Free & Fair Elections

  • by London Center
  • 11-30-2020

Free & Fair Elections

 by Tim Wilson, Peter O'Brien, Bennet McPhatter and Tony Shaffer

Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

          The U.S.A. has always prided itself on its democratic system of government, the heart of which is free and fair elections. But free and fair elections must be accompanied by the trust of the citizenry that the system will accurately capture the votes of the citizens. Like Caesar’s wife, the election process must not only be above reproach, it must appear to be above reproach. And, if the people lose trust in the very election process, everything else in a democracy is at risk. Accordingly, not only must every effort be made to keep elections scrupulously honest, accurate and fair, but whenever any action or event threatens to cast an election in anything other than an ideal light, then no effort should be spared to rout out that imperfection and return the process to a pristine nature.

          Nevertheless, there has routinely been fraud in various elections across the country[1]. These incidents have been reported on time and again. And time and again federal, state and local governments, especial the courts and police forces, have taken steps to investigate and prosecute those who have engaged in these actions. A Heritage Foundation study[2] developed a laundry list of thousands of problems across the nation.

          Previous studies have revealed large amounts of fraud in local, state and national elections. In a study completed earlier this year (before the last election), the Public Interest Legal Foundation found that more than 300,000 dead citizens[3] were revived to vote across the country, and that tens of thousands had voted more than once.

          But, while the problems of double registrations, and the dead casting votes, have been around so long that they are almost a cliche, and might be dismissed with a - callous - nod to “a normal level of voter fraud,” the effect of this type of fraud pales in comparison to the problem of voter fraud represented by various electronic voting  and tabulation machines, particularly when integrated through the internet.[4]

          As has been discussed in numerous hearings on Capitol Hill, as well as in conferences held around the country, such machines are easily “hacked,”[5] that is, the systems can be manipulated to falsely report data, that is, falsely report votes.

One of the key elements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 was the requirement that all voting systems “be auditable and produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity as an official record for any recount conducted

          The problem begins with the complexity of software, the instructions with control the actual mechanism that is the “voting machine.’ This is true no matter what type of voting machine is used. And while only a dozen lines of code might be necessary to completely alter the vote count, even simple machines might today have a hundred-thousand lines of code or more[6] (Footnote - a single APP on your cell phone can have anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 lines of code). Hiding a few lines of malicious code is therefore easier than might be supposed.

          State lws require that voting machines be certified[7] to be true and accurate, and then secured prior to any election. Yet, there are repeated reports of software “fixes” and “upgrades” being loaded into machines just days before the election.

          Further, many of these machines are connected to one another and to central compilers using the internet. Yet, everyone is familiar with how easily malware of all sorts can find their way onto even the most sophisticated personal computers. How much more so is this true of substantially simpler voting machines. This is also contrary to the guidance laid down, as required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, in the newest (Feb 29, 2020) Voluntary Voting System Guidelines VVSG 2.0 issued by the Election Assistance Commission which states “VVSG 2.0 does not permit devices or components using external network connections to be part of the voting system.”[8]

          This leaves even the most scrupulously honest poll watcher in an impossible position; to the outside observer these machines are simply “black boxes”. Data is entered (a vote is made or a ballot read, etc.) and then the machine does something to the data and sends it elsewhere to a machine that is compiling data. For the poll watcher there is simply no way to know what happened.

          Nor is it possible to know what is happening at the compiler. Data enters and then numbers appear. Was the count correct? There is no way to actually know.

          In fact, test after test has demonstrated susceptibility of these voting machines to various types of intrusion[9]. Now, in the wake of the 2020 election, repeated reports seem to suggest that, in fact, machines across the country were subject to just these sort of intrusions[10]. How can any of the reporting that came out of these machines be trusted?

          What has been reported[11], time and again[12][13], are inexplicable events, no numbers for long periods of time followed by surges in numbers, and more disturbingly, in a situation where the only mathematical operation that should be taking place is addition, we see numbers suddenly dropping from time to time[14]. This might be waved off as a correction - assuming that people were recounting ballots - which they are not, or if the machine were first computing totals using averages (why would that be necessary?), but in both cases the number adjustments down might be just a few votes, perhaps tens of votes. But there are multiple incidents where tens of thousands of votes were deducted from one column and either simply went away or were added to the other column.

          There are only two possible explanations for such strange “accounting:” either the machines are making grave mistakes because the software is flawed, in which case there is no integrity in the data and the real result of the election is unknown. Or, it was deliberate manipulation of the data by someone who controlled the machines (or the software in the machines). Either way, the vote is therefore invalid.

          Consider this (incomplete) list of oddities and irregularities (in addition to the voting of the dead):

  • Previously Calibrated Machines have new software loaded just days before the election[15] [16]
  • Hundreds of reports of ballots - thousand of ballots - arriving in the middle of the night - after the polls have closed[17][18]
  • Vote counting suspended - but only in “close” and “must win” states[19]
  • Votes suddenly appearing - and always massively favoring one party[20]
  • Votes tallies from large cities frozen for hours - but only in large cities in “toss up” states[21]
  • Voter turnouts in most states that are substantially above previous elections - often several (3 or more) standard deviations beyond what might be expected[22]
  • Voter turnouts in various cities and counties, and several states, that were far beyond statistical credibility (3, 4, 5 standard deviations higher for states) various cities and counties even higher. One county for which data was available showed a turnout 15 standard deviations above what might have been expected given voting during the last 20 years.[23]
  • Voting precincts in several cities where voter turnout (ballots actually counted) exceeded the number of registered voters[24] in that precinct[25]

          If these events had happened singly, that is one state with a far higher number of voters than expected, or one or two incidents of “found ballots,” they might be shrugged off (callously) as “the normal level of ‘irregularities.’” 

          But they all happened, and they happened to a remarkably large degree, across the entire country, on November 3rd.

          And all of this comes on top of a steady stream of reporting prior to the election in which the nation was told that the incumbent would be lucky to receive the same number of votes he had received in 2016[26], and the challenger was routinely drawing crowds of less than 100[27]. This reporting so violently conflicts with the numbers that then were reporting on the 3rd and 4th and since that a sane person can reasonably conclude that something massive doesn’t add up.

          Those who have studied the available data in more detail report anomaly after anomaly[28]. In particular this year, almost all of those vote anomalies have favored the Democrat candidate. Yet, when these objections are raised, one of the regular responses is that “you don’t have the full data.” But, why not? Why is the raw data not immediately available to the American people? Why is it, as has been reported, that the raw data, once it is entered into the machines, isn’t even owned by the American people[29], it’s owned by the vendors of the voting machines. That alone makes believing in the accuracy of the data a difficult “pill to swallow” for the average voter.

          Alone, no rational explanation can be offered to explain away the negative “movement” of a vote total and therefor any negative movement must, by itself, demonstrate deliberate manipulation of the data or faulty software that is incapable of accurate assembly of data.

          In the world of intelligence, when classified material is suspected to have been compromised, or a source is believed to have been compromised, it is not enough to conduct a simple investigation and then assert that there was “no apparent compromise.” Rather, it is necessary to hold the source, and all data from the source, as compromised unless you can demonstrate that it has, in fact, not been compromised. That is a very high standard. But shouldn’t our elected offices be held to the highest standards possible. 

          This leaves us in the situation where we can not - and should not - realistically expect the Average Citizen to accept or respect the integrity of the process, nor the outcome of this election.



[1] Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in America

[3] Public Interest Legal Foundation Identifies 349,773 Dead People on Voter Rolls Nationwide

[4] The new Senate report on election hacking makes it clear that electronic voting will never be safe enough.

[5] Researchers easily breached voting machines for the 2020 election

[6] How Many Millions of Lines of Code Does It Take?

[8] History of VVSG 2.0

[9] Researchers Assembled over 100 Voting Machines. Hackers Broke Into Every Single One.

[10] Multiple Swing States Are Having Issues with Voting Machines

[11] Joe Biden is the beneficiary of statistical anomalies that "magically" impacted Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin vote counts on November 4th

[12] Statistics: Evidence of Malfeasance in Reporting of Election Totals?

[13] Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

[14] If Illegitimate and Unexplained Negative Votes Were Reversed or Eliminated in Georgia, President Trump Would Easily Win the State

[15] Dominion Voting Systems performed an update on machines.

[16]a representative for the election technology vendor, Dominion Voting Systems, told her office that it had uploaded some kind of update the night before the election”

[17] Another massive “batch” of mystery ballots, all for Biden, added to Pennsylvania

[18] USPS rushed to deliver 2,000 recently foundballots in Pennsylvania and North Carolina

[19] Why Did Six Battleground States ALL Pause Counting on Election Night?

[21] Crucial States Pause Vote Count

[22] Minnesota, Wisconsin Both Had Unrealistic 89-90% Voter Turnout

[23] the kinds of numbers reported simply defy reasonable expectations.

[24] In 378 U.S. counties, voter registration rates exceed 100% of the adult population

[25] Seven Milwaukee wards reporting more votes than total registered voters

[26] Politico reported Trump’s approval rating falling to new lows, and several months ago was predicting that Trump would lose states he won handily in 2016, and that the GOP would lose ground in both the House and Senate.

 

[27] 19-point enthusiasm gap

[29] Political data in voter files