Hiding In Plain Sight - (It's what you don't see that should be troubling you) - Part 4

We know the drop boxes are purposely designed with ZERO security features. (They are actually designed with NEGATIVE security features. lol.)

We also know that nearly EVERY part of the election system is purposely badly designed and engineered, with no mechanism to properly verify the chain of custody. (There are multiple loop holes large enough to drive semi-trailers through, without anyone noticing...)

If all this was not bad enough, you would think the Office (or Bureau) of Elections in each state would go out of their way to be totally open and transparent and make all election artifacts available to the public, so that anyone could review and verify the data is accurate and properly reconciled.

You would think they would actively be looking to build trust with their constituents.

👉 Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. Especially data that is in the public interest.

In fact, the best way to dispel any election "misinformation" is to hand over ALL of the election data, and let it speak for itself.

It really is that simple.

However, to add insult to injury, the Office of Election in the state of Hawaii refuses to hand over:

- The ballot images

- The CVR data

- The log files

- Any historical voter rolls

- Actively refuse and obstruct all FOIA requests

This does not inspire a lot of confidence.

Again, if there is nothing to hide, why do they make it so difficult?

———

Any state or county that refuses to hand over this data, AND are not able to demonstrate the integrity of the full chain of custody, can not, and must not be allowed to certify their election results.

This is the bare minimum.

All this data is anonymous, readily available and can easily made available to the public.

It's a "Win-Win" on so many different levels. What is stopping them?

# References:

- Hiding In Plain Sight - part 1
- Hiding in Plain Sight - part 2
- Hiding in Plain Sight - part 3

#BadByDesign

———

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

Breaking:
Inside the electronic manipulation of Georgia’s May primary in Fayette County.

As a bonus, check out the backward ballcap and utter contempt style lack of professionalism on display from the County Board of Elections.

https://rumble.com/v1eeek9-fayette-co.-ga-boe-bombshell.html

Share with your Michigan friends: they need people monitoring the drop boxes.

👆👆👆

If you come across other drop boxes that are #BadByDesign please let us know in the comments.

KN

282/3143 (9.0%) of county equivalent GOPs reject the 2020 election results.

Map continues to expand and people continue to contact with language for proposal in their own counties.

Sheriff deputy Rodney Collins takes possession of representative Elijah Behnke's absentee ballot.

Colorado: El Paso County Recount Changes the Rules on Day Four | Ashe in America
Aug 1, 2022

Welcome back to the show, readers. All eyes in the nation should be on El Paso County, Colorado, right now. I can barely keep up, and I live 30 minutes away with dozens of sources on the ground.

As I shared yesterday, the El Paso County recount of four candidates is doing little to prop up the narrative of “safest and most secure elections in history.” If you missed the illogically inaccurate test or haven’t had a chance to read my take on day one of the El Paso County recount, catch up quickly. It’s starting to get interesting. 

According to several of the candidates, counting didn’t commence [today] until Caleb Thornton, Secretary of State Counsel, and Angie Leath, EPC Elections Director, made an announcement:

“Effective immediately, candidates and watchers are no longer allowed to ask any questions, request any information, or interact in any way with the elections staff or any judge. You must “request information or ask questions through your attorney to the county attorney.” 

The three candidates in the room paid over $20,000 each to conduct this recount. The recount is proceeding for now, but the candidates paying for it are not allowed to engage in the process beyond standing silently and observing. Relegated to petulant children, seen and not heard, simply for exercising their rights and challenging in court what they view as credible violations of the law. 

📰 Keep reading the full article at Ashe In America. Follow @AsheInAmerica for more.

Ashe provides excellent, detailed (and humorous) coverage of the disastrous election handling in Colorado.

FLASHBACK 2021: NJ Gubernatorial Election Worker ILLEGALLY Offers BALLOT to Non-Citizen

CVR Data Analysis - Introduction

We are planning to start a whole series of posts explaining the CVR data.

Our aim is to:

- Build up the whole analysis from first principles

- Make the explanations as simple and as clear as possible so everyone can understand the concepts and interpret the results on their own

# Main Concept

A race with 2 candidates can be modelled by flipping a weighted coin.

If the coin lands on "heads" we can assign it the value "1", and if it lands on "tails" we will give it a value of "0".

Conceptually, this is identical to to a candidate receiving a vote ("1") or not receiving a vote ("0").

From this simple fact we can run "simulations" to determine what a race should look like if the ballots are counted randomly, by simply flipping a weighted coin multiple times. The "weigh" of the coin will be equal to the candidate's percentage vote.

The emphasis is on "random".

If we can ascertain that ballots are counted randomly (from the CVR data), we know exactly what patterns to expect from the sequence of "1" and "0" (as derived from the simulations.)

The next post will illustrate what patterns to expect from flipping a coin 10,000 times with different probabilities of landing "heads". The probabilities will be 50%, 60%, and 70%.

The images are taste of what is to come and will all make perfect sense by the time we finish this series.

———

#CVR

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

Hi Res: 50%

Hi Res: 60%

Hi Res: 70%

In honor of today’s primary - here is an incredible map of every single precinct in Arizona (red for most statistical evidence of election fraud in 2020).

Note the corruption on reservations with ballot harvesting that is obvious and enough to flip the state without Maricopa or Pima.

I have reviewed every county and precinct and estimate minimum 362,000 imaginary Biden votes, Trump 11.5% statewide win.

Map courtesy of Jeff Pedigo.

Open letter to all the Politicians and Judges:

I know many of you are not good with numbers. That’s fine. I am not good with politics and the law. So let me write an analogy that hopefully helps you understand the numbers.

Say you go to the doctor and they look at your EKG. The EKG is really numbers put in a chart format. The doctor can look at the chart and tell you if you have a regular or irregular heartbeat, just by looking at the shape of the curve through time.

If the doctor tells you that your heartbeat is irregular, you don’t ask them to prove it to you on the spot. The doctor doesn't expect you to even understand the chart yourself. Any reasonable doctor would order additional tests to dig into the details for the source of the irregular EKG signal.

You would be quite foolish to say, “I don’t believe you, I am perfectly healthy. Your graph isn’t “proof”.

Well, certain data analysis experts know how to look at charts that represent human behavior. One of those chart types are voting patterns through time.

These experts can look at a chart and tell you if it is indicative of human voting behavior or not. The sensible person would accept that initial assessment from the expert and want to know more, just like asking for blood work if your EKG is irregular. The irrational person would call the expert a conspiracy theorist.

How do you know more to confirm or disprove the experts reading of the chart?

You count the ballots by hand.

In summary, telling a data analysis expert that an irregular chart is not “proof” of fraud just shows ignorance and bias. These voting pattern chart irregularities should trigger a deeper analysis of the vote counts.

Is that simple enough?

👆👆👆

💯🔥🔥🔥

Ben Cotton's Affidavit July 11, 2022, on Hillsdale County, Adams Township MI

You can find the original report here.

Here are some excerpts (emphasis ours):

25. c) The State records indicate 1332 votes recorded in Adams Township. This is short 30 votes from the end-of-day total in the Adams Township data. These numbers do not include the fourteen (14) same-day registration voters.

25. d) A comparison of the names between the two data sources illustrates seventy-nine (79) unique names on the Electronic Poll Book data for Adams township that are not listed on the State's official records.

25. e) Conversely, there are sixty-four (64) names unique to the State's records that are not represented on the Adams Township Electronic Poll Book records

25. f) The combination of these report discrepancies documents an 11.5% difference in votes between the township and state.

(NOTE: This is how you do a proper reconciliation. As we have mentioned in many previous posts, if the numbers don't reconcile the election results, can not and must not be certified. This is basic accounting 101.)

The report also discusses 10 registrants who have a "registration date" that is greater than the the "election date".

This can be extremely confusing because many counties use the "registration date" field in the database as the "last transaction date". (i.e. it is not really the date their name was added to the voter roll, but rather the date a field was updated, like a change of address...)

We discussed #BadByDesign in previous posts. Here is another example when it comes to database table design and maintenance. (The more you scratch the more you discover #BadByDesign everywhere. We are not exaggerating.)

Anyway, back to the report. Ben further notes:

25. ...It is also apparent that on this one snippet of the report four (4) individuals registered well after the election date. A search was conducted on the QVR from the EPB.accdb file and none of these individuals were shown to have been registered before the election. A review of the total information contained in this report indicates that thirteen (13) individuals are recorded as successfully voting in November 2020 general election that were not registered to vote until well after the election.

26. I have had the opportunity to examine multiple voting systems from multiple software vendors. It is clear from my experience that there is a blatant lack of cyber security protection within the election systems...

👉 i.e. #BadByDesign

———

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org