“…persons controlling the vote tabulation computer had the ability to change the reporting of votes by moving votes from one candidate to another by using the Smartmatic software.”
"…persons controlling the vote tabulation computer had the ability to change the reporting of votes by moving votes from one candidate to another by using the Smartmatic software."
— Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) November 17, 2020
"And Smartmatic — the chairman is Admiral Pete Neffinger."
Who is on Biden's "transition" team pic.twitter.com/rcuyrsOeoN
By this time, only the truly uninformed would still find Smartmatic’s combination of PCOS/VCM (Precinct Count Optical Scan/Vote Counting Machine) and CCS (canvassing and consolidation system) an acceptable solution to the automation of Philippine elections. We used this solution in the last three National and Local Elections (NLE) and in all three, we experienced “glitches” and lack of transparency that convinced us of the system’s unreliability and its vulnerability to tampering.
Consider the following incidents: During the canvassing of the 2008 ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) election, several precincts in Wao, Lanao del Sur, showed zero results. When this was reported to Smartmatic, a technical person in the company accessed the machines in Wao and made the correction … from Manila! This is the first proof that Smartmatic can change the results in any region, at will, from anywhere in the country.
The Manila Times
U of Michigan Professor of Computer Science and election security, J Alex Halderman, shows on video how easy it is to hack a voting machine to change the outcome. He was vocal about the pre-election threat of Dominion in Georgia. https://t.co/oAl5DwN4yB @LLinWood @SidneyPowell1
— Citizen Journalist (@CitizenJStyle) November 16, 2020