Election Fraud Lies: The Duopoly Behind Election Fraud Claims
Virtually every election fraud claim you hear pertaining to electronic voting systems sources back to the same duopoly. Couching their "analysis" in pseudo-scientific but meaningless jargon, the Election Fraud Duopoly have worked tirelessly for decades to discredit American elections.
Unlike the good old days of dead voter's voting and same ballot counted multiple times, Andrew Appel and V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai make use of phony computer mumbo-jumbo and flawed statistical claims to scratch out their 15 minutes of infamy.
Andrew Appel (b. 1960) is a professor of Computer Science at Princeton University. His bugaboo boils down to "computers can be hacked, so election computers must have been hacked". He's an advocate of paper ballots, such as hand-marked paper ballots fed into optical scanners. He hates touchscreen voting machines.
The biggest problem with Appel's solution is that the United States doesn't have nationalized elections. The Constitution grants state legislatures the right to run elections for Senators and Representatives, although Congress also has power to make laws and alter regulations.
There are some 12,500 discrete election jurisdictions. About 80% use one of the "Big 3" voting system vendors: Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software, and Hart InterCivic. These 3 companies are fierce competitors, and it strains credulity to imagine they would work together to rig elections.
V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai (b. 1963) is described by Wikipedia as "an Indian-American scientist, engineer, politician, entrepreneur, and promoter of conspiracy theories and unfounded medical claims. He is notable for his widely disputed claim to be the 'inventor of email'". He has run twice as a Republican candidate for office in Massachusetts, including running against Elizabeth Warren in 2018. He received 3.4% of the vote.
His current claim is that hundreds of thousands of votes in Michigan were switched from Trump to Biden by a weighted voting algorithm that assigned fractional values to the presidential candidates. Trump was given a value less than 1.0 (e.g. 0.75 would change 1,000 votes to 750) while Biden was given a value larger than 1.0.
[EdG Note: See my essays debunking phony weighted voting claims: Election Fraud Lies: Fractional Voting Stole the 2020 Election and Election Fraud Lies: Pennsylvania's Dominion Voting Machines Cost Trump the Election.]
Weighted voting is used in many companies' shareholder meetings to weight the shares held by various shareholders. For example, preferred stock can be weighted more heavily than common stock. The State of Maine uses weighted voting for all election. It has been suggested that the United Nations adopt weighted voting in order to balance out the undue influence of the major powers. And progressives often push for ranked choice voting as part of their wish list.
Ayyadurai backs up his specious claim with a scatter plot allegedly showing how votes for Biden don't match a theoretical normal line.
Part of his proof is that there were numerous split ticket voters, i.e. people who vote one party for president but another party for the remainder of the ballot. Considering the amount of antipathy toward Trump by a large segment of Republicans, I don't find this argument persuasive.
So there you have it -- the two people at the root of Republican claims of election fraud.
[End note] It should be noted that Dominion Voting Systems machines are used in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and other states where, mysteriously, Joe Biden didn't win.
Other Election Fraud Lies Essays
Comments
On the "numerous split ticket" voters --
appears to me that there may have been less of this than usual. In ME, Collins again survived due to split ticket voters -- I thought she'd be out this time. Otherwise, states that Trump carried held onto their GOP Senate seats (even the stinky ones like Ernst and Tillis). There may have been some ticket splitting in CA CDs, but the two Democratic losses were in traditionally GOP CDs that only flipped in 2018, and Trump is generally more reviled in CA than in many other states. For example, Trump got 39.8% in Delaware and only 34.1% in CA.
Biden carried GA-6 with 51.8% and the five term GOP Rep lost. IA-1 the inc (since '19) D lost; not surprising since Trump ran strong in IA. In PA -- all the incumbents (9 D and 9 R) won.
Are you really trying to claim that a push for paper-ballots
is akin a to pseudo-science? There have been people on the left talking about the hackability of election machines and the need for a better voting system for decades. I have no clue who either of these two guys are, but the way this written makes it look like these ideas are now to be derided solely based on the fact the these two guys are pushing them.
This is why mail ballots are good
Its all on paper. Yes, it gets scanned but if anything needs to be checked you can go back to the ballots.
I'm about to get bogged down in the weeds here. As in "does it matter? Are votes counted in a meaningful way? Aren't we screwed no matter what?" so I'll just say the more partisan someone is often coincides with the shock value of the claim. For some the claim is the "proof".
The difference between Democrats and Republicans
The major difference between the parties is which set of oligarchs get enriched.
1960 Presidential Election
Conducted entirely on paper ballots. Republicans complained that Democratic cheating cost Nixon the election. Types of paper ballot fraud included dead voters voting, vote buying, paper ballots being counted multiple times, and more. Considering all that, why are paper ballots now considered the gold standard?
Lots of issues with Black Box voting systems for a long time now
and hardly limited to the people you are picking out to denigrate.
And you might at least try to correctly characterize what Dr. Shiva (as he is often referred to) and his colleagues presented, even if you think they are wrong. (another video which claims to debunk Ayadurrai and company can be found here)
What Shiva and team did was to (for four Michigan counties) was to look at the percentage variation plus or minus of people voting for Trump (or not) who voted on a candidate by candidate basis relative to those voting a straight (Republican) ticket in each precinct of the county.
The x-axis on their graph indicates the percentage of votes in a given precinct that were straight ticket Republican votes. Zero on the Y-axis represents a situation where the percentage of the individually voted percentage equals that of of (R) straight ticket votes.
For example, if there are 50 straight ticket votes and Trump gets 15 (30%) and he get 30 out of 100 individual (also 30%) Y-value is zero. Higher % of individual than straight and Y is positive, the reverse is negative.
What they claim the data for three counties shows is that in precincts with a low level of R straight ticket voting, Trump is in positive territory, apparently picking up D or I votes, *but* in a pattern that appears identical in three of the counties, as you go right on the X-axis to more heavily Republican precincts, Trump goes into negative territory, with increasing number of Republicans apparently voting for someone else.
A markedly different pattern shows for Wayne County (Detroit), but the other three are near identical. The researchers suggest this strongly suggests algorithm-driven vote flipping.
Do Shiva group's conclusions follow from their data? Anyone who bothers to take a serious look at it please weigh in:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztu5Y5obWPk&feature=emb_logo]
Deja vu all over again
The work (October 2012) here from a study of the 2012 Republican primary concludes that extensive vote flipping occurred there in at least 11 states, benefitting Romney at the expense of Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.
In those cases, the trigger seemed to be the size of the precinct - small ones were not manipulated, but above a certain size, votes were flipped from the disfavored candidate(s) to (in almost all cases) Romney.
For us Liberty Movement 2012 Ron Paul supporters seeing the Bernie takedown in 2016 brought out a strong sense of 'Been there, seen that'. The DNC must have been taking notes watching the Republican PTB throw Paul and his supporters under the bus.
A common sense explanation.
In heavily Republican precincts, i.e suburban and urban precincts, more Republican voters despise Trump and split their votes. In more rural Republican precincts, i.e. Trump's base, more Republican voters like Trump and didn't split their votes. It's not rocket science.
Summary: Moderate Republicans were less likely to vote for Trump.
Just consider
The "gubberment" requires software source code audits for "gubberment" systems, yet except elections systems. Gee, I wonder why?
I watched a video with Yanis Varoufakis, and I think what he say's about the EU economic ministers is accurate here in the US as well, "Voting should not change economic policy".
[video:https://youtu.be/gGeevtdp1WQ]
So whoever winds up in the White House, the fundamental economic policy of the US, will not change. That is the lesson the "left" needs to learn and how to fight against.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Of course.
Economic policy and military policy are constant regardless of who is president other than minor changes around the edges. Obama showed that by continuing almost all of Bush's policies.
Election systems aren't source code audited to avoid interference and tampering by the elected. It makes sense when you think about it. Vendors jealously guard their code, as they should.
But the point is...
The government requires mandatory source code audits for major system builds, except election systems. This bogus idea that their code is so proprietary that they can't allow an audit, is complete bovine droppings.
But even more to the point, for profit companies should not have control of our election systems, especially if they are unwilling engage in a source code audit. If the source code can't stand up under an audit or can't be audited, it should not be used at all.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
You misread my comment.
I said nothing about proprietary. I said the government shouldn't be allowed to audit election system software because elected government officials have a vested interest in the outcome of the code. It's a short step from audit to control of.
Well that was
certainly a quick, and HUGE leap.
Well, using your logic, what is to keep the executives of the software companies, who are buddies with elected officials and hang out at the same country clubs, from rigging their software for the elected officials? Especially if one can not audit source code of the software of the voting systems used?
We're just supposed to take it on faith the software is not "rigged" in any way what so ever?
Consider the lobbying by these vote system manufacturers who change names like a Chameleon changes colors.
I take it you have never been through a source code audit?
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
[Removed by EdG]