Florida election problems indicate vote count hacking, deleting voters, potentially altering results

[L. Coyote]

Florida election problems indicate potential vote count hacking
April 13, 2017 by Ruben Major

Florida’s election issues in 2016, need to be categorized in two segments: primary election & general election. In this article, I will discuss the general election problems in Florida indicating potential hacking of the voting systems.

I have already reported on the following states: Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, & Florida’s primary election. There could potentially be other explanations for some of the circumstances offered, however, information provided may indicate characteristics of hacking. When combined with other states, this evidence substantially increases the likelihood of systems vulnerability and election hacking throughout the country.

Florida’s General Election Problems

As previously reported, there were numerous issues in Florida’s primary election indicating hacking, particularly of the voter registration systems. This is important because if a person gets kicked off the voter registration rolls, they can become ineligible to vote in the primary. When the voter registration rolls are hacked, it can result in this scenario which may prevent one candidate from winning fairly. Therefore, voter registration hacking is equivalent to vote count hacking.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[no_hypocrisy]

1. And there's more.

I personally know of a voter whose primary residence is in NJ (and registered to vote there) who is also registered to vote in Florida where he has a second home. This was discovered through online research. (Florida lists registered voters online.)

How many others are registered to vote in more than one state and do actually vote more than once?

[Igel]

15. And you've just discovered the reason for some of the election board practices we condemn.

You put inactive voters on an inactive voter list. They're off the polls. But if they show up to vote, then you have a record of it and can count their vote.

We distrust, we suspect, we fear, and so we assume that the election workers toss the voters. At least of those of the opposing party. Because suspicion is fact and fear is truth.

You run software that compares voter registration lists. The more recent addition is maintained; the older one is lost.

I'd hope they'd do this, otherwise I'd be registered to vote in Maryland, in two jurisidictions in Oregon, in two in California, in New York, and in two jurisdictions in Texas. And my wife would be registered to vote in Arizona, California, New York, and under two different names in Texas.

Seriously, did you ever move from one jurisdiction and request to be removed from your old jurisdiction? By now my old neighborhood of 3500 or so in Maryland would have at least 10 000 adult registered voters aged 130 to 18. That in itself would cause cries of malfeasance and vote-rigging.


As for how many vote more than once, I suspect the numbers aren't high. On the other hand, there was outrage on DU last fall over a woman who moved to Virginia, let her North Carolina (I think) DL lapse but who went back to vote in NC and was denied a ballot because her DL, her official place of residence, was VA. After that the story got muddied--some said she'd moved back and didn't finalize residence requirements by getting local ID, some said that she had recently moved to VA. Most were ad hoc justifications why an African-American woman should be allowed to vote.

If she had moved recently, that is a minor problem. I moved just before elections. I moved too late to register in my new home, and thought it improper to vote on local issues back where I moved from since I like that whole "consent of the governed" crap. I would be giving consent to laws, but wouldn't be one of the governed. (Also put as "no taxation without representation," and how could I vote for something, have representation, for things like taxes that I would never pay? It's easy to vote taxes and obligations for others if you're always exempt, it removes all sense of responsibility.)

[Achilleaze]

2. the russian-republican War on American democracy is evil incarnate

Why do russians and republicans HATE American democracy?

[RKP5637]

5. They are authoritarian control freaks! n/t

[CrispyQ]

8. I've found the ones who object loudest to the 'nanny state' or the 'mommy state'

are the very ones who vote for authoritarians.

At a recent networking meeting I listened to a woman tell how she modified her food processor to run without the lid on. For safety reasons, food processors only work if the lid is on, but this woman objected to the regulation that prevented her choice to stick a spatula into the processor while it's running. OTOH, she loudly advocates for the republican party, who would limit her very personal life choices. But she's okay with that.

[RKP5637]

10. Wow! n/t

[elehhhhna]

12. Patience. She will go to lick some icing and her boob will hit the ON switch.

Then she will sue.

[CrispyQ]

14. LOL.

And she'll bitch when she loses the suit because she modified the unit. But she's got no problem with a bunch of men taking away women's right to choice. What a fucking hypocrite.

[voteearlyvoteoften]

3. Rick Scott elected twice

There's your proof!

[RKP5637]

6. Damn crook, he is! n/t

[LaydeeBug]

4. Oh **DAMN**...I wonder where the R S T L N E ers are now

You know how, on Wheel of Fortune" they give you the R S T L N E of the puzzle?

Where there was a chorus of posters? (bots?) that would DEMAND you *PROVE* this to THEM (as though they had the final say in the matter)

FUUUUUUUUCK these motherfuckers out loud.

[nycbos]

7. Is this a reputable source?

[L. Coyote]

9. Did you even check?

http://www.rubenmajor.com/

[nycbos]

11. Yes

Given all the fake news in 2016 I am not going to immediately believe something because it's what I want to hear.

[Igel]

16. No matter.

He denies his argument as he tries to assert it.

The string of "may", "possibly", "indicates" and other shaky bits of linkage between assertions leads us with a big ?

Then again, he's really arguing about the primaries at one time, then quickly switches to the general election.

If you read through the list of problems, he long ago formed judgments about what's going on. A machine is broken, it must have been broken before election day (nothing ever breaks in real time). If a person is offered an alternative but isn't the alternative wanted, the person's being denied a vote. If a machine is miscalibrated, it must be because of hacking. If you don't know how machines are checked, then the false claims seem true; if you don't know how machines can break, then the false claims seem true. In fact, since they form a pattern, they must be true.

This is called abductive reasoning. There's a hypothesis that a fact might fit into. If it fits into that story, then the only proper interpretation of that fact is the story. If it doesn't fit, then it's not a fact worth considering, it's random noise. There's no prediction; no way to falsify the hypothesis. In fact, you don't even know if all the facts were presented--just the ones that could be spun to fit the hypothesis. So we take the claim as proven. When you see a claim that the facts are "compatible with the view" you're looking at abduction but properly phrased in a way by those who should and probably do understand the difference that's sure to invite poor reasoning by most readers. Most take such a claim as proof that the view is proven; it's not. Most of the time, at best an insubstantial attempt at falsification was made, insubstantial because a real attempt would require too much work and be contrary to one's personal interests.

A seeker after truth that requires truth back him up and show he's right is very seldom seeking after truth.

Years of science education are intended to teach the scientific method, based on prediction and attempts at falsifying a hypothesis. Nobody ever points out the preconception that the scientific method is intended to replace, so most people never, ever come to grips with what they usually do things versus how they should. In fact, if I asked most kids to explain the scientific method they'd explain it right; then if I asked them to demonstrate it they'd demonstrate abductive reasoning.

Note that this guy is running for office. Already. This is a way of doing it, and making sure he picks up some votes. It's a case where every fact presented is true, the interpretation of each fact skewed to reach the desired conclusion. It's too much work to reason through and account for all the gaps.

[Lone Star]

13. I have stated before that the programmers of the optical scanners

can take the cut out of or added to the middle of the totals. That is my input.