3 ms·
Besides, any packet captures are irrelevant. The swing states, for the most part, were using machine-countable paper ballots. There were manual recounts in Geo
by not2b 5y ago
Besides, any packet captures are irrelevant. The swing states, for the most part, were using machine-countable paper ballots. There were manual recounts in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. These recounts agreed with the original counts to within a tiny fraction of a percent, way too small a difference to affect the election outcome. Had the machines been hacked, the recounts would have exposed it.
(I'm not taking about the current "audit" in Arizona, but the previous recounts there that were conducted by experienced people who didn't call themselves "Cyber Ninjas").
- dukeofdoom 5y agoThe way "Cyber Ninjas" was doing of actually counting each paper ballot. Which is not what the previous hand recounts were doing. Be careful with the definitions, because for all we know the previous hand recounts were just summing up batch totals written on the pallets. They couldn't be much more than that since it took them days to come up with. Whereas an actual hand recount of one county by Cyber Ninjas is taking months.
- not2b 5y agoYou are misinformed. The previous recounts were not conducted the way you describe, and it does not take months to count up the paper ballots from one county, unless perhaps if you have no experience at all with ever conducting or auditing an election and you waste time investigating ridiculous theories, like looking for bamboo.