How To Alter PDF Online?
Easy-to-use PDF software
Is election fraud difficult to prove?
It greatly depends on the Fraud, scale and Election processes in place. Now, stop. This is 2020, Elections have been run for over 2000 years. Stop thinking about recent cases. The first indicator is tallies. If you have 100 votes for blue and 106 votes for red yet only 50 people voted you have a problem. ^Ballot stuffing This is fairly easy to detect. The most common mitigation would be to declare the election void and rerun. J Alex Halderman had a great election security course where one country, on discovering extra votes would then proceed to remove those votes (uncounted and at random) and destroy them till you get to the actual total. In Australia we see Cardboard ballot boxes (to avoid pre-stuffing. i.e. itâs an empty plain box inspected by the election officer) sealed at the bottom and sealed once filled. NOW. If you read the above, and go âmy election had 35436 votes for candidate A and 37654 for candidate B, but the total was 79843 votes.â please understand this, Elections are a human process. You may think everything is orderly in counting and no mistakes are madeâŠ Become a scrutineer and you will have a more realistic view. First, check if any differences you notice are logical, i.e. a third and other candidates could attract the other 6753 votes above. You may also have people who voted, but ticked every box (informal) or just pocketed the ballot (my partner/mum made me do this âŠ.). You may also find an anomaly like Yes, when t could votes, ballotâs and even whole polling booths can get lost. Yes this is a sign of poor performance of election officials, the key is how the election official then handles this. Can t confirm chain of custody? Are t certain this is bundle of ballots were ones t counted. Also does the number of ballots lost change the election! In Western Australia, 1183 ballots were missing in a senate race. Because the senate race was decided by 12 votes or less, the 1183 votes were very critical to the election Election officials, after weeks were able to recover those ballots. While it looked like no Tampering occurred, t could not maintain chain of custody! Because Chain of custody, i.e. who has had access too those ballots, cannot be certain tâŠ. Reran the election! ^that my friends is a sign of a good election official. Mistakes happen. Even in very well run elections mistakes happen. The Australian election standards are far higher then the American ones and for Georgia to loose 2 ballot boxes is a sign of incompetence. How do you tell a mistake from Fraud? When the first recount shows up slight differences and stray numbers start getting to the single digits in future recounts. Easily detected fraud is when 5000 ballots appear and t are all marked for the one candidate (this does not happen). Hard to detect fraud would be if someone removed 1,000 ballots and inserted 723 for their candidate and 277 for the other candidate. Your only protection against this is Chain of custody. I.e. We saw all the ballots in a locked room, the election official and 2x scrutineer seals are on the door and un-tampered with. So what is this, Fraud or mistake? "Here is the unofficial breakdown of the ballots that werenât originally uploaded," Sterling said. "1,643 votes for Pres. Trump, 865 for former VP Biden and 16 for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen. That is +778 for President Trump that will be reflected in the certified result.". You tell me? Did the pollworker just stuff 1643 ballots into a box to swing Georgia for trump? Did a pollworker just leave a ballot box uncounted that t thought would lean trumps way? You are talking the second ballot box being âfoundâ in Georgia. How could you not notice totals being thousands off, how come no one numbers ballot boxes and go âwere missing nr 6?ââŠ It seems Georgia ran a pretty poor election. Yet the key is the total of these ballots did not change the result. The candidate who was ahead by 10,000+ stayed ahead by 10,000+. Had the difference been less I think there would be a fair case for a rerun of the election. Computerized voting. âautomation does not fix problems, it multiplies them by thousandsâ. You might be asking âwhat about computerized votingâ. Surely itâs sealed and computers donât make those same numerical errors people do. I reply âno, computers make far larger mistakes!â Here is what, hard to find computerized voting fraud looks like Were talking candidates being given 110% of the vote while their opposition gets 90%. You will only see this as a rounding error. If you count those numbers, itâs less error then a normal election. Yet itâs one way to hack and not get detected. J Alex Halderman above when hacking the Canadian election (mayoral and researchers were asked to hack). altered PDF scans of the vote. deleted/adjusted log entries, so there was no evidence of them logging in. adjusted source code. all was not detected for 5 days. It was only detected by Users complaining about the background music too the voting software*! Alex had changed all the votes to write ins for âBenderâ. He could have easily browsed the total votes and given his chosen candidate whatever margin t needed to win. Computer experts are highly concerned about Computerized elections and election security. not enough safeguards exist. Also people suggesting silly issues do not help election security (like Cybrr Ninja getting Lemon juice out after their silly audit) Or claims that illegal aliens are voting en mass. There have been small improvements, like all swing states now have a paper trail (not all states though). Clearly a lot of processes in American elections are lacking. This does make it hard to tell whatâs fraud, whatâs incompetence and what is failure that is allowed to continue because one candidate gets an advantage. Obligatory Dilbert. from xkcd dot com *that being the University of Michigan campus song where mr Halderman works.
Alter PDF: All You Need to Know
What if a mother does nothing while a premature baby is being treated in an incubator? “What if the doctor is paid for treating patients while their children are dying? “How does that person treat them to bring them safely home?” A spokesman for the Department of Health told The Sun that the changes to the system of funding were made in 2014 to avoid the “distraction” of the “unnecessary repetition” of the current system — which he described as “frustrating to patients, employers, the public and the health service”. He said that there was also “a desire and understanding improving the quality of care in the NHS”. He added: “We know that it takes a lot of time and effort and investment to deliver a good care service, but this is a system that is not set up to achieve that.