© Original content written by James R. Carlson
The integrity of the vote in the 2020 Presidential Election has come under scrutiny as vote tabulation fraud has been introduced via mail in ballots. This claim has largely been anecdotal but not without merit. At some level a forensic review of the data and meta data relating to the tally of the vote is required to provide empirical evidence of wrong doing. Its time to prove these claims.
The various states in our Union of States have different procedures for collecting and counting the vote. The issue here is with counting. We should always remember to keep separate the record of the voter from the vote they cast. The secrecy of the vote is paramount. However, along with the tally of the vote cast comes a wealth of information (meta data) that is associated with the vote tally. This is where our forensic research can begin.
Take for example the number of people registered to vote vs those who actually voted. We should have data on the total number of votes cast in each precinct or Congressional District (CD) and the number of registered voters for each. The number of voters should always be less than those registered to vote so you would expect that the tally of the vote has a total number of votes counted to be less than those who can cast the votes. With in-person voting, this is easy to guard as those voting in person need to preregister and show a photo (not voter) ID to be able to vote in person; otherwise, they use a challenge or provisional ballot to cast their vote. The problem begins when mail in ballots circumvent the combination forms, etc., of in person voting polling places. Other safeguards have to be present. But we’ll not deal with that here.
So, with a State we can cover up the ‘over/under’ of any fraudulent tally where more votes were counted than those who are registered to vote. The county level is not as easy but can still cover for fraudulent ballot tabulations. It is as the precinct/CD level where it is almost impossible to commit the kind of fraud that adds to the total tally of the vote without exceeding the number of registered voters in that area. Here is where we can begin to discover fraud with a forensic search of the data.
So, say we have data from the Secretary of State’s office for a particular State and ask for the vote tally data and other meta data (.csv format please). If we were able to get this, then we can research which precincts/CDs have more votes counted than voters to cast the votes. And given this pool of information many questions may be asked. Where did the extra votes come from? The precinct/CD level, the substation or remote receiving station level, or the central receiving/counting level? It isn’t enough to say, hey, we have too many ballots cast. We need to conduct our forensic research to the extent that we find what was done and by whom.
Now we can shift gears and look at the actual tally of the vote itself. There is always a specific machine that actually counted (tallied) the votes. The paper ballots were read by these machines and entered into the final vote tally electronically. Each machine should have a unique ID to distinguish it from other counting machines (if not, this practice should be done in the future). And each ballot counted, had to be counted at a specific time. If a time stamp is available to identify when the vote was counted in a particular machine, we can proceed to further forensic data processing of the vote tally.
Given a separation of the vote tally by: precinct/CD, by ballot counting machine, and now by a time stamp, we can arrange the order of the votes counted in linear sequence. That is to say, we can know when each vote was counted with respect to other ballots counted by one machine. This is important if we want to stop election fraud and catch a crook.
Once we have all ballots organized into a time-based sequences , we can then process the data to discover if any of the barcodes, which are coded numbers, are also in a sequence of their own (a sequence separated by 1, 2, or 3 numbers (1,2,4,7, etc.)). That would mean that a number of ballots counted in sequential order (barcodes) over time (time stamp) would be proof that fraud had occurred because the natural order of things doesn’t allow for the shuffling of ballots to arrive at the counter in sequential order to be counted in both barcode sequence and timecode sequence. This dual sequence is useful criteria in proving actual fraud occurred.
Now that we have more votes counted than cast for a precinct/CD, and we have shown that there is a dual sequential order of ballots counted over time, we can find out what the number of extra ballots counted per precinct/CD is and how many ballots fall under this dual sequence fraud for each precinct/CD. Knowing how many ballots were transmitted from receiving station to receiving station may also help determine where fraudulent ballots may have been introduced.
But here is where we take our first look at the vote cast on each ballot. There is no link between voter and ballot so we’re not treading on sacred ground here. Here we are inspecting the vote to see if there are any irregularities. If there is but one vote cast in one race for public office and if there is but one candidate for whom the vote was cast, this is more than irregular, it also represents voter fraud. This then is where we can declare an excess of votes for one candidate over another and throw out the entire batch of fraudulent ballots.
We also need to keep an eye on criminal prosecution. Those who have attempted to steal an election should go to jail for a very long time. With a dual sequence criteria of ballot fraud, we should expect that the finger prints on the printed ballot should not be more than from a few hands. And those hands should be cuffed as they are led away to jail. Further, the vote fraudulently cast may have been done by machine such as a printer. The location of the bubble made and the ink used to make the bubble should be inspected. Is the bubble always in the same position relative to the circle where the vote was cast? Is the ink used to bubble in the circle the same as that used to print the ballot; or is the ink used for each bubble the same for one ballot as it is for all the other ones? We need to be sure our forensic evidence isn’t lost as we scramble to uncover fraud and correct the vote tally.
I present an outline below for software programmers to use in designing programs that can do the work of forensic research on the tally of the vote. The result of this forensic research will provide a new means of inspecting the vote; it will show the importance of both the tally data and the meta data surrounding the tally of the vote. With forensic research into the vote data, we can correct an erroneous tally of the election, change the laws that got us here (require more meta data), and put a few people into jail. It’s all about securing the vote for the people.
Outline
1. Collect state level record of data and meta data for vote tally.
a. Collect the data in .csv format
b. Collect geographic data for the state, county, precinct, and/or Congressional District
i. Number of registered voters
2. Identify the data and meta data of the vote tally.
a. Identify the various fields associated with the ballot.
i. Office
ii. Candidates
b. Identify the various fields associated with the vote tally.
i. Vote counting machine unique ID
ii. Time stamp unique ID associated with the time the vote was counted
iii. Barcode with unique ballot ID
c. Identify the geographic data associated with the vote tally.
i. Remote receiving stations or sub-stations for each precinct
1. number of ballots transferred/received
ii. Central receiving stations associated with each county
1. number of ballots transferred/received
iii. Remote and/or central counting stations
1. number of ballots tallied
2. number of machines used to count the vote
3. Process the data and meta data
a. Search for instances of higher numbers of votes tallied compared to the number of registered voters for each state, county, precinct/CD. If such occurs,
i. What is the total number of votes tallied above the number of registered voters for each geographic group?
b. For a group of ballots that are suspect, sort the ballots counted by the,
i. unique machine that counted them
ii. time stamp associated with the count of each ballot
iii. sequence of ballots by time to see if there is a sequence of ballots by barcode number (a sequence separated by 1, 2, or 3 numbers). If so,
1. separate these ballots for further processing
c. From these separated ballots,
i. identify the number of offices that a vote was cast for
ii. identify the candidates that were voted for
iii. if there was only one candidate chosen for only one office for the series of ballots,
1. identify the block of bar codes for these unique ballots
2. ask law officials to test the ballots for finger prints
3. ask that the ink used to select a candidate for an office be tested
a. is the vote cast done by machine?
b. is the same ink for the vote case as the ballot printed? Or,
c. is the same ink used for each vote cast?
Short Bio
I was a precinct chairman in Austin, TX in the mid-1990s with the Travis County Republican Party. I was never prouder than when I worked in the polling place for 10 years with others in my precinct. I was the only Republican as everyone else were all Democrats, a great bunch of people. I started as a poll watcher and then became a clerk. I later became a judge-alternate and then a judge. I worked in-person voting for primary elections, general elections, special elections, and runoffs. I learned a great deal from the people I worked with and was proud to serve my community.
Later, I had opportunities with committees in the GOP, the Texas Secretary of State’s office, and the IEEE P1583 subcommittee on electronic voting where I advocated for an independent tally of the vote. After graduating from UT Austin with a BS in Aerospace Engineering, I moved to El Paso, TX and worked a few miles down the road at the White Sands Missile Range where we tested aircraft survivability equipment. During my 10 years there I processed reams of data from these tests and learned a great deal about data processing. However, I had to give up any political activity as a federal employee. I’ve since moved on to Alaska where I live and work and continue to exercise my data processing skills.
I’m concerned about the future of our nation and the fact that so much fraud has been committed by mail in voting. With a firm faith in Christ Jesus and a knowledge that history is in God’s hands, I will trust that the future is bright no matter what. But if by legal, just, and disciplined means we can counter the fraud of this recent election, I pray we may have the tools to do so. Still, my guiding light in politics has always been and will always be Romans 12:21:
Be not overcome with evil, rather, overcome evil with good!
Comments