Excellent reporting and commentary - further nails in coffin of electronic equipment coming within miles of elections in future. Wish for those obstructing progress to come alongside to work on the solutions that already exist.
Great work! Votes are cast by humans. They should be counted by humans.
It is absolutely ridiculous to tell people conducting hand recounts that they need to "think" like the machine. The machine should be made to "think" like a human. And if it can't, it is a very poorly programmed machine. The fact is, it is very easy to program a machine to "think"/"count" like a human, when the job is simply counting votes. If a given voter selection mark isn't clear, the software should kick the ballot to adjudication (where the decision is signed off by multiple parties).
But all of this assumes the software hasn't been written to cheat, which is an assumption we can't afford, because it is too easy to do just that.
The fact is, ES&S software and hardware are just WAY overpriced junk, because the priority is cheating, not honesty/accuracy, and certainly not transparency—a fact which totally gives their deceitful and traitorous intentions away. (May I say that every machine has a back door?)
Transparency would add no additional cost whatsoever. But that would prevent the rich people behind the machines from ruling the world as they see fit.
The guy who testified yesterday that the machines do a better and cheaper job than humans is either brain dead or deep state.
So the SOS has her auditors well trained in breaking the law it appears but their competency in doing their jobs is pathetic!
Voter intent ALONE should be enough to require hand counting. If one vote is not counted, that vote could be yours or mine. Every vote should count and it appears that many auditors along with the SA's and SOS just don't care.
Mr. Wiik, Mr "Election Integrity" obviously doesn't care either. He thinks South Dakota sets the standard for the country. With hand counting it will, but not with using outdated, unsecured and antiquated machines and methods.
Excellent summary! Great work. The bottom line is that we cannot trust the machines. Tranasparency is key and it also ensures that voters are not disenfranchised.
I found Hoffman’s filing with Howard as defendant. But there’s only one motion in there. What’s the file number for the other one? Very interested to see what kind of law fare he’s up to.
Excellent reporting and commentary - further nails in coffin of electronic equipment coming within miles of elections in future. Wish for those obstructing progress to come alongside to work on the solutions that already exist.
Great work! Votes are cast by humans. They should be counted by humans.
It is absolutely ridiculous to tell people conducting hand recounts that they need to "think" like the machine. The machine should be made to "think" like a human. And if it can't, it is a very poorly programmed machine. The fact is, it is very easy to program a machine to "think"/"count" like a human, when the job is simply counting votes. If a given voter selection mark isn't clear, the software should kick the ballot to adjudication (where the decision is signed off by multiple parties).
But all of this assumes the software hasn't been written to cheat, which is an assumption we can't afford, because it is too easy to do just that.
The fact is, ES&S software and hardware are just WAY overpriced junk, because the priority is cheating, not honesty/accuracy, and certainly not transparency—a fact which totally gives their deceitful and traitorous intentions away. (May I say that every machine has a back door?)
Transparency would add no additional cost whatsoever. But that would prevent the rich people behind the machines from ruling the world as they see fit.
The guy who testified yesterday that the machines do a better and cheaper job than humans is either brain dead or deep state.
Great Synopsis!
So the SOS has her auditors well trained in breaking the law it appears but their competency in doing their jobs is pathetic!
Voter intent ALONE should be enough to require hand counting. If one vote is not counted, that vote could be yours or mine. Every vote should count and it appears that many auditors along with the SA's and SOS just don't care.
Mr. Wiik, Mr "Election Integrity" obviously doesn't care either. He thinks South Dakota sets the standard for the country. With hand counting it will, but not with using outdated, unsecured and antiquated machines and methods.
Good reporting,
& thanks!
Excellent summary! Great work. The bottom line is that we cannot trust the machines. Tranasparency is key and it also ensures that voters are not disenfranchised.
I found Hoffman’s filing with Howard as defendant. But there’s only one motion in there. What’s the file number for the other one? Very interested to see what kind of law fare he’s up to.