3 Jul 2023 6:31 am
Let me try and explain what the article posted said.Cannonpointer » 02 Jul 2023, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑ Two things, weak shill.
1. You have now backpedaled furiously without admitting error. That's the ultimate weakness on a chat board, and the ultimate measure of a poster. Your failure to own your mistake - your attempt to rescue a failed thesis without taking ownership of the failure - marks you. Thanks for the reveal, ****.
2. That little red word "or"? Thatis the operative word.
Two ways to hack voting machines
1. There sits a voting machine the voter records a vote on, inside a precinct. It’s not connected to any internet. It is as hackable as an automatic teller machine. You have to physically get inside, plus you must know how to manipulate the totals, and do that in public
That is pure fantasy, absolute fairy tale bull ****. That won’t ever happen. They’d get caught, instantly.
2. Or,,,,
At the end of the day the voting machine gets a tape withdrawn (in front of witnesses) and that tape is uploaded to a tabulator.
Occasionally a worker runs a tape twice, or misses one.
But just like a bank at the close of the day, there’s a total vote count for every machine and the final tally has to match that, and the error is caught and corrected, always, every time, without fail.
Those tapes are each one serial numbered to a machine and are witnessed and guarded.
But if a poll worker knew the vote count, and they had the skills, they could alter the results on the tape to match and upload it in the tabulator.
And if an election judge saw it altered, they’d spend years in prison.
It never happens in real life.