Thank you! Everyone is pushing for decertification, but the state legislatures themselves have to move towards it, and none are interested in that right now.

I’m intending to collect together a bunch of things, along with the transformation/denormalization scripts and put them on my GitHub.

It’s a lot of ifs. Actual hacking involves root accesses, co-opting api calls or processes for unintended actions, or disabling devices. None of those things occurred here, so as far as I’m concerned, is not hacking.

While I love that people are looking into this sort of thing, it’s just not our path. We’re only looking for actual evidence of fraud in vote data that doesn’t require subpoena, etc. in order to prove. To that end, voter registration analysis is a completely dead path legally, as the courts have made clear with their dismissing of cases centered around that (regardless of the lawlessness of the judges).

The only way to convince a lot of holdouts is to give them hard data that they can’t refute, and that points to an absolute fraud occurring.

Re-read what you just put. The validating of identification is falling upon the election worker. The poll pad is basically allowing for database search of voter records, and updates to those voter records.

Our intention exactly. The raw data charted out would only impress about 1% of the potential viewers, but 0% of the intended audience (legislators). You have to make the connections very apparent if you intend to broadcast things to legislators.

Thanks!

If you intended to make a poll pad device, would you not work on implementing one that integrates into the processes of all the current major players in the voting space? Being listed as a subcontractor happens when the contract "prime" doesn't have the expertise/technology/etc. to fulfill a part of that contract, and so they bring in another company's resources in to fill that void. That's just the nature of the government contracting space -- nothing nefarious about that.

Their service has absolutely no functionality associated with validating addresses, rejecting voters, or anything of that nature. Again, it's more of a dumb terminal to the database stored at the secretary of state. When you mark someone as "checked in", it's basically so that you don't have people checking in multiple times. If someone "checked in" goes to vote again, they'd be given a provisional ballot, and would (typically) be physically called to verify that their later vote should replace the earlier vote.

Not necessarily. But when you combine the probability of multiple improbable events occurring all at the same time, that’s when you get to things being near impossible (we don’t really say impossible unless the chance is actually 0).

The answer to 1 and 2 is: Does it matter? All we can do is do the absolute most that we can to get everything out there and leave nothing on the table before the 6th. If, at the 6th, our efforts were fruitless, we'll at least know that we did everything possible to help save the country before the minecraft server boots up.

Thanks for doing your part in also analyzing the data. That's our goal -- get as many eyes on the data as possible so that we can be absolutely sure that the analysis can't be refuted. I'm working at getting the data and transformation scripts into my github, so it will be easier for you to work with.

The interesting thing about the data is that the batches align at similar intervals, but not exactly. We can think of the SCYTL data as the most accurate data, with the data aggregators (Edison in this case) batching those reports within certain time intervals as well. Do your analysis on the SCYTL data when we put that out, and let's see how it compares.

Just to be clear -- we're not using any decimal places, or any data that uses decimal places. If you're using that from the Edison data, you need to switch to the part of the json that has discrete numbers, and perform your analysis there.

As far as we've analyzed, there were different categories of fraud in the different swing states, because the states' systems are different. Arizona with the initial ballot drop, Georgia with the vote manipulation, Pennsylvania with a whole lot of things (which we'll release a video of soon).

The rumble videos are definitely getting traction from democrats: https://rumble.com/user/ElectionNightFacts

I know this, because my sister-in-law is a hardcore TDS democrat working for the secretary of state in Arizona, and she had seen the video and was railing against it (not knowing that it was me that was partially responsible).

Boxer briefs all the way.

We've only taken a look at the data of this last general election, and mostly just in the swing states. In order to know that, we'd have to analyze the data of the previous elections.

A manual recount doesn't mean what you think it means.

What a manual recount sounds like is that you take original ballots and verify them. What a manual recount in georgia terms means is that you print out the ballot images, and verify the totals of the ballot images.

As you might have heard us testify about, whenever a ballot is adjudicated, a completely new ballot image is created and no record is maintained of the previous ballot image. Therefore, a manual recount will always add up to about the same total of whatever the tabulated numbers are (derived from ballot images), because you're just counting the same ballot images manually.

The Edison dataset was only a starting point. The dataset we're using mainly is the SCYTL data, which is 1-for-1 the secretary of state's data.

What level of negative votes would be okay? Would it matter that votes go negative previously, even if a single instance of it points towards a systems issue?

You would think so, but there are places in the topography before that which are just as vulnerable.

For instance, the dominion SQL database that runs a cron job adding up reports uploaded to it via FTP. All of the systems downstream of that just trust that data 100%.

Many more before us gave up so much more for so much less principle-wise. It's a true battle for western civilization at this point.

I've already taken off that entire week and have a room booked. See you there, fellow patriot.

You're only looking at a part of the dataset, and that's not the part we use. We're using the part with discrete numbers, as most of the fractional voting analysis leads you down bad paths data-wise.

That being said, the SCYTL data source doesn't suffer from any of that -- it's completely pristine, because there's no difference between it and the secretary of state data -- it's the same data.

We've already applied them to all the swings states, and what we see is there's sort of "different fraud" depending on the state, because each state's voting systems and configurations are so dissimilar.

That being said, I'd also like to expand into non-swing states once we pass our deadline of the 6th.

I will say this about Bobby -- I spoke with him on a call a couple days ago and he's an absolute patriot and a very sweet guy.

That being said, the data approach he's taking isn't a convincing one from the perspective of having to convince legislators to jump over a cliff politically. I think the only way we can do that is to pressure them with discrete, irrefutable datapoints that give them no corner to back into.

Thanks for doing an analysis! Can you please put it on something not google drive so I can take a look at it? It's not loading for me.

I've seen the XML output of these, and no, they're whole discrete numbers (integers).

Most of the fractional stuff was because of the dataset being operated on (aspects of the NYT JSON feed), which we counter by using the SCYTL dataset that has the real vote totals (which still match with the discrete parts of the NYT JSON feed).

While that's true, if the real person shows up later, they'd be given a provisional ballot and then go through the ballot cancellation process, so as far as I'm concerned it's a bit of a moot point that doesn't have a widespread systemic effect that centralizing the voting system does, as it does in Georgia. Since data is transferred and centralized in Georgia in a lot of ways that it is not in other states, you have an avenue for exploitation where you'd only need one confederate vs. multiple confederates operating.