Mike Lindell Debuts New Election Strategy

Mike Lindell has unveiled his new plan to ensure future election security: a drone that flies around polling places to assure that machines are not just connected to the internet but maintain real-time accuracy.

"What if I told you that there's a device that's been made for the first time in history that could tell you that that machine was online?...Well, this is what we've been working on for over a year," Lindell said today. "This is a demo, everybody. We have it."

A drone that Lindell estimated can detect internet access within 100 yards is connected to a device known as the Wireless Monitoring Device, described as "a sophisticated network connection monitoring system designed specifically with election security in mind."

Lindell said that all such information would be "securely archived for later analysis," adding that "we now can catch 'em in a lie." He neglected to divulge which state the command center is located, adding that the device has already been utilized in local elections in states including Mississippi and Kentucky.

Ebenezer wrote:

There needs to be an aggressive nationwide movement for ditching voting machines and reinstating paper ballots, with political-party representatives serving as monitors in each polling station.

Agreed. I felt some hope on Day 1 when Emerald Robinson talked with Clint Curtis. Curtis also spoke with Lindell 11 months ago. The idea was that Curtis would talk to the Dems and Lindell would talk to the Reps to come together on getting rid of the machines. It might not be easy and they would likely have to come up with a very clean agreement that did not include other things that the Dems and Reps might want to change.

As others have said, I get the general feeling that Lindell is sincere but is misled by many of the so-called experts that are close to him. Several times, I've heard Lindell complain that Republicans have given him the most trouble in getting rid of the machines. The only way that he seems able to explain this to himself is the idea that the Dems and Reps have created some sort of Uniparty. This seems like a pretty grandiose conspiracy. If he or his experts really do have evidence of this, they need to post it. And it can't just be charts that nobody can reproduce. They need to post the evidence that can be reproduced, from the original source data to the final conclusions. Until then, this will just continue to be in the realm of "he said, she said".

See if this shoe fits

terrorists and multinational criminal organizations,,

EPISODE 360: THE TRUE HISTORY OF ANTIFA - PT. 1 Run Time 24m 2s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rfN3M7sE75U

EPISODE 361: THE TRUE HISTORY OF ANTIFA - PT. 2 Run Time 24m 10 s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rezL74LIVp4

7 part video series

EPISODE 351: THE CHINA FILES - PT 1 WARLORDS OF THE REVOLUTION

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YMzuKdDTs

Runtime 24m 23s
/

EPISODE 352: THE CHINA FILES P2
CHAOS UNDER HEAVEN

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3zNdoVhpUwk

Runtime 24m 44s

EPISODE 353: THE CHINA FILES PT. 3

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4BL7mUv52mc

Runtime 24m 18s

/
EPISODE 354: THE CHINA FILES PT. 4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uCrICuLPY3g

Runtime 24m 33s
/

THE CHINA FILES PT. 5

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VPcN4fIvwUE

Runtime 48m 6 s

EPISODE 444: THE CHINA FILES PT. 6

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sN2eFPdTxKw

Runtime 23m 5 s
/

EPISODE 468: CHINA FILES

- CCP POLICE ON US SOIL

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WzmRA9VM0K4

Runtime 22m 58s

learn

both the Russian and Chinese Communist parties

never would have come to power in those 2 countries

with out

the Marxists in the United States

help.

They were here then
and their commie spawn are still in our government.

They are on the cusp of handing our country and the world to the CCP.

This is the history our public schools made sure we never heard.

Push this out to everyone

Ebenezer wrote:

I saw parts of Lindell’s conference through Steve Bannon’s podcast. Okay, so he had these guests who brought charts and tables with plausible explanations which would make attendees go “oooooo” and “aaaaah”, but if this information is not made known to the general public, what good does it do? My jaded response to these presentations is: “Aaaaaaand?”.

Agreed. In addition, the original source data and code by which the charts and tables can be reproduced needs to be provided. Otherwise, they are just unsubstantiated claims. I googled to try to find how to reproduce some of the charts that were shown by Dr. Douglas Frank. The closest thing that I could find is this paper that attempts to reproduce and analyze Frank's findings. I haven't had time to look through it much but on page 5, it states:

Transparency and reproducibility are lauded among the scientific community, however in my experience this is not the case among fraud theorists. Data is not shared, methods are only vaguely described, and I have yet to see a link to reproducible code. As a result, reproduction entails an exercise in data hunting and reverse engineering, which is what must be done here.

I have looked at too many studies where the data is cherry-picked and/or the analysis is flawed or incomplete. If the author cannot take the time and effort to provide the source data and code to reproduce the conclusions, I usually have no time to hunt for the data and reverse engineer the code. I generally ignore the study and move on to a study that is documented and reproducible.

I agree with Lindell that our voting system is not transparent and is hackable. However, I very much disagree with his claiming to know that the Presidential race was actually won by Trump. Most of the "evidence" that his "experts" have presented is piecemeal. Even if Frank and his canvassers have found some cases of apparent voter fraud, it's unclear how many they have found or even who those votes benefited. It is possible that there is some amount of voter fraud, vote harvesting, voter suppression, or even vote manipulation practiced by both parties. There's an online article that suggests that Republicans may have been benefiting the most from such activity since 2004. That fact is, we don't know for sure. All we can do is to come up with rules for counting the vote (and auditing and recounting it under set rules). Also, we can get rid of the machines as much as possible so that the system is as transparent and verifiable as we can make it. I had been hoping that Lindell's plan would be a proposal to do this. Instead, he came up with a plan to fix our problem of unverifiable machines with another system of unverifiable machines.

Re: “Only people who have not watched the presentations still think that the election was not stolen. The biggest lie was that none of the computers used to manage the voting was connected to the Internet. This device, and the supporting server software, will allow real-time monitoring of the Internet connectivity of the voting computers.
https://frankspeech.com/“

Exactly! As you know, the presentation was so much more than just the Web Monitoring Device. They reviewed many of the “irregularities” that occurred during the 2020 election, and again in the 2022 election.

ONE part of the Plan is to explore the truth of the often repeated, “The machines are not connected to the internet” ... https://frankspeech.com/Video/machine-vendors-and-elected-officials-saying-machines-are-not-connected-to-internet ...

Some people do not trust the ‘authorities’ that tried to drum that into our heads. (Many of them also told us stories about medications to treat the Biden-CCP virus.) If the Wireless Monitoring Devices show election machines connecting to the internet, they will have some explaining to do.

Lindell appeals to the gullible because that is what he is. Since the 2020 election he’s been ripped off by multiple people and companies because he was gullible and incapable of analyzing the voter registration, ballot casting and vote counting processes in the way that a systems analyst would do. Lindell is not a systems analyst. He’s not the right person to solve the problem. That requires an entire team of people that take the work of a systems analyst to engineer a solution. With that said, there’s nothing wrong with him exposing some of the problem.

When any complex system has a flaw it is not possible to fix it simply by changing one or two variables. That’s what Lindell and many others want to do. It seems to be the quickest and least expensive way. The reality is that it will make matters worse. That’s exactly what has occurred over the decades.

To draw an analogy to software engineering, our election system is spaghetti code that has been developed over decades in a piecemeal manner. It lacks fine grained and strong encapsulation. That means when you change a single component it will impact other components in an unpredictable manner. In short, untested fixes break other parts of the system.

There’s never been testing of the entire election system, just components. For instance, things like a scanner that counts votes can be rigorously tested in isolation and thoroughly debugged. But the overall election process is never tested. Real elections have become the test. Thus, things like scanning an incorrectly sized ballot like they had in Arizona never occurred in the testing of the scanner. I’m certain that the test engineers starting point was a huge stack of test ballots, all of the correct size and marked in every imaginable way to test the insides of the scanner. But it was incorrectly sized ballot that was the cause of long lines and people not voting or casting their ballots into an alternative box where other impulse (unplanned?) fraud could take place. The overall system wasn’t tested.

Additionally, the election system has been injected with unneeded complexities over the years. It has an evolutionary architecture with some semblance of what it was a century ago; just enough so that all of its flaws are not readily recognizable at a single moment in time. Over the years, a weakness or two would be exposed, discussed and maybe addressed. When addressed, the changes to the system would have a ripple effect in other aspects of the system. Those effects would not necessarily be immediately exposed. They may only be exposed when a completely unrelated and unpredictable change or event occurs. That can take decades to occur. I submit that 2020 saw the culmination of decades of changes, some not even envisioned by those perpetuating fraud and had been committed fraud for decades.

There is a significant people element to this, as with most systems. A changed system is no longer the same, but most people view a changed system as being very similar to the original. They are blind to all the changes since a vast majority of changes have no visibility to people. When there is an interface to people, the people’s interaction is isolated and disjoint from the overall system. Take voter registration for instance. The methods of voter registration have substantially changed over the years. The change seen by most people is so small and inconsequential at the time of registering to vote that it doesn’t enter their mind that the entire voting system can be been impacted. That’s a change that people get to see. There’s even more changes behind the scenes that people are completely unaware.

So what has happened over the years is the election system has evolved into a dog’s dinner architecture. It is brittle and can be broken in multiple ways, either unintentionally or intentionally by fraud. Not all of the ways it can be broken can even be imagined because of the fundamentally flawed architecture and the overall complexities of the system. Simply put, there are too many variables to simultaneously consider that any one person or group of people can fix the system, regardless of their intelligence.

The election system needs to be scrapped and replaced. All of the election system’s components; voter registration, voting, vote counting, auditing, vote recounting and more; need an architecture that provides strong encapsulation of the components, clear and immutable interfaces, continuous monitoring for fraud, and safeguards to ensure credibility in election results. The guiding principles to all of that should be simplicity and transparency. Everything should be simple enough that any person of average intelligence can comprehend how it works. Everything should be viewable by the public at all times, except one small piece: the moment that you indicate who you voted. That is the sole secret in the entire system.

At this point it does not matter whether fraud has occurred or not. While fraud should be pursued as a matter of law and the people responsible should be held to account, fraud is superseded by the fact that our election system has lost its credibility. Poll after poll show that a majority of Americans do not trust our elections results. That is reason enough to re-engineering our election system from the ground up. Perhaps what is needed is the discussion about what is written above instead of “Election Security Bureau” conferences with drones flying around only to be misrepresented by the media. The real goal is to get the vast majority of Americans to make the decision that a new election system is needed. “Decision” is the correct word. It means to cut from the past and to take a different path in the future. Until that happens there will not be the change required to have credible elections again in America.

I agree with the spirit of what you wrote, but much of your proposed solution is unconstitutional. National elections are national in name only. We have 50 state elections that affect the nation. Elections begin and end with the state legislatures. The Constitution is clear about that. The USSC when they occasionally shake off the “modernist fog” concurs! I am totally opposed to further federal intrusion into state elections. People of the states need to take their legislatures seriously. State legislators need to take their jobs seriously! Rule of Thumb: I contend that any supposedly conservative legislator who has been in more then three terms isn’t and needs to be replaced. Efforts need to be conducted at the state level to do this.

This is where I think Trump missed the boat about fighting the 2020 debacle and preparationsfor 2024. He should have spent time in the problem 6 states (or more Virginia comes to mind!!) encouraging\funding organizing at the state legislative\state senate district level getting people in who understood what being a state legislator meant! Oust the Old Bulls who treat it as a taxpayer funded county club for the local “Beautiful People”. He didn’t so we’ll see if it costs him and us!

napscoordinator wrote:

Only people who have not watched the presentations still think that the election was not stolen.

False. I've watched the presentations and have still not seen any proof that the election was stolen. First of all, all that I've seen in the presentations are claims. As I said in my prior message, I have looked at too many studies where the data is cherry-picked and/or the analysis is flawed or incomplete. If the author cannot take the time and effort to provide the source data and code to reproduce the conclusions, I usually have no time to hunt for the data and reverse engineer the code. I generally ignore the study and move on to a study that is documented and reproducible.

In addition, the idea that the election was stolen seems to rest on the flawed assumption that, because Trump lost, any "irregularities" must have helped Biden. Lindell never seems to consider the possibility that some of the irregularities that were allegedly found (or other irregularities that they haven't yet found) may have helped Trump. In fact, there are many researchers who follow the shift between the exit polls and the final vote counts. This shift is shown in the following plot:

In the above plot, the x-coordinate of each point is equal to the state's margin in the exit poll. The y-coordinate is equal to its margin in the actual vote MINUS its margin in the exit poll. Hence, the y-coordinate is the SHIFT in the margin from the exit poll to the actual vote. On both axes, the positive direction is defined to be more Democratic. Hence, the plot shows that of the 22 states exit polled, only California was more Democratic in the final vote than in the exit poll. All of the rest became more Republican. This shift to the right has been called the "red shift" as described here.

The dashed line has special significance. It is the line representing y = -x. In this formula, x is equal to Margin1 and y is equal to (Margin2 - Margin1). Taking M to be Margin, the dashed line represents (M2 - M1) = -M1. Adding M1 to both sides gives M2 = 0. Hence, the dashed line basically represents the y-axis of the second race. This means that the points between the solid y-axis and the dashed y-axis are points that, being left of one axis and right of the other, switched sides or "flipped" because of the shift. In the triangle bordered by these y axes and below the x-axis are the two states that flipped, Iowa and North Carolina. The exit polls of both states were Democratic but they shifted so far right as to be Republican in the final vote. The 6 states closest to the right of the dashed line are those states that went for Biden by the smallest percentages. Those 6 states were Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsic (AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA, and WI). The plot and table also show that Florida (FL) was only 0.4% Trump in the exit poll but red-shifted to be 3.4% Trump in the final vote.

Of course, this doesn't prove that these states were all manipulated by Republicans. At least a portion of the red-shift could be due to voter suppression. Also, some portion of it could be due to errors in the exit polls. That is what is always assumed by big media since it would be rather awkward to suggest that some of the error was in the official vote totals. In any case, I saw nothing in the Lindell presentations that provided evidence that the entire election, if done properly, would have gone to Trump. The only rational way to change an election result is to audit and/or recount the vote according to existing election law. The discovery of any other irregularities are only useful in improving the system to avoid errors in future elections. This is what I had hoped that Lindell would do - present a clean proposal to minimize the use of voting machines and then push both the Democrats and Republicans to accept it or work out a compromise. This seemed to have been the chief idea expressed in the discussion between Emerald Robinson and Clint Curtis on Day 1.

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.