The Deep State has clearly been running elections for some time now, probably not less than 15 years or so. They seem to have mostly helped Democrats, but it looks like they've helped not a few untrustworthy Republicans as well.
That said, our Electoral College is a fantastic safeguard against the type of illegal interventions we've been seeing. The reason is that it limits exposure at the federal level by making each state independent. Therefore, once a threshhold is reached in any given state, more fraud in the same state accomplishes nothing.
Honest states can counterbalance dishonest ones, and seem to have done exactly that, though the number of such states has been eroding. At the local level, it is more difficult to control, because the safeguards disappear once you get into state politics. However, there are ways for federal controls to affect local elections.
The problem has been lack of will to have honest elections among many officials until recently. Trump's recent efforts have the potential to turn the tide, and certainly are trying to do that.
I wonder why there is such fear on the part of politicians. They must know who's behind it if they are. Or maybe they've been "selected" themselves, and they don't want an investigation to show that.
They are worried it will boomerang on themselves. This is one of the reasons I seriously dislike thinking of election integrity as "this particular election with those candidates got the wrong result." If you can persuasively argue that case, the opposite will also be tried. For every Republican who complains his loss was due to fraud, there will be a Democrat claiming that fraud cost his race. The distraction of competing lawsuits would tangle government to the point of being useless.
Better to point out that results can't be trusted for reasons X, Y, and Z, and then eliminate all the things that made X, Y, and Z possible. It means the current politicians can still cause harm, but they actually can be voted out in the next cycle.
Voting out people the next cycle is almost impossible in WI when both parties are in on it all! Manipulation to ensure re-election is rampant and good quality candidates don't seem to make it. Party members who support underdog candidates in the primaries are accused of not unifying with the party & even thrown out of the county parties! In addition, people who try to run are sometimes coerced into dropping out or possibly threatened to. Who would run under these circumstances!
I'm not saying it is possible as long as the systems are compromised, but it is if they are fixed. There are some positive actions being taken to manifest that. That is all I am saying. Also, the more districts get fixed, the harder it will be to maintain crooked ones elsewhere.
Yes- before we press for term limits, we need to clean up the election process as it seems very unlikely that the longest serving, worst politicians were lawfully elected. Term limits in a rigged system will just result in rotating deficient "selected" politicians', and more power to the not elected permanent administrative positions.
"Sufficient justification" is going to give me nightmares.
I pray for you when you are quiet because I know you are busy or are nursing a migraine. And then when you post, I pray in thanksgiving of you with your wonderful tenacity. Thank you!
I believe the politicians fear because they won't know what to do when the money tap gets shut off and they are exposed. We are bankrupt and they are thieves.
Do all the states with discovered, proven, working algorithmic manipulation have (like New York) state voter ID’s and county voter ID’s that are linked and worked on by the algorithms? Do all those states (like New York) have fixed records for each county so that new assignments are never done by simply taking the next higher consecutive number? If all these states were forced to implement an “always take the next consecutive higher number” policy for each new voter, would that keep future algorithmic manipulations from ever happening?
I also wonder if President Trump will ever publicly say something directly about the algorithms to thereby make them and the topic a mainstream media news story, such that citizens will hear about them in their local news and talk about them on their (radio) talk shows. 🤔
The quick answer is no. I've looked at 12 states, 10 in depth. Most do not have state and county ID numbers. They sometimes have the equivalent (2 IDs), but frequently have only 1. Some algorithms are more complex than others. The most complicated I've found are in NY, WI, and AZ. The one in PA, at least to the extent I understand it, is fairly simple. The one in Hawaii (found by Vico Bertogli) tags records of interest with a code, so it isn't an "algorithm" so much as a simple (12 digit) tagging mechanism.
I think sequential numbering is a step in the right direction, however, that won't work for mapping algorithms like NY's Spiral. In that case, as long as 1 of 2 related numbers isn't sequential, it doesn't matter if the other one is.
BTW, it is kind of strange looking at my green-hued anti-migraine screen. I can't color comics this way, but it works for text.
Our state's voter ID #s are issued by the state and consecutive. In my opinion it is not advisable. It creates a smoke screen across all our 33 counties and is not auditable county by county. There is nothing "to tie" the issued numbers to as you would a series of consecutive check numbers for a specific bank account. For example, I discovered that in a 34 month period there were over 144,000 ID #s issued and dispersed across all counties. That was enough ID #s to create two new counties, one of our largest and a mid-size one.
In New York Mayor’s Race “Unofficial Results” viewed Thursday morning after election day:
For New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond, looking at only Zellnor, Whitney, and Jessica as a pool of results, reported totals by Board of Elections in the City of New York would show Zellnor with 9,870 or 46%, Whitney with 7,828 or 36%, and Jessica with 3,862 or 18%. I see, close enough, divisible by 9 (Zellnor:Whitney:Jessica or 5:4:2) to make me look further into the details because I have seen this before.
Some brief notes…New York has 14 ADs each of which holds a pool of EDs (I will call them precincts). For 5 out of the 14 ADs Jessica received vote totals of 80, 81, 82, 83, 85. The corresponding number of precincts that gave her those totals were 63 precincts, 65 precincts, 71 precincts, 76 precincts, and 66 precincts of “voters.”
If that is too “out in left field,” Queens with its 18 ADs shows vote totals:
Jessica’s vote total received as 34 in 3 of them
Whitney’s vote total received as 33 in 2 of them
Zellnor’s vote total received as 43 in 3 of them
Adrienne’s vote total received as 186 in 2 of them
The number of precincts (EDs) contributing to the AD totals range from 47 precincts to 67 precincts.
Anyone who would not contest these results is unqualified to be mayor. They have no business overseeing budgets in the billions of dollars.
Great work doc American citizens appreciate it! The investigation needs to be followed with arrests and prosecution! The last 4 years almost cost us our country and the fight of good vs evil to save our country is far from over. The people and officials that allowed it all must be prosecuted!
Politicians are committed to preserving the status quo because it benefits them not is the tax payer. Every first term congress Person got elected by promising to root out the corruption . Then they become the corruption.
I am from Wisconsin & I have to wonder why no one has filed a lawsuit about our voter data base and other issues, other than the HAVA one you mentioned, since it is probably one of the worst voting system in the country! Active, inactive voters combined, dead people hardly ever removed from the voter list, issues with lack of security on MyVote shown by whistle blower Harry Wait and a deputy clerk, NGO/non-profits providing registration forms that aren't legit, to name just a few!
Here is a general addendum to this post:
The Deep State has clearly been running elections for some time now, probably not less than 15 years or so. They seem to have mostly helped Democrats, but it looks like they've helped not a few untrustworthy Republicans as well.
That said, our Electoral College is a fantastic safeguard against the type of illegal interventions we've been seeing. The reason is that it limits exposure at the federal level by making each state independent. Therefore, once a threshhold is reached in any given state, more fraud in the same state accomplishes nothing.
Honest states can counterbalance dishonest ones, and seem to have done exactly that, though the number of such states has been eroding. At the local level, it is more difficult to control, because the safeguards disappear once you get into state politics. However, there are ways for federal controls to affect local elections.
The problem has been lack of will to have honest elections among many officials until recently. Trump's recent efforts have the potential to turn the tide, and certainly are trying to do that.
I wonder why there is such fear on the part of politicians. They must know who's behind it if they are. Or maybe they've been "selected" themselves, and they don't want an investigation to show that.
They are worried it will boomerang on themselves. This is one of the reasons I seriously dislike thinking of election integrity as "this particular election with those candidates got the wrong result." If you can persuasively argue that case, the opposite will also be tried. For every Republican who complains his loss was due to fraud, there will be a Democrat claiming that fraud cost his race. The distraction of competing lawsuits would tangle government to the point of being useless.
Better to point out that results can't be trusted for reasons X, Y, and Z, and then eliminate all the things that made X, Y, and Z possible. It means the current politicians can still cause harm, but they actually can be voted out in the next cycle.
Voting out people the next cycle is almost impossible in WI when both parties are in on it all! Manipulation to ensure re-election is rampant and good quality candidates don't seem to make it. Party members who support underdog candidates in the primaries are accused of not unifying with the party & even thrown out of the county parties! In addition, people who try to run are sometimes coerced into dropping out or possibly threatened to. Who would run under these circumstances!
I'm not saying it is possible as long as the systems are compromised, but it is if they are fixed. There are some positive actions being taken to manifest that. That is all I am saying. Also, the more districts get fixed, the harder it will be to maintain crooked ones elsewhere.
Yes- before we press for term limits, we need to clean up the election process as it seems very unlikely that the longest serving, worst politicians were lawfully elected. Term limits in a rigged system will just result in rotating deficient "selected" politicians', and more power to the not elected permanent administrative positions.
"Sufficient justification" is going to give me nightmares.
I pray for you when you are quiet because I know you are busy or are nursing a migraine. And then when you post, I pray in thanksgiving of you with your wonderful tenacity. Thank you!
I believe the politicians fear because they won't know what to do when the money tap gets shut off and they are exposed. We are bankrupt and they are thieves.
Do all the states with discovered, proven, working algorithmic manipulation have (like New York) state voter ID’s and county voter ID’s that are linked and worked on by the algorithms? Do all those states (like New York) have fixed records for each county so that new assignments are never done by simply taking the next higher consecutive number? If all these states were forced to implement an “always take the next consecutive higher number” policy for each new voter, would that keep future algorithmic manipulations from ever happening?
I also wonder if President Trump will ever publicly say something directly about the algorithms to thereby make them and the topic a mainstream media news story, such that citizens will hear about them in their local news and talk about them on their (radio) talk shows. 🤔
The quick answer is no. I've looked at 12 states, 10 in depth. Most do not have state and county ID numbers. They sometimes have the equivalent (2 IDs), but frequently have only 1. Some algorithms are more complex than others. The most complicated I've found are in NY, WI, and AZ. The one in PA, at least to the extent I understand it, is fairly simple. The one in Hawaii (found by Vico Bertogli) tags records of interest with a code, so it isn't an "algorithm" so much as a simple (12 digit) tagging mechanism.
I think sequential numbering is a step in the right direction, however, that won't work for mapping algorithms like NY's Spiral. In that case, as long as 1 of 2 related numbers isn't sequential, it doesn't matter if the other one is.
BTW, it is kind of strange looking at my green-hued anti-migraine screen. I can't color comics this way, but it works for text.
Our state's voter ID #s are issued by the state and consecutive. In my opinion it is not advisable. It creates a smoke screen across all our 33 counties and is not auditable county by county. There is nothing "to tie" the issued numbers to as you would a series of consecutive check numbers for a specific bank account. For example, I discovered that in a 34 month period there were over 144,000 ID #s issued and dispersed across all counties. That was enough ID #s to create two new counties, one of our largest and a mid-size one.
In New York Mayor’s Race “Unofficial Results” viewed Thursday morning after election day:
For New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond, looking at only Zellnor, Whitney, and Jessica as a pool of results, reported totals by Board of Elections in the City of New York would show Zellnor with 9,870 or 46%, Whitney with 7,828 or 36%, and Jessica with 3,862 or 18%. I see, close enough, divisible by 9 (Zellnor:Whitney:Jessica or 5:4:2) to make me look further into the details because I have seen this before.
Some brief notes…New York has 14 ADs each of which holds a pool of EDs (I will call them precincts). For 5 out of the 14 ADs Jessica received vote totals of 80, 81, 82, 83, 85. The corresponding number of precincts that gave her those totals were 63 precincts, 65 precincts, 71 precincts, 76 precincts, and 66 precincts of “voters.”
If that is too “out in left field,” Queens with its 18 ADs shows vote totals:
Jessica’s vote total received as 34 in 3 of them
Whitney’s vote total received as 33 in 2 of them
Zellnor’s vote total received as 43 in 3 of them
Adrienne’s vote total received as 186 in 2 of them
The number of precincts (EDs) contributing to the AD totals range from 47 precincts to 67 precincts.
Anyone who would not contest these results is unqualified to be mayor. They have no business overseeing budgets in the billions of dollars.
Great work doc American citizens appreciate it! The investigation needs to be followed with arrests and prosecution! The last 4 years almost cost us our country and the fight of good vs evil to save our country is far from over. The people and officials that allowed it all must be prosecuted!
Will we ever have mandatory paper ballots, single day voting, with required valid picture ID for all elections in all 50 states?
Politicians are committed to preserving the status quo because it benefits them not is the tax payer. Every first term congress Person got elected by promising to root out the corruption . Then they become the corruption.
I am from Wisconsin & I have to wonder why no one has filed a lawsuit about our voter data base and other issues, other than the HAVA one you mentioned, since it is probably one of the worst voting system in the country! Active, inactive voters combined, dead people hardly ever removed from the voter list, issues with lack of security on MyVote shown by whistle blower Harry Wait and a deputy clerk, NGO/non-profits providing registration forms that aren't legit, to name just a few!
I agree it is one of the worst. There are several lawsuits I am aware of, all filed by Peter Bernegger or his associates, some of them successfully.