Reply #3: Is this analyis likely to be useful? The experts said that problem likely with individual machines

[philb]

ballot definition files or programming for the about 50 or so machines that had undervotes more than 20%

This doesn't seem to deal with that, and may just be a distraction to take attention away from the most likely problems- that still haven't been allowed to assess

the screen design and programming on those machines with extremely high undervotes.

We already know that all machines were programmed with a ballot design that was designed to take attention away from the
Congressional race and produce undervotes. But that does not appear to have been the biggest problem.
The disappearing votes appear to have been the biggest problem, and that was caused by programming.


I don't think the source code audit for the generic code is likely to be very useful.
Am I missing something?


Are they looking at the programming of the most problematic machines?