Reply #84: That's Blackwell's argument.

[Qutzupalotl]

5. In order for (4) above to be correct, you have to have the people who picked the precincts that constututed the 3% to be "in" on the scam and pick exactly the precincts which the machines are programmed to count correctly.

Not true; you would simply target your fraud to precincts that did not approximate 3%. The most logical and likely precinct selections for sample recounts are those that are nearest to but not below 3%. That means less work for those doing the recounts.

6. There are usually at least 2 or more people per county, a Republican and a Democrat who decided which precincts go into the 3%.

7. According to (6) and (5) above, in order for the whole scheme to work you need a couple of hundred people across Ohio, both R and D, to be in on the fraud scheme.

I consider (7) to be extremely unlikely. What about you?

Blackwell used the same argument. Yes, it's unlikely that thousands of people are involved in fraud, but it's also unnecessary to involve that many people. Central tabulators are vulnerable to hacking, for instance. Precinct selection was neither random nor arbitrary, but based on size approximating 3%.