Otero County Meeting, New Mexico, August 11, 2022

Rock616

2 years ago

KEEP SHARING! We are getting it out there!!! 😁👍👍🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

this county is going to drop the machines

patriots stand strong

Rock616

2 years ago

SHARE!! SHARE!!! SHARE!!!!!!

DanSundin

2 years ago

Many times, there are errors, but are hidden by local election officials, or they don't know the Election Law, and the aren't technically competent to make those distinctions. The go by the lesser stringent perspective in court of law, is the margin of error, fraud, or other issues, enough to have change the outcome of a race. The EAC requirements make none of those distinction. Their attitude is: if you can't be exact, you can't use Electronic Voting Systems, and those systems should be de-certified.

DanSundin

2 years ago

All said: These machines, systems, procedures, ballots, processes are not allowed to have errors in recording, tallying, and reporting voter intent in elections. If the systems can't perform to those specifications, then for Federal Office Elections, you must set aside the electronic machines and Hand Count all ballots for federal offices. This is the EAC Statutes, Rules, and Election Law as per the federal level. States defer to the Federal Law, and it is written into the state statutes as per their legislatures.

Rock616

2 years ago

5200 watching! share Share..SHARE!!!

this guys presentation is all over the place?

stand strong

DanSundin

2 years ago

Hand Counting of BALLOTS is required when there is more that ONE error in 125,000 vote opportunities ... EAC dot gov rules. This increases to 250,000 and next to 500,000 opportunities, with the Election Management Server (EMS) requiring less that ONE error in 10 million vote opportunities ... Lets see if they can operate at those levels of Exactness.. If not, all Federal Office races must be hand counted, because you can't trust the Electronic Voting systems and platforms... This isn't a CHOICE of Local election officials, but a REQUIREMENT of FEDERAL LAW. State law defers to Federal Law...

DanSundin

2 years ago

https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/Voting_System_Standards_Volume_I.pdf ⬅️⚠️ (page in PDF 60 of 170). Section 3.2.1 Accuracy Requirements ;; talking about no more that ONE error in 10,000,000 ;; This is out of the Voting Systems Standards, Volume 1 Performance Standards; April 2002, when all of this started.. All newer revisions of everything point back to these as rules and requirements to be achieved. The ONE in 10,000,000 is the EMS at the Server Level, which is the summation of all the lower levels, with more relaxed standards. Thus the 10M, 500K, 250K and 125K thresholds (0.0000001 ... 0.000002 ... 0.000004 ... 0.000008 rates for each category of acceptable errors in processing electronic voting systems.

DanSundin

2 years ago

Applicable wording: " For testing purposes, the acceptable error is defined using two parameters: the desired error rate to be achieved, and the maximum error rate that shold be accepted by the test process. For each processing function indicagted above, the system shall achieve a target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 ballot positions, with a maximum acceptable error rate in the testing process of one in 500,000 ballot poisitions".

DanSundin

2 years ago

Applicable section cut out of the PDF from the EAC.gov .. In it, it is talking about positions vs. Vote Opportunities. So, if a race has three candidates, there are a potential of three places to look.. I treat it a little bit different for clarity, the positions is proper, but for a narrative, vote opportunities is more easily understood by the target audience. Therefore I'm reducing the 3 target positions down on just one race opportunity ... Mathematically we can compute the differences.

DanSundin

2 years ago

Page 129 of the previously referenced manual provided: 9.4 Testing Scope The qualifications test process is intended to discover vulnerabilities that, should they appear in actual election use, could result in failure to complete election operations in a satisfactory manner. Five types of focus guide the overall qualification testing process: - - Operational accuracy in the recording and processing of voting data, as measured by target error rate, for which the maximum acceptable error rate is no more that one in ten million ballot positions, with a maximum acceptable error rate in the test process of one in 500,000 ballot positions (while it would be desired that there be an error rate of zero, if this had to be proven by ta test, the test itself would take an infinity of time); - - Operational failures or the number of unrecoverable failures under conditions simulating the intended storage, operation, transportation, and maintenance environments for voting systems, using an actual time-based period of processing test ballots; - - System Performance and function under normal and abnormal conditions; and - - Completeness and accuracy of the system documentation and configuration management records to enable purchasing justification to effectively install, test, and operate the system.

DanSundin

2 years ago

So, a ballot position as referred to in that information previously listed woudl be (by simple exmaple here)... A single Race with 3 candidates listed, and one Write-in ... Therefore there are 4 ballot positions to be tested for on the ballot. To translate the to Vote Opportunities, you would need to device the positions by FOUR, which could be done for clarity. But this would need to be done for each race, and races may have more or less opportunities. For clarity purposeses voters better under races, where the entire reason that an election management system (EMS) is looking on the ballot, is to determine the SINGLE occurances of voter intent on a race, as seen on the ballot area for that race or contest. If the instructions say to vote for TWO candidate, then the EMS would need to find both instances of voter intent (and there could be more that just two). If the voter doesn't vote enough times for candidate or choice selections, it is an Undervote, and if they vote too many times, it is an Overvote (which disallows that race selection from being counted).

Not sure what I just saw. but it was very informative. The one thing I did get however was how organized the people who resist transparency. The lawyer was married to the hip of the council member next to him (who is obviously a yes man,a go along to get along kind of person), they were whispering off and on all day. But the other two and the presenter were correct. The question was not the law, the question was fighting back against the SOS who apparently uses threats to get people to do it her way. and it is the lawyer advisors who are their main tool to do that. That lawyer is a masterclass example of WHY certain issues never make it to court. because they constantly 'Advise' people it is not worth doing so. I remember old movies where there were certain people who shadowed the supposed generals and sub leaders around in the USSR who did the same thing. I mean The council voted not to certify - in order to get the results checked and verified. Result? SOS threats to arrest them. They cave. Then the Council votes to make the election safer. Result? SOS once again threatens to arrest them. Again they almost caved. It was hard but two of the member stood up and said enough.

pcwelsh

2 years ago

My suggestion: No laws prevent any county commission from employing both methods. Use the drop boxes/machines and conduct a hand count (by patriotic volunteers at zero additional cost) at the same time. Then compare both results and and see which method the public has greater confidence in. The answer will be obvious to all. Hand counting in full public view has to be safer and more secure than mules, software algorithmic vote switching, and internet-connected voting machines which are extremely vulnerable to cyber-intrusion at multiple levels. These infernal machines are literally designed to steal elections from We the People, to the benefit of everyone who benefits from the fraud. KISS principle - keep it simple stupid. Complexity of our electoral processes is a prescription for the very tyranny which has gradually taken hold for decades now. For goodness sake, Bev Harris movie "Fraction Magic" alerted us to the dangers of the GEMS software in use back in 2006. Ballots are whole numbers. Why on earth would we accept machines which fractionate whole numbers in their software programs? Doing so can only be for nefarious purposes... and so here we are.

rojer

2 years ago

The separation of church and state doesn't prevent individuals from expressing their spiritual or religious comments or concerns. What it does mean is that the state cannot endorse a specific religion that others must abide by. The state is not allowed to ESTABLISH a religious viewpoint. And it is not allowed to punish a religious or spiritual view or absence thereof. That clarification should have been addressed.

Rock616

2 years ago

How do we get a sharable copy of this presentation!?

Doodoo5220

2 years ago

Again, more evidence and nothing, not a damn thing will be done about it. Just keeping it real.

None of the machines used in elections meet the error rate requirements of 1:250,000 ballots. Some error rates have been as high as 65% as indicated by the number of adjudicated ballots. Federal law put forth in 2002 HAVA requirements state the acceptable error rates.

DanSundin

2 years ago

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/bombshell-evidence-shows-michigan-supreme-court-race-2020-flipped-election-audit-professionals-also-identify-numerous-red-flags-new-mexico-arizona/ - - - The Gateway Pundit article has the 525 page document linked in their release here. Otero County Commission will be releasing access to the REPORT from their official county website.

DanSundin

2 years ago

https://www.scribd.com/document/586616765/Otero-County-Audit-Report#from_embed << - - - Direct link, which required a FREE Scribd account, this was part of The Gateway Pundit article.

DanSundin

2 years ago

Let me get the rules which state that if you can't achieve these standards, that elections administration(ors) need to revert to Hand Counting their elections, when Federal Offices are being tabulated on the ballot. No leeway the local official, they must comply to the federal standards, and state statutes reflect those requirements that the FEDERAL guidelines take precedence. Tyically states don't even make a difference regarding Federal, State and Local election, and it all is treated the same. If the Election Management System have errors greater than the acceptable ratio, then those system can not be used in counting election results.

DanSundin

2 years ago

The reference that I sited was regarding Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) ballot marking systems, which were more heavily used back in the 2002 time frame. Since then, most of these DRE system have fallen by the wayside, because of the errors in using them and the lack of being able to Audit them, lacking physical paper, with voter intent expressed on the paper ballot. REAL intent was that all current and future systems are similar and all must meet these high standards, to be trustworthy.

Thank you Patriots from the Ohio heartland!!!

Please Sharearama...this is important info for all American voters! Let's surpass the 100K views!

David Clements crossed lines in his approach/response. Don't resort to emotions and familiar attacks. I am sorry to see that although I support the transparency of this event.

I may come back to fast fwd.

An old magician's trick, misdirect, complicate and misdirect.