DB Main

This thread was already posed to them.
Comparing ETA's charts against Klimek's baseline charts.

Klimnek's signature for fraud are missing.

bsky.app/profile/dbma...

I mean, sorry, but it's like: "I was too lazy and intellectually incurious to inform myself, and now I demand that Pennsylvania placate me by doing SOMETHING to prove my feelz that Kamala won."

Pardon me, but this is infuriating.
Results ARE double-checked via legislatively mandated audits and EAC-Required technological safeguards.
You folks are totally unaware of them, and upon being confronted with them, you insist that the things you just found out about are inadequate.

The money being spent on this frivolous lawsuit would find a better home with Marc Elias who is fighting actual election hijinx

As long as you're sharing, share this.
bsky.app/profile/trev...

Theirs do.
bsky.app/profile/trev...

Yes and no. Because there's on-board verification (the one I talked about) and off-board verification done by either counties of VSTLs before and after the election. In the latter, the system creating the hashsum is not an election system; it's a separate computing device.

"In Covid's Wake" Part 2: Wron… - If Books Could Kill - Apple Podcasts Podcast Episode · If Books Could Kill · 06/19/2025 · 1h 10m

FYI all, In addition to calling out Gregg, Macedo also targets Michael Hobbes for this "If Books Could Kill" podcast series they did tearing the book apart.
Ep 1
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i...
Ep 2
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i...

That means one of two things:
1) The installation was done incorrectly, or
2) The executable (the compiled source code) has been altered with malicious code.

I'm sorry. I must not have explained it well.
IF the hashsum that was created at boot time is NOT the one sent for comparison, that means the software image on the field machine isn't the same as the certified system.

There are layers of legislatively-mandated audits and EAC-required technological safeguards to protect elections.
ETA is notably silent when challenged on their claims.
They handwave when asked how the audits/technology is circumvented and just ignore critiques of their "statistical anomalies".

Ballots do NOT have serial numbers. This would be a violation of ballot privacy and secrecy laws. Here is a sample ballot from PA. Note the absence of a serial number.

The bright side is that they might just slink off with their AI creations and leave us the fuck alone.

Here is a diagram of the trusted build process from a substack draft of mine. Any "reprogramming" would cause the process to fail. The system wouldn't boot.

And that's only the Risk Limiting Audit. There's another layer of election security called "Trusted Build Verification".
This is a requirement of all EAC-certified voting systems.
Each system's software is cryptographically checked upon boot to see if the image is different than the certified system

I don't think you're following: It's a manual recount of a randomly-selected statistically-significant number of ballots.
If the "machine was reprogrammed to work incorrectly" it would produce an incorrect tally of votes. The manual recount of that batch would detect it.

Ditto Alleghany. THIS time I've used two different charts from Klimnek: Uganda and Russia 2008. Once again, Klimnek circles the aberration.
The aberration that's notably missing from your Alleghany chart.

Ditto Erie.

There was no abnormal pattern of voting.

By your OWN references.
Your Cambria chart on the left. Klimnek's chart from Russia 2012.
That red circle? Klimek put that there. And it's notably absent from your Cambria chart.

Guys, this is brazen misrepresentation.

What makes you think PA wasn't secure in 2024?
They conducted Logic & Accuracy testing of the machines before the election, and two recounts in each county of a statistically-significant number of ballots AFTER the election.

It's like trying to stop Rhi when she's on one of her "Peter is a nerd" rants.

He looks like the guy at Chernobyl who they sent to see if the top of the reactor was still intact.

The conversation usually goes like this:
"It was rigged!! We demand audits to prove it!"
"There were audits. Up to 4 layers of them."
"No there weren't!"
[provides links to audits]
"Those audits I just learned about 30 seconds ago aren't good enough!!"

PS They are also misrepresenting Mebane's paper too. Did you even read Mebane's paper?
(To be as gracious as possible, Mebane's prose is as turgid as it gets. It's like he deliberately wants to be misunderstood)

Have you REALLY compared ETA's analysis against Klimek's work?
Their charts against Klimek's baseline charts from Russian and Uganda elections?
There's a reason why ETA doesn't put them side by side.
They're counting on people accepting their word uncritically.

Ahem.
bsky.app/profile/salu...

It's absolutely maddening that every election breeds a new generation of deniers who apparently think, "We're the first people to think elections can be hacked! We need a series of audits!" totally unaware of the layers of audits that already exist.

From 2016. I am convinced he thought it was life insurance.

Now? Who knows?

Sorry to do litmus tests but I want candidates who understand and say out loud that the big tech industry is a hive of evil charlatans who get rich pumping poison into the world

Are you sincerely interested in a reply? We have already found about 10 things wrong with it.

Have you bothered to double-check any of their claims?

Auditing Election Results Auditing Election Results

(I meant to include the link to PA's Audit page. There you can download the statewide RLA results)
www.pa.gov/agencies/vot...