Summary of the Maricopa County audit so far

They(commies) have had custody of and over five months to replace the fraudulent ballots they used for the coup with good fraudulent ballots. I believe if this audit was done sometime in November the fraud would have been staggering. Short of asking each voter if they actually made the votes on the ballots being audited, finding those hastily made fake ballots now, I believe, is wishful thinking. Didn’t the head of elections in Maricopa co. Have a huge evidence burn, I mean barn fire about a month ago?

arrest, try and sentence to dxxxxkth bidens, soros, harris, waters, pelosi, schumer and and and

To stuff a ballot box requires some slight-of-hand that must be performed swiftly, at the last minute. Make it much more difficult to execute the slight-of-hand on short notice, the more obvious the fraudulent effort.

I wonder if our clever forensics experts can design methods which will make it manifestly evident when widespread fraud is present; such as, the check for a fold in an absentee ballot.

We really don’t want to create a means for tying an individual voter to an individual ballot.

Nevertheless, we ought to be able to tie each ballot to a ballot-BOX. And, to the provenance as to the chain-of-custody.

When an in-person voter is handed a ballot that ballot should be stamped with the identity of the election judges who checked the voter’s signature, voter ID, etc. And, the box that ballot is destined to be deposited in. Then, after the election, we can tie-out the ballots to the box and the election judges and their voter records. Any ballot box stuffing could then be tied-down to those handling this box and its voters.

For a “drop-box” we can record the box and the signatures of the judges that sealed the box and those who broke the seals. Envelopes going in get stamped with the box’s identity; ballots removed from those envelopes get stamped with the box’s identity. Likewise the judges who check the signatures on the envelopes from that box.

The check for a fold is a good idea. I wonder if the technology is such that it can sense a lack of randomness in the folds. An individual voter will not fold the ballot at precisely the same point as other ballots. A folding machine will manifest consistency in the fold point.

If this is a difficulty, perhaps a method could be mandated to ensure randomness. To illustrate. Suppose the size of the paper and envelope were such that one couldn’t fold in 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 page lengths. The voter could be instructed to roll the ballot into a tube about 2″ in diameter; then flatten the tube and insert it into the ballot. That will ensure random folds that are not reproducible by machine. (There is probably a better idea still.)

For in-person voting there is an opportunity to resolve a signature mis-match. Not so for mail-in ballots. It’s difficult to reverse the pressures favoring mail-in ballots. So, it’s important to secure the signature matching process.

We are probably able to use AI analysis of signature images to ascertain a match at a plausible level of confidence. Legislatures can set a standard; say 91.23% confidence that the signatures match. AI software can’t infer the political preferences of signatures; so, a systematic solution would be unbiased. If a ballot-envelope’s signature doesn’t match the voter-roll’s signature then the ballot get’s excluded. No subjective over-rides by biased judges who know which ballot-boxes have been targeted with fraud.

The excluded ballots then get subjected to analysis. Is there evidence of bias? Suppose nearly all the votes excluded are for Pink-Party candidates; very few for Purple-Party candidates. Any other patterns? That would be evidence of unsuccessful attempts at fraud; perhaps on massive scale.

Let’s suppose, for illustration, that Pink-Party candidates are all of some ethnic group. Perhaps, Asian voters who are accustomed to writing in character sets and scrips very different from Latin-based language groups. Very well, this will become evident from the analysis of the excluded ballots. The AI algorithms can be adjusted to compensate. However, were this to be the case then analysts should discover that Chinese vs. Japanese (etc.) exhibit distinctive discrepancy patterns. What if they were to discover that both “Chinese” and “Japanese” voters’ signature mismatches bear a greater resemblance to Cyrillic language writers. We might reach a different conclusion.

Paper ballots, both in-person and mailed, should be printed on paper with a distinctive water-mark. Different water-marks for ballots to be used at the polls, another for mail-in ballots. A genuine water-mark (not a pseudo-water-mark) can only be applied to paper at the paper-mill. It would be prohibitively expensive for fraudsters to have ballots printed with genuine water-marks corresponding to each state’s designs. Only the Secretary of State and the paper-mill would know the design well in advance of the election. Distribution of paper stock to ballot printers could be controlled meticulously. Each polling place and mail-voter balloting center would have to account for it’s allocated stock. Ballots used and blank ballots left-over.

Measures, such as the foregoing, would weigh little on the voters, neither in-person nor mail-in. Opposition to such measures would come from interests invested in fraud.