The memory card is the key. Who puts the program onto the memory card? In Clay County KY the people in charge of handling the machines and the memory cards were all involved in the fix. I think there were 8 of them, all Repubs, who managed to stay in the voting area and made sure the votes were recorded in their favor. I don't know how they pulled it off but there are a hundred and twenty five thousand ways the fraud could happen. I don't think they used memory cards, but they could easily have done so. The critical question is who is responsible for checking and approving the machines? Any one of these guys could easily have changed the programming on the machine. Also these memory cards can all be produced with the same malicious programming so that each one of them, when used, would result in the same percentage of "red shift" that the writers of the program desired. You don't have to put in the memory card BEFORE the vote. The memory card could come from the Diebold factory with a program ready to be accessed by a single voter card or memory card. You can also use the corrupt memory cards at the time the supposed vote result is printed out. This is how it was done by Hari Hursti, the Finnish computer expert, with an opti-scan Diebold in the "Hacking America" documentary about ten years ago. Or the memory card as installed at the factory can be programmed to give a consistent percentage shift if a single trigger is entered into the programming by a voter with a voting card. There are a hundred ways this can be done using the memory cards.
All this is actually well-known, has been well-known for years. Yet every time a new study shows this I feel maybe this time people will do something about it, but each time nothing happens. Statisticians know about the "red shift." Beth Clarkson here in Wichita KS knows that the results using the machines show a strange thing: as the size of the voting precincts increases (where voting machines are used) there are suddenly more Republican voters in urban, more populous precincts, not just in the usually more Republican precincts in rural areas, and the Dems are suddenly in the minority everywhere. Thus Kris Kobach, who according to pre-election polling was in a close race with his opponent, ended up winning by 17%. The political scientists will explain such a thing in a hundred different ways but they will never mention voting machines.
I've quit wondering why nobody raises holy hell about it. For the most part, it's because people don't really understand how the thing works and nobody believes some smarty-pants computer expert anyway. They're just talking technical gibberish while I can "see" the machines and nothing happened to them, and besides they are "tested" before and they always give the right results. What could go wrong?
= new reply since forum marked as read