[p align="center"]A Message from [span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-weight: bolder;"][a target="_blank" href="http://truthisall.net/"]TruthIsAll[/a] [/span]
[/p][div style="text-align: justify;"] [!-- [blockquote] --]
I've already posted this on another thread, but it's so fundamental, I want to make sure everyone reads it.[/p] It's time to dispose of some voting machine myths perpetuated by the BushCo media apologists.[/p] [p style="font-weight: bold;"]There is no such thing as a computer "glitch".
The computer does what it's TOLD to do.
Nothing more. Nothing less.[/p] The need to "calibrate" touchscreens is pure BS, a classic straw man. Did you ever have to calibrate a Diebold ATM before you made a deposit? Did you ever have to re-calibrate YOUR computer before linking to a blog?[/p] Why is it that touchscreens are "mis-calibrated", yet switch Democratic votes to the GOP 95% of the time?
If it were a truly random occurrence, it would be 50%/50%. The media and naysayers disregard this proof of programmable fraud.[/p] Remember the 2004 EIRS database? Of 88 touchscreen incidents, 86 switched votes from Kerry to Bush.
These "glitches" occurred in different locations, mostly in FL and OH. THEY WERE INDEPENDENT EVENTS. [/p] So how do we compute the odds?
The probability is equal to the sum of the individual probabilities of getting 86, 87 and 88 switches.[/p] In Excel:
1.23689E-23 =BINOMDIST(86,88,0.5,FALSE)
2.84343E-25 =BINOMDIST(87,88,0.5,FALSE)
3.23117E-27 =BINOMDIST(88,88,0.5,FALSE)[/p] THE PROBABILITY IS 1.26565E-23 or
1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000
That's ONE in 79 SEXTILLION.[/p] I've written thousands of programs on mainframes, minis and PCs. Any computational errors were due to faulty programming/logic. It was NEVER a computer "glitch", just a programming error.
Every professional software developer knows that a program never runs perfectly the first time. [/p] Hell, anyone can program a computer to add. Even Diebold. So what's the problem? They don't want to count the votes. So how do they get the machines certified? Money talks. And the Democrats won't do anything about it.[/p] Diebold has had four years to clean up and publish the code. But why should they? It does exactly what they want it to do. [/p] If you still believe that the DRE problems are just "glitches" and not due to malicious programming, you're living in a dream world.
_____________________________________________________________[/p] This simple Excel model demonstrates one way of hacking a central tabulator for three sample precincts, each containing 100 voters, using a random number generator. To test the model, enter a percentage of democratic votes to be switched. You can also change the default number of (pre-hack) democratic votes in each precinct.[/p] [a href="http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/RandomVoteHack.xls"]http://www.geocities.com...model/RandomVoteHack.xls[/a][/p] Pass it on. [/p] [/div]
