CHICAGO — Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.
Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public Library.
“I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”
The conservative website Illinois Review reported that “While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidate’s party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race.
Moynihan offered this gracious lesson to his followers on Twitter: “Be careful when you vote in Illinois. Make sure you take the time to check your votes before submitting.”
Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog, the machine was taken out of service and tested.
“This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine,” Scalzitti said. “When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration.”
Just last week, TPNN reported that voting machines in historically politically corrupt Cook County, Illinois, were automatically switching votes cast for Republicans into votes for Democrat candidates.
Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director Jim Scalzitti, told the Illinois Watchdog that, “It was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine.”
MORE FRAUD IN MARYLAND
Now, Watchdog.org is reporting similar evidence of electronic voter fraud in the State of Maryland, where Diebold voting machines are switching Republican votes to Democrat votes:
“When I first selected my candidate on the electronic machine, it would not put the ‘x’ on the candidate I chose — a Republican — but it would put the ‘x’ on the Democrat candidate above it,” Donna Hamilton said.
“This happened multiple times with multiple selections. Every time my choice flipped from Republican to Democrat. Sometimes it required four or five tries to get the ‘x’ to stay on my real selection,” the Frederick, Md., resident said last week.
Queen Anne County Sheriff Gary Hofmann said he also encountered the problem, personally.
“This is happening here as well. It occurred on two candidates on my machine. I am glad I checked. Many voters have reported this here as well,” Hofmann, a Republican, wrote in an email Sunday evening.
Even though election officials in highly Democrat Party controlled states have claimed the “calibration error” excuse, a software developer and expert on touch screens used by U.S. intelligence agencies told Newsmax that the explanation was bogus.
“It’s a software issue, and it’s incredibly suspicious that a bug like that could slip through accidentally. Really? It defies belief,” said Tony Heller, a software developer, told Newsmax.
“This is being used by the public for voting. Public trust is essential,” he said. “It’s completely unacceptable that an official waved it off as a calibration issue. It’s something that can be easily verified and should be.”
BACK TO MY STORY
Now, let’s get down to the question “can a voting machine be programmed to change votes?” The answer if you ask software developers like Tony Heller is “yes they can.” From the ground up, computers work like this. The computer is designed and developed to merely respond to what is programmed into them. They cannot act on their own no matter what the corrupt Democrats say. Software programs are what drive the function of the computer and that software can be programmed to do what the programmer tells it to.
If you dig into a program you will find that the commands are a series of codes that instruct the computer how to react to information or requests the user puts into it. On a voting machine, such as the Diebold model, that is easy since only a couple of options are given at any one point. The programmer however can control by command if the machine will record the input information incorrectly or as the person entering it put it in.
Perhaps you will understand a simpler illustration. I lived in Las Vegas, Nevada in the early 1990s and went to a church there that had several Air Force military personnel attending. One man had at one time served on the crews of the Air Force Thunderbird Demonstration Team. Ron retired while we were there and wanted to find a steady job to keep him busy and earn income. At the time the school that trained people how to service the electronic slot machines was advertising for new students who would go to work for the casinos after they graduated from the school.
Ron applied and got accepted into the school. In a conversation one day he told me he was learning a lot about how the casinos operated and how they determined when and how the machines paid off. You see, in Nevada if you operated slot machines of any kind they are required by law to pay off about 87% of the take. So, the machines (remember they are just sophisticated computers) are programmed to pay off at a certain point of their operation.
Now transfer that method to programming voting machines. It doesn’t take much imagination to know that the IT personnel who program the machines can tell them to switch votes on certain candidates. They will deny that but that is how it works. So, was there purposeful voting corruption in Chicago and Baltimore? You be the judge. I personally think there was.