Probably a glitch can change the elections if it is present in more then one county or precinct. The code, the system requirement definition and implementation, the quality control and the algorithms are not transparent or understandable to the public and to judges. It may take few lines of code to make the software programmatically or in a negligible way have errors in the tabulation process or in the transmission process.
Those changes are difficult to find since there is one big contractor that has delvers million of lines of code but doesn’t have full control of its programmers, storage devices and system designers and QA technicians. The problem is more severe, since it takes about independent 100 code reviewers, thousands of scenarios, and many years to check the integrity of the software. This falls short on the December Safe Harbor deadline.
Every system has a backdoor that allows human “curing” intervention and transmission that may have been done in some places like the changing a 5 digit to 6 digits “mistake”. This was shown in the Iowa Primary Caucus. If the software enables changing the numbers on transmission or if there are more then one glitch then the odds of changing the results may be substantially higher.
Researchers have questioned the reliability of new voting machines that state and local officials have rushed to implement at their polling locations ahead of the 2020 presidential election
An investigation by AJC also determined that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office weakened the system’s defenses by disabling password protections on a key component that controls who is allowed to vote.
The report continued:
Officials tell voters to verify their selections on a paper ballot before feeding it into an optical scanner. But the scanner doesn’t record the text that voters see; rather, it reads an unencrypted quick response, or QR, barcode that is indecipherable to the human eye. Either by tampering with individual voting machines or by infiltrating the state’s central elections server, hackers could systematically alter the barcodes to change votes.
Such a manipulation could not be detected without an audit after the election.
The new voting system “presents serious security vulnerability and operational issues” caused by “fundamental deficits and exposure,” U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg wrote in a recent order, in which she criticized state officials for not taking the problems more seriously.
“These risks,” Totenberg wrote, “are neither hypothetical nor remote under the current circumstances.”
Analysis of software glitches biases have to be done in the context of other manual curing, voter registration, counting, discarding and role cleaning. One of the systematic problems with the transmission has to do with the fact that “real updates” arrived to the media Desk HQ before the state official website, which enabled the “procurement” of filling the gap votes or “stopping the bleeding” as was done by LBJ with Box 13
Dominion Voting Systems dominates voting machines. It holds a third of the voting-machine market. Its software was used in all swing states this year, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Nevada.During a Fox interview over the weekend, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell pointed out that Senator Feinstein’s husband, Richard Bloom, is a shareholder of Dominion Voting Systems. The software company also has ties to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her former chief of staff is one of the lobbyists on the company’s first-ever lobbying firm—Brownstein Farber Hyatt & Schreck. Elections supervisor for Spalding County said the company “uploaded something on November 2nd or the night before election day, which is not something that’s normally ever done, and it caused a glitch.”