Ware County, Ga has broken the Dominion Algorithm

a reply to: DanDanDat

I guess. But I don't think electoral votes are counted by machines. And I don't see how it would apply. Only 2 states have a "split" system and that isn't based on popular votes, but by counties.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Since Weighted Voting Systems are used it makes sense for a company that makes tabulators to including this feature in order to meet the needs of the greatest number of potential consumers.

I don't see the sense in you statement.

The EC does what you call weighted voting, not the states.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Navieko

I'd be very interested on your opinion of what legitimate reasons the developers would have had for including that feature?

First thing that comes to mind, as one who dabbles in programming, would be for running simulations. I've done that trying to come up with a scoring system for hang gliding competitions.

Secondarily for debugging purposes. Beta stage stuff.

Such things are not necessarily included in release versions of software.

I don't know man... I also dabble in a bit of programming and it would make a hell of a lot more sense to me that any simulation type stuff would simply be done on a computer using code/software/emulators that are completely removed from the physical hardware that is used to count votes and help determine elections of this scale. It should go without saying that these machines should be absolutely fool-proof with regards to their capacity to not be tampered with or rigged.

From what I've read on them, that's certainly not the case.

For example, I wonder how easy it would be for someone who has access to the manual and perhaps the skills to reverse-engineer the firmware, to simply flash their own firmware onto the machine? I'd love to get my hands on one and see what even I could do -- but I have little doubt the same guys that hack Sony/Nintendo/Xbox firmware would have no issues with one of these Dominion voting machines.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat

I guess. But I don't think electoral votes are counted by machines. And I don't see how it would apply. Only 2 states have a "split" system and that isn't based on popular votes, but by counties.

That is only one example, most understood by us in the USA, of a weighted voting system.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Weighted Voting Systems

A weighted voting system is one in which the participants have varying numbers of votes. One of the most common examples of a weighted voting system is the U.S. Electoral College. Under the Electoral College system, the number of votes for each state is based upon that state's population. California, one of the most populous states, can cast 54 electoral votes while Alaska may cast only 3 votes.

I don't think that this definition fits this feature of these machines.

As I see it, the Domenion machines are set up so you have the option to set the vote for A so you will only get .5 votes per ballot and you can set the vote for B so you can get 2 votes per ballot. Using the above example, the results would come out as 108 votes from California for B because they voted for B and 1.5 votes from Alaska for A because they voted for A.

I see this as a useless feature unless it is designed to cheat.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: DanDanDat

Weighted Voting Systems

A weighted voting system is one in which the participants have varying numbers of votes. One of the most common examples of a weighted voting system is the U.S. Electoral College. Under the Electoral College system, the number of votes for each state is based upon that state's population. California, one of the most populous states, can cast 54 electoral votes while Alaska may cast only 3 votes.

I don't think that this definition fits this feature of these machines.

As I see it, the Domenion machines are set up so you have the option to set the vote for A so you will only get .5 votes per ballot and you can set the vote for B so you can get 2 votes per ballot. Using the above example, the results would come out as 108 votes from California for B because they voted for B and 1.5 votes from Alaska for A because they voted for A.

I see this as a useless feature unless it is designed to cheat.

That does sound correct; I was mistaken.

a reply to: Navieko

It should go without saying that these machines should be absolutely fool-proof with regards to their capacity to not be tampered with or rigged.

No such thing.

For example, I wonder how easy it would be for someone who has access to the manual and perhaps the skills to reverse-engineer the firmware, to simply flash their own firmware onto the machine?

I would think, not very easy on one machine, much less many. Impossible, of course not.

It is impossible that Trump lost, fair and square?

a reply to: beyondknowledge

As I see it, the Domenion machines are set up so you have the option to set the vote for A so you will only get .5 votes per ballot and you can set the vote for B so you can get 2 votes per ballot.

As you see it?

a reply to: Phage

Yes, it is in the instruction manual. Look it up. I don't remember which thread the link to the manual is in.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

I don't have one handy.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Phage

Yes, it is in the instruction manual. Look it up. I don't remember which thread the link to the manual is in.

It has not been determined that the manual is for the same type of machines that are being used. That said, I believe it has that function.

If what I have been reading is correct. Most all voting machine software in use in the US. Came from the same open source code, that had these features at it's core.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Navieko

For example, I wonder how easy it would be for someone who has access to the manual and perhaps the skills to reverse-engineer the firmware, to simply flash their own firmware onto the machine?

I would think, not very easy on one machine, much less many. Impossible, of course not.

Sure one would think and hope so, I'd like to know for sure. Sorry if I don't take your word for it. All it'd likely take is a compromised version of the firmware on a USB flash drive with instructions on how to flash it onto the Dominion hardware... and probably any low-level IT officer could do it. If it's instructions coming from on top saying "we need to update the firmware on these machines" no-one will question it.

The exact firmware versions and code should be analyzed and compared from all machines by a trustworthy high-level independent cybersecurity firm, at least from the States/Counties that are in question. This will either allow a very sizable population to somewhat relax and admit defeat knowing that the election wasn't likely rigged, or it will expose some serious issues with the voting system, and most importantly it can be remedied for the future. No reason not to.

a reply to: Navieko

No reason not to.

I agree.
In the meantime, what?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Navieko

No reason not to.

I agree.
In the meantime, what?

Ideally, everyone just patiently waits for the results without making presumptions one way or the other. If both sides just agreed to get it over and done with, rather than fight tooth and nail to halt any kind of progress, it likely could have been done already. This doesn't need to be something that takes many weeks and months to do.

a reply to: Navieko

Ideally, everyone just patiently waits for the results without making presumptions one way or the other.

There's sort of a deadline (or two), involved here.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Navieko

Ideally, everyone just patiently waits for the results without making presumptions one way or the other.

There's sort of a deadline (or two), involved here.

Oh I don't think for a second this will get resolved within the deadline -- but not because it's not easily possible... more-so because one side is delaying/stalling, like I said, with tooth and nail, to halt any progress being made. Which begs the question? Why? It's almost as if they're eyeing that deadline in hopes it can be reached before any real investigation/audit can take place. After which things get a lot more complicated.

a reply to: Navieko

more-so because one side is delaying/stalling,

You mean courts saying, "Seriously? Is this all you've got? Do you have anything that would change certified results?"

That's not stalling, that's a lack of evidence.

Ware county doesn't cut it you want a professional cyber security experts opinion.

originally posted by: Phage
You mean courts saying, "Seriously? Is this all you've got? Do you have anything that would change certified results?"

That's not stalling, that's a lack of evidence.

Sometimes an investigation has to be allowed to take place before any real evidence can be found. And in order to do the investigation properly, they first require the court orders to allow for otherwise legally in-accessible information... such as, perhaps, the firmware to all the machines. I don't know that's just a quick guess, but I'm sure there's potentially a lot more to it than simply lack of evidence. I'm quite certain not everyone on Trump's legal team is a complete idiot.

a reply to: Navieko

I'm quite certain not everyone on Trump's legal team is a complete idiot.

This is yet to be demonstrated.
But then again, they are being paid to keep it up. The longer the better.