Posted by Just want to point out a few things before I start. Although I have 20+ years working in the information technology industry, I don’t by any means consider myself a data forensic expert or an auditor of systems. I have done software and system audits before including a state government agency and I have done data forensic audits to find data that was either lost or deleted. The full document I am reviewing can be found here.
I am only doing one township. I have read the summary pages and the township information multiple times.
B2: The summary conclusion. Up to this point I thought this was an audit document for system or systems after performing a set of tests on the machines specific to the functions of counting ballots. The conclusion points to a different issue. That it intentionally generates errors on ballots that then have to go through the adjudication process. Remember adjudication is done by humans. The rest of it seems to be opinions or miss-understanding of the processes of adjudication. I am definitely not an expert in adjudication of ballots in Michigan but I can tell you these are the type of assumptions that his other reports are riddled with and that officials easily prove incorrect. After the wild claims of adjudication there are more opinions that the machine shouldn’t be used.
Let us get back to the technical conclusion. You would expect that this document will prove that the Dominion Voting System “intentionally generates” a high number of ballot errors.
B3:
It is time to throw a random table into the document. No reference where this table comes from. I can tell you it didn’t come from the audit. I suspect part of this data is from the SoS in Michigan.
B4:
Again this is supposed to be machine / system audit. But here we have an un-attributed statement from 2 elected officials stating that the error was caused by a failure of updating the system for down ballot. Let us look at the data presented further in the document and see which of the two stories actually match the data.
- The tabulation software was updated on 11/6 to read the new ballots. The 11/3 run was running software designed to read ballots that were not the correct ballots.
- The tabulation software intentionally on 11/3 rejected ballots so that they could be manually counted by humans that then committed fraud.
Central Lake Township rolls origin story:
Remember the table has 3 rows. So I assuming the data in these rolls are partial data for the 2 first columns in the table since this is township and not the entire Antrim county. Also remember that people only voted once. We have two totals one from 11/3 and one from 11/6 but those totals are for the exact same ballots. The ballots that went into the machine on 11/3 also went into the machine on 11/6.
The data presented:
- Screenshots of part of the rolls (D8, D9, D10). I didn’t include the pot ordinance because 3 is enough. He did not include the presidential race screenshots (no explanation given).
We can see that the values varied wildly from 11/3 to 11/6. Especially look at Ellsworth. In the document it is stated that only 3 people were eligible to vote and each got 2 votes. This is stated as matter of fact and I don’t have any easy way to verify it. So let us assume that 11/6 is correct with a total of 6 votes and that question was only shown to 3 people. I assume shown because otherwise at least 1 other human would have clicked on the button.
2. On D15 (and other places) the document states the tabulation software was different on 11/3 than the software on 11/6 by looking at the file dates. Again let us assume that this is correct, but file dates are easy to manipulate. There is also no indication of what process was used to document this.
3. The document also states that 81.96% ballots where rejected on 11/3. This is stated in B10 without source or reference. Again let us assume it is correct.
4. On J3 it mentions a part of the manual RCV / single transferable vote (STV) and hints at some sort of voting fraud related to these settings. Without going into the details of STV, I can tell you that none of the data presented in this document or in the SoS is indicative STV voting. And you would not have needed an audit because voters would have noticed an STV ballot. Not sure why this is mentioned at all unless he doesn’t understand what STV is. I should mention that the last time I checked some down ballots items in the United States use STV.
5. On J4 it says that the system rejects any ballot with a write in candidate. I am fairly sure that is the way it should work since the tabulation software can’t read handwriting.
That is it. As far is this township is concerned that is all the data that is presented. The rest is opinions and assumptions.
Back to my question. With the data presented. Just the data. Not your feelings or who you thought should have won:
- The tabulation software was updated on 11/6 to read the new ballots. The 11/3 run was running software designed to read ballots that were not the correct ballots.
- The tabulation software intentionally on 11/3 rejected ballots so that they could be manually counted by humans that then committed fraud.
I’ll stick with 1 becuase:
- Tabulation software that has the wrong ballots programmed would at least reject 89% of ballots. I am surprised it was not 100%, but if read the entire document the author even mentions that almost all ballots were impacted. Which is what I would expect.
- Tabulation software that has the wrong ballots programmed would count 6 votes as 500+ votes.
- Once the software was updated the tabulation software correctly counted the ballots.
- Tabulation software should reject ballots with handwriting.
As for 2:
- No data was presented that showed that the software intentionally rejected ballots other than what it should have rejected.
F5 