2
zmhr 2 points ago +2 / -0

This theory holds only if:

1. the total count of paper ballots is far less than the news number ; or

2. If there are a way to generate ballots, ballots belong to the same voter are found in the recount.

And these are very risky for them once full recount is conducted. Recounting on 2 counties have been done and didn't found significantly different number of ballots.
Your report specifies that almost all counties are involved: So #1 is false. But #2 is still possible.

One thing is for sure: the voter reg's "update November 2020 value" function is highly suppressed. The current count of "November 2020" <> '' proves it. The suppression will allow duplicate ballots.

Just among the absentee table, we found 18 successfully returned absentee ballots which are duplicates of the same VRN, most on different dates (so it's not a repeat-scan human error). 6 of them are counted as ‘Absentee' in voter reg table, other 12 have no value. Their VRNs are: 0012680570

0016679089

0017882435

0019662071

0031888073

0046613576

0046628617

0046639225

0704444980

0704851500

0709955790

0712874260

700656802

700870461

701213365

701300411

701329590

701329645

If these can be accepted, you can re-scan by mistake or intentionally. You can copy ballots and scan. There is no fair election. Again, #2 is still possible.

2
zmhr 2 points ago +2 / -0

Some states allow downloading dataset within 30 days. And some will update the dataset within the grace period. Is it possible you can still download thru the link and get a newer dataset? We got a major discovery in your Wisconsin dataset that might prove the fraud but need a newer dataset to catch them all.

1
zmhr 1 point ago +1 / -0

But the fact is, when one call in or click online to get mail-in ballot, one is activated. So when you have 2 million+ fake people waiting in the database, you have a base to win any election. The turnout rate is simply too high this time. In a few states that I have looked at, usually active+inactive < adult population. We have to think of a way to figure out these fake people...

Just checked 3 in milwaukee, looks like they are not in the statewide voter data, but Milwaukee has a totally different voter ID - alphabets. So weird, but I guess it doesn't matter.

Update after 8 hours (11/22 morning):

  1. The wisconsin does contain milwaukee (I was checking with a wrong state), so I guess we don't have to process milwaukee.

  2. Found duplicate entries in wisconsin dataset with different voter ID's. I'll explore...

2
zmhr 2 points ago +2 / -0

I also got 2,152,453. The difference is because there are a few thousands of ill-formed lines, so you will get different results with successful or unsuccessful parsers.

And the difference with 3,240,692? I believe it's duplicate ballots got scanned.

I also looked into the 5757 file. The file records fraud right there. It contains 2 million more voters (active+inactive) than wisconsin's age 18+ adults, with all unique voter id. And we know how easy inactive become active voters nowadays.

Important question: does this batch includes the Milwaukee data or not? If not, I need to process Milwaukee as well...

1
zmhr 1 point ago +1 / -0

Checked the data. The arizona "Voter Registration Datasets" is wrong as of 11/20. It turns out to be identical to Nevada's. Please remove it from your wiki. I mean this is indeed Nevada's dataset: https://wiki.audittheelection.com/index.php/Arizona_Voter_Registrations

8
zmhr 8 points ago +8 / -0

WE Need ARIZONA Voter Registration DATASET!!!

2
zmhr 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good stuff! I need these absentee data for all 50 states eventually. There are certain patterns for mailin fraud. Please share if someone knows if there is a bigger collection. That'll help me. But I will start with these.