Redacted Information in Michigan's Dominion Voting Systems Audit Report Shows Races Were Flipped: Analyst

The analyst who led the forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems in Michigan said on Friday the information state officials pushed to redact shows that the outcomes of races were changed.

“The original report had log evidence that we published in the report to show exactly what we did and exactly the findings. Now, those did ultimately get redacted. And so now, the complaint is ‘well, but there’s no real proof and Dominion says ‘no, these things can’t be done,'” Russell Ramsland Jr. said during a virtual appearance on Newsmax’s “Greg Kelly Reports.”

“But at that point, Dominion’s argument is no longer with us. Dominion’s argument is with their own user’s manual and their own logs, because the logs—had they been able to be published—show very clearly that the RCV [ranked-choice voting] algorithm was enacted. It shows very clearly that the error messages were massive. It was very clearly [sic] that races were flipped,” he added.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Ramsland and his team at Allied Security Operations Group earlier this month audited Dominion machines and software in Antrim County, where officials on election night reported a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. The officials later said the results were skewed and that President Donald Trump actually received more votes in the county.

The audit was the first conducted post-election of Dominion products. It was part of a court case.

Lawyers for Benson, a Democrat, asked 13th Circuit Judge Kevin Elsenheimer in court last week to order the redaction of the logs before allowing the release of the report, arguing the logs might be source code and publishing them could be a security issue.

A couple of bullet points from the ASOG audit report...

6. The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission 
guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 
68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election 
integrity.

8. The tabulation log for the forensic examination of the server for Antrim County 
from December 6, 2020consists of 15,676 individual events, of which 10,667 or 
68.05% of the events were recorded errors. These errors resulted in overall 
tabulation errors or ballots being sent to adjudication. This high error rates proves 
the Dominion Voting System is flawed and does not meet state or federal 
election laws.

To point 6... The FEC guideline applies to the machines scanning and tabulating ballots. In this case it would be the ImageCast Precinct and ImageCast Central machines. They are tested by processing stacks of machine marked ballots. All in-person voters ballots are fed into the ImageCast Precinct machines, and if they were rejected (an extreme rarity) the precinct workers would have been immediately aware of something seriously wrong. Clearly there was no 68% error rate there. That's a patently riduclous assertion. The Image Central scanners are at the county office scan absentee ballots. There is no doubt a higher rejection rate, because those ballots are filled out by hand by the voter. A 68% rejection rate would also have been extraordinarily high because not even that many voters screw up their ballots. Those are the rejected ballots that would have to be manually adjudicated by the clerks.

To point 8... Note this is the main servers log! All the USBs from the scanner/tabulators are loaded into the main server. The error rate is calculated from this 10,667/15,676. The audit report does not specify what these errors were. This particular calculation is has absolutely nothing to do with any ballots being rejected by the tabulators. That the error was on the main server is congruent with the county clerks claim that the ballot update was only made on the particular precinct tabulators and nowhere else, which caused a "cascade of errors" when the main server attempted to reconcile the tabulations.

Finally the main server reported these erroneous election results to the state computer. So how did the county clerk manually fix the error? Each tabulator prints a paper result of its tabulation. She added these up and submitted them to the state manually to correct the error. If the tabulators had been programmed to produce errors the printed paper trail would have been incorrect. Furthermore an actual hand count of the ballots on Dec 15th reflected that the tabulated count differed by only 2 votes.

QED

RE: I find the ASOG audit to be highly suspect, sloppy and amateurish. It is chock full of unsupported allegations, which one would never find in a professional audit.

Well, since we are both in the same field ( I am doing Java, C#, C++, Powershell, Message Queueing and DevOps for various industries myself), Explain to me why the need to update the reporting software in the middle of an election (you said so above). Shouldn't the software be running in place already? I find it curious that you aren't concerned about the sloppy design of the software that will require the need for this.

RE: If you are indeed a software developer, then you should know there really are two components, software and data. An update that adds or removes issues/candidates to the ballot of particular precints is clearly data entered by a clerk, and not a software update. Also the ballot update certainly did occur well before the election, the date of which was not specified.

I was not the one who wrote this, you did:

the sworn testimony of the Antrim County clerk (Republican) Sheryl Guy that the problem was human error in failing to update the reporting server with the proper election reporting software.

What the heck is this need to update a reporting software? That software should be in place, tested and ready for use, NOT UPDATED IN AN ELECTION.

And here's the other question - updating of ballots of particular precincts. This feature is not only error prone but also fraud prone don't you tbink?

RE: State, company officials dispute report claiming Antrim County tabulators bungled results

Well, that's my point - if you want to dispute the ASOG claim and want to point out that they are wrong, sloppy or lying, why resist an open confrontation in a court of law? Why do we see such resistance not only in Michigan but also in Maricopa County in Arizona where even a legislative subpoena is being disobeyed? Shouldn't all these jurisdictions WELCOME the challenge in order to refute the claims of deliberate fraud once and for all?

All the criticisms that you leveled in your posts can be brought out in the open for all to see. So, tell me, why the resistance?

What's the problem with anyone here waiting for it? You already have a pretty good preview of some of what they are going to say from the above article.

My problem is one word -- TIME. As long as they do not wait till Biden is declared the rightful and fair winner of this election, I don't mind waiting. As it stands now, I can't help but see this as an attempt to run out the clock.

RE: If you are indeed a software developer, then you should know there really are two components, software and data. An update that adds or removes issues/candidates to the ballot of particular precints is clearly data entered by a clerk, and not a software update. Also the ballot update certainly did occur well before the election, the date of which was not specified.

I was not the one who wrote this, you did:

the sworn testimony of the Antrim County clerk (Republican) Sheryl Guy that the problem was human error in failing to update the reporting server with the proper election reporting software.

Even I am subject to human error in repeating what the press reported as a software update and the clerk testified was a ballot update (data)
The later post above was correct.

RE: Even I am subject to human error in repeating what the press reported as a software update and the clerk testified was a ballot update (data)

Yes. This was reported by the press. See here for example:

https://themichiganstar.com/2020/12/15/after-examining-antrim-county-voting-machines-asog-concludes-dominion-intentionally-designed-to-create-systemic-fraud/

“The issue with Antrim County’s presidential results occurred after county Clerk Sheryl Guy failed to update Election Source software on all tabulators after performing an update to two of them,” the Detroit News reported. “The failure caused the machines to transpose results as they were sent to the county’s main software.”

OK, I’ll give you a pass on this one, but the other question has not been answered... if Dominion is really a well designed system and above board, with nothing suspicious in its design, and of the problematic counties do not have problems, I think they should welcome forensic audits of their machines WHERE TRUMP LOST SUSPICIOUSLY if only to clear their company name of anything sinister.

Instead, we get news like this:

Title: Legal battle begins after Maricopa County REFUSES to conduct forensic audit of Dominion voting machines ordered by Arizona senate

https://www.rt.com/usa/510193-arizona-gop-maricopa-subpoena-audit/

and then we have delays in the discovery process extending till April 2021. See last sentence here:

https://themichiganstar.com/2020/12/15/after-examining-antrim-county-voting-machines-asog-concludes-dominion-intentionally-designed-to-create-systemic-fraud/

In the meantime, while they have possession of the machines, who knows what kind of monkey business they are doing with it...

I can't answer the question as to why Maricopa County Board of Elections is resisting the Arizona Senate subpoena, although it does seem to be procedural. I can't answer the question as to why the Michigan judge scheduled the trial for April 2021.

However it isn't Dominion resisting those audits as they don't have any say in those disputes.

There are two main theories of this year's election fraud. One theory is the election was rigged by voting machines. I have yet to see evidence to support that theory despite all the crazy sh$t that's been thrown against the wall by Powell, Wood, Ramsland and others. It's a terrible distraction from the much more likely and plausible fraud.
The other theory is that democrats stuffed the ballot box the old-fashioned tried and true way. And because of the loosened standards of massive amounts of mail-in ballots and failure to do signature checking, this is especially more significant than in previous elections. There is certainly evidence to support that in democrat controlled urban areas like Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta.

That double set of electors will have to be rectified in Congress.

So, on Jan. 6th the election will move from normal election mode to Constitutional remedy mode.

There are 29 to 31 states that are in Republican hands and Trump will win the Constitutional remedy.

That's not how it works. If there's multiple sets of electors, the House and Senate each vote on which one to accept (As individuals, not by State). If they both agree, great. If they disagree, the set that is certified by that State's executive (Governor) is the set chosen. And do you really think the House will ever pick the Repub set? So at best each State is contested, or the Dem electors are chosen.

The ONLY way it goes to the House as a State delegation vote, is if there's a tie (269-269), or if one candidate does not achieve a majority of the electors appointed, which can ONLY happen if there's a third party getting EC votes.

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.