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

Bad By Design (#BadByDesign)

Here is a list of elements, which belong to the electoral system that are #BadByDesign. (i.e. issues that would be trivial to improve or fix, if people in power really cared about your vote.):

- Drop box design

- Paper ballot design

- Tabulator design

- Voter roll database table design

- Request for new mail-in ballot website design

- EMS software design

- Election day (or lack thereof) design

- Chain of custody (or lack thereof) design (which includes reporting and reconciliation)

What have we missed? let us know in the comments.

———

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

Hillsdale County, MI - Keshel's principle and Ben Cotton's Affidavit

Following on from Ben Cotton's affidavit, it is important to understand how his findings support Keshel's principle (see attached image.)

- Hillsdale County, MI has had a negative yearly population growth of about -0.20% for the last few years.

- The Republican party starts making record gains

- The Democrat party lost 1,669 and 2,307 votes in 2012 and 2016 respectively, yet somehow managed to find 1,084 new votes in 2020 (!)

This trend is NOT normal and defies Keshel's Principle.

👉 People in office need to realize the data speaks for itself.

The signs of wide spread, systematic fraud during the 2020 election are obvious and easy to identify if they bothered to look.

# Reference:

- Keshel's Principle
- Ben Cotton's affidavit

———

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

CVR Data Analysis - Question

We got an excellent question from Henry in the chat (It's very likely others have the same question):

> I don't understand what these calculations are supposed to show. Ballots are physical objects - not coin flips. In your example, you have a "bucket" of 10,000 ballots. They already have the 50/50, 60/40 or 70/30 split. Now you randomly pull ballots out of the bucket 1 at a time and record the 1 or the 0 and do your calculations. What will this result look like and what will it mean?

Yes, ballots are physical objects. Each ballot contains multiple races. Each race has multiple candidates.

If we just look at ONE race and ONE candidate, once all the ballots have been tallied, we can calculate the percentage vote for the candidate.

Their final percentage vote is equal to the probability a voter would have voted for this candidate.

In real terms, if there are 100 ballots and a candidate ended up with 54 votes, we know their final percentage vote is 54%, which also corresponds to the probability a voter was likely to vote for them (0.54).

Since we know the value of the probability (after the election) we can use a weighted coin flip analogy to model what each ballot result (for this specific race and candidate) would look like if the ballots were counted randomly.

Putting a 100 ballots with 54 votes for a given candidate into a box, and pulling them out randomly, will produce the exact same patterns (statistically speaking) as flipping a weighted coin with a 54% probability value.

The reason we are interested in this is due to the patterns that emerge when analysing the random sequence of "1"s and "0"s.

For example, now that we have a way of reliably producing accurate simulations, we will be able to answer the following questions:

- What is the maximum streak of "1"s you would expect to see if the vote percentage is 54%, and the ballots were counted randomly?

- What is the most likely length of streaks of "1"s when the percentage is 54%? (What about 72.34% etc...)

- If we plotted the cumulative sum of "1"s on a graph, what would it look like? (Does it always have a similar shape if we were to repeat the simulation millions of times?)

These are just a few questions. (Many more will be answered by the time we finish this analysis.)

Ultimately, the aim is to identify these patterns ahead of time so that we know what to expect when we start analyzing real CVR data. If the CVR data does not match our expectations, and we can ascertain that the sequence the ballots are presented in the CVR data is random, we have a problem.

If the ballots are supposed to be counted randomly, and we can ascertain this because we know which tabulator and precinct they come from (it's in the CVR data), but their "patterns" and plots do not conform to well established mathematical and statistical patterns, we know we have a problem.

In other words, if CVR data tells us the sequence of ballots is random, but the patterns they display are not, we know for sure, the sequence has been manipulated in some way.

👉 This is extremely powerful AND irrefutable.

———

The key concept underpinning this whole analysis is based on identifying whether a sequence of "1"s and "0"s is truly random or not.

———

Please let us know if this makes sense. This is crucial. If this post does not make sense, you will have a hard time understanding why we are doing this analysis. Don't hesitate to ask more questions.

#CVR

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

Absolute1776 and I have finished all 15 Arizona counties for "The Captain's Battlegrounds," rounding out the state with four small counties. Next, we will wrap up Arizona with a statewide overview video. You can see them all here:

La Paz:
https://rumble.com/v1egedr-episode-12-la-paz-county-az.html

Graham:
https://rumble.com/v1ejbnh-episode-13-graham-county-az.html

Navajo:
https://rumble.com/v1ejcdd-episode-14-navajo-county-az.html

Greenlee:
https://rumble.com/v1ejf8z-episode-15-greenlee-county-az.html

Raffensperger didn't even try to hide the corruption in the voter rolls.

Cobb County, GA, net new registrations by cycle:
2004-08: +62,339
2008-12: +17,980
2012-16: +8,862
*2016-20: +113,435*

To top it off, the 2020 Census reports a net increase of 78,000 in the county since 2010 - which happens to be the lowest gain over a decade since the 1950s.

So, which is it? Lowest gain since Donald Trump was playing T-ball, or record explosion of votes, at least three times more fake ballots for Biden in this one county than separate Trump and Biden statewide?

This is why I am clear - the voter roll is the foundation of undoing the acute electile dysfunction.

Fulton County... let's see, voter registration...

From 2004 to 2008, +38,673

From 2008 to 2012, +80,979

From 2012 to 2016, +23,188

That means there is an average of +47,613 per cycle, or a median number of 38,673.

We can reasonably expect 40 to 50k new registered voters per cycle in Fulton... or for a big year, higher, but certainly under 100k.

2016 - 2020... +216,089

Brad Raffensperger belongs behind bars.

In case you need a reminder why states insist on mail voting and maximum early voting -

See below.

Robson has practically zero social media presence.