Any tech gurus or data software peeps care to explain?

[ddavis_1313]

I mean, I think I know what this means. I’m pretty sure I know what Clay is talking about. He has 30 years of experience in tech/data (including doing work for the Department of Defense) and knows this stuff inside and out. At least that’s what I’ve gathered from the HOURS I’ve spent listening to him talk about this very subject. But I’m not tech guru or software engineer.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1840784650005811434

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ddavis_1313]

Full length version if anyone is interested. Oh, fwiw, he isn’t the first guy I’ve seen do this in real time….

https://twitter.com/x/status/1840838517880139854

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ddavis_1313]

You don’t think they’re actually gonna try it again, do you? FWI, Fontes is a pos…

BREAKING: Arizona Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes just revealed that the coding "error" that allowed voters to get ballots without providing proof of U.S. citizenship involved 218,000 voters and NOT the initially announced 98,000

"As with the initial group, certain individuals were mistakenly marked as having provided documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) pursuant to Arizona's Proposition 200 requiring DPOC to vote in state and local elections."

"This data set includes approximately 79,000 Republicans, 61,000 Democrats, and 76,000 Other Party (OTH), bringing the total of impacted individuals to approximately 218,000." - SOS Offce's Press Release.

“The traitors running Arizona's elections need to be held accountable. They sugarcoated the number to 98,000 and are now releasing the real one because they think no one is watching, BUT WE ARE!

As I stated before, I don't blame the voters for this "error." I blame the malicious incompetence of the state and the Election Fraudsters in power.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[maxx075]

As far as an explanation as to what is going on here, all he is doing is modifying the source code so that when the code is executed (to generate result numbers) it is taking x number of "votes" (in this case 1,000) from one candidate and applying them to the other candidate.

 

[Rotnguns]

I don't get the point here. Any programmer can change source code to get whatever result they want. The issue is accessing the source code in the first place and then implementing the changed code somewhere in the official tabulation process.

 

[SonnyDay]

Digital high fence hunting right there…

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Solution= paper ballots and stand alone (not connected to a network) scantron machines. There are still points of human failure for sure, but anything on a network can be hacked.

 

[Beendare]

Secure elections are a critical characteristic of a legit government.

It's sad that we do not have a legit government.