… and the art of “Plausible Deniability”
Not all vote flipping methods are the same.
Some methods are better than others.
The best have an element of “plausible deniability” or “human error” that always gives thieves a “get out of jail free” card.
We touched on this in our previous posts on Williamson County, TN:
– Part 1
– Part 2
– (Here is the high level overview for the curious)
Halderman’s Antrim report is also important as well as the debacle in some Georgia counties during the 2022 primaries (Dekalb County 👀).
The pattern of fraud is becoming clearer, and we must admit, it is clever, because it is built upon “plausible deniability”.
To cut a very long story short (you can read the relevant reports in the references below), the key is in purposefully crafting a mismatch between versions of:
– The paper ballot layout and the tabulator election definition files (for certain precincts only)
– The tabulator election definition files and the EMS election definition files (for certain tabulators only)
To keep this post short we will jump to the conclusions:
By changing the ballot layout for some precincts and strategically loading crafted election definition files into some tabulators, it is possible to engineer a desired election outcome.
Over several election cycles more tabulators can be “fixed” to turn a red state purple, then blue… without anyone noticing.
The key point is that the tabulators themselves are NOT flipping votes per say (even though they have the capability to do that as well, and probably do in some circumstances. But why risk getting caught when there is a really good “human error” approach that achieves the same outcome?). It is the combination of “version mismatches” that can be crafted to achieve the desired outcome.
The reason this is so egregious is two fold:
– It provides perfect “plausible deniability” cover, as “human error” can always be blamed … and is always accepted. That is, IF someone notices an issue in the first place. Most of the time no one does.
– ⚠️ There is absolutely no reason for these “human errors” to occur if these software vendors really wanted to avoid them
The last point is the most important. Let’s rephrase it. It is professionally negligent (and most possibly “criminally negligent” as well) for them not to address these mismatches, which are entirely preventable and trivial to fix. It’s almost as if they are doing it on purpose 🤔. (Counties should ask for their money back. It is unacceptable that a multi-million dollar solution has these flaws.)
– Encode the election project version on the printed paper ballot. When a tabulator reads the ballot it should first check that the ballot layout version and its own definition file version match.
– When the EMS reads the tabulator data it should also check that the definition file versions match.
Both issues are TRIVIAL to fix, and would completely prevent these “human errors” from happening.
👉 In any case, the far superior solution is to go back to hand counting.
– EAC’s report on Williamson County, TN
– Halderman’s Antrim County, MI
KN for @ElectionFraud20_org
You must log in to post a comment.