Video courtesy of TheRealNews
After extensive research and fact checking, elections expert Bev Harris has written a series of articles on BlackBoxVoting.org revealing a racist, class oriented U.S. voting system that has nothing to do with popular consent of the governed.
Vote-by-mail ballots are identified with each person who voted and assigned a weighted average that could be determined by individual data such as race, income, political leanings or whatever those who program the voting machines decide.
Like the slaves before the emancipation, people of African descent could easily be assigned, for example, 60% so that their vote is not a single vote, but 60% of one.
Harris spoke at a meeting of top election integrity advocates discussing the current state of U.S. elections and the various options to help make elections transparent and verifiable.
The forum, held on May 29th, 2016, was moderated by Mimi Kennedy and included Bev Harris, Greg Palast, Harvey Wasserman, Bob Fitrakis and John Brakey.
Video courtesy of bzdug
One consistent, unsettling outcome among recent state Democratic primaries is the vote-by-mail or absentee ballots that favor Hillary Clinton by 3 to 1. Absentee or vote-by-mail ballots (often referred to as early voting) have been difficult to monitor and are conducive to ballot harvesting or ballot stuffing. Elections researcher John Brakey of AUDIT AZ has compiled data he had requested from key voting precincts in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and Massachusetts. All of these states show roughly the same early ballots ratio of 3 to 1 in favor of candidate Hillary Clinton over rival Bernie Sanders, who even won Michigan despite this advantage.
Wrestling with transparent outcomes of early vote totals has been a specialty for John Brakey along with colleagues Mickey Duniho, a former NSA security analyst, and Jim March of Blackbox Voting. In their stomping grounds, Pima County, Arizona, March and Duniho were members of Pima County Elections Integrity Commission. Through many meetings in 2012, they had deliberated for hours over the importance of separating early ballots by precinct to help with detecting anomalies or fraud. They were successful in convincing a board majority that it’s far more difficult to stuff ballots if the early votes were physically separated by precinct prior to their customary hand count audit and the Secretary of State had implemented this practice of presorting statewide.
This vulnerability (or opportunity to cheat) was so important to Pima County that it circumvented its own Election Integrity Commission to get a waiver from the Secretary of State’s office allowing Pima County to forego this safeguard. Let’s face it, absentee ballots or vote by mail ballots have become a hindrance to election transparency advocates and a boon to those who game the system.
Brakey is more conservative with his observations as he’s attributed Hillary’s huge gain in vote-by-mail outcomes to some combo of the following:
1. The Clinton campaign could have a better ground game on getting the early vote through the Democratic party machine in urban centers.
2. The absentee/early votes are tabulated on central count scanners and the ballots are only sorted inside the tabulator and, like Arizona, steal votes where it is easiest to steal with impunity.
3. Ballot stuffing of absentee ballots. An excellent summary of this problem was provided by Jim March and Jill Simpson in a 2012 in an article entitled, “Karl Rove’s Electronic Empire of Fraud“.
Here is an interview with Jim March about the potential for ballot stuffing and the vendors involved:
John Brakey, the researcher who compiled the absentee info, has alerted us about clandestine vendors in Arizona and the Northeast, pursued justice in Pima County’s RTA election fraud in 2006 and caught Pima County attempting to rig another bond election in 2015. According to Brakey:
I’ve been working with vote-by-mail since 2004 and watching closely this dangerous trend heading east. Most Urban centers are using high-speed counters that can count 7000 ballots per hour and they only sort them inside the central election tabulator as electrons.
Usually, when these numbers are aggregated together, they mirror the precincts voting results. In this case the numbers do not match. That tells me that something is wrong.
Like the disparity between machine counted ballots and hand counted ballots, this anomaly by itself doesn’t prove actual fraud, but it does warrant hand counted audits of early ballots separated by precinct, especially when exit polls, which include early ballots, indicate that Bernie Sanders should have won Massachusetts.
Video courtesy of FinanceAndLiberty.com
From sister site, electionnightmares.com.
Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results, may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines. 68 out of the state’s 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %.
Election integrity activists John Brakey and Jim March investigated Scott Brown’s upset victory over Martha Coakley to replace Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in 2010. They found a similar difference between hand counted paper ballots and those jurisdictions using machine tabulators. At that time, 71 out of 351 voting districts were using hand counted ballots and they favored Coakley over Brown by 4.44% despite Brown’s declared victory throughout the state by 5%.
Brakey and March discovered that election officials tend to have an unsettling reliance on election vendors. In fact, when one election official in Boston was asked if it was possible to examine their database files (called mdb, which is short for Microsoft data base files), that official then asked, “What are mdb files?” Those that understand the process know that mdb files are an integral part of the tabulation process that should be overseen by the election officials. March and Brakey were told by this election official that “the vendors handle that stuff” (I was with them during this exchange). Another common statement repeated by officials in Diebold precincts was: “We don’t have Diebold here, we have AccuVote”. They simply don’t know that Diebold’s optical scanners are called “AccuVote”. In addition, LHS, the company that represents Diebold, actually have their vendors’ technicians loading the memory cards prior to tabulating the results.
Why are hand counted jurisdictions so far out of step with the rest of the State of Massachusetts? The smaller precincts appear to be from more rural, less densely populated areas of the state. As Jonathon Simon, a Massachusetts resident and author of the book “Code Red”, suggests:
The Clinton/Sanders numbers in MA are obviously egregious, a much greater Opscan/Handcount disparity than the 8% in Coakley/Brown. The problem is that for Coakley/Brown we had some very good baselines (prior noncompetitive Senate contests and a prior noncompetitive Coakley race for AG, as well as Registration by Party). I’m not aware of any baselines for Clinton/Sanders, so we face the problem of demonstrating that those crazy rural (and whiter) Democrats in MA didn’t just “feel the Bern.” It is not particularly intuitive that Handcountville went legitimately so much stronger for Bernie, but we all know where “intuitive” conclusions get us with media/pols/public!
What would be powerful … would be the selection of a few suspect precincts for full hand-count to compare with the Dominion numbers.
From the chart below, you can see that Dominion jurisdictions favored Clinton over Sanders by 5%. As more people are becoming aware of the potential for rigging in electronic voting technology, they are speaking out publicly and addressing campaigns by urging them to scrutinize election results. Beth Clarkson, a well know statistician in Kansas, has discovered from graphs of Oklahoma primary results that “as the number of votes cast in a precinct increases, so does the vote share for the candidate favored by the Washington establishment.” She believes this pattern is “consistent with election rigging” and she has written an open letter to warn Bernie Sanders. Other Sanders fans seem attuned to election fraud and began circulating petitions demanding an audit of the Iowa Caucus, which prematurely declared Clinton as the victor in that states caucus vote.
Regardless of who your prize candidate may be, it’s time to get on your hind legs and demand verifiable transparent elections, especially if your candidate is not the establishment’s choice.
Chart constructed by John Brakey.
Video courtesy of Raw Story
Video courtesy of #FilmTheCaucus
Video courtesy of Washington Free Beacon
Video couresy of Empire Files