I think we can say that when they know they’ve been found out, they’ll do what’s necessary to maintain the structure and its use while simultaneously further obfuscating its discovery and analysis by auditors.
That they changed CID numbers to torment you & team of sleuths, is also a possible "reason" at least in part. The changed CIDs is cause for new doubts and suspicions.
I like this concept of keeping the team busy. Like a distraction or slight of hand. But they're the party of "Swatting". Seems a good news might be it helps future fingerprints of fraud by having a timeline of algorithm change. Maybe someone can be found out and charged for these changes?
Just the fact that 5 counties did this at the same time makes me suspicious! Coordination where there shouldn't be seems nefarious or at minimum, State Controlled!
Curious if that's were the illegal immigrants votes go? Buried deep in the numbers and looking like old voter records!
In some cases, yes. As for the five in question, I'm not sure. I heard of this from someone else and haven't asked that question. She did tell me that a vendor switch caused this to happen.
Seems like such a change would have left a paper trail within the counties. Who made the decision to renumber? Where is the code that did the renumber? Who wrote the new algorithm? Presumably, some contractor was hired to do the work on behalf of the county election folks. There should be bids, purchase orders, invoices, etc. Maybe an open records request is in order.
Very interesting. I also found out in the last week that the overall size of the NYS database has been reduced from 21+ million records to approximately 13 million records. Early reasons for this are that all purged records have been removed. I wonder how that information fits with your discovery. This data came from ProjectCivica and was confirmed by John S of Erie County NY.
I heard about that too. I am curious if the purged records were removed (deleted) from the database or simply not sent. My default presumption is that they were withheld, not removed.
The Spiral algorithm creates a type of data that can be used to covertly track and interact with records. I'm not sure what the utility of changing the CID numbers is if the Spiral remains intact. If it destroyed the Spiral, my answer would have been that they may have done it to hide the algorithm I have been reporting on. Since it retains the algorithm, it looks like the algorithm does have value they intend to preserve despite changes to the numbers that may have been initiated for an innocent purpose. For instance, imagine a bank robber steals money and hides it on land that doesn't belong to him. He hides the stolen loot by putting a lot of unpleasant looking traps around the money, dissuading any inspection. Then, the property is sold to someone else, and they go back to ensure their traps are still in place.
Thank you. Do you know what they can do in the system using the algorithm if they are using it to track records? Can they change a person's vote, delete a vote, add a vote etc? Or does it just allow them to track who's winning and then mail in more ballots in for people who haven't voted yet? Does NY have mail in voting like CO?
There are illegal registrations in NY's rolls. At least, the last time I looked there were. Many of those were active. That means it is possible those registrations could be used to generate illegal ballots. They can also be used to reconcile fraudulently cast ballots. To access these records, they would need a reliable and covert method of identification. Therefore, to conduct any widespread election fraud (involving more than a few dozen ballots), they would need a way to do this. The algorithm makes it possible. It doesn't mean they did it, just that it makes it possible. To determine whether it was done would require a different type of evidence I don't have access to. That said, many colleagues and myself have tried very hard to come up with an innocent explanation or alternative purpose for this algorithm, without success.
I think we can say that when they know they’ve been found out, they’ll do what’s necessary to maintain the structure and its use while simultaneously further obfuscating its discovery and analysis by auditors.
Or every major election the introduce a new algorithm to mix things up a bit while still maintaining access to their database of clones and frauds.
That they changed CID numbers to torment you & team of sleuths, is also a possible "reason" at least in part. The changed CIDs is cause for new doubts and suspicions.
I like this concept of keeping the team busy. Like a distraction or slight of hand. But they're the party of "Swatting". Seems a good news might be it helps future fingerprints of fraud by having a timeline of algorithm change. Maybe someone can be found out and charged for these changes?
Hats off to you...this continues to be beyond belief.
Just the fact that 5 counties did this at the same time makes me suspicious! Coordination where there shouldn't be seems nefarious or at minimum, State Controlled!
Curious if that's were the illegal immigrants votes go? Buried deep in the numbers and looking like old voter records!
-Mo
Are the voter records managed by vendors, and if so, do these five counties use the same vendor?
In some cases, yes. As for the five in question, I'm not sure. I heard of this from someone else and haven't asked that question. She did tell me that a vendor switch caused this to happen.
Seems like such a change would have left a paper trail within the counties. Who made the decision to renumber? Where is the code that did the renumber? Who wrote the new algorithm? Presumably, some contractor was hired to do the work on behalf of the county election folks. There should be bids, purchase orders, invoices, etc. Maybe an open records request is in order.
Very interesting. I also found out in the last week that the overall size of the NYS database has been reduced from 21+ million records to approximately 13 million records. Early reasons for this are that all purged records have been removed. I wonder how that information fits with your discovery. This data came from ProjectCivica and was confirmed by John S of Erie County NY.
I heard about that too. I am curious if the purged records were removed (deleted) from the database or simply not sent. My default presumption is that they were withheld, not removed.
If you care about election integrity, you should visit lindelloffensefund dot com.
Can you tell us what this means in terms of what it allows them to do in an election?
The Spiral algorithm creates a type of data that can be used to covertly track and interact with records. I'm not sure what the utility of changing the CID numbers is if the Spiral remains intact. If it destroyed the Spiral, my answer would have been that they may have done it to hide the algorithm I have been reporting on. Since it retains the algorithm, it looks like the algorithm does have value they intend to preserve despite changes to the numbers that may have been initiated for an innocent purpose. For instance, imagine a bank robber steals money and hides it on land that doesn't belong to him. He hides the stolen loot by putting a lot of unpleasant looking traps around the money, dissuading any inspection. Then, the property is sold to someone else, and they go back to ensure their traps are still in place.
Thank you. Do you know what they can do in the system using the algorithm if they are using it to track records? Can they change a person's vote, delete a vote, add a vote etc? Or does it just allow them to track who's winning and then mail in more ballots in for people who haven't voted yet? Does NY have mail in voting like CO?
There are illegal registrations in NY's rolls. At least, the last time I looked there were. Many of those were active. That means it is possible those registrations could be used to generate illegal ballots. They can also be used to reconcile fraudulently cast ballots. To access these records, they would need a reliable and covert method of identification. Therefore, to conduct any widespread election fraud (involving more than a few dozen ballots), they would need a way to do this. The algorithm makes it possible. It doesn't mean they did it, just that it makes it possible. To determine whether it was done would require a different type of evidence I don't have access to. That said, many colleagues and myself have tried very hard to come up with an innocent explanation or alternative purpose for this algorithm, without success.
What do these counties offer as rationale for this change?