Risk limiting audits only limit the risk of failing the audit. They are being pushed around the country, and are insufficient.
They often select a very low number of ballots to be audited, and if the results don't match enough to pass the audit, they just add more ballots until it does.
Look at the "ballot polling RLA". They just count some votes and if the majority of the votes counted match the winner, it's a successful audit... 😳
In WA, many times the race being audited isn't even included on the ballots selected for the audit! Why are they selecting ballots that don't include the race being audited? So the already low number of ballots selected is now even lower!
It is a joke! They will select 150 ballots, and only 60 will have the actual race being audited. Really?!?!
They often select a very low number of ballots to be audited, and if the results don't match enough to pass the audit, they just add more ballots until it does.
Look at the "ballot polling RLA". They just count some votes and if the majority of the votes counted match the winner, it's a successful audit... 😳
In WA, many times the race being audited isn't even included on the ballots selected for the audit! Why are they selecting ballots that don't include the race being audited? So the already low number of ballots selected is now even lower!
It is a joke! They will select 150 ballots, and only 60 will have the actual race being audited. Really?!?!
🤯10💯2❤1🔥1
How Washington State justifies counting the votes before election day.
It's a play on words, which they are good at. They just redefine whatever they want to mean whatever fits their agenda. But they don't do it through the legislature by amending state law, the SOS does it through WACs which are administrative rules.
With this change, it made it so they can count ballots for weeks leading up to election day, which is exactly what they do. Just because humans aren't looking at the results, does not mean the machine is not tabulating. (ClearVote)
This is a 2 part post. This first part is the visual, and the second part will cite the state law and administrative rules, which are not laws, btw.
It's a play on words, which they are good at. They just redefine whatever they want to mean whatever fits their agenda. But they don't do it through the legislature by amending state law, the SOS does it through WACs which are administrative rules.
With this change, it made it so they can count ballots for weeks leading up to election day, which is exactly what they do. Just because humans aren't looking at the results, does not mean the machine is not tabulating. (ClearVote)
This is a 2 part post. This first part is the visual, and the second part will cite the state law and administrative rules, which are not laws, btw.
❤5🤯4
Forwarded from Illinois Cause of America (CofA)
Let start to call them what they really are..... Computerized voting equipment.
People will understand the hacking issues better. 😁
People will understand the hacking issues better. 😁
💯19👍4
Forwarded from DataJeff
YouTube
Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea - Computerphile
Voting is centuries old, why can't we move with the times and use our phones, tablets and computers? Tom Scott lays out why e-voting is such a bad idea.
More from Tom Scott: http://www.youtube.com/user/enyay and https://twitter.com/tomscott
http://www.…
More from Tom Scott: http://www.youtube.com/user/enyay and https://twitter.com/tomscott
http://www.…
💯12❤1
Ever notice how they always use the same excuses to further devastate the security of our elections? One of those excuses is "accessibility"
Every time I hear or read someone say they are trying to make elections more accessible, red flags immediately fly for me. HOW MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE CAN THEY GET?!?!
Enough! If the election isn't important enough for voters to show up and participate, they can just forfeit their vote. How about that for accessibility?
Every time I hear or read someone say they are trying to make elections more accessible, red flags immediately fly for me. HOW MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE CAN THEY GET?!?!
Enough! If the election isn't important enough for voters to show up and participate, they can just forfeit their vote. How about that for accessibility?
🔥16👍3❤1
If you have any requests for content, either a one page infographic or a short video related to our elections, I am open to suggestions/requests. I cannot promise to fulfill all requests, but I want to create content that is helpful to you. Feel free to respond to this message with your ideas.
Keep in mind that some concepts are difficult to display on a single page. If your idea or request is complicated, it may need to be broken down into smaller segments.
If I don't completely understand the concept you are suggesting, you may need to educate me. I only like to share content that I am confident is accurate. However, some information that may be accurate in one state or with one system may not be accurate for another.
To submit a request, please reply to THIS POST.
Keep in mind that some concepts are difficult to display on a single page. If your idea or request is complicated, it may need to be broken down into smaller segments.
If I don't completely understand the concept you are suggesting, you may need to educate me. I only like to share content that I am confident is accurate. However, some information that may be accurate in one state or with one system may not be accurate for another.
To submit a request, please reply to THIS POST.
Telegram
Election Education
If you have any requests for content, either a one page infographic or a short video related to our elections, I am open to suggestions/requests. I cannot promise to fulfill all requests, but I want to create content that is helpful to you. Feel free to…
❤11🔥1
Forwarded from ElectionFraud20.org
Voter Turnout: Z-score and Trend Analysis - Part 18 of many
We are going to try and finish this series over the next couple days.
It has been longer than expected, but we keep stumbling upon meaningful and valuable insights.
Understanding voter turnout dynamics at a macro level is crucial in identifying voter turnout anomalies at a micro (precinct) level, and ties in very nicely with Captain K's latest findings of precincts with over 100% voter turnout and voter roll manipulations.
If we find a "signal" at the macro (nation) level, we know we need to dig deeper at the state, county and precinct level.
In order to identify a "signal" we introduced concepts of "trends", "residuals" and "z-scores".
Trend: In order to identify a trend we need historical data. Fortunately we have voter turnout data that goes all the way back to 1932.
Residual: Is simply what we are left with after we de-trend (or remove the trend) from the historical data.
Z-score: Provides us with a universal and systematic way of knowing the likelihood of a dat point occurring within a dataset. Typically a z-score of 3 or more is considered an "outlier" within a data set that is normally distributed. (i.e. it is so unlikely that it is typically considered an "error" and removed from the data set). (Part 14 of the series illustrates the z-score for the voter turnout residuals between 1952 and 1988.)
# Why are we doing this analysis?
There are several reasons, the main one being that we want to be able to have an educated and constructive conversation with county election officials and provide them with objective and valid concerns that need to be investigated further.
———
We will resume the next post with observations from part 17.
———
KN
We are going to try and finish this series over the next couple days.
It has been longer than expected, but we keep stumbling upon meaningful and valuable insights.
Understanding voter turnout dynamics at a macro level is crucial in identifying voter turnout anomalies at a micro (precinct) level, and ties in very nicely with Captain K's latest findings of precincts with over 100% voter turnout and voter roll manipulations.
If we find a "signal" at the macro (nation) level, we know we need to dig deeper at the state, county and precinct level.
In order to identify a "signal" we introduced concepts of "trends", "residuals" and "z-scores".
Trend: In order to identify a trend we need historical data. Fortunately we have voter turnout data that goes all the way back to 1932.
Residual: Is simply what we are left with after we de-trend (or remove the trend) from the historical data.
Z-score: Provides us with a universal and systematic way of knowing the likelihood of a dat point occurring within a dataset. Typically a z-score of 3 or more is considered an "outlier" within a data set that is normally distributed. (i.e. it is so unlikely that it is typically considered an "error" and removed from the data set). (Part 14 of the series illustrates the z-score for the voter turnout residuals between 1952 and 1988.)
# Why are we doing this analysis?
There are several reasons, the main one being that we want to be able to have an educated and constructive conversation with county election officials and provide them with objective and valid concerns that need to be investigated further.
———
We will resume the next post with observations from part 17.
———
KN
❤1👍1
Forwarded from ElectionFraud20.org
Voter Turnout: Z-score and Trend Analysis - Part 19 of many
# Observations from the 1992 voter turnout residual
(See the image attached to part 17)
As a recap we noticed:
In 1984 the voter turnout residual was 3.1 million.
In 1992 the residual was 7.6 million.
The voter turnout in 1984 was already a 1 in 20 event (i.e. it had a z-score of 1.97), which makes the 1992 residual all the more noteworthy.
It's important to note that we did not include the 1992 data point in our data set when calculating the trend, so we need to be very careful when calculating the residual and the z-score for 1992.
If (and this is a big "if"), we can assume that the extremely stable 36 year trend still applies in 1992, then we can calculate the z-score, which turns out to be 4.83.
(In a research setting this data point would be categorized as an "outlier" and removed from the dataset, because it's value is so unlikely.)
The question is.... is there a reasonable explanation for the voter turnout to be so large in 1992?
The fact that there was a strong independent candidate (Ross Perot), could explain some of it. But does it explain all of it?
We have an extremely stable voter turnout trend between 1952 and 1988. Did the 1992 election really provide enough incentive for apolitical citizens to get out and vote?
The other important question we need to answer is whether the trend fundamentally changed in 1992?
We will answer that next.
KN
# Observations from the 1992 voter turnout residual
(See the image attached to part 17)
As a recap we noticed:
In 1984 the voter turnout residual was 3.1 million.
In 1992 the residual was 7.6 million.
The voter turnout in 1984 was already a 1 in 20 event (i.e. it had a z-score of 1.97), which makes the 1992 residual all the more noteworthy.
It's important to note that we did not include the 1992 data point in our data set when calculating the trend, so we need to be very careful when calculating the residual and the z-score for 1992.
If (and this is a big "if"), we can assume that the extremely stable 36 year trend still applies in 1992, then we can calculate the z-score, which turns out to be 4.83.
(In a research setting this data point would be categorized as an "outlier" and removed from the dataset, because it's value is so unlikely.)
The question is.... is there a reasonable explanation for the voter turnout to be so large in 1992?
The fact that there was a strong independent candidate (Ross Perot), could explain some of it. But does it explain all of it?
We have an extremely stable voter turnout trend between 1952 and 1988. Did the 1992 election really provide enough incentive for apolitical citizens to get out and vote?
The other important question we need to answer is whether the trend fundamentally changed in 1992?
We will answer that next.
KN
❤1
Forwarded from ElectionFraud20.org
Voter Turnout: Z-score and Trend Analysis - Part 20 of many
Here is a picture of the voter turnout residual between 1952 and 2000.
It's important to note that the residual is relatively small again in 2000, which strongly indicates that the trend we calculated between 1952 and 1988 is still 100% valid.
Reminder: The purpose of this entire analysis was to investigate the 2004 and the 2020 residuals.
When we get to the 2004 and especially the 2020 residuals it will be abundantly clear that something has seriously gone off the rails, but before we get to that, please pay attention to the 1996 residual.
After a record turnout in 1992 of 7.6 million voters on top of the trend, we see a record downturn of 4.3 million voters under the trend. This really makes not sense.
The trend is the trend. After a record turnout the residual is always more likely to revert to the trend.
KN
Here is a picture of the voter turnout residual between 1952 and 2000.
It's important to note that the residual is relatively small again in 2000, which strongly indicates that the trend we calculated between 1952 and 1988 is still 100% valid.
Reminder: The purpose of this entire analysis was to investigate the 2004 and the 2020 residuals.
When we get to the 2004 and especially the 2020 residuals it will be abundantly clear that something has seriously gone off the rails, but before we get to that, please pay attention to the 1996 residual.
After a record turnout in 1992 of 7.6 million voters on top of the trend, we see a record downturn of 4.3 million voters under the trend. This really makes not sense.
The trend is the trend. After a record turnout the residual is always more likely to revert to the trend.
KN
Forwarded from ElectionFraud20.org
Voter Turnout: Z-score and Trend Analysis - Part 21 of many
(When ever we attach an image to a post, Telegram restricts the number of characters we can use). What we wanted to add to the previous post is this:
Getting apolitical citizens to get out to vote is one thing... but getting political citizens, who typically see it as their civic duty to vote, to abstain, is another...
It just doesn't make sense that so many people decided not to vote in 1996.
It would be interesting to find out which states (and counties) in particular had the biggest downturn in voter turnout in 1996.
After 2000, we will never see such a large downturn in voter turnout again...
KN
(When ever we attach an image to a post, Telegram restricts the number of characters we can use). What we wanted to add to the previous post is this:
Getting apolitical citizens to get out to vote is one thing... but getting political citizens, who typically see it as their civic duty to vote, to abstain, is another...
It just doesn't make sense that so many people decided not to vote in 1996.
It would be interesting to find out which states (and counties) in particular had the biggest downturn in voter turnout in 1996.
After 2000, we will never see such a large downturn in voter turnout again...
KN
Forwarded from ElectionFraud20.org
Voter Turnout: Z-score and Trend Analysis - Part 22 of many
The attached image shows the voter turnout residual between 1952 and 2020, using the trend line calculated between 1952 and 1988.
Reminder: The trend line between 1952 and 1988 spans 36 years and has a correlation coefficient of 0.989. The residual in 2000, using this same trend line, is relatively small and strongly suggests it is still valid.
We have an explosion in voter turnout in 2004 and 2020 that does not make any sense.
More troubling is the fact that after the 2004 election the voter turnout never reverts back to the trend.
There is a lot to unpack here.
(Will leave it here for now. The real analysis needs to be done at the state, county and precinct level. Some states will stand out. Within those states, some counties will stand out. Within those counties some precincts will stand out.)
KN
The attached image shows the voter turnout residual between 1952 and 2020, using the trend line calculated between 1952 and 1988.
Reminder: The trend line between 1952 and 1988 spans 36 years and has a correlation coefficient of 0.989. The residual in 2000, using this same trend line, is relatively small and strongly suggests it is still valid.
We have an explosion in voter turnout in 2004 and 2020 that does not make any sense.
More troubling is the fact that after the 2004 election the voter turnout never reverts back to the trend.
There is a lot to unpack here.
(Will leave it here for now. The real analysis needs to be done at the state, county and precinct level. Some states will stand out. Within those states, some counties will stand out. Within those counties some precincts will stand out.)
KN
🔥5👍3
Forwarded from Badlands Media (Ali Tucker)
The for-profit censorship giant NewsGuard is now selling its “Misinformation Fingerprints” technology to private companies to silence Americans’ speech — technology the federal government helped NewsGuard develop to the tune of nearly $750,000 in taxpayer funding. So while NewsGuard is now making headlines for trying to take down Elon Musk’s X, the bigger story concerns the federal government’s funding of the censorship-industrial complex.
The Federalist
The Federalist
The Federalist
NewsGuard Sells Government-Funded Censorship Tool
Because NewsGuard worked with the Defense Department to test its technology, the government likely gave input in defining 'disinformation.'
🤬8👎1
They have been hiding behind the machines for YEARS!!
Look what I just stumbled upon while searching for some other election records... It is from the 2004 Governor race in WA. It was a very close race, and Rossi had won the original count, the recount, then King Co "found ballots that were not counted and should have been" and included them in the hand recount, which Gregoire won as a result.
Someone must have been misguided. This is what they agreed to for a recount of that very important race? Unbelievable. "We don't need to recount, we will use the machines' records! Naive...
Wonder where WA would be today had Rossi won? 🤔
Look what I just stumbled upon while searching for some other election records... It is from the 2004 Governor race in WA. It was a very close race, and Rossi had won the original count, the recount, then King Co "found ballots that were not counted and should have been" and included them in the hand recount, which Gregoire won as a result.
Someone must have been misguided. This is what they agreed to for a recount of that very important race? Unbelievable. "We don't need to recount, we will use the machines' records! Naive...
Wonder where WA would be today had Rossi won? 🤔
💯8😱2❤1👍1🔥1💩1
Some people advocate for ballot harvesting and early voting.
I come from a state that for years has allowed ballot harvesting and we are stuck with mail in voting. No in-person at all.
That being said, it feels to me like the push for ballot harvesting and early/mail in voting is working against the objective here.
We want to go the other direction. Believe me.
I come from a state that for years has allowed ballot harvesting and we are stuck with mail in voting. No in-person at all.
That being said, it feels to me like the push for ballot harvesting and early/mail in voting is working against the objective here.
We want to go the other direction. Believe me.
👍14🔥5💯4