is looking.

On Clinton Emails, Did the F.B.I. Director Abuse His Power? - The New ...

www.nytimes.com/.../on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-...
The New York Times
27 mins ago - James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, ... them on developments in the agency's investigation of Mrs. Clinton'semails, ...

Hillary Clinton Assails James Comey, Calling Email Decision 'Deeply ...

www.nytimes.com/.../hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-anthony-weiner.ht...
The New York Times
1 day ago - Hillary Clinton Criticizes F.B.I. ... Mrs. Clinton called the decision by the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to notify Congress about the discovery of some of her emails "strange" and "deeply troubling." ... Comey, Clinton and This Steaming Mess OCT. 29, 2016.

Comey notified Congress of email probe despite DOJ concerns ...

www.cnn.com/.../fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate...
CNN
16 hours ago - FBI reviewing new Clinton emails ... Clinton campaign manager blasts Comey letter ... FBI director's letter about new emails in Clinton case.

Clinton campaign wages new war against James Comey - CNN.com

www.cnn.com/2016/10/29/politics/hillary-clinton...james-comey/index.html
CNN
3 hours ago - Hillary Clinton on Saturday questioned FBI Director James Comey's decision to write to congressional leaders about emails uncovered in the ...

Clinton's Attacking Strategy to Blunt Comey Damage Has Risks ...

www.bloomberg.com/.../clinton-s-attacking-strategy-to-blunt-comey-...
Bloomberg L.P.
12 hours ago - Nine days before the election, Clinton and her aides went on the attack, intensifying criticism of James Comey as word emerged that the FBI ...

How Clinton plans to deal with Comey's October surprise - POLITICO

www.politico.com/.../clinton-comey-october-surprise-abedin-emails-230496
Politico
6 hours ago - DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. — In the hours after FBI Director James Comey threw a wrench into Hillary Clinton's home-stretch plans, her campaign ...

Clinton calls Comey letter 'unprecedented' and 'deeply troubling'

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/.../clinton...comey.../92954986/
USA Today
15 hours ago - Hillary Clinton called it "unprecedented" and "deeply troubling" that FBI Director James Comey released a letter to Congress regarding new ...

Clinton emails give FBI's Comey a second chance to influence a ...

www.marketwatch.com › Economy & Politics › Outside the Box
MarketWatch
5 hours ago - Republican rival Donald Trump and his supporters instantly seized on Comey's letter as evidence of new emails Clinton had sent or received ...

F.B.I. Director James Comey Recommends No Charges for Hillary ...

www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html
The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that the agency was not recommending charging Hillary Clinton in her use of a private ...

What FBI Director James Comey Really Said About Hillary Clinton ...

abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-james-comey-hillary-clinton-email.../story?id...
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton maintained this weekend that FBI Director James Comey concluded she had been "truthful" in ...

Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton's email defenses - POLITICO

www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey.../clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216
FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2016 at 4:24 PM, william.scherk said:

It is however still also possible that Trump supporters will be disappointed that the polls do not show a reversal of fortune on the eve of the election. Especially when this will be when almost everyone agrees (even Rush) that the polling will be at its best.

If those last polls show a swing back to Donald Trump on top where his campaign needs it ... and he subsequently wins, then we can dish out the crowmeat.   It is possible. Many things are possible.

Hail the victor! Hail the one who predicted the outcome best!   Hail the Crow.

Here is Mr Trump's thoughts from the stump, alleging that some mysterious people in some mysterious place are throwing out ballots.. 

Quote

 

Donald Trump questions Colorado’s mail ballot as he rallies Republicans to vote
The Republican nominee is still trailing in Colorado polls

By    JOHN FRANK | jfrank@denverpost.com
PUBLISHED: October 29, 2016 at 1:09 pm | UPDATED: October 29, 2016 at 5:21 pm

GOLDEN — Donald Trump cast doubt on the integrity of Colorado’s  mail-ballot election Saturday at a rally in a key swing county where he implored his supporters to vote.

“I have real problems with ballots being sent,” the Republican presidential nominee told a crowd that numbered in the thousands. “Like people say, ‘Oh here’s a ballot. Here’s another ballot, throw it away. Oh, here’s one I like. We’ll keep that one.’ I have real problems.”

Trump even added a warning to county election officials: “We have a lot of people watching you people that collect the ballots.”

 

Well, where? In the postal service? What do they do, open up the envelopes of a million items, and dump them, without anyone wondering why mail has been tampered with, why there is such a increase in garbage?  This assumes a plan at some higher level to coordinate and bury the evidence. And risking a long prison sentence for fucking with the US Mail.

I think Mr Trump is off his nut with this notion.  

 

On 10/29/2016 at 10:04 AM, william.scherk said:

Which means, in other words, not a single fucking jurisdiction in the entire United States responsible for election uses a "Soros Machine."

Which brings me back to the theme of this thread. Rigging. Fraud sliced seven ways to Sunday. Voter impersonation. Double voting.

So, Colorado ... what are the chances of rigging the mail-in procedures?

A brief report from the Denver Post, who are probably commies ...

For those who don't watch videos, a sceenshot of the transcript of Mr Trump's  lines on rigging in Colorado

Cv9U0kIUIAAUytd.jpg

-- and a piece from Colorado Public Radio, supported by people like you, It Would Be Really Hard To 'Rig' Colorado's Election System. Here's Why.

-- and from the Christian Science Monitor, Trump extends 'rigged' election claims to mail-in ballots.

-- and from another CSM story related to the 'riggedness,' in this case the risk of voter suppression or intimidation, Donald Trump calls for election observers: Will that protect or taint the results?

Quote

 

Some Trump supporters have said they now see it as their job to not only cast a vote for him but also to intimidate those who may vote against him, which is illegal.

“Trump said to watch your precincts. I’m going to go, for sure,” Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter from Fairfield, Ohio, told The Boston Globe last week. “I’ll look for ... well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American. I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”

 

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Danged auto-start!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

I do. It's going to be their scare story in reverse.

They kept insinuating to people that the whites (the think only whites are Trump supporters) are going to stage an armed revolution if Trump loses and does not accept the result. The media hammered this over and over and they kept asking Trump over and over if he will accept defeat. Even Chris Wallace was in on this.

But once Trump wins, you can expect to see the Black Lives Matter crowd and sundry hard leftist groups stage riots all over America. It's going to be a holy mess.

And President Obama is going to let it burn. Maybe throw some gas on the fire.

Fortunately, the armed forces and police are full of people who are sick of this stuff. They will be energized by Trump's win and will not stand down. They will use their skills to keep damage to a minimum.

That's my prediction.

Michael

I know you're not "scared out of your wits." That leaves "ideologically delusional"?????:evil::evil:

--Brant

just funnin:evil::evil::evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Here is Mr Trump's thoughts from the stump, alleging that some mysterious people in some mysterious place are throwing out ballots.. 

Well, where? In the postal service? What do they do, open up the envelopes of a million items, and dump them, without anyone wondering why mail has been tampered with, why there is such a increase in garbage?  This assumes a plan at some higher level to coordinate and bury the evidence. And risking a long prison sentence for fucking with the US Mail.

I think Mr Trump is off his nut with this notion.  

 

So, Colorado ... what are the chances of rigging the mail-in procedures?

A brief report from the Denver Post, who are probably commies ...

For those who don't watch videos, a sceenshot of the transcript of Mr Trump's  lines on rigging in Colorado

Cv9U0kIUIAAUytd.jpg

-- and a piece from Colorado Public Radio, supported by people like you, It Would Be Really Hard To 'Rig' Colorado's Election System. Here's Why.

-- and from the Christian Science Monitor, Trump extends 'rigged' election claims to mail-in ballots.

-- and from another CSM story related to the 'riggedness,' in this case the risk of voter suppression or intimidation, Donald Trump calls for election observers: Will that protect or taint the results?

 

 

Go Hillary, Go!!!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I am a big Twitter user, but I don't get this claim. . Snapchat seems to be mobbed by celebrity 'news' of the fabulosities in the Jenner/Kardashian orbit.  Why would you get your hard news from Snapchat?  And Buzzfeed is a news site only if your idea of news is what the Jenner/Kardashians are up to, or what the best sandwich is.

Here's look at Buzzfeed. Does it seem like the site even reports on politics?

feedbuzz.png

I actually don't know how to get to a separate "Trending" page if there is one at my Twitter account. There is a little 'trends' section on my Twitter home page -- this is what I see when I go to  to plain old http://www.twitter.com (it resolves to show my identity at https://twitter.com/) ....

twtter-trendz.png

So, it looks to me that my "Trends" are tailored to me, by Twitter knowing my location. I don't know what is under the hood, really. But when I click on the change button, it gives me some options:

trendsTwitter.png

-- the only options it gives me are to choose a new location. Here I change it from Vancouver to Cleveland:

clevelandOhio.png

And now that this is changed, my 'Trends' change:

clevelandTwitter.png

-- there you go. I do not understand Twitter Trends or what is trending on the whole expanse of Twitter.  One last thing I will try is looking at someone else's Twitter page. Here I look at Michael's:

MSKtrends.png

-- and I get the same dang set of Cleveland Trends.  So I am stumped.

I will gratefully accept some schooling on how to assess "Trending Twitter."  Onward to Trending on Facebook. Here is what the minions at Facebook tell us about Trending:

Quote
What is Trending?
Trending shows you a list of topics and hashtags that have recently spiked in popularity on Facebook. This list is personalized based on a number of factors, including Pages you've liked, your location and what's trending across Facebook. Learn more about how to use trending and how we determine what trends are shown.
14106253_322431244771311_2077226983_n.pn
Note: Trending is currently available in English in select countries.

And ... how to work with or change what you see as Trending. I add emphasis:

Quote
How does Facebook determine what topics are trending?
Trending shows you topics that have recently become popular on Facebook. Trending topics are based on factors including engagement, timelines, Pages you've liked and your location. Our team is responsible for reviewing trending topics to ensure that they reflect real world events.
On a computer, the topics are grouped into 5 categories: All News, Politics, Science and Technology, Sports and Entertainment.
Learn how to view more content about a topic and how to customize the topics you see in Trending.

All right. That gives me some information. I check what the minions+algorithms+hinkiness give me for my personalized trends

FBtrending.png

So a hundred and twenty thousand Facebookers are 'talking about' Kylie Jenner and Tyga.   And thirty-two thousand are 'talking about" Anthony Weiner.

One last thing I bear in mind:  Facebook and Twitter are world-wide phenomena. The borders of the platforms do not correspond to the USA; the very nature of social media is, dare I say it, ephemeral takes on everything from sports to music to politics. In other words, if you want your social media accounts to show you the stories you want, you have to participate. 

I am going to go fiddle with my Facebook feed until it gives me what I want: more stories on what Tyler Durden wants to see on his Trending list.

Finally, please go and read the whole Tyler Durden article.   Tell me that you understand how this purported Social Media Blackout works.

Edited by william.scherk
Grammar fixes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go. I did not change any preferences or anything -- I just clicked on the symbol for politics. How does it know that I secretly favour non-political news? Was it the Cher video I listened to over and over again?

FB-feedchanges.png

Here is the seventy year-old hack herself as she was eighteen years ago, before her fifteen year long final world tour, drenched in effects, singing Do You Believe in Life after Love (for Trump), which I hear every single night I've gone to the Davie Street clubs since its release.  This was a worldwide smash so she might as well be singing lurf ofner blub.

Just let the music into your alligator brain. Do not watch the living waxwork or look into her eyes, just listen to the secret soothing message.  Ay noe vat ayam strawn. Ay noe yile gef froo theeyus.  Thumpitty thump trump. Ay doe knee jo yeni mo ho o.

For those who don't already hate Cher, and who haven't heard this song, imagine a funeral in a disco, a gay wake, a divorce party DJed by KC and the Sunshine band. 

 

I am going to go give a verbal spanking to Tyler, if I can find him on Twitter. 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Bev Harris, a voter fraud expert, she thinks the fix is in for Hillary Clinton through the voting machines.

I'm mentioning this because it just hit Drudge. It's an Infowars story, though. See here:

How America's Elections are Hacked

My takeaway: the exploit is that whole votes are entered into fields that can be manipulated with fractions (like a money field, like dollars and cents). Once you can break votes up into fractions, then you can have a field day.

Bev Harris urges people to get restraining orders so that election personnel do not destroy the ballot images. If possible, get a FOIA request for a USB copy of the ballot images, and try to make sure the ballot image feature is turned on in the machines. According to her, many places don't even turn the feature on.

Here's a demonstration of a fraud system built by a person called in to test the voting machine systems called "Fraction Magic." This video is also embedded in the article, along with a video of an interview with Bev.

From what I understand, Fraction Magic can do anything with vote tallies, but the results have to be believable, so they cannot diverge so much from perceived reality (created by press expectations, mainstream polls, person-to-person exit polling, etc.) they call for a fraud investigation. So a massive landslide will still be a landslide, just much less of one. In other words, as I understand it, this will only rig the election if voting results are tight.

Alex Jones is putting his crew to making special reports about this, so new videos will be available shortly. I imagine this is going to become a thing very quickly.

And I imagine all kinds of law enforcement people are going to get interested.

Let's see what happens.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Alex Jones is putting his crew to making special reports about this, so new videos will be available shortly.

Here's the first one.

I forgot to mention in the previous post that the magic happens by the program calculating votes using decimals, but then displaying only whole numbers (one whole number per vote). It doesn't display decimals.

I know a little bit about this monkeybusiness from when I was messing with government bonds down in Brazil. A friend in the banking industry showed me how banks create a massive secret slush fund from decimals. When they calculate interest, many times a fraction of a cent (centavo) occurs and they just shave off the fraction because it can't be displayed as a proper monetary unit. The money from that shaved fraction goes into a hidden slush fund. When you think about all the credit card transactions and other banking services that happen every day, this turns out to be quite a nice chunk of change.

The voting machine manipulation of fractions works a bit differently, but the principle is the same: the computer program calculates decimals that it does not display and the operator controls what happens with the real calculations and what gets displayed.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2016 at 11:42 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

According to Bev Harris, a voter fraud expert

How did Bev Harris achieve her expertise? How do we know she isn't a kook or a crank?  Has she published anywhere but on Youtube or blog postings? (what is missing in her videos and blog entries for me is the practical detail needed to combat the 'magic,' and even a clear 'primer' on the bits and bobs of the system she has convinced herself is ripe for rigging ... I'd settle for a FAQ)

In any case, if her expertise provides a real insight into the GEMS systems, and if the GEMS system is 'hackable' by her lights, and if the states that currently use the GEMS systems are only Georgia, Mississippi, Utah and Alaska, what is the point? 

I mean, these states are in control of their own elections. These four are all states the Mitt Romney won in 2012, and where the least-worst polling samples most recently have shown candidate Trump on track to win each of them -- except perhaps Utah (where he may/may not top out Evan McMullin by a small margin).

-- I will check against VerifiedVoting.org for the details of the Utah systems.  Of all the 'riggable' systems, this might seem to be where the 'riggity' GEMS could swing the vote against Trump. Clinton is well back of the two men, but the Them people could possibly fraction-magic McMulling over the top.

I will report on the Utah GEMS systems ... and try to figure out how Roger Stone got his information on the four states only notion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, william.scherk said:

How did Bev Harris achieve her expertise? How do we know she isn't a kook or a crank?  Has she published anywhere but on Youtube or blog postings?

William,

Do you mean is she one of the elites or one of the unwashed masses?

:evil: 

She's probably one of the unwashed masses because I don't think she received a degree in voting machine fraud from an accredited university. :)

But here, let me help you:

Bev Harris

:evil: 

Since you are feeling lazy, I'll write a few comments. Bev Harris coined the term "black box voting." She's been involved in all kinds of legal proceedings  and investigations (the Bushes were not amused with her at all :) ). A documentary partially based on her work, Hacking Democracy, received an Emmy nomination about 10 years ago. She wrote a book called Black Box Voting awhile back. She's been involved in this stuff since 2000 or so.

Left-wing people are now treating her just like they do FBI Director James Comey. They used to think she was their darling because her work favored them, but now they are calling her all kinds of names.

:)

Let the reader look into her and see for himself or herself. She's even got a Wikipedia page.

So is the formerly beloved Bev Harris now a crank like FBI Director James Comey apparently is now a crank, or does she have something worth looking at?

Reader, it's in your court...

Helpfully,

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, william.scherk said:
On 10/31/2016 at 11:42 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

According to Bev Harris, a voter fraud expert

How did Bev Harris achieve her expertise? How do we know she isn't a kook or a crank?  Has she published anywhere but on Youtube or blog postings?

For the first question on expertise, Bev Harris is associated with a much earlier attempt to shed light on 'black box' machines that can appear opaque to inquiry. That was work with Black Box Voting, including a film.  If she is a crank about 'fractional magic,' that doesn't necessarily mean her earliest collaborations were worthless.  The opening topic in this thread lists the types of electoral manipulation, including black-box-voting.

So, it shouldn't matter where she publishes, even if you have a strong bias against Youtube 'journalism.'

21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

(what is missing in her videos and blog entries for me is the practical detail needed to combat the 'magic,' and even a clear 'primer' on the bits and bobs of the system she has convinced herself is ripe for rigging ... I'd settle for a FAQ)

There is no primer, there is no FAQ, there are no notes.  But the folks here who have watched at least part of the short/long form video, or read some of the six-part series on Fractional Magic have probably got some notions in your head. I'll try to give  a quick primer for those who are mostly unknowing.

The first important term is GEMS and the second term is 'weighted voting.'  GEMS stands for Global Election Management System. It is one of four election management systems sold by one of the election-systems big boys, Elections Systems and Software. (a third idea is 'fraction,' percentage, or decimalization.')

"Weighted voting" is a concept that Bev Harris did no apparent investigatory homework on.  "Weighted races"  are electoral contests, often at the local city or school-board level in North America, where the individual voter is given more than one vote in a given contest. For example, there may be three school board seats at stake.  Each eligible voter can have three votes. They may vote for three of the six candidates, or -- in a 'weighted' race -- add all three votes to one candidate's line. Another kind of 'weighted'  vote could be a so-called preferential ballot, used in such western democracies as Australia. There is also a subtly different kind of 'weighted' race known as ranked voting. (for the gin on this see Wikipedia's article on "Cumulative Voting")

So, where did Bev Harris get her idea of what 'weighted races' are in the USA?  Well, with an item of 'evidence' that appeared from a hacking/whistleblower case in the early 2000s.  Believe it or not, some hacker/whistleblower managed to publish internal messages (from bug-fix threads) and internal documents, including elements of code and manuals.  Two of these items were message-forum 'issues' posts or software update patch reports.

With me so far? 

Okay, when where these documents from which Bev Harris cites today?  Well, the latest 'weighted race' reference and the 'fractional/decimal' material are from 2001.  In my next post on the subject I will bring forward her further add-ons, including a 'finding' from Shelby County, Tennessee, and her ability to manipulate an Access database of Alaska returns.

Here is Bev Harris's 'smoking gun.'   [ from http://instinct.org/diebold/bugtrack.w3archive/200108/msg00100.html ]

Re: weighted results total votes displayed without two decimal places

To: <bugtrack@dieboldes.com>
Subject: Re: weighted results total votes displayed without two
decimal places
From: "Nel Finberg" <nel@dieboldes.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:20:11 -0700
References: <PPECJKNKLDJLKJPKPPIOAELDDAAA.ken@dieboldes.com>
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Clark
To: bugtrack@dieboldes.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:49 AM
Subject: RE: weighted results total votes displayed without two
decimal places

Quick follow up to this.  The number of decimal places displayed for
each candidate is three, not two.  The number of decimal places in the
total for the candidates is two.
 
The observant will note that the percentages shown in JResultClient
work this way as well.  The percents are shown with two decimal
places, while the total is 100.0.
 
The reason it works like this is for esoteric statistical reasons.
12.23 might actually be 12.234, and 12.24 might be 12.237.  When you
sum a list of floating point numbers, the sum has one less decimal
place of significance than the elements.  Or just trust me -- I didn't
like stats in school any more than you did.
Do you mean I can finally dredge out those dusty, cherished notes from
the numerical analysis course I took years ago?
 
Nel 
The number of decimal places should all be configurable, but weighted
races are really just a one-shot thing for Sacramento right now.  When
we get more weighted customers, this will be enhanced.
 
Ken
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bugtrack@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-
bugtrack@dieboldes.com]On Behalf Of Dmitry Papushin
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:09 AM
To: bugtrack@dieboldes.com
Subject: Re: weighted results total votes displayed without two
decimal places

This is fixed and will be in GEMS-1-18-3.
 
Dmitry
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Clark
To: bugtrack@dieboldes.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 6:22 PM
Subject: weighted results total votes displayed without two decimal
places

Reported for Brian.  1.18.2.  Weighted races summary report candidate
totals with two decimal places (xxxxxx.xx), but the race total votes
truncates down to the whole value (xxxxxxx).  The total needs to also
display the fraction.
 
Ken

Did you catch that?  Only Sacramento needed a weighted race software this round. The bug was that in reporting percentages, there was over-truncation (in other words, in displaying decimalized numbers, a bug. Instead of the winning Sacramento Library Board totals reported as 

Latonya Smith 12.92%
William Smith   12.98%
Dayronday White 12.93%
LaRoger Stone 2.54%
Beyaundra Green 57.83%

... it would read

Latonya Smith 13%
William Smith   13%
Dayronday White 13%
LaRoger Stone 3%
Beyaundra Green 58%

And the ballot on your screen would look something like this

Cumballot.gif

_________________________________________

There I was after a few hours of reading Bev Harris's six-parter and hunting down answers to my whittled-down questions. What is a weighted race in  the world of elections? 

Bev Harris failed me as an honest investigator. She is stirring a fifteen year old pot, having  at no time met basic standards of inquiry. She did not at any time apparent in the record seek or incorporate critical counter-evidence to the most basic claim supporting her theory.

How does it go again? -- judge with hysteria, skip a trial or test of evidence, and maybe at some distant point in the future, investigate the failure of the crank, and finally identify the errors.

-- to the topic of this thread, is Bev Harris's output any kind of evidence of a clear and present danger with GEMS? No. Does she even understand the flimsy nature of the 'smoking gun'?  I think not.  

In other Rigging News, the GOP in Pennsylvania was trying to have overturned as unconstitutional the state election rule that forbids unregistered/out-of-county election "observers."  A court froze out that attempt.  Which means probably not much -- the candidate and party each have rights to be inside and outside observers, and to be the first line of defence against hinkiness.  What the court seemed to be saying is, You Cannot increase 'scrutiny' in minority precincts by flouting the law as it stands. No Black Panthers in the polling place. No Roger Stone 'Watchers' either. Credentialed party and candidate/campaign choices, yeah.  Any Joe, no.

In other Rigging News, the Los Angeles Times gets a bit giddy on the subject: "Trump proposed poll-monitoring in urban areas, so black voters are fighting back with monitoring of their own."

I managed to sign in as an "Observer" at Roger Stone's tricky 'Stop the Steal' website community.  It is hilariously inept and a tad creepy. There are some awful instructions to 'exit poll,' and a reporting system all set up for the five thousand gomers like me to 'report' something to do with buses and I don't know what.  

What is so stupid about this effort is its lack of basics. Say you are from Florida, and you want to know the law and the rules. You want to know what an in-precinct official observer does in Florida -- your county, and who they report to, and what are the differences from the outside poll-watchers. Presumably someone in this effort has a foolproof plan to effectively marshall us Gomers to prevent some incipient stealing.  

Of course, the evul Trump-hating forces are all over this, lodging legal complaints against Stone/Trump campaign ...

The Ohio lawsuit specifically targets Stop the Steal, a group created by
Stone in April to support Trump's candidacy. "Stone has encouraged Trump
supporters to wear red shirts on Election Day, in large part to menace
voters," the suit states. It alleges that Stone was a "key advisor" to the
1981 campaign of former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, "in which a 'ballot
security' force wearing black armbands engaged in widespread voter
intimidation in Democratic areas of the state," which led to a 1982 consent
decree forcing the Republican National Committee to stop supporting and
encouraging "ballot security" activities, particularly against minority
voters in minority areas. Last Wednesday, the Democratic National Committee
sued the Republican National Committee in federal court in New Jersey,
alleging that the RNC's support of Trump's calls for aggressive election
observers and the RNC's activities violated the decades-old court order.

On October 25, the Huffington Post reported that a group affiliated with
Stop the Steal allowed volunteers to print official-looking ID badges that
could have led voters to think that the holder was a legitimate election
worker. The volunteers were reportedly planning to videotape voters and
conduct fake "exit polls," according to the report, but Stone nixed the idea
after the story broke. Stone repeated his assertion that he wanted Stop the
Steal volunteers to conduct legitimate exit polls that could be used to
contest election results.

VOTEPROTECTORS-MSK.png


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

 

VOTEPROTECTORS-MSK.png

William,

Come, come now.

Sore loser does not become you.

:evil: 

I've always considered you as having one foot in the ruling class and one guilty-feeling foot out.

In other words, I've always seen you looking down your nose at the rest of humanity. Sometimes it is in disdain (especially when looking down on the hilariously inept and a tad creepy Gomers) or sometimes it is in pity if you can find a good victimization story to weep over (looking down one's nose on distress is such a burden, sniff sniff). But the direction has always been straight down the incline of your precious proboscis.

I've also seen you correct yourself and feel ashamed of harboring such superficial vanity with such relish. (Your redeeming grace, in my view.)

The fact is, this go around the election will not be stolen. Whether that is due to the spotlight the alt-right has thrown on election jacking, thus making it extremely hard to pull off, or simply because the US has the most honest election process in the history of mankind and ruling class politicians have such a buttload of integrity they would never ever under any circumstances consider corruption, the fact is the ruling class is most likely going down this go around.

Out on their asses.

And there is no hidden game to protect them. No insider magic. No pull. Not a smidgen of a friendly corrupt hand anywhere.

They will have to deal with the will of the people, the very people they look down on from the glorious heights of their snouts.

I don't have any advice on how to deal with that.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what the hilariously inept Gomers have found sniffing around the FTP backdoor access to a site that provides real-time results to major news networks (from Infowars):

NBC CAUGHT PREPARING HILLARY VICTORY RESULTS BEFORE ELECTION
Pre-election "results" conditioning public to accept rigged Hillary "victory"

This is a little complicated, so here is the process.

If you are going to rig a tight election (and voter shaving only works for tight elections), you have to make the results look plausible to the public. In a close election, even if the expectation has been the other way up to the end, the public will swallow the results if they seem reasonable. If you rig an election so much it looks like a blatant rip-off, there will be public outrage, the FBI will get involved and there will most likely be jail-time for the riggers. So the election has to be naturally tight before it can be rigged with success.

Passive acceptance is the best public response for rigging, though. This means there isn't even a request for a recount. In order to get the public to passively accept a rigged close voting outcome, the public has to get used to the idea of what that closeness could look like.

Enter the social engineers. And they say show 'em pictures. (It really is that simple. :) ) You simply flood the public with graphics giving hypothetical results in advance that are similar to the ones you are rigging. Then, when the rigged results happen, the public has seen a crapload of similar ones and moves on. Nothing to see here. Hello President Hillary Clinton, vote or no vote.

A company that supplies such graphics and calculations to NBC in Tennessee was caught with thousands of graphics ready to go that perfectly fit the vote shaving model. The fields in the graphics should have been "0" until actual results came in, but they were pre-filled to a 42% popular vote and 343 electoral college votes for Clinton.

After the exposure Alex Jones threw on it, they are now zero (I checked).

:)

Is this proof of anything? Well, it's like taking a gun away from a bad-looking dude who has been looking for a long time at a convenience store and, when he perceives nobody is around, starts to make his move. Does that prove he was going to hold up the store? Nope. But taking his gun away right before he goes in proves that he will not. :) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I've also seen you correct yourself and feel ashamed of harboring such superficial vanity with such relish. (Your redeeming grace, in my view.)

The fact is, this go around the election will not be stolen.

You have seen me correct myself, sure. Who doesn't correct themselves when wrong here? -- it is part of good cognitive housekeeping. It is how we keep discussion honest and within the lines of reason. I love it.

As for a comment containing "your redeeming grace," that is quite funny.  How you get to me feeling ashamed of harbouring "such superficial vanity" from correcting mistakes, I don't get it. Is it really necessary for us to make differences in opinion into potted psychological judgement or personal-esteem dispute, Michael? 

As to the second part of the quote, I don't either believe that this election will be 'stolen' ... but I do think that all the loose talk of rigging (and debunked conspiracy tales) sets dangerous conditions. 

I took an investigatory dip into the Bev Harris claims and gave my opinion. I suppose that product could be construed as  'vanity.' Is that 'superficial' vanity? I dunno. Maybe not. Maybe it was an unpleasant trudge for me. Maybe I am 'proud' that I have the tools necessary to dig in and discern fake and sham inquiry from the real thing. Maybe my pride is misplaced, and I should be knocked down a peg or two for my pretensions. 

But.

Let me put it this way: it isn't an injury to myself to be wrong. I have a reasonably secure self-esteem, and a reasonably rational means of testing my own assumptions. I figure it is something I owe to my own integrity -- to explain how I came to be wrong, to myself. Any possible stinging injury to my 'amour propre' is offset by the benefit of being closer to where I want to get: to get at a truth or falsehood.

Forgive me for truncating the lengthy passage.  Sometimes it can serve to isolate an item of interest, sometimes it can aid avoidance of an argument.

Now, on to some other breaking issues,  from Infowars: "MSM CAUGHT PREPARING GRAPHICS SHOWING HILLARY VICTORY | Hillary takes Texas in pre-prepared graphics."

Do we really need to chase this squirrel?

These images will undoubtedly fuel concern given both fears of a rigged and recent investigations uncovering “vote shaving” software being used nationwide.

The reference to '"vote shaving" software' is of course a recursion back to Bev Harris's illusory fifteen year-old smoking gun. Which, for me, indicates the House of Mirrors/Funhouse aspect of the folks at Infowars.  They do not issue corrections like Michael and I.  They have no shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

How you get to me feeling ashamed of harbouring "such superficial vanity" from correcting mistakes, I don't get it.

William, William, William...

I'm not going to accept this pivot.

The shame does not come from you correcting your mistakes.

The shame comes from you (often) thinking you are superior to all those people you (often) look down on when you know, deep inside your soul, you are not. 

Thinking you are is the superficial vanity part.

As for me, I have other problems, but fortunately not that one.

It's inherent to my condition as a hilariously inept and a tad creepy Gomer.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

The reference to '"vote shaving" software' is of course a recursion back to Bev Harris's illusory fifteen year-old smoking gun.

William,

No it isn't.

You didn't watch the right goddam video.

She recently hired a person to hack the voting machines. This person built the software and ran it in real time, right in front of everybody.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is a little complicated, so here is the process.

The following video is a bit clearer.

And it briefly shows the hacker I mentioned in the previous post. 

EDIT:

The video below gives a little of the history of how and why Bev Harris got involved this go around. It's a Texas story. (There's kind of a longish cheesy montage intro, but hey, it's Alex Jones...) :) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL;DR -- WSS, in a fit of ruling-class rage, destroys the precious china cargo of USS Bev Harris, cup by plate by numbers. Smash smash tinkle. With more numbers. Revenge of the Label-Gun.

On 11/3/2016 at 11:09 AM, william.scherk said:

Okay, when where these documents from which Bev Harris cites today?  Well, the latest 'weighted race' reference and the 'fractional/decimal' material are from 2001.  In my next post on the subject I will bring forward her further add-ons, including a 'finding' from Shelby County, Tennessee, and her ability to manipulate an Access database of Alaska returns.

To re-orient readers who care, Bev Harris does not fully understand what 'weighted race' means. She asks the question again in her current series of articles, in the second

Quote

An examination of GEMS relepreciase notes shows that this change shows up on June 27, 2001:

release-notes

But what exactly did they mean by “weighted race”? Further research shows that ‘weighted race’ is defined in a way that removes the one-person, one-vote expectation from elections:

“Weighted voting systems are voting systems based on the idea that not all voters should have the same amount of influence over the outcome of an election. Instead, it can be desirable to recognize differences by giving voters different amounts of say (mathematical weights) concerning the outcome.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_voting

That's it. One wikipedia journey and she is done. NB the slide from Weighted Races to Weighted Voting.

To figure out today's signal defects in the Bev Harris school of investigation, you need only view the long-form video that presents her Fraction Magic notions.  Here is the one I am mostway through noting errors and misunderstandings. Do not be led astray by pictures of people talking, or maps or undated excerpts of some scandalette in Bev and friends' earlier videos.  Just look for what she is claiming to have evidence for right now and what that evidence comprises.

Go to the one-minute mark and listen to Bennie Smith say 'counting votes as money.' and pause on the image.

Here is the image of note (bear in mind that this is assembled either by Bev or by Bennie, it isn't made clear. It resembles a standard type of summary voting table that GEMS system 2001 version 1.18x purportedly can produce -- given data. Given data and 'massaging' the display)

download_(1).png

-- now, the first thing I asked was "Is this a 'real' election result?  Was there a Democratic primary with these two gents, and did these graphic results show weird decimalization, and evidence of hinkiness?  No, yes, yesbut and yes.  But.

No, the totals are completely invented in Bev or Bennie's graphic. No, the graphic was not from an 'official' source or transmitted report. It has been subject to arithmetic fiddling with -- by Bev/Bennie.

Yes. There was an actual Democratic primary election  on August 5, 2010. It was between the two gents named above. I searched it down at the Tennessee Secretary of State's election reporting site.  What I did next was copy-match the format of the graphic's table and then insert the 'certified' election results from the SoS into a table of results (I double-checked against precinct-by-precinct/district totals).

Here is the table of results from Bennie/Bev, followed by the actual results. Note that one table shows fractional results where there should be whole numbers. Note the question I ask at the bottom of each table:

BEV HARRIS GRAPHIC          
           
UNITED STATES CONGRESS DIST 9 Dem          
(D)     Totals    
Number of Precincts     170    
Precincts Reporting     170 100.0%  
Times Counted     81481/391941 28.00% 0.2078909836
Total Votes     80522    
           
STEVE COHEN     16034.31 19.91%  
WILLIE W HERENTON     64436.69 80.02%  
Write-in Votes     51 0.06%  
           
What is 19.91% of 80522?          
16038.5005          
           
REAL FIGURES FROM 2010 PRIMARY          
           
UNITED STATES CONGRESS DIST 9 Dem          
(D)     Totals    
Number of Precincts     29    
Precincts Reporting     29 100.0%  
Times Counted     81481/391941 28.00% 0.2078909836
Total Votes     80555    
           
STEVE COHEN     63402 78.71%  
WILLIE W HERENTON     17153 21.29%  
Write-in Votes     0    
           
What is 78.71% of 80555?          
63404.8405          

-- what are/is the error/s?

Well, out of the gate, Bennie/Bev 'put in' fake data, sham data. They artfully switched the real winner/loser, and simply put in whatever their imagination told them to do as numbers of votes.  They did not resort to counting whole number reports from the precinct level as reported to the Secretary of State in Tennessee, nor early but incomplete media reports. A simple prior summary addition of precinct data is hidden from our view.

That is not the important hinkiness, though. What is deeply hinky is that they did not consult one single actual elections expert this round (eg, Joseph Lorenzo Hall**), and what is most disturbing is that they cannot apparently  see what they have done to mislead themselves.

By using a truncated/rounded percentage (calculation) and applying it against the whole number of exact ballots counted.

That is why I ask, what is X% of Z in each case, and give my calculated answers -- as an illustration of how to get a bizarre and slightly wrong 'answer' to what is X percent of Y.  In the case of the sham numbers in Bev/Bennie's graphic, they are not showing their hand. They do not explain the underlying simple arithmetic.

Here's as simple as I can make it.   Bob and Michael and William were on a ballot.   Five thousand and two valid votes were cast. Michael receives 2737, Bob receives 2066, William receives 199. We certify the results and independently total by precinct.

(in most jurisdictions in the USA, there are 'live' reporting by precincts in tabular form, as the counting proceeds, online at the state/county level or via media partners. This is all reported in whole numbers)

OBJECTIVIST LIVING JUSTICE OF THE PEACE - AT LARGE (Objectivish)    
(O) Totals        
Number of Precincts 35        
Precincts Reporting 34 0.9714285714      
Times Counted 81481/391941 28.00% 0.2078909836    
Total Votes 5002        
           
Justice Kelly 2737        
Avenging Angel Kolker 2066        
Shameless Scherk 199        
           
What is X% of Y?          

 

So, why do we want to know the X of Y?  Because the result gives decimals where it "shouldn't" ... In the Justice of the Peace race above the numbers of ballots counted for each candidate from the precinct-level are totalled.  They are of course not decimalized. There is no reason to say five thousand two point zero zero.  The totals are simple accumulations/additions.  But then comes rough reckoning. Like this -- Kelly won with 27/50ish or fifty-four and a bit out of a hundred.

Yeahbut, people love to know about exact percentages, right?  Yes, indeed, so let's calculate the percentages for Kelly/Kolker/Scherk.  For Kelly, get a decimalized reduction of the operation 2737 over 5002.  That is, format the fraction as the product of division. And what do we get?

0.5471811275489804 ... or, 
54.71811275489804 percent

OK. and now take that 0.5471811275489804 and round it up to where Bev/Benny like it: 54.71 per cent. We just truncate, we don't add any operation to rounding, since Bev/Benny gave no indication of any rounding. 

Now take that reasonable, comprehensible number, and apply it back to the total votes, all five thousand and two point fucking nothing actually counted in each machine, each precinct, each tabulator, tallied by precinct at the Big Bad Computer.  I mean, your head.

54.71 percent of 5002 votes is 2736.5942, which we can round up by eye to 2736.59 votes for Michael!

Shocking. More shocking is that Bob gained 2065.826!!

:huh:

-- for those of you who have bored along with me so far, you can probably write the rest of this comment.  But for those who are yet unreachable, the point, anyone can play with numbers derived from table/database entries and suppositions gleaned from a misread of long-dead old 'buggy' software. Decimalizing in reporting whole numbers looks and is bizarre. It also delivers incorrect results because of truncation and not-resolved 'residuals' from rounding.

 By not understanding 'weighted races' and applying a pointless decimalization of whole-number precinct report totals, and by imagining a Central Computer that carries out their imaginings, the greatest  claims are critically in error.

The next boring segment here was going to be Fun With Access Macros and The Missing Vote in Memphis!  That would cover the fun Bennie and Bev had with coming up with bizarre math/reporting subroutines that could be built on  the marvelous fifteen year old misunderstanding.  It is also a tiresome story.  Just imagine what you or anyone competent with databases can do. You can do plenty 'simulation' ... with a populated database. And you then  can record and show windows of your routines running on database records in Central Computer.  But.  Imagine this is actually the election night.

If the spit-out of your supposed Central Computer rigging totals does not match precinct-level totals (and the poll-watchers and the poll book and the exit-polls and the election judge and the party-runners and list-crossers and party lawyers on speed-dial and the assigned county party lawyers and the HQs' overall 'hinky' switches) which came first, there is a problem.

There is nothing in Bev's written or video testimony that indicates she has ever solved a problem,  'caught' an instance of this kind of 'steal.'  And she has been barking up this tree for some time. The closest she ever came was in the Shelby County Hoohaw, where a single vote was 'missing' due to her imagined fractionation (and not human error).

As for the newishness of the 'vote shaving' ... my take on this is confirmed by Bev Herself:

Fractional percentages attached to votes to sway election outcomes
Jamie White | Infowars.com - NOVEMBER 1, 2016

According to America's leading vote fraud expert, Bev Harris, there is now a new software called "Vote Shaving" which is described as the "most devastating election theft mechanism yet found”. The software allows votes to be fractured and swayed for each candidate. Harris also adds that the latest discovery may be the missing piece of the vote-rigging fraud.

Infowars reports: “It was put in the system in 2001 but it came into wide use in 2006,” Harris said. “It took someone with a special set of skills to know what to look for.”

100.0%

0.2078909835919182 The weirdest thing about this shite?  It takes no special skills or time to 'take on' the conclusions of the hysterical 'reportage' initiated by Bev Harris. It really takes only the time to watch a 20 minute video or skim through her five articles. But to examine the claims carefully, and to subject them to reasonable analysis -- that takes much more time if not normal math abilities.  It takes some work. Bev should already have done this. She should have been her own devil's advocate. Grrrr. A Rand Hall of Fame thinker, not.

Edited by william.scherk
five thousand TWO point zero zero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now