Minimize Vote Fraud Using Block Chain Technology

Notes:

1. At some point, even with paper ballots scanned into a Diebold or a similar vote scan counter, at some point the tabulations are ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED.

2. Some, in fact, most tabulations are transmitted by satellite to GEMS (Global Elections Management System).

3. Soros owned Diebold, then sold to Dominion, BUT retained control of IP for both, That means his IT people controlled the software for most voting systems in the US.

4. Soros also controls IP for GEMS.

***************************************

Questions:

1. With Soros controlling so much of the electronic voting infrastructure, how is it that Hillary did not win?

2. What are some schemes for electronically changing vote counts?

Answers/Speculations/Remarks:

1. Reports on election night 2016 described 'voodoo' with vote counts turning towards Hillary at about midnight but then suddenly stopping. One speculation is that the satellite downloads to Soros IT People were stopped causing votes to be reported using backup pathways. It was also evident that news networks stopped reporting totals for a time.

2. The suspicions of electronic transmission fraud cannot be discussed by high-ranking democrats for several reasons. Most of them wouldn't know the details. They may have been smug about it on election night knowing that some 'geniuses' in the background had it under control. Those that had control of the algorithms wouldn't be able to discuss it because it would implicate them.

3. There was pre-election chatter that NYPD and FBI field agent patriots were not about to let Hillary steal the election so they set in motion a plan to stop the steal involving loyal IT agents who put a stop to the fraud capability of the Soros systems. Question: Guess who is now Director of Cybersecurity under President Trump?

4. Schemes: I will discuss some important electronic vote fraud schemes involving fractional weighting in the thread below. But read the links above and know that:

BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR VOTING GREATLY MINIMIZES ELECTRONIC VOTING FRAUD!

Bump

How many spot checks are done on the voting system? Where I live we have electronic balloting with a paper copy of the votes stored in each booth. Does the Board of Elections ever take those paper records and check that they match the precinct count? Even the threat of that makes hijinks further down the path more difficult.

How about fingerprints?

For those of you familiar with spreadsheets such as Excel, or any particular data structure platform, you know there are data attributes that format the 'screen appearance' of say a numerical value entry. For example, an entry of say 0.83674 can be formatted to show only two decimal places on the screen or printout as 0.84. This is done to give a clean appearance to a report. Numbers and fractions are rounded to make a report look tidy. But the original entry 0.83674 is still in the system.

Another thing that can be done for specific purpose is to weight the data to reflect portions of a group, to model accuracy, etc. So for example, take a number 1, define it as a number with two decimal places 1.00 and then multiple it by 0.8 to get a new value of 0.80.

1 = 1.00 --> 1.00 x 0.8 = 0.80; this is called 'weighting' the data.

It is important to note that at the screen, a viewer will see '1'. Inside a computer or programmable memory device, the number '1' is redefined with a two-decimal attribute as 1.00 and then multipled with weighting factor 0.8 to create a new value 0.80. The viewer SEES '1' but the system has created and stored '0.80'.

Weighting has legitimate uses in statistics but there are no legitimate purposes for weighting actual VOTE COUNTs. But weighting vote counts can be a fraudulent means of stealing an election. Weighting can be used to downweight a candidate designated to lose or upweight a candidate designated to win, or a combination of both.

Here are two simple examples of two candidates, one of which is downweighted to lose in County X and the other that is upweighted to win in County Z. There are 5 voters in County X labeled 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 voters in County Z labeled 6,7,8,9,10,11. Note the number of votes cast for both counties together are the same whether weighted or left unaltered.

COUNTY X Candidate A (Unaltered)

Voter	Vote	Displayed	Weight Factor	Stored
1	0	0	1.0	0.00
2	1	1	1.0	1.00
3	0	0	1.0	0.00
4	1	1	1.0	1.00
5	0	0	1.0	0.00
Totals	2	2	1.0	2.00

**********************************

COUNTY X Candidate B (Downweighted)

Voter	Vote	Displayed	Weight Factor	Stored
1	1	1	0.8	0.80
2	0	0	0.8	0.00
3	1	1	0.8	0.80
4	0	0	0.8	0.00
5	1	1	0.8	0.80
Totals	3	3	0.8	2.40

***********************************************************

COUNTY Z Candidate A (Upweighted)

Voter	Vote	Displayed	Weight Factor	Stored
6	0	0	1.2	0.00
7	1	1	1.2	1.20
8	0	0	1.2	0.00
9	1	1	1.2	1.20
10	0	0	1.20	0.00
11	1	1	1.2	1.20
Totals	3	3	1.2	3.60

**********************************

COUNTY Z Candidate B (Unaltered)

Voter	Vote	Displayed	Weight Factor	Stored
6	1	1	1.0	1.00
7	0	0	1.0	0.00
8	1	1	1.0	1.00
9	0	0	1.0	0.00
10	1	1	1.0	1.00
11	0	0	1.0	0.00
Totals	3	3	1.0	3.00

***********************************************************

COUNTIES X AND Z TOTALS FOR CANDIDATES A AND B

County	Candidate	Raw Votes	Displayed Total	Transmitted Total	Rounded for Summing
X	A	2	2	2.00	2
.	B	3	3	2.40	2
Z	A	3	3	3.60	4
.	B	3	3	3.00	3
X + Y	A	5	.	5.60	6
.	B	6	.	5.40	5

Candidate A wins 6 votes to 5 over Candidate B even though raw votes had Candidate B with 6 votes to 5 over Candidate A. Among millions of votes, this scheme would be a nightmare to unravel and with more fraud sophistication, this scheme would very likely never be uncovered. Most cries of voter fraud are met with responses that it's all 'sour grapes'.

Note that Candidate B actually won the unaltered vote count in County X and tied in County Z but lost the overall stored and transmitted-rounded weighted counts. Note also that each country election office will see displayed their actual raw vote counts but they won't see it for other counties in their states. The subtotal sums are altered even though the overall votes cast are the same for altered and unaltered. This is a slick scam scheme for stealing an election and without much doubt, Soros and others have the IT people to create sophisticated algorithms to pull it off.

Now here is the kicker. Counties X and Z don't see what the other did. The weakness is that although counties can check and verify their own totals, they are unable to verify the totals of other counties. This is compartmentalization of county vote totals and it allows the alteration of data to be lost in the sums. One way to counter this weakness is to mandate a statewide display of all real-time counts by county, district, and precinct together with statewide totals so that anyone can check to see that the reported totals are real and unaltered. Weakness still remains at district and precinct levels and those would have to be displayed as well. Needless to say, a lot of eyes would be needed to be checking real-time totals.

However, more is needed. Any particular district or precinct can be compromised and thus skew results of a county. This is where Block Chain Technology can bridge the gap and strengthen the system to an extent that with real-time cross-checking, the voting system becomes highly impregnable to electronic fraud.

Now it would be wonderful if we could mandate by law that every voter dip their index finger into a well of purple ink after they voted so they can't easily vote again. But with our Constitution, I think this would not be a viable path to follow to assure 'one voter - one vote'. Such a system also does not solve weaknesses in vote transmission whether done electronically or by Pony Express.

Yes, you’ve described a big weakness in the overall system. There is no system in place to comprehensively cross check all totals at every level. Hence, there are multiple entry points for fraud to be injected.

The takeaway from this is that the old ways of busing around voters and illegals to stuff ballot boxes, all the physical means of pulling off an election steal, all those ways are antiquated in the face of electronic fraud.

Just no

My drivers license when shown to vote is all that is needed

Sorry but you’re wrong in saying that that is all that is needed.

Your vote can be electronically altered at a number of points and be added to a total that has been altered to disfavor the candidate you voted for.

We could have perfectly controlled elections by contracting with a firm like PayPal, FedEx, Charles Schwab or StubHub that does millions of transactions every hour with almost flawless execution.

The big unresolved issue is registration. There are millions of illegals with drivers licenses that were supposed to NOT check a box saying they are citizens. It appears that CA, maybe other states, do not verify their citizenship if they check the box. Then there multiple registrations.

Once those problems are resolved then blockchain voting will work quite well. People will need their private key to cast a vote, the corresponding public key is turned over when they register. That way they can vote just once per registration, hence the need to cross check for multiples across jurisdictions, check citizenship, etc. But one vote per registration is essentially guaranteed.

People can vote remotely with the private key or in person with a paper copy of their private key. Voting twice with the same private key is instantly detected.

The only remaining problem I can think of is people selling their vote.

BALLET PICTURE VOTE VERIFICATION

Picture verification means a screen pic of each ballet is taken. ANY citizen can then verify the entire election.

Just takes memory of which plenty exists.

Yes, there are many facets to the problem.

However, if you read the link to what the Australians are doing, you will see how they will be using BCT to ensure “one-voter, one-vote”, as well as security in electronic transmission. One might ask why the Australians are so concerned. The answer is in their geographic location. They are susceptible to hacking from China, India, Indonesia.

As for the illegal voting problem, that problem should be lessened by the policies of the Trump Administration. If they are not here, they can’t vote unless they are still on the voter rolls, and in that case, those rolls can be scrubbed. So over time, the illegal voting problem should wane.

The BCT is optimal for ensuring secure transmission. As stated in the first post, even where paper ballots are used, the results are still at some point uploaded electronically.

Those systems are centralized and use a third party clearing center taking a relatively long time to settle.

BCT is decentralized and fast, near instantaneous in settling. That makes a huge difference to security and data integrity.

Each of those organizations you listed and many others not listed could not adopt BCT for voting transactions because, by its nature, BCT exists outside any centralized organization.

BCT operates spontaneously in a changing nodal network. A would-be hacker can never know what node is next to be updated and often the message and the node are changed in random fashion. As the information spans out and updates, on its way to its final destination, the definition of the network can not be known in advance.

Think of it as a fighter pilot or computer reacting in real time to enemy attacks. Is the aircraft taken up, down, spiral out, twirl, etc.? All those decisions are left to chance, meaning spin a wheel and pick a number. If the transmission network was known in advance, it could never be secure. When the network is changing, the information packet has a chance to deposit itself at many nodes on the way to its destination and if any node is hacked, other nodes have the information and are polled.

BCT is much better suited to voting than a consumer commerce network. The consumer networks need to know all Point of Sale terminals, and from there the information follows a well-defined path to a centralized location.

There are many security issues with such networks. There are so many security issues, that the industry of e-commerce is forever playing catch up to the latest breach. To become more like BCT, the e-commerce networks would have to install and constantly change intermediate nodal points and they simply cannot do that. They might as well build their own internet. And even then, one of their IT people would know all of their nodes and be able to map out a hack strategy. It isn’t going to happen.

BCT operates on the principle that if there is one hack of a node in the network, there are many more nodes that are unknown to the hacked node and those nodes continue to operate with consensus, at a speed which a nodal hack attack can’t keep up with. Decentralization and nodal cover are key.

> “Clearly, Soros did not invest in election technology as a money maker. However, outside of you, no one has pointed any fingers at Soros or anyone else in potential hacking of the Presidential election. Is he the one who cannot be named?”

Soros did, in fact, own Smartmatic and had ties with the manufacturer of the Diebold machines. But he quickly sold to Dominion and retained the IP rights for his IT group. Soros has a large IT group that supports his trading floors on the Grand Cayman about 90 mi south of Havana.

Snopes (which is one guy, his wife, operating out of a basement) publishes that Soros does not own voting machine companies. That is not the full story. Others have written that only conspiracy theorists believe Soros has any ties to voting machine companies.

Soros wants to hide his prior involvement with electronic voting machines and as many of us know, he has stories planted to cover his tracks labeling anyone as nuts who report his ties to something he wants kept secret.

Soros’s people were known at one time to control a British company called Smartmatic, which had something to do with election fraud in Venezuela. The CEO has Soros ties.

Smartmatic briefly owned a U.S. company called Sequoia Voting but sold it in 2006. Sequoia and Premier Voting are owned by a Canadian company called Dominion. They bought Premier, which used to be called Diebold, from ES&S, which is the largest machine maker and was forced to sell Premier in 2010 for anti-trust reasons.

What is not mentioned is the software that is inside the machines. There is a testing program on startup that is run and checked by elections office persons. But there is other software as well that elections offices do not know about.

But then there is the centralized GEMS software. That software is configure-controlled by persons in the Soros sphere. Soros is careful to keep a distance away from voting machines and software but he doesn’t need to be close. His organization has people that carry out what is needed.

The point is that there should be no such systems or software with any ties to any political donor, lobbyist, or mogul. The Australian Block Chain Technology project will be starting from post offices.

The greater point is that with BCT, the security vulnerability of having one central organization control the machines and software is eliminated.

Soros is indeed involved in influencing elections. He will not be allowed to claim he and his IT people have no ties and interests in voting machines, systems, and software.

****************************************

From Breitbart August 19, 2016:

Another leaked document from the Open Society Foundations shows the group trying to subvert the results of the Dutch EU-Ukraine referendum donating over 300,000 euros.
The leaked documents from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations have once again revealed another attempt by the left-wing billionaire to influence the politics and voting of a European country. According to a memo sent to Mr. Soros himself from the Open Society European Policy Insitute (OSIFE) in January of this year the group was to commit to the YES campaign of the now failed referendum on potential Ukraine membership into the European Union through an association agreement.

The memo which briefs Mr. Soros on the situation before he was to meet with Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte, lays out the plan for the foundation to fund the yes campaign to win. Soros let the Prime Minister know that the OSIFE would “lend its support for a strong YES campaign and invest substantial resources. ” the memo states that securing a Yes vote in the referendum was crucial and noted that at least 300,000 euros would be allocated toward getting a YES result.

Another leaked document puts into details the way that the foundation would use the money to garner sympathy for Ukrainians in the Netherlands ahead of the vote. Much like the campaign to boost the image of Somali migrants that Breitbart London revealed earlier this week, the document attempts to use media coverage to highlight Ukrainians in the Netherlands.

The plan for the campaign is split up into an informative angle and an appeal to the emotions of the Dutch voter. In one of the stranger claims of the document the foundation states that “Ukrainian children involved in the campaign look very much like their Dutch counterparts (lightcoloured hair, freckles, etc) that eliminates perceived differences between the two nations.”

The Ukrainian children were meant to perform Dutch songs in order to show a connection with Dutch people and manipulate the Dutch into voting for a possible entry for Ukraine into the European Union.

George Soros and Open Society have been active in the Ukraine since the coup in 2014 that brought an end to the pro-Russian government. Soros has actively fought against what he terms as the influence of Russia and it’s president Vladamir Putin who he claims is more dangerous than the Islamic state.

The reach of the open Society foundation is not limited to Europe as it was recently revealed by Breitbart News that the rumours of the foundation funding the Black Lives Matter movement turned out to be true. The group funded BLM to the tune of 650,000 dollars and have also been revealed to have funded anti-police groups across the European continent.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/19/soros-group-attempted-buy-dutch-referendum

The BCT is optimal for ensuring secure transmission. As stated in the first post, even where paper ballots are used, the results are still at some point uploaded electronically.

The blockchain is a secure ledger. All the transactions are signed with someone's private key and contain the public key so the signature can be verified. That's all the security it has. There's no secrecy of any sort, nor authentication other than signing with a personal private key. So uploading ballots from some other source (e.g. paper) will require something new.

I can't create a entire secure upload on the back of an envelope but there would have to be a private key involved. One way to do it (again subject to real security analysis) is to print a private key on each paper ballot as the vote is cast by a voter verified by their ID in person. To upload the scanner will read the private key and use it to sign the transaction containing the ballot. The total number of transactions can't exceed the vote count for the precinct.

But there could be extra ballots from the trunk of a car substituted for real ballots. Normally a private key is on someone's electronic device and the corresponding public key has been registered using the voter's identity documents. In this case the computer in the precinct that creates the private keys has to print out public keys. If those printouts can be stored securely with the paper ballots.

If there is an audit or recount the ballots can be hand counted and the public keys can be checked against those on the block chain to make sure they match.

> “So uploading ballots from some other source (e.g. paper) will require ***something new***.”

Yes. BCT is not stagnant technology. It is under development for many new applications. It is, in fact, causing a revolution. New BCT Patent applications are mushrooming in number.