Fractional Magic (Ballot Tampering), by Bev Harris and Bennie Smith

The GEMS election vote counting system, used in whole or in part in 25 different states, can assign values for individual votes that can be either less than or greater than one. They can be whole numbers or fractional, decimalized numbers, and the weightings can be coordinated with preassigned percentages for each candidate. Weights can be based on individual demographics that indicate how a person will probably vote The weights are tied to a desired outcome. To give a simplified example, Candidate A may have 20 people who vote for him and Candidate B may have 50. A’s votes get a weighting of 5 and B’s a weighting of 1/3, or .33, so the vote totals 100 votes for A and only 16.666 for B, although the vote should be 20 for A and 50 for B. The computer coding then rounds up B’s votes to 17 so that the vote count is not reported as a fraction. Essentially, the GEMS system’s differential and fractionalized vote weightings allow for precise and extremely difficult to detect manipulation of vote totals from the precinct level on up. From Bev Harris and Bennie Smith at blackboxvoting.org, with a hat tip to Stucky at The Burning Platform:

1 – Summary –

This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.

GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.

Continue reading→

4 responses to “Fractional Magic (Ballot Tampering), by Bev Harris and Bennie Smith

  1. in the beginning paragraph, this is your quote “Essentially, the GEMS system’s differential and fractionalized vote weightings allow for precise and extremely difficult to detect manipulation of vote totals from the precinct level on up.”
    I think that you meant to say “…weightings DO NOT allow for precise counting and (it is) extremely difficult to detect the manipulation of vote totals from the precinct level on up.”
    Not trying to be a jerk, Just trying to understand it.
    I wanted to quote tis in a book I am writing “Q ANON: The Reluctant Warrior” (Part 11)

    Like

    • No, I meant what I said. The GEMS system allows for fractionalized vote weightings that can be either less than or greater than one. It also allows a preassigned percentage of the total vote for each candidate. That percentage is coordinated with the fractionalized vote weightings. After all this, the code eliminates the numbers that would appear to the right of the vote total (by rounding up or rounding down), which would normally be a whole number. This is the “precise and extremely difficult manipulation of vote totals” to which I refer. This is explained in general terms in the first few paragraphs of the actual article, “Fractional Magic.”

      Like

  2. in the beginning paragraph, this is your quote “Essentially, the GEMS system’s differential and fractionalized vote weightings allow for precise and extremely difficult to detect manipulation of vote totals from the precinct level on up.”
    I think that you meant to say “…weightings DO NOT allow for precise counting and (it is) extremely difficult to detect the manipulation of vote totals from the precinct level on up.”
    Not trying to be a jerk, Just trying to understand it.
    I wanted to quote this in a book I am writing “Q ANON: The Reluctant Warrior” (Part 11)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.