Posted on 11/07/2020 4:21:51 AM PST by Kaslin
Editor's Note: This post was co-authored by Bruce Abramson.
Did America just hold a deeply fraudulent election? Many people believe so. Disturbingly few seem willing to vouch for its integrity; instead, they insist that “there is no evidence of fraud.”
Fair enough. It’s actually possible to split that difference. America just held an election featuring many anomalies that have not yet been proven fraudulent. It thus seems obvious that what America now needs is a fraud investigation.
Any inquiry into the integrity of Tuesday’s elections must consider the entire process. Taking things in order, ballots are produced (i.e., printed), distributed (to voters), completed (by voters), transported (via a chain of custody), delivered (to an Elections Board), handled (by a worker), tabulated (by computer or by hand), and reported (as part of the information revealed to the public).
In the 2020 election, nominally under the duress of “ballot access during COVID,” jurisdictions across the country introduced new and untested procedures pushing ballot integrity in precisely the wrong direction—on each and every step. As anyone with any experience in systems knows, new and untested procedures heading into a major event guarantee failure—even if the new procedures are objectively “better” than those they replace. Too many people need to retrain, coordinate their actions, and realign their expectations too quickly.
An electoral system with safeguards would introduce mechanisms designed to protect the integrity of each step. While some of these safeguards are complicated and technical, others are common sense. People who show up at a specific time and place offering an ID are less likely to be acting fraudulently than those who do not. Ballots mailed only to those who request them are less likely to fall into fraudulent hands than to those broadcast to a pre-existing list. Advanced registration using verifiable data reduces votes from ineligible voters.
The 2020 election walked away from each of these safeguards. In 2020, for the first time, many states mailed ballots to everyone on their voter rolls—without first cleaning those rolls. They encouraged people to vote by mail rather than in person. They legalized, popularized, or promoted insecure distribution networks like dropboxes and ballot harvesters. They dropped standard requirements for validating documents, like legible signatures and postmarks and a trusted chain of custody.
The resultant electoral system lacked safeguards capable of ensuring either that every tabulated ballot came from an eligible voter, or that every legal vote placed into the distribution system was tabulated. Because systems designed to ease fraud typically invite fraud, it was predictable and predicted that the tabulations would include most but not all properly cast votes, along with a sizable number of illegal ballots.
Common sense and logic, however, do not constitute “evidence.” They can’t identify which ballots were fraudulent or what effect the fraud had on the election. Yet sifting through millions of ballots looking for indicia of fraud on each one is a painstaking process. Given the sheer numbers and time constraints, it’s effectively undoable.
Fortunately, modern technology has developed advanced statistical techniques known as data mining and Artificial Intelligence. Data scientists have deployed these tools with great success to identify fraud in a variety of financial markets and elsewhere. They have been utilized for years to identify and track transactions linked to terrorist and other criminal activities. Without getting into technical specifics, these data tools develop a sense of “normal” behavior, then highlight only things that appear unusual.
Individual ballots voting for only one office or splitting parties are more interesting than those voting a straight party line.
Precincts that doubled their voter turnout, or shifted their partisan preferences significantly, are more interesting than those showing the same voting patterns as they did in recent elections.
Ballots delivered in a batch skewing far more favorably for one candidate than the balance of the jurisdiction that cast them are interesting; those that solidify a community’s leanings are not.
These sophisticated quantitative tools alone are still not enough to “prove” fraud. They are, however, a critical step along the way. They can eliminate the vast majority of ballots from consideration and focus the attention of fraud investigators on the anomalies most likely indicative of fraud. From there, the work remains challenging—but the task becomes achievable.
We already know that the 2020 electoral system was designed using new and untested procedures, many of which reduced safeguards capable of deterring fraud. Record numbers of ballots arrived from many new sources, delivered in many new ways. Many anecdotes of improprieties are circulating—at least some of which appear highly credible. Patterns of tabulation and reporting, particularly since election night, are statistically improbable.
America deserves to know—quickly—if it has been defrauded. Without that knowledge, America may send the election’s legitimate winner packing—and will certainly inaugurate a President operating beneath a permanent cloud. In other words, there’s only one way forward. In addition to the phalanx of lawyers already descending upon the most anomalous states, send in the quants!
People saying there is no evidence of fraud are lying.
As a well-known [name forgotten] lawyer said yesterday, a criminal tries to stop you from looking for evidence while an honest man will defend himself with all the evidence he needs.
Moreover, we have plenty of evidence of fraud. It's palpable. It's like walking into the parlor of a whore house, seeing the scantily clad girls, and saying I don't see any prostitutions going on here.
1.) they are not the ones the evidence will be presented TO; they are not judges. They are merely reporters.
2.) It used to be that reporters investigated and did research, they didn't wait for it to be brought to them.
So to heck with them. The points that were most interesting to me were seeing what trends/markers the fraud teams will be looking for:
Individual ballots voting for only one office or splitting parties are more interesting than those voting a straight party line.
Precincts that doubled their voter turnout, or shifted their partisan preferences significantly, are more interesting than those showing the same voting patterns as they did in recent elections.
Ballots delivered in a batch skewing far more favorably for one candidate than the balance of the jurisdiction that cast them are interesting; those that solidify a community’s leanings are not.
“and will certainly inaugurate a President operating beneath a permanent cloud. “
That will be true with either Biden or Trump as POTUS. Regardless.
These same reporters previously called the "Russia, Russia, Russia" investigation a serious matter.
We need for "experts" to stop telling us what constitutes fraud. The guy with the mask legging it down the street at night with a computer on his shoulder isn't evidence of a theft, but we all know it actually is. Yes, after the arrest, you find the owner and ascertain that it was a stolen computer, but jeeze. When three guys show up, also not from the neighborhood, and protest that the computer has been in the guy's family for 100 years, and one of them owns the pawn shop three blocks away, you know not only was it theft, but it is a criminal conspiracy.
We all know this was a stolen election. We are the one's it was stolen from. We know the culprits and we see the pry bar marks on our windows and doors.
Case closed already. The next step is the court appearance to read out the criminal charges.
Proof?
It is there. Question is how will it be revealed.
Just posted this early today:
Interview with Source on Electronic Vote Fraud (Russel Ramsland, Allied Security Operations)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ficae6x1Q5A&feature=emb_logo
-
FR Comments: https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3902979/posts
Host L Todd Wood reveals the mechanics behind the electronic vote steal operation in an interview with powerful source.
Streamed live on Nov 5, 2020
In the video it is shown when in one frame 56? votes were removed from President Trump and in the very next frame 56? (exact same number) added to Biden.
There is a long discussion of the election reporting software security issues.
That will be true with either Biden or Trump as POTUS. Regardless.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The only one’s who would feel that way about Trump are enemies of freedom. It’s good that they will be out in the open.
H*MMER AND SC*RECARD news is being disappeared rapidly from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. Watch this while you can.
Sidney Powell, Tom Fitton, Lou Dobbs discuss H*mmer & Sc*recard
November 6, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVDB8_JWL0c&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=TedPikul
“seeing the scantily clad girls”
I read that over and over.
Excellent article! Thanks for posting.
AI would be difficult to apply in this context for lack of real training data. But algorithmic data mining would be very effective in spotting anomalies for deeper analysis.
degenerate
I’m trying to figure out why Michigan’s Supreme Court Justice total vote count received 670,643 more votes than the Presidential election vote count......
Thee is circumstantial evidence and there is direct evidence. At this point, circumstantial evidence of fraud abounds. I believe there is likely direct evidence to be found should anybody care to investigate.
“Degenerate”
Hubart Humphrey said think dirty live clean.
not allowing GOP observers is FRAUD.
there is tons of solid evidence, incl court order in Philly, videos, etc.
2m56s to 6m56s: various fraud videos, including Pam Bondi/Trump legal team confront Philadelphia City attorney, Michelle Hangley, who refuses to comply with court order presented to her:
Bitchute: 5 Nov: Fox News - Ingraham Angle
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QkGYpEiKu7JE/
as for those who did get to observe -
covid or no covid, even 6 feet is way too far for an observer to be able to observe anything...much less 20ft, 30ft or 100ft.
especially as the Dems at the tables are not 6ft apart.
reminds me how BLM/Antifa don’t need to social distance.
Hmmm, Project Veritas?
Exactly.
Ballots are evidence — the burden is not to show fraud, but on the holder to prove proper custody and handling.
The second a vote was tallied after watchers were sent home, separated, locked out, or polling stations covered from observation in any way = spoiled. The votes are tampered and ruined.
Sure, if we then proceed to charge official A with the felony charge, that trial must produce evidence and prove that A is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — but this is the opposite. The custodians must be able to show the count is the accurate total of legit votes and failure means they can’t be certified.
Not a feeling. A fact. I am ardent Trump supporter.
Even if he comes up with solid evidence that fraud in MI,WI, PA and AZ won Biden the election, the 50% who voted for Biden will be rabid that Trump stole the election. And that Trump’s 2nd term is illegitimate.
That’s a fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.