Please note this is not a Pro-Any candidate post. It is a post about being able to trust the election process.
The trustworthiness of our election process should be sacrosanct in these United States of America. We must be able to trust and accept the tallied votes, or else we are no different from the despotic regimes we loathe. However, in the latest election, some critical issues cannot be overlooked, in my opinion. So when you read this, consider removing the current candidates’ names and using neutral names. Don’t we want as a nation to be able to trust the polls? I think that all voters can agree on that.
It is a common practice to place a hold on any systems updates before running a process of critical impact or one that has a significant business impact. The night before the election, officials in Spalding and Morgan counties in Georgia noticed the Vendor of their systems uploading an update. A Georgia election supervisor named Marcia Ridley, in a quote from a Breitbart story relates, “That is something that they don’t ever do. I’ve never seen them update anything the day before the election.” Nor should any change be made on the eve of an election. If the code was flawed and needed to be fixed, it should have triggered a manual count process- not an unplanned update.
During the following day, the vote-counting process was interrupted by several “glitches.” These glitches also occurred in Michigan. When the Michigan county of Antrim experienced the glitch, they were forced to review the votes, and ultimately, the count was changed to reflect correctly tabulated votes accurately.
This vendor update so close to the start of the election should not have been allowed. This is HIGHLY suspect. Besides Spalding and Morgan counties in Georgia, Gwinnett was affected as well. Consider that the software vendor Dominion Voting Systems has customers in 28 US states, 9 of the top 20 Counties, and 4 of the top 10 counties in these United States. Their own legal agreement with the State of Pennslyvania REQUIRES that any changes to the Pennsylvania suite (v 5.5a) require notification to the PA Secretary of State and the relevant Federal testing authority. I am of the strongly held opinion that this legal text from the PA contract would be incorporated in all other state contracts. The contract states in Section IV “Conditions for Certification” subsection NN the following:
If the vendor or a County Board of Elections makes any changes to the Democracy Suite 5.5A Voting System subsequent to the date of its examination, it must immediately notify both the Pennsylvania Department of State and the relevant federal testing authority or laboratory, or their successors. Failure to do so may result in the decertification of the Democracy Suite 5.5A Voting System in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Based on this section, if found in the Georgia and Michigan certifications, would render any systems that were updated before the election and not certified as invalid.
So how can Dominion Voting Systems prove that their system was above board? It not really that difficult and could silence this line of inquiry.
How Can We Prove Nothing is Amiss?
Step 1 – Compare the file hashes of the master copies of the executables and associated libraries held by the several Secretaries of State, against the hashes of the code on the voting machines. Differences mean a violation of the conditions for certification. If the hashes don’t match, you have what would appear to be a breach of contract. This requires the voting machine to be offline and untouched except by relevant legal counsel and law enforcement.
Step 2 – If the hashes differ, take the vendor’s source code of the pre-election changes, compile it, and compare them to the files on the production machines. If the hashes still don’t match, you have what would appear to be at the worst-case election tampering.
Since Dominion Voting Systems sole business seems to be vote tabulation, one would think they would want to get this sorted pretty soon publically.