November 10th, 2020

#7373: Let's talk about election fraud

What are you hiding? These sight blocks went up when the cheating started, and after Republican poll-watchers were ejected.

Vote counts in states with electoral fuckery do not follow the laws of natural statistical distribution. The first image shows you everything you need to see: in the contested states (Michigan, for example, or Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania) the Biden numbers look like the graph on the left. In every case the Trump numbers look like the graph on the right.

This kind of statistical evaluation was used to detect fraud in the Iranian elections in 2009, so we know it works.

So, those voting machines? The company that makes them has ties to prominent Democrats and this issue has occurred before:
Dominion Voting Systems has ties to prominent Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Bloomberg reported in April of last year that Dominion Voting Systems hired a high-powered lobbying firm that includes a longtime aide to Pelosi. They hired Brownstein Farber Hyatt & Schreck. Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi's former chief of staff, is one of the lobbyists on the account.

In 2014, Dominion was listed in the Washington Post table as having donated between $25,001-$50,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

In Oakland County, Michigan, a glitch in a different system switched over 1,200 Republican votes to Democrat. The switch initially caused County Commissioner Adam Kochenderfer to lose. Once the glitch was found, and the votes were properly attributed, Kochenderfer went from losing by 100 votes to winning by over 1,100. According to the Royal Oak Tribune, Oakland County uses election software from Hart Intercivic. Hart uses a proprietary system called Verity. Eleven Michigan counties use Hart's systems.

But what observers want to know is why both glitches in Michigan switched Republican votes to Democrat despite apparently occurring in different underlying systems.
A completely different system manufactured by a different company had the same kind of "glitch".

Now, in a previous post, I made the case why a "glitch" cannot do what they claim this one did; but let's just accept that premise for a moment, that yes--it was just an accidental glitch, missed during software testing. Don't know how it could have happened, and during subsequent testing it didn't repeat, blah blah blah etcetera. does exactly the same sort of glitch occur in an entirely different piece of equipment? Okay, this is like a Boeing 737 MAX800 having an issue with its elevator control and crashing, and then an AirBus 320 having exactly the same kind of issue with its elevator control, and crashing. Different airframes, different avionics, different pilots, same problem, same result.

Or, to make it perhaps more pedestrian, it's like you're trying to call your cousin's AT&T landline phone on your AT&T landline phone, but after you dial the number you're connected with Luigi's Pizza in Poughkeepsie, NY, when you live in Nevada. So you pick up your Verizon cell phone and try calling your cousin's Verizon cell phone...only to get Luigi's Pizza again.

As the linked post makes plain: when all the errors and "glitches" and problems and other things all cause the count to be off in the exact same direction, there is fuckery afoot. These are not "glitches" and they're not mistakes.

Now: if you show me the statistical evidence demonstrating mistakes that gave Trump 138,000 votes in, say, Florida, I might be more inclined to believe there were some errors. But the simple fact is that there are no such examples; all the "mistakes" and "glitches" and "errors" and so forth are all monotonically in Biden's favor.

Because vote fraud is vote fraud.

But, you know, let's consider something else.

Every year, millions of American kids take tests. Some of these tests are more important than others; for example, high schoolers near graduation take the SAT. There are never any serious problems with the SATs being graded incorrectly, are there? When was the last time you heard a news story about kids having to retake the SAT because of a scoring error? And how many tests were involved with that?

There are many businesses--big ones!--that rely on the accurate and fast tabulation of manually-input data. Do you realize that the US Post Office has machines that do optical character recognition on addresses that are handwritten on envelopes, and almost always get the right bar code spit back onto the envelope? These machines can process a few envelopes a second and need very little supervision.

Consider that.

* * *

Probably the only Tucker Carlson monologue I'll ever listen to. Not because Tucker Carlson is an idiot, but because he's on Faux News (and yes, I have started to call it that, in the wake of the elections).

Guess what? Faux News' switch to boosting Democrats has already yielded them a bitter harvest.
Internal Fox News Numbers Reveal Catastrophic Viewership Collapse

Thinking that we're too stupid to realize what they were doing, Faux News pivoted on its heel and marched left. As the left seems to be doing lately, out of either hubris or ignorance, they did it in a spectacularly ham-handed fashion, either not caring that they were abandoning their core audience, or thinking (as I said) that their core audience was too stupid to recognize the change.

I've seen it and seen it, time and again, and it still amazes me every time it happens: a corporation that has a winning formula just turning its back on it and then being all surprised that it fails.

Coca-Cola introducing "New Coke" in the 1980s is the first such example that I'm conscious of, but I'm sure there were more prior to that. Metaphorically speaking, it's like amassing a huge pile of cash and then setting it on fire like Joker did in The Dark Knight.

I think this is the perfect answer to the morons who claim that TV news organizations exist to make money. Faux News clearly does not care about making a profit, not when they deliberately move left, abandoning their core audience.

Of course, they probably think that it wasn't the political lean of their coverage, but the style and coverage (and personalities) themselves which people tune in for. But it's not so; the people who watched (past tense) Faux News were people who came for the right-wing commentary and stayed for the more-or-less centrist news coverage. Now, they have the same kind of commentators, but the news coverage is hard left-wing.

And you can get that anywhere, like CNN...which is probably why CNN beat Faux last weekend.

* * *

To avoid spreading COVID-19, no contradiction is too stupid. We're not allowed to eat indoors, but we can eat outdoors in a tent. Indoors, but outdoors. See?

* * *

Took Mrs. Fungus to the store last night, which was the first real test of the Jeep's exhaust, and it was gloriously quiet.

* * *

Today is probably the last warm day of the year. The last couple of nights we've had the windows open, it's been so warm, and as I write this I'm sitting here listening to a conference call in my shorts, no socks, perfectly comfortable, with the windows open.

After today they say temps will be closer to seasonal. "Seasonal" is fine since I can still do things like finish work on the cupola and reinstall it, and get the grass cut one more time, and so forth.

Again, I'm not going to try to predict what winter will be like. Tired of that game.

Oh well.

#7374: I thought of something else

Do you think a store could function for very long if every once in a while the cash register randomly gave a customer extra change?

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.

* * *