Here is a potentially foolproof way to forge the next election outcome.
There are some forms of epaper, that could be inductively charged, and maybe even programmed to change the ballot number in a set time interval.
If those numbers dont get checked against a register (as Team Giuliani suggests), but are only spot checked for a 'freak' bunching up of one number, have your guy at the voting booth, feed that into a vote scanner every 10 minutes.
Have an emergency switch that deletes the content of the epaper, and let it auto destroy after 12 hours.
And the only problem left to be solved in hardware is, how to get the chip and the transistors on the epaper small enough for them to fit through the document scanner.
Also, why isnt the document scanner one way, with a lock and a bag attached at the bottom?
Hm... Some of those schemes could be juicy, if you just add a little creative thinking..
I mean with all the vote checkers in the US not knowing what they are supposed to do or not...
(Does it scale though...?
Lets say one person does that every 10 minutes for 12 hours = 72 votes. Yeah, not bad.
edit: But doesnt scale enough. (Made a slight calculation error the first time around.
))
edit -Ideally have the entire sheet made of paper and only the number part replaced by eInk. Would probably look better. And it doesnt need to look totally convincing to the machine if they are storing OCR data only.
(They probably also store an image..
)
And you are still up against statistical sanity checks.
edit: Here - proof of concept for your next voter fraud scheme
:
---
Did some more theory crafting on that.
Problem laid out by Team Giuliani was, that in some districts, the same voting ballot numbers would show up 'ten minutes after the first time - they showed up' in logs, which to them indicated, that ballots might have been fed in loops - multiple times. Which according to them also lined up with them recording 'voting precessing spikes' around 4 am in the morning.
(At least in some cases..
)
Why ten minutes though? This might be connected to the second conspiracy they spun up, which was, that 'entire batches' were recycled.
So scanners probably are one way - with a bag and a lock attached at the bottom - but it was alleged, that they were 're-fed' after 10 minutes.
But that would lead to the entire batches ballot numbers at least showing up twice - which would be highly suspect, and immediately point at the issue.
If only 'some' ballots 'showed up for a second time' according to their numbers, its probably an OCR error, that propagated down to the logs?
Hey - when they dont give any specifics, its actually fun, to puzzle together the rest in your mind...
*hint**hint*
----------------
I tried to find a news article and all I could find was around 200 suspect ballots which led to an over count of 40. It's like a bait and switch.
Only fact check with details I've found is this:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/11/19/fact-checking-the-trump-campaigns-wild-press-conference/
Which is highly suspect. Basically says not to worry - its a clerical issue. And doesnt differentiate between undercount and overcount. If you have overcount vales of 40-200% (and 40% apparently happened in some districts before) - I'd like to know the reason for it. But as Giuliani only dropped it as a byline - amongst 50 other more easily debunkable statements... Couldnt have been that important, ey?
I mean if their best bet was to go in on 'Venezuelan communists manipulated our voting machines', god have mercy....
edit:
Found the source for the 300+% overvote. As you indicated, its debunked.
But as
the Powerline blog first reported, the affidavit made a major mistake. Its data wasn’t actually from Michigan; it was from Minnesota. What’s more, its conclusions about over-votes even in those Minnesota locations aren’t backed up data from the Minnesota secretary of state or from previous elections.
https://web.archive.org/web/2020112...h-hyped-affidavit-features-big-glaring-error/
-----------
Haha, this is flipping great!
Smartmatic story (in the so far unreleased affidavit) includes results being fed into a 'national monitoring room' in Venzuela, brought to you by Smartmatic - which allowed the president to monitor and change district outcomes in realtime.
src:
h**ps://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_p1sonhp-k
"Stark similarities" to the situation in the US were alleged by Powell - so the followup question is -- how many of Dominions voting machines were connected to the internet?...
(0? Well great, that takes care of 'stark similarities')
Also according to Powell Smartmatic had to take the entire internet down in Venezuela to make the voting machines 'change over'. (What? Even in regimes like that - internet is only taken down to suppress news propagation and organizing.)
Arguably allegedly (?) when that military official heard of 'glitches' in several Dominion voting machines that 'stopped the voting' for a certain time - he was reminded of his time in Venezuela when the President had to 'take down the internet - to change smartmatic voting results'? That the stark 'similarities' connection?
Also according to Powell Smartmagic built an elaborate system that allows you to disassociate identity verification data (thumbprint) from voting data, and manipulate one independent of the other. Yes, thats called a computer.... Also, thats by design (id gets discarded, vote is kept, so voting is thereby anonymized). Gotta love people speaking with authority on things they dont understand, not being questioned on it by the journalists interviewing, because they also dont understand a thing about those things... *sigh*