There is no such thing as a, “de minimis,” (insignificant) change to any voting machine; anywhere, ever. All proposed changes should have every detail published and distributed well in advance, so that everything might be cross checked by multiple other, “third party oversight,” agencies and vendors.
I spent 25 years working in tech support for computer connectivity, networking, and in one of the data centers, where I spent 5 years, we did systems changes starting Saturday at midnight. The phrase used for dodging reporting and accountability was, that the system, “change is transparent to the users.”
There were often changes in many of the different sub systems involved in the processing of data at this, unnamed, company. Too often many of these changes were labeled, in the associated documentation (lack thereof), as, “transparent to users.” Many of these changes were not known to said users, and most of the systems' users did not come in till start of business on Monday morning.
The phones at the operations/tech support desks would start to ring as computer users on the east coast tried to begin their work week on Monday morning. The changes weren't just not, “transparent,” they often had caused applicable systems to crash.
It was apparent, though not followed through with, that no changes should ever be referred to as, “transparent to users,” and/or, “de minimis.”
The voting machines used in the USA are far more important than the data processing systems in any single company, so it is far more important that NO change may ever be labeled as, “de minimis.”
According to an investigative piece, from the Daily Boulder, a private lab quietly implemented sweeping changes to voting machines used in over 40% of U.S. counties ahead of the 2024 race. Those changes, the report claims, were made with no public notice, no formal testing, and no third-party oversight.
What changes were made to voting machines before the 2024 election? Investigations and litigation is currently in process to find out. The election has been certified by Congress, so the results of the 2024 Presidential election are unlikely to be changed as a result of the aforementioned activity.
Instead of labeling these as major changes, Pro V&V classified them as “de minimis,” a term typically reserved for insignificant tweaks. This classification allowed them to bypass public scrutiny and avoid triggering full-scale testing or certification processes.
But watchdog group SMART Elections wasn’t convinced. In their words:
“This wasn’t just a glitch in some sleepy county. It was a stress test of our entire system.”
Soon after the machines went live, complaints began to surface.
At the center of the controversy is Jack Cobb, the director of Pro V&V. While he doesn’t appear in the headlines, his lab certifies the machines that millions of Americans use to vote. According to the report, once the controversy began to gain traction, Pro V&V’s website went dark, leaving only a phone number and a generic email address. No public logs. No documentation. No comment.
Pro V&V is certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). However, once accredited, labs like Pro V&V face no real public oversight.
These are problems that should never have been allowed to happen; needs to be determined and addressed before November elections in 2026.
Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/kamala-harris-won-the-u-s-elections-bombshell-report-claims-voting-machines-were-tampered-with-before-2024/articleshow/121732679.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://aitechtonic.com/secret-changes-to-voting-machines-cast-shadow-over-2024-u-s-election-integrity/
P.S., If the federal elections of 2026 lead to a veto proof, Democratic majority in the US Congress, then the transgressions, oft illegal, of the (criminally convicted, pathological liar) merde l'orange administration can start to be corrected while said troublesome 47th president still occupies our (US citizens') White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment