Combating Mass Voter Fraud
We need to understand how voter fraud is occurring and who the actors are facilitating it.
The Attorney General of the United States explains how this works. In the video below we see him talking about how he is enabling this for our elections. Notice the audience listening has no idea the implications, the mechanics, nor how they themselves are being marginalized in a world where their vote does not count and the government can simply choose to install who they want to run the country. You can watch the piece here and then Tucker’s comments after. Love him or hate him, Tucker Carlson calls out the intentions and implications. Our article on how the 2024 elections are to be won also spells out the tactics and methods involved.
The challenge is that these methods are being normalized by the media and government establishment. Given that the indications are that the 2024 Elections will be manipulated at scale, what remediations and particularly forensics can reveal that irrefutably did occur. Here we examine the forensic tools and methods so that people can be better prepared ahead of the use of industrial scale orchestrated voter fraud methods in the 2024 elections.
Implementing Voter Fraud At Scale
Some tactics we have already seen employed such as the physical disabling of voting places and equipment on election day. However, the covert methods involving voter registrations and casting in-person ballots en masse has only been partially utilized before. For 2024, in order to ensure a sweeping victory, these methods will need to be deployed at scale. Notice that there is a willing and able army of people happy to facilitate that, all courtesy of the unfettered mass invasion of illegal aliens into the country. Foot soldiers who have no qualms and can be trusted implicitly to conceal their actions and their ties to national and international entities. Nancy Pelosi herself exposed this in a recent CNN interview, when she stated unequivocally, “It is impossible for Donald Trump to be President again”. Not that it is unlikely, or improbable, but that it is impossible. There is only a thin line of forensic tools standing between Nancy’s assertion, the ramifications of her certainty today on the outcomes, and the election results being exposed.
Stacking the Rolls
Enabling trusted, transparent and verifiable elections has long been a challenge, particularly in the US. The primary focus of the HAVA (Help America Vote Act) of 2002 was spending money to invest in new voting equipment and digital technologies. These new machines did little to advance transparency. The reverse being the case, the manufacturers eschewed open public recording and reporting standards for their voting data. However, the new machines did bring in digital counting methods, voter verification through poll books and consistent in-person vote casting practices. The fraud emphasis therefore switched to manipulating voter rolls and enabling mail-in balloting. Particularly to skirt the safeguards of in-person voting. Digital ballot scanners were identified as a weak link in the election counting process. The scanners provide an ideal backdoor into the ballot tallies. Scanned ballots from mail-in ballots can be co-mingled with in-person cast records making it doubly hard to challenge the ballot tallies.
Today we are seeing concerted and coordinated efforts to stack the voter rolls of states with voter records that likely favor the incumbent, and can tip the balance of voter demographics. Also, these voter registration records, instead of being the purview of the states themselves, now contain entries that outside actors can exploit. Between the government and outside entities massive databases of individuals exist. The census department, the passport and immigration office, and especially the Department of Homeland Security do. Then you can add Big Tech entities with their names and address registers. And each state is not privy to all of this data, placing them at a significant disadvantage. This means voter roll entries are like slots into which cast ballots and mail-in ballots can be inserted by external actors, knowing full well that actual voters will not make those votes.
Who’s Registering the Voters?
There are several government and NGO-backed initiatives that are aggressively implementing voter enrollment programs today. Right now, quietly and behind the scenes, over 8 million voters are being registered through this online software available to NGOs. This immediately begs the question, how do we know these entries are being vetted to ensure they are real citizens entitled to vote in those jurisdictions? Add to this the White House issued a March 7th Executive Order to facilitate 3.5 million voter registrations annually through government facilitated channels. In both cases the actual thrust of these initiatives are going to be in demographics that are likely voters supporting the government. The states themselves have already recognized the challenges these registration efforts present.
Another piece in the puzzle is the delivery of mail-in ballots. The role of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is key here, and already the White House created and gave $100M in funding to a task-force focused on ballot delivery. The USPS board oversees this Election Mail Committee (EMC) and again partisan appointees can be seen there. This ensures voter engagement through bulk delivery of ballots to and from activist NGOs engaging in ballot harvesting. The public has implicit trust in the USPS, however a recent audit review puts dents in that perception.
Given all of this, how can we go about effectively conducting election forensics for the 2024 elections?
There have to be three avenues:
- Crosschecking that cast votes correlate to actual voter records in the voter rolls and poll books entries.
- Verifying those voters to ensure they are actual real people who are entitled to vote.
- Those people actual did vote themselves and that some third party did not cast a ballot for them, unbeknownst to that voter.
To implement this through election forensics requires a set of secure steps. Absolutely critical is obtaining and securing the poll book devices, their databases and their chain of custody. Of course elections boards are already keenly aware of that, and therefore obtaining legal access to those database records is not made easy. What should be automatic publicly accessible records are the exact opposite. That said, once you have the poll book records, what does this enable forensically?
First step is to ensure that the total number of cast ballots tallied matches the number of voter entries in the poll books. This can be on a district-by-district basis, statewide, or both. Next, examining when those poll book entries were made. Mail-in ballots likely will be bulk entered after the close of in-person polling. Again checking that the tally of ballots matches those voter entries. From there the focus moves to the electoral rolls themselves and what has been loaded into the poll books from them.
Absent poll book devices, of course, elections are using paper print outs of voter rolls by voting district. Those print outs provide a similar forensic trail, less easy to process.
Ensuring the Integrity of the Data
Returning to the voter rolls themselves, we already documented how entries can be crosschecked against data sources that the states themselves manage. Of course the government would like to set in concrete the voter entries they are providing, as can be seen from this proposed change tracking scheme using blockchain technology.
From the digital forensic standpoint, we need to understand the changes that have been made to the voter rolls. One step is to compare the 2023 voter rolls to the 2024 rolls. Alternatively, simply looking digitally at the entry dates in the database can return that subset. Now we can compare the voter records from the poll books with those new voters to see who voted, and whether they voted by mail or in-person. Now depending on the voter roll database it may be possible to see voters who have never voted previously (32 states track this). This would be an additional subset to crosscheck.
Stepping up a level at this point to the actual election results. What was the margin of victory for the winning candidate(s)? Interestingly a margin of 1% to 5% is sub-optimal. In a large number of states that will trigger an audit requirement. The message therefore is cheat big or not at all. Let’s assume the margin is 8% to 10% to be plausible enough. That total of excess votes is now the challenge level. Courts will not entertain any consideration where the level of suspect votes is below that threshold to change the election outcomes. Famously, we have the “find me 11,000 votes” election. Implied here is finding 11,000 votes that are erroneous voters, or manipulated ballots where the ballots counted involved malfeasance.
Next, are the scanned mail-in ballots truly indistinguishable from cast ballots? The answer is almost certainly no. There are ways to determine one from the other both physically and digitally. Co-mingling of ballots for tallying purposes is an attempt to mask that. This is done intentionally to protect voter privacy, but can be exploited to obfuscate the source of the ballots. From a forensic stance understanding the mail-in ballot voting and if that substantially deviates from the percentage of vote choices of the in-person voting would lead one to question the validity of the mail-in ballot sources. Forensics of database entry tracking can be used, for example, to determine if ballots were cast before or after in-person voting closed. Comparing daily backups of databases with the latest version will elicit the changes made.
In-Person Voter Fraud Vigilance
Another factor is the in-person voting, especially when in-person voting is allowed over extended periods including 30 to 45 days. As we called out before, this opens up the potential for sophisticated ballot voting schemes involving casting tens of thousands of votes. What forensics can be applied now to shed light there? This does present unique challenges since in polling places cameras are excluded. However in some instances video recording in the locality is occurring, and of course cellular signal tracking. We can return to what the poll book entries are telling us about the mix of voters and particularly new voters. From there we can reference the voter rolls and then crosscheck those entries specifically. The approach here was detailed in our first article on ERIC database entries. Essentially states can use their own data sources to crosscheck entries. For example, property owner and tax receipt databases, or birth, death and marriage record databases. For other external entities states have online sources and the government also, such as the e-Verify database to verify citizenship status. The government does not have a centralized database available of all naturalizations by state. Nor is the US passport verification publicly available, but in any case the passport information would not be part of the current voter rolls.
Overall the picture for in-person voting forensics is significantly more difficult and certainly relies on vigilance of the poll workers manning those voting locations daily. In this regard we can see this article about the wave of criminal convictions – Voter Fraud – Still a Threat in 2024. This does highlight the role of persons on the ground. However what is described is localized threats. What we are seeing here is the potential for industrial scale voting fraud that has been facilitated by organizational actors with access to unlimited resources and data. Such actors can also take steps to hide what has been done, and of course fall back on plausible deniability.
Conclusions
We can say that there are methods and techniques given the correct access to voting data from an election that can allow enhancing the confidence of the election results. Some will be quicker and easier to implement. Certainly providing a quick level of feedback is paramount since timing is everything when challenging election outcomes. Ensuring access to data sources ahead of the election itself will be vital. For voter rolls that is already occurring. Secure poll book and paper voting entries however would likely involve new approvals and possibly legislation to facilitate. The Brennan Center has a report on 2023 and 2024 elections legislation, overall showing that security has been relaxed on elections. This hardly bodes well for outcomes in the pivotal elections upcoming in 2024.
I would like to acknowledge my research team who tirelessly find the invaluable links, insights and resources referenced from our articles.
For more, catch Restoration’s groundbreaking report: ERIC: The Best Data Money Can’t Buy
David Webber has over 20 years experience in engineering open public trusted elections systems, election standards and cyber security. With Oracle Corp as industry liaison for elections systems working with NIST, EAC, VVAP and all the major election systems vendors on standards development. Webber is the holder of two US patents for EDI and XML technologies cited by over 65 other patents. David co-authored the New Riders book: “ebXML: The New Global Standard for doing business on the internet” in 2001 and has sold over 20,000 copies since.
