Reply #33: I think I understand what you are suggesting... [View All]

[understandinglife]

....and those who construct algorithms typically use tools to achieve one or more representations of how to generate a pattern.

What I'm suggesting is a focus on how the algorithm might most efficiently be deployed. My hypothesis is that access to several 'central tabulating systems' seems much more efficient than hacking individual optical scanners or e-vote machines.

Now, if I wanted to hide my efficiency, one of the several things I would do is choose certain precincts that are heavily populated by voters registered for my opposition and I would make even their task to vote very, very hard -- call it the 'long line gambit in disadvantaged precincts.'

Another thing I might do is have several of the Evote computer behave in a flaky way: for instance, as the voter attempts to select my opponent, the vote appears to switch for me -- call it the 'Evote head-fake gambit.'

In other words, I'd create several forms of true disenfranchisement but when folk tried to build a case, all the pundits, 'reasonable media anchors and editors' and, even many within the 'leadership' of my opponents party would go -- yeah sure thing dude, we know it's bad but no way is it going to add up to '4 million votes' so forget-about-it-anyway; if your so concerned just go work on reform for the next time.

All the while, the actual mechanism used was a simple algorithm that displaced a certain number of votes at strategically selected central tabulating centers (strategically selected to include not only 'battleground states' but 'sure win states' for BOTH me and my opponent).

Give it some thought; this ain't conspiracy theory folk, this is an attempt to build testable working hypotheses and testable algorithms to determine how an all-time, historical event happened sometime between ~ 6pm EST 2 Nov - ~ 1am EST 3 Nov 2004.

"It's about America" -- currently on life support and in need of immediate, super-smart, heroic treatment.