No.11692598 PB
This one caught my attention because it says "local printers showed people how they actually voted."
Was there a paper print out that the voters could look at? Were the voters able to take that printed ballot and put it in a ballot box for audit purposes? If there was, then an audit of the printed ballots vs the manipulated totals never happened.
Or- the voters could see the printed ballot. Ballot though would probably stay on a "tape" that keeps printing the votes. If the change was done at the servers, then I can see two roads for more fraud even in an audit:
-
The ballots are reprinted for an audit/recount from the server, not the machines.
-
There is two way communication between the machines and server, such that when the server manipulates the vote count it also gets changed in the voting machine. The printed ballots come from that change if there is an audit or recount and the original tape of printed ballots disappears.
When some of these systems came in there was a call for them to also print a ballot voters could see and match to the screen. (If touch screen) Getting voters to double check was the issue but I can see where even that printing, if done, is no guarantee. Maybe even the ballot print out can be sabotaged.
If this was a ballot printed for optical scan, and that is how the voters saw the printed ballot, same shenanigans can happen. Ballot printouts get changed, original ballots disappear.
It follows that once people wanted some way to audit the vote count, they would find a way to commit fraud there also.
"There's a lot in this American Thinker article about Venezuelan elections and Smartmatic
will start here
>voting systembidirectionally networkedto Venezuelan fake news
>while local printers showed people how they actually voted
>vote switching happenedat the server
>Jimmy Carter said no problems
The August 2004 elections, held a year late, resulted in a startling victory for Chavez, garnering 58% of the vote to stay versus exit polling showed the exact opposite. Oddly enough, the computerized voting systems sold and managed by Smartmatic were“bidirectionally networked” to communicate with CANTV (government telecommunications company and partner of Smartmatic).
Manipulating basic Boolean algebra assured that a “1” became a “0” and vice versa at the central server. Local printers showed people how they had actually voted. There was no collusion according to Jimmy Carter who witnessed the voting and stated that there were less than 0.1% irregularities."
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/how_the_venezuelan_elections_were_rigged.html