4 ms·

I still don't understand. How does this place the blame on Dominion? It seems like they did their thing right.

disgrunt 6y ago
I was answering the other posters question as to why the recount on it's own didn't just resolve the dispute. However, there was a forensic analysis done of a Dominion voting machine in Michigan with some disturbing findings. You can read the report here. [0] > While the allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC.gov) guidelines is 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008 percent), ASOG’s forensic analysis observed an error rate of 68.05 percent, which is a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. > In the ASOG audit, all log entries for the 2020 election cycle were found missing in the Dominion equipment they analyzed—meanwhile voter adjudication logs for previous years exist. Removal of these log files violates state laws and prevents a meaningful audit, even if the Secretary of State’s office wanted to conduct its own audit. > The ASOG audit also discovered software changes on Oct. 23, 2020, and then again on Nov. 5, 2020, just after the election. In accordance with the Help America Vote Act, this violates the 90-day Safe Harbor period which prohibits changes to election systems, without these systems undergoing recertification. [0]: https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772-antrim-county-forensics-report https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772-antrim-cou...
- VikingCoder 6y ago
  That audit was performed by Russell James Ramsland Jr. who does not have a good track record of reporting on numbers. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/russell-james-ramsland-jr/affidavit-michigan-lawsuit-seeking-overturn-electi/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/russell-ja... And again - Georgia did a hand recount. And the numbers agreed. At least in Georgia, can you explain to me how the issue of Dominion Changing Votes, is not 100% resolved?
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    Ah, yes, reject evidence using an ad hominem. I'm sure you'll convince others with that tact. Dominion has yet to dispute any of the findings in this report, despite the Michigan judiciary giving them an opportunity to do so before its release in December. But this is exactly the nature of the discourse: Group A: Group B has no evidence, they're trying to undermine the integrity of our electoral process, etc. Group B: Here's some evidence. Maybe we should investigate? Just to make sure everything is on the up and up? Group A: Your evidence is from person X, which my news source has already conveniently done their best to discredit. My news source has already debunked your claims as well. Group B has no evidence, undermining integrity, etc. Sadly Georgia has not yet ordered a forensic analysis of their voting machines. However, in that report I linked to, there was an exceptionally high ballot rejection rate for that Dominion voting machine in Michigan requiring ballot adjudication. When you have a state like Georgia, which just relaxed rules regarding signature verification and ballot curing, this poses a real problem in verifying the chain of custody.
    - VikingCoder 6y ago
      I do not trust an accountant who makes blatant accounting mistakes. I do not trust the testimony of someone who has falsified evidence, or processed it incorrectly. Neither of those are an ad hominem attack of a factual claim. They show that someone is incapable or unwilling to provide evidence that should be considered. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and if the evidence presented makes demonstrably false claims, then we're done with that evidence, and should frown upon the person who presented it. They should lose credibility. If you want to find another accountant, offer up someone else's testimony, show an untainted evidentiary chain, in support of a factual claim, I will gladly consider it. I am not either "Group" in your scenario, by the way. I accept that the Constitution of the United States enacts Laws, and Checks and Balances. I accept that we have Courts to make determinations of fact. We are a nation of laws. I am not in and of myself rejecting claims, and satisfied with that as the conclusion of my interest in the matter. I am informing you, I will accept the outcomes of the courts. I accepted them when I disagreed with their outcomes in the past, and I expect others to do likewise. Not that I think each outcome is Just, but that the long arm of history bends towards Justice. When I am upset enough, I petition my representatives to change the law, or to impeach officers of government. We are a nation of laws. WHY would Georgia order a forensic analysis of counting machines, when a hand recount has agreed, within a reasonable degree? It's nonsense. Is there a paper trail for voting machines? Yes. Voters are responsible for checking the paper record. The paper record has been checked against the electronic record. Aren't we done?
- jdelaney 6y ago
  The report you linked to has been disputed by a lot of respected people: professors, the Michigan State Department, non-profits on fair elections, the former acting director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program[0], and even Krebs, Trump's former chief of the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency[1]. The last affidavit written by the author of that report was also disproven and had entirely wrong numbers[2]. [0] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/audit-in-michigan-county-refutes-dominion-conspiracy-theory/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/audit-in-michigan-county-r... [1] https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/16/antrim-county-report-debunked-by-former-trump-election-official/3923499001/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-michigan-voter-turnout/fact-check-six-michigan-areas-did-not-have-voter-turnouts-of-more-than-100-idUSKBN28R20M https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-michigan-voter-...
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    Then they should conduct their own forensic analysis of this image of a Dominion voting machine in Michigan. Until then, their dispute is opinion. A lot of these "fact checks" blur into the realm of opinion, not facts. If you can point me to a counter forensic analysis of this image, including counter findings that adjudication audit logs were not deleted for the 2020 election, then I'd be happy to read it. A lot of smart people dispute this election. Doesn't make it fact, either. Krebs called this the "most secure election in history". Seems legit.
    - VikingCoder 6y ago
      > A lot of smart people dispute this election. Doesn't make it fact, either. Our Constitution empowers the Courts to make determinations of fact. That process has happened. Repeatedly. What more do you want to happen?
      - disgrunt 6y ago
        There are still lawsuits ongoing in the courts. You keep saying 60 of them, it's 54. You're so quick to question someone else's accounting skills earlier... There are ten lawsuits ongoing, not zero, ten. That process hasn't happened, it is still happening. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...
- aw1621107 6y ago
  > While the allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC.gov) guidelines is 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008 percent), ASOG’s forensic analysis observed an error rate of 68.05 percent, which is a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. This bit is more than a little disingenuous, and I would honestly expect better. The first problem is that there is no cite for said FEC guidelines, and I'm unable to find any documentation corroborating that number (though that could easily be a failing on my end). There is a reference later on to [0], but it quotes a different number: > According to the NCSL, Michigan requires testing by a federally accredited laboratory for voting systems. In section 4.1.1 of the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG) Accuracy Requirements 1. *All systems shall achieve a report total error rate of no more than one in 125,000.* The second problem is that there are two different and incompatible definitions of "error rate" in play here, and Ramsland conflates the two. This makes the comparison he attempts to draw nonsensical. The VVSG have a very specific definition of "report total error rate" ([0], starting PDF page 87) (paraphrased to try to save space): > a. All systems shall achieve a report total error rate of no more than one in 125,000 (8×10–6). > b. Given a set of vote data reports, the observed cumulative report total error rate shall be calculated as follows. > i. Define a “report item” as any one of the numeric values (totals or counts) that must appear in any of the vote data reports. > ii. For each report item, compute the “report item error” as the absolute value of the difference between the correct value and the reported value. > iii. Compute the “report total error” as the sum of all of the report item errors from all of the reports. > iv. Compute the “report total volume” as the sum of all of the correct values for all of the report items that are supposed to appear in the reports. > v. Compute the observed cumulative report total error rate as the ratio of the report total error to the report total volume. For comparison, this is how Ramsland calculated the 68.05% error rate: > 1. We reviewed the Tabulation logs in their entirety for 11/6/2020. > * The election logs for Antrim County consist of 15,676 total lines or events. Of the 15,676 there were a total of 10,667 critical errors/warnings or a 68.05% error rate. This is an entirely different number that can't be used to determine whether a voting machine satisfies the error requirements. The third problem is that the VVSG error numbers here are being misused. From the first paragraph of Section 4.1.1 ([0], PDF page 87) (emphasis added): > The following requirements are intended to allow tolerance for unpreventable hardware-related errors that occur rarely and randomly as a result of physical phenomena. They are not intended to allow tolerance of software faults that result in systematic miscounting of votes. According to Ramsland (emphasis added): > Most of the errors were related to configuration errors that could result in overall tabulation errors or adjudication Certainly doesn't sound like "unpreventable hardware-related errors" to me... ---- > The ASOG audit also discovered software changes on Oct. 23, 2020, and then again on Nov. 5, 2020, just after the election. In accordance with the Help America Vote Act, this violates the 90-day Safe Harbor period which prohibits changes to election systems, without these systems undergoing recertification. A cite here would have been very helpful. I looked through what appears to be the text of the Help America Vote Act [1], and I found no reference to a 90-day Safe Harbor period. I haven't found any other reference to such a thing, though I wouldn't be surprised if I were looking in the wrong place. In any case, the reason I want such a site is that I suspect there might be differing definitions of "changes to election systems" that Ramsland might be taking advantage of, similar to the first point you quoted. [0]: https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VVSG.1.1.VOL.1.FINAL1.pdf https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VVSG...

I was answering the other posters question as to why the recount on it's own didn't just resolve the dispute. However, there was a forensic analysis done of a Dominion voting machine in Michigan with some disturbing findings. You can read the report here. [0] > While the allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC.gov) guidelines is 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008 percent), ASOG’s forensic analysis observed an error rate of 68.05 percent, which is a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. > In the ASOG audit, all log entries for the 2020 election cycle were found missing in the Dominion equipment they analyzed—meanwhile voter adjudication logs for previous years exist. Removal of these log files violates state laws and prevents a meaningful audit, even if the Secretary of State’s office wanted to conduct its own audit. > The ASOG audit also discovered software changes on Oct. 23, 2020, and then again on Nov. 5, 2020, just after the election. In accordance with the Help America Vote Act, this violates the 90-day Safe Harbor period which prohibits changes to election systems, without these systems undergoing recertification. [0]: https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772-antrim-county-forensics-report https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772-antrim-cou...

VikingCoder 6y ago
That audit was performed by Russell James Ramsland Jr. who does not have a good track record of reporting on numbers. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/russell-james-ramsland-jr/affidavit-michigan-lawsuit-seeking-overturn-electi/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/russell-ja... And again - Georgia did a hand recount. And the numbers agreed. At least in Georgia, can you explain to me how the issue of Dominion Changing Votes, is not 100% resolved?
- disgrunt 6y ago
  Ah, yes, reject evidence using an ad hominem. I'm sure you'll convince others with that tact. Dominion has yet to dispute any of the findings in this report, despite the Michigan judiciary giving them an opportunity to do so before its release in December. But this is exactly the nature of the discourse: Group A: Group B has no evidence, they're trying to undermine the integrity of our electoral process, etc. Group B: Here's some evidence. Maybe we should investigate? Just to make sure everything is on the up and up? Group A: Your evidence is from person X, which my news source has already conveniently done their best to discredit. My news source has already debunked your claims as well. Group B has no evidence, undermining integrity, etc. Sadly Georgia has not yet ordered a forensic analysis of their voting machines. However, in that report I linked to, there was an exceptionally high ballot rejection rate for that Dominion voting machine in Michigan requiring ballot adjudication. When you have a state like Georgia, which just relaxed rules regarding signature verification and ballot curing, this poses a real problem in verifying the chain of custody.
  - VikingCoder 6y ago
    I do not trust an accountant who makes blatant accounting mistakes. I do not trust the testimony of someone who has falsified evidence, or processed it incorrectly. Neither of those are an ad hominem attack of a factual claim. They show that someone is incapable or unwilling to provide evidence that should be considered. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and if the evidence presented makes demonstrably false claims, then we're done with that evidence, and should frown upon the person who presented it. They should lose credibility. If you want to find another accountant, offer up someone else's testimony, show an untainted evidentiary chain, in support of a factual claim, I will gladly consider it. I am not either "Group" in your scenario, by the way. I accept that the Constitution of the United States enacts Laws, and Checks and Balances. I accept that we have Courts to make determinations of fact. We are a nation of laws. I am not in and of myself rejecting claims, and satisfied with that as the conclusion of my interest in the matter. I am informing you, I will accept the outcomes of the courts. I accepted them when I disagreed with their outcomes in the past, and I expect others to do likewise. Not that I think each outcome is Just, but that the long arm of history bends towards Justice. When I am upset enough, I petition my representatives to change the law, or to impeach officers of government. We are a nation of laws. WHY would Georgia order a forensic analysis of counting machines, when a hand recount has agreed, within a reasonable degree? It's nonsense. Is there a paper trail for voting machines? Yes. Voters are responsible for checking the paper record. The paper record has been checked against the electronic record. Aren't we done?
jdelaney 6y ago
The report you linked to has been disputed by a lot of respected people: professors, the Michigan State Department, non-profits on fair elections, the former acting director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program[0], and even Krebs, Trump's former chief of the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency[1]. The last affidavit written by the author of that report was also disproven and had entirely wrong numbers[2]. [0] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/audit-in-michigan-county-refutes-dominion-conspiracy-theory/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/audit-in-michigan-county-r... [1] https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/16/antrim-county-report-debunked-by-former-trump-election-official/3923499001/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-michigan-voter-turnout/fact-check-six-michigan-areas-did-not-have-voter-turnouts-of-more-than-100-idUSKBN28R20M https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-michigan-voter-...
- disgrunt 6y ago
  Then they should conduct their own forensic analysis of this image of a Dominion voting machine in Michigan. Until then, their dispute is opinion. A lot of these "fact checks" blur into the realm of opinion, not facts. If you can point me to a counter forensic analysis of this image, including counter findings that adjudication audit logs were not deleted for the 2020 election, then I'd be happy to read it. A lot of smart people dispute this election. Doesn't make it fact, either. Krebs called this the "most secure election in history". Seems legit.
  - VikingCoder 6y ago
    > A lot of smart people dispute this election. Doesn't make it fact, either. Our Constitution empowers the Courts to make determinations of fact. That process has happened. Repeatedly. What more do you want to happen?
    - disgrunt 6y ago
      There are still lawsuits ongoing in the courts. You keep saying 60 of them, it's 54. You're so quick to question someone else's accounting skills earlier... There are ten lawsuits ongoing, not zero, ten. That process hasn't happened, it is still happening. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...
aw1621107 6y ago
> While the allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC.gov) guidelines is 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008 percent), ASOG’s forensic analysis observed an error rate of 68.05 percent, which is a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity. This bit is more than a little disingenuous, and I would honestly expect better. The first problem is that there is no cite for said FEC guidelines, and I'm unable to find any documentation corroborating that number (though that could easily be a failing on my end). There is a reference later on to [0], but it quotes a different number: > According to the NCSL, Michigan requires testing by a federally accredited laboratory for voting systems. In section 4.1.1 of the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG) Accuracy Requirements 1. *All systems shall achieve a report total error rate of no more than one in 125,000.* The second problem is that there are two different and incompatible definitions of "error rate" in play here, and Ramsland conflates the two. This makes the comparison he attempts to draw nonsensical. The VVSG have a very specific definition of "report total error rate" ([0], starting PDF page 87) (paraphrased to try to save space): > a. All systems shall achieve a report total error rate of no more than one in 125,000 (8×10–6). > b. Given a set of vote data reports, the observed cumulative report total error rate shall be calculated as follows. > i. Define a “report item” as any one of the numeric values (totals or counts) that must appear in any of the vote data reports. > ii. For each report item, compute the “report item error” as the absolute value of the difference between the correct value and the reported value. > iii. Compute the “report total error” as the sum of all of the report item errors from all of the reports. > iv. Compute the “report total volume” as the sum of all of the correct values for all of the report items that are supposed to appear in the reports. > v. Compute the observed cumulative report total error rate as the ratio of the report total error to the report total volume. For comparison, this is how Ramsland calculated the 68.05% error rate: > 1. We reviewed the Tabulation logs in their entirety for 11/6/2020. > * The election logs for Antrim County consist of 15,676 total lines or events. Of the 15,676 there were a total of 10,667 critical errors/warnings or a 68.05% error rate. This is an entirely different number that can't be used to determine whether a voting machine satisfies the error requirements. The third problem is that the VVSG error numbers here are being misused. From the first paragraph of Section 4.1.1 ([0], PDF page 87) (emphasis added): > The following requirements are intended to allow tolerance for unpreventable hardware-related errors that occur rarely and randomly as a result of physical phenomena. They are not intended to allow tolerance of software faults that result in systematic miscounting of votes. According to Ramsland (emphasis added): > Most of the errors were related to configuration errors that could result in overall tabulation errors or adjudication Certainly doesn't sound like "unpreventable hardware-related errors" to me... ---- > The ASOG audit also discovered software changes on Oct. 23, 2020, and then again on Nov. 5, 2020, just after the election. In accordance with the Help America Vote Act, this violates the 90-day Safe Harbor period which prohibits changes to election systems, without these systems undergoing recertification. A cite here would have been very helpful. I looked through what appears to be the text of the Help America Vote Act [1], and I found no reference to a 90-day Safe Harbor period. I haven't found any other reference to such a thing, though I wouldn't be surprised if I were looking in the wrong place. In any case, the reason I want such a site is that I suspect there might be differing definitions of "changes to election systems" that Ramsland might be taking advantage of, similar to the first point you quoted. [0]: https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VVSG.1.1.VOL.1.FINAL1.pdf https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VVSG...