We should have ZERO tolerance for the vulnerabilities in our election systems!

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.

Part 2.

The RCW, which is state law says tabulation must not happen until 8pm.

Then they make a WAC that redefines "tabulation"

See how that works?

We have covered election fraud pretty thoroughly. What is election interference? Is there a difference between election fraud and election interference?

Yes, there is a difference. Here are some examples.

Let start to call them what they really are..... Computerized voting equipment.

People will understand the hacking issues better. 😁

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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 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

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? 🤔

So true! Verbiage is key!

“Don’t use the ‘F’ word until you have absolute proven ‘F’raud”
~ Dr. Frank

Coming Soon.

https://t.me/theprofessorsrecord/13729

It's time to change the narrative.

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.

Washington State Republican Party has filed a formal ethics complaint against Secretary of State, Steve Hobbs after learning about the UK based company they hired to monitor and censor citizens free speech. The complaint was filed on behalf of all Washington citizens.

Updated with better sound

Video also on rumble HERE.