C&C: The First Decade (unofficial) 1.03 patch!
Turnberry Loch Lloyd - $1, 750, 000. The Patches Scrolls - 20 years of gaming, Patches, Demos & others downloads readily available and for free. Command & Conquer The First Decade Patch v1.02 [English. The First Decade unofficial patch v1.03 revision 4. Author: CCHyper, nathancnc, Nyerguds. The 92-year-old monarch's left hand seemed bruised or otherwise injured as she joined with Princess Anne to host King Abdullah, Queen Rania and Crown Prince Hussein of Jordan in London yesterday.
The First Decade 1.03 Revision 4 patch has been released
October 1995, the film stars Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol.
Serial code red Alert 3 patch 1.12 - EVA Database - covering Tiberium
Dailymotion - the home for videos that matter
This revealed a number of game-breaking bugs which did not occur on older operating systems due to lax memory management. The fanpatch is based on the 3.03 beta patch for RA1. Command & Conquer 1, Red Alert 1 and Tiberian Sun have all been upgraded with community-created unofficial patches that fix a lot of their bugs and compatibility problems. Screaming Frog SEO Spider Crack + Keygen 2020 [Latest. C&C95 v1.06c revision 3 patch file - Mod DB.
Serial number cNCNZ.com - FEATURES: Technical Support & Help Guides
Command & Conquer: The First Decade: Patches, Updates. Unofficial C&C First Decade patch 1.03. With the help of other community members, NathanCNC has released a new (unofficial) patch for Command & Conquer The First Decade, bringing to v this compilation published by Electronic [HOST] patch fixes many different bugs and adds a number of fixes to the game. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons! My current desktop has a second, separate hard drive that has virtually all of the data and previous installs from my previous desktop tower, but.
Unofficial C&C First Decade patch 1.03
Yuri's Revenge "edition": Command & Conquer: The First Decade (with the latest unofficial 1.03 patch) Any fixes? Windows 10 and Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge black screen. Founder; Retired Staff; 292 14, 428 posts; Location: New Zealand Posted January 22, 2020. Patch 1.12 for Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 was released in July 2020, and was the final official patch for the game. It will not work on the German TFD.
|1||COMMENT 12/27 I got this website from my ... - IM GENERATION X||12%|
|2||Tiberian Twilight Patch 1.03.torrent||39%|
|3||Command & Conquer: The First Decade – Unofficial Patch||75%|
|4||Cities Skylines Mass Transit Key 2020 + [Latest Version||36%|
|5||The First Decade Unofficial Patch 1.03||28%|
|6||The First Decade Patch 1.04 - CNCNZ.com Forums||8%|
|7||Command & Patch – Command & Conquer: The First Decade||65%|
Free solved: Command & Conquer NO DVD-ROM / CD-ROM Fix - Answer HQ
The first decade unofficial patch 1.03. Includes changes from both official patches. The unofficial generals + zero hour patch should allow the game to run with no disc. Read below for details. Purpose: Unofficial patch.
Command & Conquer: The First Decade
You can get it here @nathancnc, with the help of other community members, has created an EPIC Patch for The First Decade. Download Patch - Softpedia Games. Microsoft Gives Details About Its Controversial Disk. Conkers bad fur day gameshark cheat codes click here for more. GameSpy Arcade - Renegade Config Issue.
The Trump Campaign's Accusations of Voter Fraud: An Exhaustive Analysis and Fact Check
At the same time, I take impartial analysis and fact checking extremely seriously. I always push back against weak and/or unfounded accusations that are made against Trump, as I do for all other political figures — something I've done both on this account and on FactCheckHuman, my dedicated fact checking account.
Usually, my fact checks don't run much more than a couple of paragraphs. In some instances, though, I've done ultra–deep dives into an issue. This current post can certainly be considered one of these. As with any other fact check, the ultimate aim of these write-ups is simply to determine what is or isn't true; or what is or isn't likely to be true.
At the same time, this post also genuinely intends to persuade people of the speciousness and toxicity of the Trump campaign's current claims about voter fraud. To tell the truth, I kind of approached it as a synthesis of conversations I've been having with my conservative friends and family members, who are really on board with the Trump position on election integrity.
Even here, though, I try to be similarly rigorous, and take a lead from what I call critical parsimony. In short, this tries to find the most "normal" and least sensational/conspiratorial explanation for something, while also bearing in mind some of the complexities and anomalies that might complicate the issue. Often times, these two different or seemingly contradictory aspects come together when we encounter some event or phenomenon that superficially seems exceptional and counterintuitive, but which turns out to be much less unusual than it appears to be. In short, this allows extraordinary events to be, well, rare.
In line with that last point, one of the most insightful things we can look at is events and situations, usually from the recent past, which can help contextualize and elucidate various things that have taken place in the current election — and things which have taken place in terms of people's reaction to this. So things like looking back to the 2016 or 2012 election can be crucial here, or other historical events that can give precedent for what's happening in 2020, and shed light on it.
Obviously, I think a lot of Trump supporters and conservatives have accepted this narrative more or less at face value. Even before getting into some of the actual specifics of the claims of voter fraud, though, one thing that I've called attention to from the outset is how we might first consider the initial motivations behind the narrative itself a bit more critically, and how it comes together in the first place.
Not to get too philosophical or anything, but it's worth pointing out that whenever we have a political "narrative" like this, it's somewhat of an artificial construct. A bunch of different phenomena or allegations are brought together and crammed into one explanatory framework. Nuance or ambiguity becomes something secondary to promoting the narrative. Far too often, the cast is full of stereotyped protagonists and antagonists, divided along party lines.
Further, it's important not to lose sight of everything that's paved the way for such a bitter partisan narrative to emerge in the first place. The electoral process itself probably never been neutral affair, and is still intensely partisan in numerous aspects — from the emergence of the Electoral College itself, to the crafting and enforcing of state voting laws and guidelines. At lower levels, issues of gerrymandering have been a serious problem; and at all levels, different political parties have fought in the courts to try to influence voter eligibility and voter turnout in their own favor.
In tandem with this, beyond the judiciary itself, political parties also wage many of these same battles in the court of public opinion.
In this current instance, the overarching narrative in question — of Democrat attempts to unlawfully steal the election — indeed seems to target public opinion above all else. And it far predates the 2020 election itself, too. Even before running in 2015, Trump had previously suggested that President Obama's original election was assisted by fraudulent votes being cast by dead voters. During the 2016 Iowa caucus, Trump accused Ted Cruz and his campaign of having committed fraud, and called for a "new election" or that the results be nullified; and he leveled a similar accusation against Marco Rubio in the Florida primary, too.
In August of 2016, regarding the general election, Trump claimed that "[t]he only way we can lose . . . Pennsylvania . . . is if cheating goes on." He continued to frequent challenge the integrity of the election leading up to November; and even after his victory, he stated that he "won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally" — implying there had been upwards of 3 million "illegal" votes.
In May and June 2020, Trump began ramping up claims that fraudulent mail-in ballots would be printed in vast droves, both by domestic entities and "maybe by the millions by foreign powers." Again, this would be insisted on time and time again; and finally, echoing his sentiments in late November 2016, on November 7 Trump declared that "I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!", and later reiterating that he received 71,000,000 "legal" votes. (An exhaustive catalogue of Trump's allegations re: voter fraud can be found here.)
It's hard to deny that Trump's public-facing view has always proposed voter fraud and irregularities as ubiquitous things affecting a large number of elections. But it's precisely the one-sidedness of his seeing monsters in every shadow here that points toward another explanation. Trump's accusatory or even paranoid worldview can be seen as something like a microcosm reflecting a much wider trend in historical political rhetoric around elections.
Even when Trump is taken out of the picture altogether, the propagandistic function of allegations of election fraud has still been frequently noted by a number of scholars and historians who specialize in election studies. In a 2007 paper for the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, for example, American constitutional law scholar Justin Levitt calls attention to the emotional resonance that claims of voter fraud can elicit — and also notes its prevalence because of this:
Allegations of election-related fraud make for enticing press. Voter fraud, in particular, has the feel of a bank heist caper: roundly condemned but technically fascinating, and sufficiently lurid to grab and hold headlines. Perhaps because these stories are dramatic, voter fraud makes a popular scapegoat. In the aftermath of a close election, losing candidates are often quick to blame voter fraud for the results, and legislators cite voter fraud as justification for various new restrictions on the exercise of the franchise. ("The Truth About Voter Fraud," abstract)Similarly, Raymond Gastil, writing in an article in the journal Studies In Comparative International Development in 1990, noted that
in many new or transitional countries, it is standard practice for the opposition to point out before the election how the government will "steal" the election. If the opposition loses, it will then make strenuous claims that the election was stolen. Thus the ARENA party in El Salvador has claimed fraud in each of the several elections in the 1980s; most recently it won the election and yet claimed that it was robbed of the greater win to which it was entitled. Claims and counterclaims of this nature are seldom subject to verification, even for those on the ground.Although the U.S. obviously isn't a new or transitional country, it's impossible not to see close parallels to the accusations of Trump here — especially the similarity between the claim of having been "robbed of the greater win to which it was entitled" and Trump sweetening his electoral win by insisting that he won the popular vote, too, so long as "illegal" votes are deducted from the tally.
But when these claims are put to the test, in actuality, scholarly studies have long demonstrated that the prevalence of true voter fraud in general in U.S. elections is minuscule. A Brennan Center for Justice special report on voter fraud compiles and links to many if not most major studies on voter fraud in the U.S., concluding that together these studies paint a clear picture that voter fraud "very rarely happens." (See also my Endnote for more on this.)
So, statistics paints a much different picture than political rhetoric would have us believe.
If the bogeyman here is more of a phantasm than anything, however, it's still a powerful tool for influencing electorates: "voter fraud and voter suppression allegations are strongly used as a mobilization tool by parties during significant elections (Hasen, 2012; Levitt, 2007)." (This quote is taken from Fogarty, Kimball and Kosnik's article "The Media, Voter Fraud, and the U.S. 2012 Elections," published in the Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. This article is especially worth reading to get a bit more background about some of the things that set the stage for the 2016 and 2020 elections and their rhetoric.)
Because of these things — all further complicated by COVID this year — both statistics and common wisdom alone should lead us to expect a large number of voting irregularities. But it's also important not to conflate irregularities with voter fraud. Irregularities are simply errors, that don't necessarily require bad human intentions at all. However, with realpolitik at its ugly peak in the election cycle, this offers an opportunity for political pundits to read deliberate ill intentions into these incidents, whether by innuendo or explicit accusation. But it should also be kept in mind that if irregularities are unintentional, and if political affiliation in the U.S. is split roughly equally, then these irregularities should also affect the two political parties roughly equally; probably in similar proportions.
Finally, the increasing partisan divide between media outlets, along with their selective coverage, probably makes it easy to overlook (or perhaps forget) the great number of lawsuits routinely filed by both Democratic and Republican attorneys, both in the lead-up to the election and in the wake of its inevitable irregularities: efforts to block or secure votes from voting populations likely to favor one or the other of the two parties. It should be clear here, then, that an overemphasis on irregularities and claims and fraud are often treated as rhetorical and legal tools in service of political self-interests.
With all these things considered — and again, even if we set the political situation in 2020 aside, along with some of the specific claims of voter fraud that are currently being made — this should still give us ample reason to rethink how accusations of voter fraud function more broadly: what's in it for those making these accusations, politically speaking; how these claimants often see little use for factual accuracy or measured analysis here; and how this perpetuates toxic discourse and bad-faith assumptions.
So this second part of the post is going to be a sort of compendium of a lot of the major allegations of voting irregularities and voter fraud that have been circulating, followed by a critical analysis of these. While some of these irregularities are clearly broad and would affect both political parties, I'm pretty sure that almost every one of these claims has circulated widely in conservative and/or pro-Trump sources; and most have been interpreted as a partisan attack on election integrity. I'm sure that there have been other incidents or alleged incidents that have circulated on the left; but this post is already extremely long and took quite a while to write, and I don't want to make more work for myself.
I'll probably be updating this in the days to come, as more info on various things comes out.
Finally, as a sort of transition point between my probably-far-too-long prologue and the catalogue, I think it can be very instructive to take a look at a compendium of voting irregularities in 2016 — to help get some additional context and perspective for how similar issues can and did surface in the 2020 election.
Response: I've put this in the initial position because it seems to be one of the most common observations of accusations: it was one of the first that Trump made, and which he continued to repeat. But among all the different accusations here, this has one of the most mundane explanations.
Prior to the election itself, and noting various state laws pertaining to the tabulation of mail-in votes, various commentators called attention to a likely phenomenon of delayed results for mail-in ballots — which have skewed heavily Democrat. Dave Wassermann noted, for example, that
in northern battlegrounds such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin . . . officials are not permitted to begin processing mail ballots until the day of the election (or, in Michigan's case, the day before). In those states, a "red mirage" of Trump-heavy Election Day votes could linger until larger metro counties report huge tranches of early ballots later in the evening.(As for mail-in votes skewing highly Democrat, this also has mundane explanations. For reasons that are less than clear, on numerous occasions Trump strongly discouraged his supporters from voting by mail. Unfortunately I don't have the room to fully get into this, though there's certainly some interesting/surprising data about just how overwhelmingly blue mail-in voting skewed even in a number of red strongholds.)
Further, sometimes this claim has appeared in the bit more specific iteration, suggesting that it wasn't just suspicious how Biden votes kept coming in to counteract Trump's tally, but also how precisely Biden's total crept past Trump — as if it was known exactly how many votes Biden needed to just barely scrape past him. But this also has a deceptively simple explanation: the extremely slim margin of victory for Biden in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania basically mirrored the same ultra-slim margin of victory for Trump in these same states in 2016, but now just the other way around. Honing in on PA, for example, we can also see how Biden just marginally outperformed Clinton in terms of cutting into Trump's lead in many red areas.
Even the 2016 election in Georgia saw a significant blue shift, especially in the Atlanta metropolitan area — which presaged Biden's performance in 2020, also bolstered by the efforts of those like Stacey Abrams to register an enormous number of new GA voters.
Response: The most widespread claim of this pertained to Michigan returns as posted by Decision Desk HQ (DDHQ) in the early morning of November 4. A screenshot of the returns at two different times here appeared to show the DDHQ vote tally for Biden go up by 128,000 votes from the previous update, but with no change at all to Trump's total.
Later that morning, it was clear what had happened: shortly after the original entry error (in Shiawassee County), DDHQ had subtracted the erroneous inflated vote update for Biden — something that obviously required no alteration of the tally for Trump. However, the screenshot that circulated gave the misleading impression that it was an addition of Biden votes, instead of a subtraction. (My original detailed explanation of this can be seen on FactCheckHuman/.)
A similar claim has been made around the same time in the Wisconsin totals. Here a chart is linked, and it's suggested that there was a huge vertical surge of votes for Biden in the hour or so before 6:00 am, but with no change at all in Trump votes. But the explanation here is almost goofy in its simplicity: as seen at other points in the chart, the blue Biden line actually covers the red Trump line at various points. The big vertical Biden vote jump in question is almost certainly simply covering up a smaller vertical jump for Trump, and then continues to obscure it until it ends (otherwise we'd be able to see the horizontal trajectory of the red line). I've lost the original source of this, but I had actually saved another chart which shows the same phenomenon of big vertical leaps, only this time with the red Trump line obscuring the blue Biden line.
Response: Several articles — e.g. "Swing States Show Biden Votes Suspiciously Far Exceeding Democrat Down-Ticket Votes" — note that there was a significant difference in the ratio of Trump votes to GOP Senator votes in Michigan and Georgia (nearly an equal number of votes in both), compared with the ratio of Biden votes relative to votes for the Democrat Senator in these states (significantly lower).
But this seems to be part of a wider trend of Democrats failing to pay a similar interest in down-ballot candidates. In the 2016 Georgia election, the ratio difference was significantly more drastic: 2,089,104 votes for Trump and 2,135,806 for Isakson, versus 1,877,963 for Clinton but only 1,599,726 for Barksdale — some 275,000 fewer votes for Barksdale than for Clinton. In Wisconsin, there were nearly 75,000 more votes for Ron Johnson than Trump, but 20,000 fewer for Russ Feingold. In PA in 2016, there were 20,000 fewer votes for the GOP Senator as for Trump, compared to 60,000 fewer for the Democratic Senate candidate than for Clinton. (Surprisingly, I haven't been able to find any commentary on this phenomenon. If anyone knows any, please direct me to it.)
Presumably having tabulated similar data from the other states, Trump attorney Sidney Powell has recently noted that there were 450,000 ballots "in the key states that miraculously only have a mark for Joe Biden on them and no other candidate." But based on what I've noted above, I'd be willing to bet that this isn't truly miraculous. Also, as a fascinating fact, in the 2016 election, 1.75 million (!) voters refrained from voting for a Presidential candidate entirely, only voting down-ballot. And frankly, I find it easier to imagine someone only voting for a Presidential candidate, than only voting down-ballot.
Response: According to the official Nevada Secretary of State site, "Nevada residents who are students in another state or are otherwise temporarily residing in another state may vote in the 2020 Nevada general election." Similarly, apparently a look at the complete list of 3,000+ voters here turns up a number of overseas military personnel; though when I took a look at that, I didn't really see many. Even further, a fact check of this same claim by PolitiFact also notes that "[p]eople who move within 30 days before an election can cast a vote in their new state, or in their prior state of residence, in-person or via absentee ballot." (In this regard, one of the statements by former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt may also be of interest, which was a bit more specific in noting that "[w]e are also certain there are thousands of people whose votes have been counted who have moved out of Clark County during the pandemic" — emphasis mine.)
Finally, perhaps also worth noting is that there are actually allegations of irregularities in the attainment of information in the first place — at least in the version of the criminal referral to AG William Barr that Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh submitted.
Response: Various Arizona county officials have disputed that this would automatically invalidate a vote. That being said, there are indeed reports of tabulating machines rejecting votes after voters used Sharpies and noted a bleed-through of the ink. This finds some additional support from the official Pima County Twitter, where it was written that "[f]elt pens are discouraged because the ink can bleed through." However, another source states that
According to a video Maricopa County published on Oct. 24, Sharpies — at home and at the ballot box — are compatible with their scanners, and were actually the best choice for filling out ballots, due to their fast-drying ink.Claim Some of the votes of those in Maricopa County, Arizona were rejected due to stray marks or (possibly) ink bleed-through; yet some poll workers seemed unable to help voters remedy this and cast a valid vote, due to their own confusion about how the tabulating machines worked.
Response: This is the subject of a lawsuit by the Trump campaign and RNC, etc.; and from a cursory read of the complaint, it seems to be well-founded. I have no clue what the remedy for this would be, though.
Response: Several PolitiFact fact checks (1, 2) have already covered this. In short, it's standard operating procedure for the voting choices of damaged ballots to be transferred/transcribed onto a new, non-damaged ballot. This can even happen on a massive scale, as this report on the 2012 Florida election notes:
During the election, the county’s ballot printer sent out around 60,000 absentee ballots with a typo that could not be read by the county’s tabulation machines. Because of this mistake, county workers had to copy about 35,000 of the votes by hand onto new ballots.This also intersects with Arizona's SharpieGate slightly: one fact check re: SharpieGate noted that
According to the state's elections procedures manual, if a felt-tip pen mark does bleed through, the ballot will likely get sent for duplication. An election worker will fill out a new ballot using the voter's choices that will be read properly by tabulation machines.I'm not sure what measures are in place to ensure that the poll workers don't switch the votes in these instances (besides any poll observers who could see this); but in any case, the "risk" of one's vote being switched seems to be equal for Democrat and Republican voters — something that was also noted by the Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (Republican).
In any case, as for more on spoiled ballots: a Project Veritas article (which I can't link due to a Reddit-wide ban) claims that its journalists had found 8 to 10 spoiled ballots in Quakertown, PA. I'm mentioning this here because I had been sort of curious what's supposed to be done with spoiled ballots; and apparently, as the article notes, "Pennsylvania law requires spoiled ballots to be held for 22 months after an election." I know a 22 months retention for some election materials is indeed found in federal law, though I haven't seen anything else that specifies what's to be done with spoiled ballots.
Response: What actually appears to have happened is that the reporting error pertained to votes within the batch that originally had given Biden a 3,000 vote lead — but it wasn't that there were actually 3,000 votes that were mistabulated. The true number of affected votes within the batch appears to have been 342; and there's actually no information as to what the Biden/Trump split here was.
Response: Due to the complicated nature of some of the tabulation errors, etc., news reports have sometimes mistakenly ascribed these to software glitches — when later, more accurate info comes out which gives other causes. For example, a Detroit Free Press article originally suggested that the results of a local race in Oakland County, MI had been overturned when it was discovered that a "computer error" or "technical glitch" had accidentally given votes to the Democratic candidate, and not the Republican one.
But an article in the NYTimes from yesterday actually reiterates how this and several other reported errors actually have human error as the primary or sole cause here. Re: that local election in Oakland County, it notes that
County election workers had mistakenly counted votes from the city of Rochester Hills, Mich., twice, according to the Michigan Department of State. The workers later spotted the error.That being said, it's also not exactly true that things like vote-flipping can only be caused by human error. In the section "The Challenge of Aging Machines" in a 2014 Brennan Center report on voting machine risks, for example, this discusses instances of vote-flipping that come from calibration errors caused by touch screens that shift and degrade over time. An NPR article from 2016 makes similar observations, while also reporting on how this led to widespread accusations of these votes instead being deliberately "rigged."
[Edit:] I figured it was worth it to actually expand this section by looking back at incidents prior to 2020 wherein one candidate's votes were mistakenly given to another (and other related phenomena) in initial tallies — whether this was due to human error, machine error, or sometimes both in conjunction.
It's actually somewhat hard to paint a comprehensive picture of previous Election Night reporting errors like this. Those having never made the news in the first place were probably quickly forgotten. Perhaps there's a trove of early reports of these left to be (re)discovered on Twitter; but this can only take us back so far, considering its fairly recent rise in popularity. However, we can still find records of these in various publications. This internal report by CBS News on its Election Night 2000 coverage, discussing the reporting of votes from various FL counties, for examples, notes that
Vote reports from Volusia County severely understated Gore’s actual total when a faulty computer memory card reported votes that were off by thousands. That precinct, Number 216, subtracted more than 16,000 votes from Gore’s total and added votes to Bush’s total. In addition, an apparent reporting error in Brevard County reduced Gore’s total by an additional 4,000 votes.It also briefly notes other errors, too, such as
In Massachusetts, 30,000 votes were left uncounted in 51 precincts because of human error.An article in the Denver Post re: the 2016 Colorado primary notes "a reporting error on caucus night":
In New Mexico, election officials thought that a handwritten notation about absentee votes from one precinct indicated 120 votes for Gore, when the actual number was 620.
The problem . . . occurred when a volunteer at Byers Middle School in Denver punched the wrong vote tallies from 10 precincts into the party’s interactive voice response system for the presidential preference poll.A Brennan Center report on voting machine failures includes a very long list of human and machine errors in various U.S. elections. Among some of the most significant of those listed include the 2002 Alabama gubernatorial election, where
The state party’s website reported March 1 that Sanders won 14,624 votes, or 54 percent, in Denver County and Clinton took 12,097 votes, or 45 percent.
But the corrected numbers for Denver County give Sanders 15,194 votes, or 56.5 percent, and Clinton with 11,527, or 43 percent, according to official party results.
The Birmingham News and the New York Times reported that an error in the way officials downloaded vote data from a computer cartridge led to an incorrect initial tally of votes in the gubernatorial election. The initial tally of the votes showed that the Democratic incumbent had received 19,070 votes in Baldwin County. A reexamination of the vote tallies showed that the incumbent received only 12,736 votes, which gave the victory to his Republican challenger.Further, in the 2004 Presidential and congressional elections,
local officials discovered an error in eight Diebold scanners that had been used on 208,446 absentee ballots. According to the North County Times, votes were miscounted in both the Democratic presidential primary race and the primary race for the Republican U.S. Senate seat. A recount was conducted, revealing that “2,821 absentee ballots cast for Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry were actually counted for Dick Gephardt.” Similarly, in the Senate race, 68 votes for one candidate and six votes for another were credited to a third candidate. The Union Tribune reported that multiple scanners caused the error, feeding data into the tabulation system at once.An article on irregularities in the 2018 midterms in GA begins
To find a clue about what might have gone wrong with Georgia’s election last fall, look no further than voting machine No. 3 at the Winterville Train Depot outside Athens.
On machine No. 3, Republicans won every race. On each of the other six machines in that precinct, Democrats won every race.
Response: More accurately, the actual votes themselves weren't switched at all here; and for that matter, the error seems to have been more human than electronic. What appears to have happened is that a county clerk hadn't manually updated the software which was responsible for compiling the votes for reporting; and consequently, "even though the tabulators counted all the ballots correctly, those accurate results were not combined properly when the clerk reported unofficial results."
[Edit:] A while after writing this, by chance I came across some more info which either sheds more light on all this, or makes the whole thing a bit more complicated (or both). According to this AP article, the President of the company who made the voting software explained that "a minor correction was made to a ballot that caused additional compounding changes to how the software totals and presented the data"; and an article in the NYTimes similarly states that election security experts and state officials concluded "that an election worker had configured ballot scanners and reporting systems with slightly different versions of the ballot."
Response: This claim — including video footage and pictures — was shared by Eric Trump; and in it it's been intimated that these were fraudulent absentee ballots. However, the man in the video footage has been identified as an employee of Detroit's ABC affiliate WXYZ; and the items in question were his camera equipment.