leftwinger
Diamond Member
Very interesting at the end is the analysis of the surge of Votes received AFTER ELECTION DAY....so statistically implausible that it would not occur without artificial manipulation,
**************************************************************
Arizona was called by a margin of 10,457 votes.•Maricopa County accepted 20,500 mail-in ballots after Election Day 2020, including 18,000 – more than the entire election margin – on Nov. 4 picked up from the U.S. Postal Service. By law, ballots must be received no later than 7 p.m. on Election Day, which was Nov. 3.•“The 20,000 ballots recorded as incoming from the USPS on and after November4 were of sufficient quantity to change the result of the 2020 General Election inArizona,” according to Verity Vote.
•The findings were based on Maricopa County’s official Elections Department records, which were withheld from a public records request for nearly seven months. The records showed 18,000 mail-in ballots received on Nov. 4; 1,000received on Nov. 5; and 1,500 received on Nov. 6.
•The 18,000 mail-in ballots received on Nov. 4 and subsequently counted represented a significant spike in ballots received, higher than every single day total since Oct. 29, 2020. The receipt of mail-in ballots had steadily declined from 14,500 ballots on Oct. 29 to 10,500 on Oct. 30; 6,000 on Oct. 31; 1,500 on Nov. 1; 1,000 on Nov. 2; and 2,500 on Nov. 3.
•In the 2020 General Election, 420,987 ballots failed signature verification standards, “thus the election was openly vulnerable to fraud,” according to an ongoing analysis conducted by We the People Arizona Alliance and presented to the state legislature.
67
•The initial analysis of 380,976 ballots, using official state records and official signature verification training techniques, identified 181,378 ballots that should not have been counted, or nearly half of all reviewed.
This includes: 1,870 blank envelopes, some of which were approved on Nov. 5and Nov. 8; 542 with a signature other than the voter; 2,104 scribbles; 128duplicate voters processed; 48,117 unreasonably different control signatures;1,875 where the signature did not match until after the election; 36,034 control signatures that do not match the voter; 4,433 unusable control signatures; 47,366that failed Secretary of State standards; and 38,909 egregious signature mismatches, where not one point of a signature matched any on file.
•In the case of the 1,875 votes, the ballot envelopes did not have a signature match on Election Day, but “matching” signatures were later put on file for the voter on either Jan. 28, 2021, Feb. 3, 2021, or Feb. 8, 2021. There were 783signatures digitally inserted on Feb. 3, 2021 alone.
• Since the findings were presented to the Arizona State Legislature, the number of egregious mismatches found has increased to76,354, over seven times the election margin. This is an error rate of 9.30 percent of ballot envelopes reviewed.
•
Throughout the signature verification analysis, which remains ongoing, analysts have consistently found 20 percent do not meet the Secretary of State’s standards, and 9 percent are egregious violations. Extrapolated to all 1.9 million mail-in ballots in 2020,176,700 ballots “should have been rejected for improper signature verification due to egregious signature mismatches.”
69
•
Maricopa County has no documented chain of custody for 740,000 ballots from the 2020 Election.
70
•
Out of the 923,000 early vote ballots accepted at vote centers or drop boxes, only183,406 ballots are accounted for on ballot transport forms. More than 80 percent of the ballot transport forms have no ballot counts.
•
Without proper documentation of how many votes were cast at the time they were cast, it is impossible to verify the origin and true total of ballots in a given election. “Without this count, there is no way to determine if the transport staff retrieved one ballot or one thousand ballots,” according to Verity Vote. “Keeping a proper chain of custody is more than a best practice - it is essential to encouraging trust in our democracy,” according to the Election Assistance Commission.
71
•
Of the 1,895 early vote ballot transport forms, 48 did not have the required two witness signatures attesting to the ballot transfer, including some with no witness signatures at all. “As a result, the public is not assured that both parties witnessed the transfer of ballots,” as required.
•Millions of files of 2020 General Election data and security logs were deleted from the Elections Management Server and purged on critical days, including the day before the Arizona audit of the 2020 Election began on Feb. 2, 2021.
72
•The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors admitted they purged the system and moved election data after they received a subpoena, in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives.
73
•Two precincts in Pima County had over 100 percent turnout for mail-in ballots, and 40 precincts had over 97 percent returned.
74
•The national mail-in ballot return rate was 71 percent, but in Pima County the mail-in ballot return rate was 15 percent higher, and 19 percent higher than all the counties combined in the entire state of Arizona. One precinct with 99.5 percent mail-in turnout had 9,812 ballots counted. Another precinct with 100.6 percent turnout had 2,182 ballots returned, but only 2,170 mail-ins were ever sent. These two precincts total 11,994 ballots, which alone is more than the margin needed to alter the outcome of the Presidential Election.
•In all, there were 264,000 votes from precincts in Pima County with over 92 percent turnout for mail-in ballots.
Significant anomalies were discovered for mail-in ballot returns in Pima County. In precincts with anomalous high turnout of over 92 percent in Pima County, mail-in ballots started flipping from 6 percent Republican for Biden to 40 percent of Republicans voting for Biden.
76
•The election integrity group True the Vote identified more than 202 ballot traffickers in Maricopa County who made 4,282 individual drop box visits during the 2020 General Election.
77
•Two individuals were charged and plead guilty for ballot harvesting in Yuma County, Arizona during the 2020 primary election.
78
•A computer scientist testified that an algorithm similar to what is used in cruise control or self-driving cars was present affecting the early votes in Pima and Maricopa counties in the 2020 General Election, with the ability to “reach and maintain a predetermined setpoint (outcome) despite unplanned disturbances.”
79
•Walter C. Daugherity, a senior lecturer emeritus in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Texas A&M University who developed courses inartificial intelligence, expert systems, programming and software design, analyzed the Cast Vote Records, finding, “ballots in Maricopa County and Pima County were artificially processed through the tabulators tracking a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) type control function in a closed-loop feedback system.” •Daugherity, who has received over $2.8 million in grant funding and was previously consulted as a computer expert by the New York Times,
Washington Post
, IBM Federal Systems Division, the Texas Department of Agriculture, U.S. Customs Service, as well as classified work, discovered “significant and systematic decline in the cumulative ratio as counting progresses,” in the early mail-in and in-person votes for the Presidential Election results in Maricopa County and Pima County
For example, the “first block of ballots being 75 [percent] for a candidate, the next block of ballots being 74 [percent] for a candidate, the next block of ballots being 73 [percent] for a candidate, and so on, systematically declining all the way to Election Day.”• Daugherity’s expert opinion is that the downward sloping line in the sequence that votes were recorded indicated a strong control. The cumulative ratio of Biden to Trump votes for all cast vote records before Election Day in recorded order for Pima County declines from over 300 percent to 157 percent by Election Day.•“Such a uniform and predictable pattern is so statistically implausible that it would not occur without artificial manipulation,” according to Daugherity. The data’s lack of independence cannot be explained by the preference of Democrats voting earlier than Republicans.
**************************************************************
Arizona was called by a margin of 10,457 votes.•Maricopa County accepted 20,500 mail-in ballots after Election Day 2020, including 18,000 – more than the entire election margin – on Nov. 4 picked up from the U.S. Postal Service. By law, ballots must be received no later than 7 p.m. on Election Day, which was Nov. 3.•“The 20,000 ballots recorded as incoming from the USPS on and after November4 were of sufficient quantity to change the result of the 2020 General Election inArizona,” according to Verity Vote.
•The findings were based on Maricopa County’s official Elections Department records, which were withheld from a public records request for nearly seven months. The records showed 18,000 mail-in ballots received on Nov. 4; 1,000received on Nov. 5; and 1,500 received on Nov. 6.
•The 18,000 mail-in ballots received on Nov. 4 and subsequently counted represented a significant spike in ballots received, higher than every single day total since Oct. 29, 2020. The receipt of mail-in ballots had steadily declined from 14,500 ballots on Oct. 29 to 10,500 on Oct. 30; 6,000 on Oct. 31; 1,500 on Nov. 1; 1,000 on Nov. 2; and 2,500 on Nov. 3.
•In the 2020 General Election, 420,987 ballots failed signature verification standards, “thus the election was openly vulnerable to fraud,” according to an ongoing analysis conducted by We the People Arizona Alliance and presented to the state legislature.
67
•The initial analysis of 380,976 ballots, using official state records and official signature verification training techniques, identified 181,378 ballots that should not have been counted, or nearly half of all reviewed.
This includes: 1,870 blank envelopes, some of which were approved on Nov. 5and Nov. 8; 542 with a signature other than the voter; 2,104 scribbles; 128duplicate voters processed; 48,117 unreasonably different control signatures;1,875 where the signature did not match until after the election; 36,034 control signatures that do not match the voter; 4,433 unusable control signatures; 47,366that failed Secretary of State standards; and 38,909 egregious signature mismatches, where not one point of a signature matched any on file.
•In the case of the 1,875 votes, the ballot envelopes did not have a signature match on Election Day, but “matching” signatures were later put on file for the voter on either Jan. 28, 2021, Feb. 3, 2021, or Feb. 8, 2021. There were 783signatures digitally inserted on Feb. 3, 2021 alone.
• Since the findings were presented to the Arizona State Legislature, the number of egregious mismatches found has increased to76,354, over seven times the election margin. This is an error rate of 9.30 percent of ballot envelopes reviewed.
•
Throughout the signature verification analysis, which remains ongoing, analysts have consistently found 20 percent do not meet the Secretary of State’s standards, and 9 percent are egregious violations. Extrapolated to all 1.9 million mail-in ballots in 2020,176,700 ballots “should have been rejected for improper signature verification due to egregious signature mismatches.”
69
•
Maricopa County has no documented chain of custody for 740,000 ballots from the 2020 Election.
70
•
Out of the 923,000 early vote ballots accepted at vote centers or drop boxes, only183,406 ballots are accounted for on ballot transport forms. More than 80 percent of the ballot transport forms have no ballot counts.
•
Without proper documentation of how many votes were cast at the time they were cast, it is impossible to verify the origin and true total of ballots in a given election. “Without this count, there is no way to determine if the transport staff retrieved one ballot or one thousand ballots,” according to Verity Vote. “Keeping a proper chain of custody is more than a best practice - it is essential to encouraging trust in our democracy,” according to the Election Assistance Commission.
71
•
Of the 1,895 early vote ballot transport forms, 48 did not have the required two witness signatures attesting to the ballot transfer, including some with no witness signatures at all. “As a result, the public is not assured that both parties witnessed the transfer of ballots,” as required.
•Millions of files of 2020 General Election data and security logs were deleted from the Elections Management Server and purged on critical days, including the day before the Arizona audit of the 2020 Election began on Feb. 2, 2021.
72
•The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors admitted they purged the system and moved election data after they received a subpoena, in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives.
73
•Two precincts in Pima County had over 100 percent turnout for mail-in ballots, and 40 precincts had over 97 percent returned.
74
•The national mail-in ballot return rate was 71 percent, but in Pima County the mail-in ballot return rate was 15 percent higher, and 19 percent higher than all the counties combined in the entire state of Arizona. One precinct with 99.5 percent mail-in turnout had 9,812 ballots counted. Another precinct with 100.6 percent turnout had 2,182 ballots returned, but only 2,170 mail-ins were ever sent. These two precincts total 11,994 ballots, which alone is more than the margin needed to alter the outcome of the Presidential Election.
•In all, there were 264,000 votes from precincts in Pima County with over 92 percent turnout for mail-in ballots.
Significant anomalies were discovered for mail-in ballot returns in Pima County. In precincts with anomalous high turnout of over 92 percent in Pima County, mail-in ballots started flipping from 6 percent Republican for Biden to 40 percent of Republicans voting for Biden.
76
•The election integrity group True the Vote identified more than 202 ballot traffickers in Maricopa County who made 4,282 individual drop box visits during the 2020 General Election.
77
•Two individuals were charged and plead guilty for ballot harvesting in Yuma County, Arizona during the 2020 primary election.
78
•A computer scientist testified that an algorithm similar to what is used in cruise control or self-driving cars was present affecting the early votes in Pima and Maricopa counties in the 2020 General Election, with the ability to “reach and maintain a predetermined setpoint (outcome) despite unplanned disturbances.”
79
•Walter C. Daugherity, a senior lecturer emeritus in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Texas A&M University who developed courses inartificial intelligence, expert systems, programming and software design, analyzed the Cast Vote Records, finding, “ballots in Maricopa County and Pima County were artificially processed through the tabulators tracking a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) type control function in a closed-loop feedback system.” •Daugherity, who has received over $2.8 million in grant funding and was previously consulted as a computer expert by the New York Times,
Washington Post
, IBM Federal Systems Division, the Texas Department of Agriculture, U.S. Customs Service, as well as classified work, discovered “significant and systematic decline in the cumulative ratio as counting progresses,” in the early mail-in and in-person votes for the Presidential Election results in Maricopa County and Pima County
For example, the “first block of ballots being 75 [percent] for a candidate, the next block of ballots being 74 [percent] for a candidate, the next block of ballots being 73 [percent] for a candidate, and so on, systematically declining all the way to Election Day.”• Daugherity’s expert opinion is that the downward sloping line in the sequence that votes were recorded indicated a strong control. The cumulative ratio of Biden to Trump votes for all cast vote records before Election Day in recorded order for Pima County declines from over 300 percent to 157 percent by Election Day.•“Such a uniform and predictable pattern is so statistically implausible that it would not occur without artificial manipulation,” according to Daugherity. The data’s lack of independence cannot be explained by the preference of Democrats voting earlier than Republicans.
Last edited:
