In
this article, I’m going to discuss two companies, Dominion, and
ES&S. I would advise investigators not to go to sleep on ES&S.
I’m
not going to repeat all charges that have been leveled at Dominion
Voting Systems. But look at what happened in Texas, when the Secretary
of State had an analysis done in the fall of 2019.
The report was titled, “Voting System Examination Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite 5.5-A.” It was prepared by James Sneeringer, Ph.D. Designee of the Attorney General of Texas.
The devil is in the details, so here they are:
“Adjudication
results can be lost. In the [prior] January exam, during adjudication
of the ballots in the test election, one of the Dominion representatives
made a series of mistakes that caused the entire batch of adjudication
results to be lost. We did not see this problem again during this exam,
but the adjudication system is unchanged, so this vulnerability is still
present. Recommendation: Certification [approval of the Dominion
system] should be denied.”
“Installation
is complex, error prone, and tedious. I counted 184 steps in their
installation manual before deciding to estimate the remaining steps. I
estimate a total of about 500 steps are required to install the
software. I did not count steps that merely said something like ‘Click
OK’ or ‘Click Next.’ This installation manual is 412 pages long with an
additional 23 pages of front matter -- contents, lists of figures, and
the like…Recommendation: Certification should be denied.”
“Test
Voting. During our voting test, we discovered that some party names and
proposition text were not displayed, and one scanner was not accepting
some ballots. These all turned out to be errors Dominion made in setting
up the standard test election used by the Secretary of State. In the
case of the scanner, it had accidently been configured not to accept
machine-marked ballots. The other problems were caused by leaving some
fields empty during election setup, something that the EMS software
should not allow, or at least highlight. Recommendation: Certification
should be denied.”
“Misleading
Message. The ballot-marking devices incorrectly informed voters that
they were casting their ballots, when in fact they were only printing
them. The ballots are not be counted until they were scanned on a
different device. Recommendation: Certification should be denied.”
“USB
Port Vulnerability. The ICX ballot-marking device has an indicator
light on top to show poll workers when the station is in use. That light
is connected by a USB port. When Brian Mechler’s phone was attached to
the USB port, the ICX scanned the files on his phone and did not
complain, although Dominion later showed that the event was logged. When
a USB drive with files was inserted, the ICX sometimes complained and
sometimes did not, apparently according to the content of the USB drive
and whether it was present when the ICX was first powered up or inserted
later.”
The
examiner’s final conclusion: “I cannot recommend certification.
Computer systems should be designed to prevent or detect human error
whenever possible and minimize the consequences of both human mistakes
and equipment failure. Instead the Democracy Suite 5.5-A is fragile and
error prone. In my opinion it should not be certified for use in Texas.”
If that doesn’t give pause for thought, nothing will.
Now
we turn to ES&S, another voting machine company in use in the
US. It has a long track record. The source here is a PROPUBLICA article,
“The Market for Voting Machines Is Broken. This Company Has Thrived in It,” dated October 28, 2019, by Jessica Huseman. Key excerpts:
“In
Georgia, where the race for governor had drawn national interest amid
concerns about election integrity, ES&S-owned technology was in use
when more than 150,000 voters inexplicably did not cast a vote for
lieutenant governor. In part because the aged ES&S-managed machines
did not produce paper backups, it wasn’t clear whether mechanical or
human errors were to blame. Litigation surrounding the vote endures to
this day.”
“In
Indiana, ES&S’ systems were plagued by mishaps at the local level.
In Johnson County, for instance, the company’s brand-new machines
faltered in ways that made it difficult to know whether some people had
voted more than once.”
“The
vote in 2006 in Sarasota, Florida…There, ES&S machines lost around
18,000 votes; it is still unclear why. The loss was far more than the
margin of victory, and a lawsuit followed that ultimately resolved
little. The company said in a statement that a variety of testing done
on its machines supports its claim that the devices were not at fault,
but the county wound up canceling its dealings with the firm shortly
afterward.”
“Despite
such stumbles, ES&S — based in Omaha, Nebraska, and employing
roughly 500 people — controls around 50% of the country’s election
system market, the company says, meaning that some 70 million Americans
vote using the company’s equipment.”
“A
ProPublica examination of ES&S shows it has fought hard to keep its
dominance in the face of repeated controversies. The company has a
reputation among both its competitors and election officials for
routinely going to court when it fails to win contracts or has them
taken away, suing voting jurisdictions, rivals, advocates for greater
election security and others.”
“ES&S
files many such suits. In May 2016, for instance, ES&S
unsuccessfully sued Colorado over its decision to buy statewide uniform
voting equipment after the state moved to a vote-by-mail system. The
company also sued Colorado county over the issue, and it lost these
cases as well.”
“In
Wisconsin, after the 2016 national elections, ES&S sued to prevent
Jill Stein, a Green Party candidate for president, from obtaining
information about its machines that might have assisted her in her bid
for a recount. A judge rejected ES&S’ argument that submitting to
Stein’s request would compromise its proprietary technology.”
“ES&S
has also threatened lawsuits against voting rights activists. In 2018,
it warned it would sue Audit USA — a small nonprofit that advocates for
election security — for posting the company’s manuals for scanners
online (it hasn’t done so). The same year, the company repeatedly said
it would initiate litigation against security researchers who bought old
ES&S machines and attempted to hack them at a conference on
cybersecurity. The company also sent letters to its own customers,
saying it would sue them if they participated in such conferences or
provided ES&S equipment to the events.”
HOW DO YOU LIKE ALL THAT?
I’ll close for now with excerpts from an American Thinker article by Jay Valentine, “Big Data to the Rescue: The Electoral College Meets Data Pattern,” November 13, 2020:
“Here’s
the summary: For the election returns in many precincts to happen the
way they did, Biden would have to flip a coin 1,000 times and get heads
every time. We aren’t done here.”
“He would also have to do it over and over again, in scores, perhaps hundreds of precincts.”
“Welcome to big data analysis.”
“Industrial
fraud is always discovered with statistical analysis… Industrial fraud
is pretty cool because from the outside, it is invisible…”
“When
subject to statistical analysis against known patterns, industrial
fraud stands out like a dinosaur walking through a field of peanut
butter. It is unmistakable.”
“Is such analysis proof?”
“Yes,
it is proof that there is an anomaly of such proportions that it must
be investigated. And this isn’t hard. Remember, all the data you need to
do the analysis is after-the-fact voting data. You do not need to see a
single ballot.”
“…you
just need to know that in precinct after precinct, there is an
unmistakable pattern that the more people vote for Trump over Biden the
greater the number of Trump votes the counting machines scoop from Trump
to Biden.”
“The
pattern [of vote-flipping] is one that can only be done by machines,
like a computer. There are too many transactions, with too straight a
line, across too many precincts, to be the guys with the ballot boxes
arriving in the middle of the night. They are extra fraud.”
BUT
OF COURSE, NOTHING STRANGE HAPPENED IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION. NO REASON TO INVESTIGATE. JUST WATCH THE NEWS
NETWORKS. THEY’LL TELL YOU BIDEN IS THE PRESIDENT. EVERYTHING IS
FINE. GO BACK TO SLEEP. YOUR MASTERS ARE IN CHARGE.
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.) 
No comments:
Post a Comment