I knew the moment that I compared voter turnout in CO and found that primary voter turnout from 2016 to 2020 increased by over 140% despite population increasing less than 5% that something was off. Now, I'm digging into all the connections, but it's a lot.
The more I dig, the more shit bothers me.
E.g.
- Colorado uses ARLO software from VotingWorks to conduct Risk-Limiting Audits (a statistical sample-based audit approach that is theoretically efficient and accurate, but as Yogi Berra said, "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is...")
- VotingWorks is a non-profit; I immediately don't fucking trust them, but they also were incubated by CDT(https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-democracy-and-technology/) and funded by Google, FB, Apple, MS, and Soros' Open Society Foundation (https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/voting-works/)
- In fact, VotingWorks "product manager for Risk-limiting Audits" is Monica Childers (https://www.linkedin.com/in/monicacranechilders/), who was the "Product Consultant - Colorado Risk-limiting Audit Software" while she worked for Democracy Works, which is ALSO funded by Soros' Open Society Foundations, the Democracy Fund, Omidyar's network, etc. (https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/democracy-works/)
- VotingWorks Partners with Security Compass to secure Risk-Limiting Audit Software Arlo (https://voting.works/news/2020/11/votingworks-partners-with-security-compass-to-secure-risk-limiting-audit-software-arlo/)
- A bunch of the Security Compass staff are Iranian graduates of the Sharif University of Technology in Tehran (https://www.linkedin.com/in/nima-dezhkam-88b499a/)(https://www.linkedin.com/in/ehsanforoughi/) with LI endorsements from other Sharif grads(https://www.linkedin.com/in/ali-s-27a991b/)
- VotingWorks also helped push vote-by-mail
- CO is a member of the (again...) non-profit Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), the board members of which is a who's who of this fucking cabal, e.g. CO's Director, Division of Elections, Colorado SecState, Judd Choate (https://www.linkedin.com/in/judd-choate-068877a/), who's endorsed by Brian Hancock (https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-hancock-29899148/) "Director, Infrastructure Policy and Product Development at Unisyn Voting Solutions," formerly member of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), and one of the shills that signed off on the statement that this was "the most secure election in U.S. history"
- ERIC requires that member states provide "records from the state licensing/identification agency (typically, this is the state motor vehicle agency) for all residents with active records---not just registered voters" every 60 days; I think this is where they are getting the fodder for high-tech ballot stuffing/vote padding since this provides them lists of names/addresses, without restricting them to registered voters - if they have enough states, they also know who moved, but that doesn't keep them from using those names in the states the individuals left (https://ericstates.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ERIC-Membership-Summary-v20190603.pdf)
- BallotTrax (https://ballottrax.com/), a subsidiary of i3logix(https://i3logix.com/), also in Colorado (and also, curiously, listed as a "printing" company(), tracks the ballots that are printed, mailed, and received (and where they're received, based on USPS data - which would also, BTW, include optical scans of the exterior of mailed ballots, which means it includes optical scans of the fucking signatures) and when you combine that with, e.g. Runbeck (https://runbeck.net/) which also has an office (industrial space) in Colorado, and which uses the states' database and provides all the printed ballot/envelope data/images back to the states/their designated contractors, and which provides a "print on demand" system, Sentio (https://runbeck.net/election-solutions/ballot-printing-on-demand/sentio-on-demand-ballot-printing-system/), we're seeing the unassembled pieces of a puzzle
- I'm just getting started digging into Pro V&V, in Huntsville, that supposedly certifies the voting systems (and SLI Compliance, in Colorado, that does the same, with only two of 13 employees on LI even showing that they studied computer science) - again, endorsed by fucking Hancock, and owned by Gaming Labs International (GLI, LLC), which has its Colorado headquarters at the same street address as SLI)
All of these companies' employees, BTW, donate almost exclusively to ActBlue, Biden, Warren, etc, though some hide it (e.g. Monica Childers donated and the FEC log says she said she was unemployed, but her LI profile said she was employed by Democracy Works in that same timeframe).
Anyway, could use some help.
With a bunch of leftists running everything, it looks like they could easily have a sophisticated vote fraud operation that there would be no reason to suspect because they've mastered it.
But I don't think you could find proof unless you had access to their systems, and even then, they probably cover their tracks. Only an audit that compares electronic records of votes to physical ballots would turn something up, and there's no grounds for that.
So what kind of help do you need?
Thanks for asking; one of the things bothering me: "The RLA is efficient because of its insight that we do not need to manually recount every vote to gain certainty in the outcome of an election. Instead, the number of votes we need to manually count depends on the margin of victory in the contest we’re auditing. A typical state-wide RLA might require checking fewer than 1000 ballots to validate an entire state’s election results."
I.e., the more you pad the vote (if you have the ability, either through old-fashioned ballot-stuffing, or ineligible/fake voters (illegals, moved out of state, never were here), or ballot printing (Runbeck literally provides machines that will mark ballots "received from evotes" as if they were hand-marked, so the resulting printed, marked ballot can then be run through an optical scanner as if an eligible voter marked it themselves), or just literally making up votes (either in tabulation, or in the transfer as is speculated w/Dominion and the remote data servers), the FEWER ballots you check.
My guess is that the Arlo code has been manipulated to support the claim of valid audits, but that the audits do not, in fact satisfy the principles of Lindeman and Stark's (et al) theory and criteria.
Here's the principle/theory: https://risklimitingaudits.org/resources/ Here's the code for Arlo: https://github.com/votingworks/arlo And here's an example of where they made a change to the code, which looks to me like they are defying the statistical principle just so they don't have to conduct a large sample audit in a close election): https://github.com/votingworks/arlo/pull/884
It's been a long time since I wrote any code, and it wasn't any of these languages (Python, Java, HTML, etc); I'm slow wading through it and not sure I'll recognize the weird parts.
A quick read through https://github.com/votingworks/arlo/pull/884 and it looks believable that it does what it says it does. Which wouldn't violate the principle because it says: if the race is close enough to require big random sampling then that just adds overhead and complexity to an already large task, so just do a full audit (check every ballot as opposed to a random sample of some magnitude). To trigger a full audit under any criteria can't subvert any risk-limiting/sampling strategy.
They could have hid some hack or backdoor in this; I didn't see anything particularly fishy but depending on the complexity of the rest of the codebase it could be trivial to hide certain things. Not some complicated vote switching algorithm, but something that maybe subverts/skips important logic elsewhere. Very difficult to say.
The problem is that this PR was 18 days ago. Did CO actually use it though? Are these changes being deployed "live" to "production" or is CO using a stable release that was assembled months ago and was audited/vetted and approved by the legislature. These questions could be important from a legal standpoint even if there isn't anything fucky in the code.
This bothers me a bit-- on a PR 4 days ago. Why are they working so hard right after a big election? Seems more like a time to take a bit of a break if you're in this business. OR at least not be implementing wild new features or optimizations. Again not clear if any of these changes are being deployed to CO. But I would expect if a team like this were pushing their "stamina" to the limits in the days after an election, it could only be to help them do further QA in the event their software was called under additional scrutiny.
https://github.com/votingworks/arlo/pull/868#issuecomment-733372472
Wow, this is unbelievable. I googled the name of the code pusher. Jonah Kagan. Software Engineer for the software and living in SF. Right away this tipped me off that he’s a leftie. However I didn’t want to judge a book by its cover. Find out, he’s a socialist/communist activist.
https://medium.com/@jonahkagan/my-political-awakening-25ed285120b
This is the all mighty controlling the code which determines the elections? Give me a break.
I recommend the entire read. It’s a tough one, but here is a excerpt to let you know what this guy is.
“From The Divide, I learned that the United States is an imperialist power that has been sucking resources from the Global South to fund our “developed” way of life. That the “aid” we give to “developing” countries is just a pittance in comparison to the amount of wealth that we (and the rest of the Global North) extract. And that our economic practices are leading the world towards climate collapse. So I joined Sunrise Movement, a youth-led movement for climate justice, to use my power as a US citizen to try to stop our extractive practices. From Assata: An Autobiography, An Indigenous People’s History of The United States, Towards Collective Liberation, White Fragility, and honestly pretty much everything I read, I learned that racism has been used systematically throughout history to prevent a unified uprising of the masses against the ruling elite. I investigated my lineage, and learned that my ancestors were themselves fleeing racial oppression in Russia when they migrated to this country. Once here, they assimilated and became white in order to make a life for themselves. My wealth and security are a product of this whiteness, and are maintained by it. So I committed myself to learning and practicing anti-racism, and took an internship at Catalyst Project, a collective that builds the leadership of white people to take part in anti-racist organizing.”
It reads like a tragedy. At the beginning he has a good career and has extra money and feels this emptiness. Exactly at this point he should have had a family, so his extra money went to something, and joined local organizations or a church so he could donate to people in his immediate surroundings.
Instead he got indoctrinated into a cult and convinced to give all his money to distant nebulous organizations, in exchange for selling him propaganda telling him that it's more important that he not take on the responsibility of starting a family and tending to his local community and continuing to live a life of confused hedonism and approval-seeking.
I'm afraid we're not going to be able to articulate or get people to understand what is so wrong with having software or tech involved in elections. The people working on this codebase would never hire a conservative. It'd be the analogous thing for having observers from both parties. Not to mention even if its open source it just obscures what is happening, hides it in a black box that isn't possible for the average American citizen to vet. You can't even video tape it doing some fraudulent action; it takes skilled forensics people to untangle what has happened, assuming the digital traces haven't been wiped
How does one "become white"?
Totally brainwashed zombie! Holy shiat. I don’t doubt for one second that he’d do his worst to throw the election!!
Sounds like an offshoot of Noel Ignatiev's "How the Irish Became White." Ignatiev was a hard left professor, and he died last year. I was as happy as I was the day they killed OBL.
If anyone ever believes that the American way of life is supported by extracting wealth from the poor, ask how our way of life was so good in the 20s-the 60s when the country was 95% white and our foreign trade amounted to less than 5% of the economy.
I think you nailed it with why they are working overtime like crazy. They know we are coming for them and they are assembling their theatrical security song and dance performance.
Sounds like a satanist ritual to cover their tracks. But I think you are right. I am coming from software development myself and this is just crazy. He is a slimeball.
Do they audit the rejected votes?
That shit is horrifying. A recount should require every ballot be counted again.
...and you know... why aren't we doing counts two or three times anyway? This one-and-done shit clearly doesn't work.
The "random" seed looks like it can only ever be read from file.
This means the "random" sequence of numbers generated will always follow a predefined pattern when the software is run.
This means the selected ballots will follow a predefined pattern.
If the program can be run on the real ballots beforehand for "testing" purposes to secretly find the cleanest seed (which should be easy if they are only checking 1000)...
...a seed can be selected that only finds valid ballots, or statistically insignificant invalid ones.
A proper system, would generate the seed using the POSIX time the sofware was run, and write the seed to a log file for later analysis.
We don't know where they get their seed from.
TLDR: The code may be fine, the settings file used may be the problem.
The code is not fine if it doesn’t produce its own random seed in a transparent fashion. Can you link to where it loads the seed?
Its not clear where is gets the real (not test) seed enters the system. but you can search for "random_seed" and "randomSeed"
There may be an option on an admin webpage that can send the Flask server new settings through "election_settings.py" Line 78.
https://github.com/votingworks/arlo/blob/51a46eecc827a40d08759555f0c9e3454daa9389/server/api/election_settings.py
So I would guess it is specified by hand (interactively) when the audit to run is sent to the server.
I'll be honest I'm a bit of a novice in web dev and python, still trying to land my first job in it, so I won't be much help coding wise. I wanted to say on a side note though reach out to republican county officials in Jefferson, Boulder, Adams, and Montrose counties. https://thedonald.win/p/11QS2woBLW/3-more-colorado-counties-do-not-/c/ they're last I heard holding off on certifying the results because of the use of Dominion software, so maybe they have something you can help on with what you have been finding.
Python, java, and HTML aren't hard, but i don't know if I'd be able to spot anything anomalous. Which repo would you prioritize?
There should not be voting software. The only hardware you need is humans paper and pens.
This. And video equipment to record the tabulations. Put each tabulation on the Internet. One precinct actually does this. In 2012, Ron Paul won the precinct. Go figure.
Exactly, weather you go open source or hide the code, there is a catch 22 for both.
Paper and pens is best. Weigh the votes before the count and after. Vote in equals votes out, and it's easy to measure with accuracy votes per pound. And casino style cameras. And bar codes, watermarks. Treat that shit like money.
This is the way. Add some heavy handed dual party observation protocols. Video/stream everything. Everyone signs off at stages that their rights were upheld
Agreed. Except maybe blockchain.
Even blockchain doesn't help if the system is originating the entry. That just cements it in the chain. Changing it later becomes difficult, depending on who/how peers are controlled.
It could help, but would need a complete change on how a ballot is scanned and tabulated - once a scan is in between the intent and the count, control over them matching is removed.
This sounds good, but based on my experience w/DoD: no. Hell no.
I actually recommend a system where we begin w/paper ballots, in-person for anyone who isn't active/on-orders military out-of-state or handicapped, and multiple, discrete optical scan/tabulation systems (1 state-owned, 1 by each major political party, etc), and mandatory full hand-recount/audit if their vote totals differ by more than X percent (I'm thinking .1).
We never used computers.....250 million population....had votes counted and tallied in time for the 11pm news.
Every vote tied to the signatures of several people who would go to jail if the tally was wrong.
I support this suggestion. I'm from Colorado as well. How do we rid ourselves of what seems to be, an infestation?
All this Soros money going into more local races feels like it's putting states into their own constitutional crises.
I would love to discover some illegitimate offices that are only there because of fuckery, and roll back everything.
But, I wasn't sure where to start. Thank you for taking the initiative and kicking ass with this research.
It baffles me how the utilization of multiple cross checks by interested parties is considered a radical solution.
It would barely cost 2% of what was spent on ads for this last election.
Hell, for the GOP they could pay the whole cost out of their ad budget and it would be the best dollar to vote ratio they would ever have.
This! Open source software means the original code is published and can be audited by anyone. This should be public domain code, published online, not obfuscated in any way, and there should be some system in place to correct it should anyone discover a flaw. This is usually the nature of open source software.
The counter argument, (that I do not really agree with) is that publishing the code could make it less secure should someone find a flaw and hide it for themselves. Really, if it is public then both the good guys and the bad guys will have the same access, and we can probably trust that there are enough clever good guys who will share any flaws. Keeping it closed source only allows secrets to prevail.
A bigger problem is, how do you know the source that you have is actually running on the machines?
Exactly!
The same for the HW. How do you know the hardware is the same as in the published schematics? Randomly taking machines apart?
You can hash the software and check if the right one is running on the machine. But if the machine is compromised it could provide a fake hash. Or it can be changed after you checked it, or changed back before you check it.
Pretty good question, mate. This plot runs too deep. I would never trust software engineers who primarily come from a Green-Card background - known to hate things like accountability - to design voting software for the most important elections in the entire world.
Theoretically it's a sound practice, but in the real world, there are just too many things to account for when you are dealing with the real world. Somthing as simple as social engineering can make somthing that seemed bulletproof in code swing wide open in practice. Even if you could make an "unhackable" software, there will always be some odd angle for an exploit.
I actually agree with you completely about the real world, and how it is very hard to account for everything. But, I think this is only more reason to make it open source. Making it open shines light on it and allows those who understand the real world to help audit and correct it. Keeping the source closed puts it in the hands of a few elite developers who can write their "bullet proof" code, which will likely fail to some attack in the real world.
thats good and all but how do you know the machines are running THAT exact untampered code at compile time?
One person has to find an exploit like one of these retarded samples... Meltdown Spectre etc. Then sell it to an activist group. To explain for normies, machines do their job very efficiently and can interconnect with more machines than you can imagine in your brain. Why have out of everything in the entire fucking world but the elections of the united states be held in prison by inhumane machines that cannot be traced because humans you cannot trust operate them?
The problem is that we can never know if the open source software which is shown to the world is actually running on those machines on Election Day.
Take the machines out of the equation, but that probably means running the code locally on each user's computer.
This is part of why Bitcoin is secure. Evert full node on the network independently verifies every transaction. If one node broadcasts a transaction (vote) that doesn't pass scrutiny, that node gets blacklisted by the network.
From what I know checksum authentication is impossible to deceive outside of some theoretical methods.
Just replace the machine and put a stub that reports the correct checksum. Huh.
Won't fix everything. Hardware, infrastructure, databases... Data can be changed in transfer, at rest, and so on.
But can you assure the right software is running? Or that it is unhackable?
Look at the Biden votes vs downballot Dems (House). And then also Dem Senate vs downballot Dems (House). You will see big mismatch compared to Trump vs Repub downballot ( House)
Those are all the stolen votes. In some cases you will see “missing” Trump votes as well where Trump gets less votes than Repub House. These are likely “deleted” Trump votes.
Hand audit of your most Republican county will show the most obvious vote theft. Or compare registered Republicans in county vs actual Trump votes. Ratio of Trump vote/Registered Repub will be waaaaay below 1.0
The Media need to ask everyone who voted to check their vote online but they would never do it.
When looking if you’ve voted online though, it will only say that you indeed did vote, not for who the vote was for. (At least one Colorado, I’ve never lived anywhere else)
But how many times? and where? and when? and who?
Voting would make a trail is what i mean, even digital.. if u look up and it says u didnt but you did... they binned your vote
I live in Colorado. The online confirmation system confirms that I voted, but does not confirm who I voted for.
Yeah, look it up now; ballottrax still reflects that my ballot was sent, and that I voted in person (not sure why the fuck THEY need to know that I voted in person...), but the Secretary of State site no longer shows the 2020 ballot status data.
that raises red flags man innit
Yes! People just need to check.
general public wouldn't even think to
Implementing one part at a time over multiple promise and elections would be the most stealthy.
There’s no way this is their first election fraud rodeo.
SCOTUS, if you could make a ruling that mandates these audits in all states, that'd be great thx