The electronic voting machines have a hidden table that can be managed remotely to CAP a percentage. The way this table works is like this:<\/p>\n
You enter the percentage for:<\/p>\n
1. First Quarter of early votes
\n2. Second Quarter of votes
\n3. Third Quarter of votes
\n4. Fourth Quarter of votes<\/p>\n
When a new vote is counted, the percentage is allocated according to the hidden table. So one vote is actually allocated according to a percentage. This would explain how this occurred.<\/p>\n
In 2016, the GEMS table structure was in 99% of voting machines in the United States. The GEMS table allows peer remote into the voting database and in order to run a script.<\/p>\n
Here is the link to the video: Now here’s the special report filed by vote-rigging Bev Harris on the criminal process by which votes are systematically tampered with across America.\u00a0 It’s obvious that there are only so many ways to steal the vote; and this expos\u00e9 reveals the perp’s preferred way in order to avoid detection.<\/p>\n This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.<\/p>\n Fractionalized vote:<\/strong><\/p>\n Instead of \u201c1\u201d the vote\u00a0is allowed to\u00a0be 1\/2,\u00a0 or 1+7\/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.<\/p>\n What fractionalized votes can do:<\/strong><\/p>\n They allow \u201cweighting\u201d of races. Weighting a race removes the principle of \u201cone person-one vote\u201d to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are,\u00a0candidates can receive a\u00a0set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example,\u00a0Candidate A\u00a0can be assigned\u00a044% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.<\/p>\n GEMS fractionalizes votes in three places<\/strong>:<\/p>\n 1) The \u201cSummary\u201d vote tally, which provides overall election totals for each race on Election Night Fractions\u00a0in results reports are not visible.Votes\u00a0containing decimals are reported\u00a0as whole numbers unless specifically instructed to reveal decimals (which is not the default setting). All evidence that fractional values ever existed can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the decimals will fail to reveal they were used.<\/p>\n Source code<\/strong>: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.<\/p>\n Fractionalizing the votes which create the Summary Results allows alteration of Election Night Web results and results sent to the Secretary of State, as well as results available at and local election officials.<\/p>\n Fractionalizing the \u201cStatement of Votes Cast\u201d allows an extraordinary amount of precision, enabling alteration of results by specific voting machine, absentee batch, or precinct. Vote results can be altered for polling places in predominantly Black neighborhoods, and can parse out precincts within a mixed batch of early or absentee votes.<\/p>\n Fractionalizing the undervote category allows reallocation of valid votes into undervotes.<\/p>\n Voting rights abomination<\/strong><\/p>\n According to programmer notes, a weighted race feature was designed which not only gives some votes more weight than others, but does so based on the voter\u2019s identity. Ballots are connected to voters, weights are assigned to each voter per race, stored in an external table not visible in GEMS. Our testing shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only\u00a0one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.<\/p>\n The study was prompted by two issues: (1) Anomalies in elections in Shelby County, Tennessee, which uses the GEMS election management system, in which inconsistencies were observed in reporting of results by GEMS; and (2) Concerns raised regarding the presence of middlemen during the election process, such that a single individual gains remote access to the election management program, in some cases in multiple jurisdictions.<\/p>\n The questions we examine are these:<\/p>\n Can election outcomes be controlled with enough versatility to allow a national impact? Does any mechanism exist that would enable a political consultant or technician to capture elections for repeat customers?<\/p>\n If the necessary features exist within the election management system to facilitate this:<\/p>\n Were such features embedded accidentally or on purpose; for what stated purpose were such features installed; if a reason was given, is that reason justifiable?<\/p>\n How might risks associated with inside access be mitigated?<\/p>\n Next:<\/p>\n Part 2: Context, Background, Deeper, Worse\u00a0http:\/\/blackboxvoting. All:<\/p>\n Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers\u00a0http:\/\/blackboxvoting.
\nFraction Magic \u2013 Detailed Vote Rigging Demonstration (Video)<\/a><\/p>\n
\nFraction Magic – Detailed Vote Rigging Demonstration<\/h1>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/fraction-magic-1.png\")
\n<\/a>by Bev Harris<\/p>\n![\"gems-usa\"](\"http:\/\/ci4.googleusercontent.com\/proxy\/UUdJRPzH3zYhANH-6M4PlDKdIPUWOLPYK9txipMvakFgRROFWlHjFn0vEyr5w3NxcMMB0gdanLXCgSwiffdGZSjjVcKmdiUB2XN9Elmjd0CleRDOUJY7Sh3dFLwEVaA=s0-d-e1-ft#http:\/\/blackboxvoting.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/gems-usa-500x315.png\")
GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.<\/p>\n
\n2) The \u201cStatement of Votes Cast\u201d, which provides detailed results by precinct and voting method (ie. Polling, absentee, early, provisional)
\n3) The \u201cundervote\u201d count<\/p>\n
\nPart 2: Context, Background, Deeper, Worse\u00a0http:\/\/blackboxvoting.
\nPart 3: Proof of code\u00a0http:\/\/blackboxvoting.
\nPart 4: Presidential race in an entire state switched in four seconds\u00a0http:\/\/blackboxvoting.
\nPart 5: Masters of the Universe\u00a0http:\/\/
\nPart 6: Execution capacity \u2013 coming \u2013\u00a0http:\/\/blackboxvoting.org\/
\nPart 7: Solutions and Mitigations \u2013 coming \u2013\u00a0http:\/\/blackboxvoting.org\/