Election Magic 101 - Interpreting Paper Ballots
Illustrating the irreplacable need for paper-ballots in elections and the critical necessity to cease ballot scanning.
As a young boy, I was once chosen to go on-stage in a magic show. The magician inquired my name and asked what I had underneath my shirt. I had nothing under my shirt (but my skin) so I was surprised when he reached inside my shirt and pulled out a rubber chicken! No one could sense what I heard and felt in the brief moment his arm was hidden from view as he pumped a few handfulls of air into the bird. It was an entertaining deception… I was laughing so hard I couldn’t speak! The audience loved it and I was gifted with the knowledge that it was a purposeful ruse.
Similarly, computer codes that perform election alterations must be subtle to prevent people from discovering their logic and processes. As such, they are sold with a covenant that the buyer will not allow anyone to inspect the software. The proprietary codes are designed to be capable of manipulating election results without calling attention to themselves… especially during testing.
Counties often utilize a computer’s ‘audit’ feature to check how well the computer interprets ballots. In the ‘audit’ (a week or two after the close of the election) they open a few batches of ballots in a public meeting and compare them to the images of those same ballots as-scanned during the election.
If you have attended an ‘audit’ and have compared ballots against images-of-ballots & their-interpretations and have never noticed anything unusual… that is because the software is set to interpret the ballots in the best way possible as it is important to get good scans for both virtuous and non-virtuous ballot handling.
Be aware, however, that it is easily within the capability of the computer to electronically rearrange a voter’s markings in an image of a ballot. The viewing of manipulated images would never happen in an ‘audit’ because the computer knows that it is in ‘audit’ mode and the batches that are audited have to be interpreted perfectly and tabulated perfectly because election officers and observers are watching and might inquire further.
To be safe from discovery in a manipulated election, batches that go thru an ‘audit’ process must be excluded from manipulation. Accordingly, an ‘audit’ limits the number of batches that can be safely included in a cheat, but in an insignificant way because of the large number of batches that do not get ‘audited’.
We’re voting, however, with sophisticated software that can swap portions of ballot images from one area with those of another area and then save the image in place of the original. This feature may be used as needed by election manipulators.
Manipulated ballot-images can provide backup for manipulated elections… and a result that matches the previous (manipulated) following a recount. A visual comparison of all the thousands of ballot-images would match the manipulated result, as well… but that would be a fool’s errand.
Only a forensic examination of the machine and its log files by computer experts could detect evidence of ballot manipulation. In short, an ‘audience’ can be easily fooled when voting with computers that use scanners and in the end, only a full manual recount of the original paper-ballots could detect a result conflicting with an electronic count of ballot-images.
In summary, only those privy to the internal workings of proprietary computer code know what is actually going on in the process of interpreting paper ballots… the rest of us minions must live by faith.
Post Script: People who believe that computers conduct elections with fidelity are truly acting on faith alone. That type of boundless faith is what the Lord appreciates in spiritual matters. We might ask ourselves, “Is our faith in God as strong as our faith in computerized-elections?”
They don't allow us to look at anything here (in NE). No audit logs. No CVRs. No images. No paper ballots. No anything.
The election charade is conducted entirely by ES&S. (They also control our online voter rolls.)
The SoS office tries to gaslight us with "audits"—i.e., hand-counting of the paper ballots in a few precincts (by the same people who have a vested interest in "proving" their silly machines are accurate). But what good is that?? It is OBVIOUS that the computerized electronic tabulators can be programmed to compartmentalize the fraud. OBVIOUS. To anyone who knows anything at all about software. Nice article.