Let's say that Target buys a bunch of cash registers, and after some time has elapsed, someone at one store notices that revenue is down. They dig into the receipts of one cash register and discover that every so often, completely at random, it has a "glitch" that gives a customer 10% more change than he's due. So if you bought a candy bar and paid with a dollar bill, instead of getting $0.11 back you got $0.12. Buying a new TV for $278 after tax, paying with three Benjamins, instead of getting back $22 you get back $24. Like that. But the "glitch" absolutely never goes the other way and accidentally charges 10% more for an item. It's always in the customer's favor; and they find that all their cash registers (it's a SuperTarget and they have 30 of them) do the same thing. Even the "self-serve" ones.
Do you think Target would just shrug off that kind of behavior? Or do you think the instant the "glitch" was discovered they'd have the manufacturer sending out techs to each and every store to fix it ASAP?
Do you think they would just have that one store, the one where it was discovered, fixed? Or would they demand that all the stores' cash registers of this model be checked for it, and repaired?
The situation is pretty analogous to the question of counting votes. You have a scanner which takes marks on objects and converts them into digital data. It tallies up a total amount based on what is scanned. You absolutely cannot have that machine ever have a "glitch" that randomly changes that tally; it must be 100% accurate--there are laws--and if it's ever wrong it has to be taken out of service until it can be fixed.
This kind of error would be absolutely unacceptable for a business. Why is it okay for voting machines, which are arguably more mission-critical that cash registers?
* * *
Remember how big of a deal it was when the Pentium processor had a floating point bug? "Byte magazine estimated that 1 in 9 billion floating point divides with random parameters would produce inaccurate results." "One in nine billion" is 0.000000078% of the time. So one out of every nine billion floating point division operations would result in an error. And, "One example was found where the division result returned by the Pentium was off by about 61 parts per million." That's 0.0061%.
So 0.000000078% of the time the processor might make a mistake where the result was off by 0.0061%. And yes, this was a big deal, because people expect their calculations to be accurate.
The Pentium ran at 60 MHz. To accrue 6,000 of those "glitches", you'd need to run it for a minimum of a hundred and seventy-seven days.
This amount of erroneous operation was deemed absolutely unacceptable by the computing industry. Why is it okay for voting machines to make that kind of error?
* * *
Let's just look at likely behavior, huh? Assume the commies are at least human-analog and do things approximately the way real people, with hearts and souls and consciences, do.
Here I am, doing something that's 100% legal and ethical, entirely on the up-and-up, and someone wants to watch me do it. Maybe I'm counting noses, maybe I'm installing hard drives, maybe I'm putting on hub caps. What doesn't matter as long as it's legal, ethical, moral, and being done correctly. Am I afraid of scrutiny of my work? Does it bother me to have people watch me do it? Do I feel justified in taking steps to prevent observation? Or do I welcome it?
Now, I'm given another job to do, and in this one, there's something wrong with it. Maybe I'm only putting eleven donuts into boxes marked "one dozen", so each batch of donuts will make more boxes and I'll get paid more for being so productive. Maybe I'm shoving my work onto someone else while I sit around and read. Whatever it is, I'm scamming the system one way or another. Am I afraid of scrutiny of my work? Does it bother me to have people watch me do it? Do I feel justified in taking steps to prevent observation? Or do I welcome it?
I think the answer is obvious to anyone who has even the slightest vestiges of a conscience.
So, now that we've established that those who are guilty of fraudulent behavior want no scrutiny: the Democrats and their shills in the media are claiming that there's no evidence to suggest that any electoral fuckery (thanks for that lovely term, Larry Correia!) is taking place. If so, then they ought to welcome recounts and investigations into the tallies before the election is certified; because that way there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that their guy won, fair and square.
But rather than invite independent confirmation of the results, the Democrats are insisting that we just accept it as it is, and not check out the discrepancies, and move on, certify Biden as President-elect NOW! NOW! NOW!--and to do anything else is just being a sore loser and a racist. The same Democrats who covered windows so that people could not see the ballots being counted. The same Democrats who got Republican poll watchers thrown out, and cheered as they were escorted off the premeses by police. The same Democrats who are ignoring court orders to segregate ballots that arrived after 8PM on election night. The same Democrats who stopped counting ballots for six hours and (in some cases) resumed counting in secret.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the same Democrats who insisted that Gore had won Florida in 2000, and that George Bush was "selected, not elected", and cried out in anguish when the Supreme Court put and end to that election fuckery after thirty-seven days had passed.
* * *