Meh.
If you can write software that swaps votes, you could certainly put a routine in there that erases the vote swapping routine after the election is held. Not hard at all.
The machines would have had to be tested BEFORE the election. Any software programmer worth their salt has probably already covered their tracks.
As SVP of Technology Services for a company, I can say this with a fair amount of confidence: the evidence is probably already gone.
Agreed. What’s the point of writing the software if it doesn’t work as planned.
Remember my first software edit. 1982.
It was basic , Artworx strip poker.
Every time the dealer one they lost
$100 and I was given $100.
As someone who has written lots of code, and designed lots of systems, including “LIMS” systems, (Laboratory Information Management Systems), I agree with you, but raise the conclusion: any system using computers to acquire and count secret data, where the data are not preserved, is entirely unverifiable. With laboratory testing samples are usually preserved until the tested material is approved for whatever purpose (in my case, for manufacturing pharmaceuticals). Without paper marked by the voter, paper preserved and counted inside the precinct, voting is a misleading exercise, and can not be used to honestly represent the choices of voters.
This view sounds extreme, but that is because most people assume no one would dare corrupt our sacred right to vote. A dispassionate analysis, and there are thousands of them, is one understood by police, by criminal lawyers, by experimental scientists and statisticians. If the data can be accessed before a count is performed, no assumption about their meaning has validity.
Some understand the notion of a chain of evidence. That is why OJ couldn't be convicted by the very competent jury forewoman. When all the physical data were collected by two people, but only one criminalist’s name appeared on all samples, corruption was certain. No jury could convict someone based upon unquestionably corrupted physical data. It is amazing that so few of the smart people could grasp that fact, and revealing that they blamed jury bias (nullification), probably because the jury was mostly black, including the systems analyst forewoman.
Not just this election, but elections conducted during the past several decades have done away with local precinct counts done in everyone’s presence, with sealing of ballots and transport, under the observation of all party representatives, is the best we can do. That previous mechanism provided an audit trail, not perfect, and slower, but verifiable. Without the initial public count no election can be assumed to represent anyone other than those controlling the counts, groups which are usually dominated by SEIU employees. The election was a charade. It was an explanation for what the far left is going to do to what remains of our nation's freedoms and economy.