Signed: March 31, 2026
Published: 91 Fed. Reg. 17125 (April 3, 2026)

Official links:

• White House text:
  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections/
• Federal Register (official publication):
  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/03/2026-06601/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections

Section 3 of that order is the part that directed the Postal Service to write the ballot-mail rule later published as 91 Fed. Reg. 54966.

On Friday, August 28, the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That notice does not lift the TRO. No First Circuit stay, no Supreme Court stay of this TRO, and no new district-court order dissolving it have been reported as of Saturday, August 29.

Current status as of 2026-08-29

• The 14-day TRO remains in effect. It runs from August 27 and would expire around September 10 unless extended, converted to a preliminary injunction, or stayed on appeal.
• USPS still may not implement or take preparatory steps on the stayed DMM sections for elections on or before November 3, 2026.
• Judge Talwani’s preliminary-injunction hearing is still set for September 3 at 9:00 a.m. in Boston.
• Government and intervenor oppositions to the longer injunction due August 29 at 11:00 p.m. EDT. Plaintiff replies are due August 31.
• The first legally required outbound ballots of the cycle are military and overseas (UOCAVA) ballots. Federal law generally requires those to go out at least 45 days before a federal election, which for November 3, 2026 means early September. Several states must begin that mailing in the first week of September. That deadline, not any one state, is why the 14-day TRO and the government’s appeal are on a short clock.

The rule text is still published. It is still not being used to reject midterm ballot mail while this TRO stands. An appellate stay could change that quickly. Nothing public as of this morning says that has happened.

What the Final Rule Requires, What It Does Not Check, and What Judge Talwani Paused on August 27, 2026:

Reference: League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-11549-IT, ECF 218 (D. Mass. Aug. 27, 2026). Companion docket 1:26-cv-13917-IT, ECF 31. Readers cannot verify the stay list without that.

How Institutional Research Drove the Devolution of American Elections

The Mechanism: Prestigious universities and commissions lend their reputations to studies that measure a problem in a narrow frame, then supply the data-driven rationale for a predetermined policy migration. The term for this is prestige laundering. The institution’s name transfers credibility to a conclusion the funder already wanted. Intent is never asserted. The pattern of study, funding, and structural outcome is documented instead.

• Traditional hand-counted paper ballots: For most of American history the dominant method was the paper ballot marked by the voter and counted by hand in public view. Citizens could watch the count, handle the ballots, and verify the totals directly. The entire process remained fully observable and under citizen oversight.
• Mechanical lever machines: These machines later became widespread and represented the first significant departure from full transparency. Voters saw only the exterior shell. The counters were internal gears that citizens could not observe. Documented manipulation methods included altering the internal gears to change recorded totals, pre-loading votes before polls opened, and using pre-printed zero tapes that showed zeros even though the counters had already been set to non-zero values. Roy G. Saltman’s 1988 NBS report identified these exact vulnerabilities: incorrect initial setting of counters, casting of extra votes by party workers, and the absence of any audit trail from individual voter to result. The machines were a black box by design.
• 1975 NBS report: The National Bureau of Standards (NBS), now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), published Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying (NBSIR 75-687), authored by Roy G. Saltman. It was commissioned under an interagency agreement with the General Accounting Office’s Office of Federal Elections. The report identified the lack of technical standards at the state and local level and recommended federal guidelines for accuracy and security in computerized vote tallying.
• 1988 NBS report: Saltman published Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying (NBS SP 500-158), funded by the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation. It assessed relative vulnerabilities of punch-card, mark-sense, and direct-recording electronic systems and recommended improved testing, partial manual recounts, and institutional changes. These reports later became the foundation for the voluntary federal standards that certified the machines purchased after 2002.
• Pre-2000 drift: From 1988 to 2000, counties gradually replaced paper and levers with optical scanners and direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines. The shift was local and incremental, not federally directed.
• 2000 and the residual-vote metric: After the Florida recount, Caltech President David Baltimore and MIT President Charles Vest launched the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project (VTP) in December 2000. The initial team included MIT Professors Stephen Ansolabehere and Nicholas Negroponte, and Caltech Professors Thomas Palfrey and Jehoshua Bruck. Later members included R. Michael Alvarez, Charles Stewart III, Ronald Rivest, Jonathan N. Katz, Stephen Graves, Erik Antonsson, Ted Selker, and Alexander Slocum. The project was funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, under President Vartan Gregorian, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
• The 2001 VTP report: The project released Voting: What Is, What Could Be, which measured residual votes — overvotes plus undervotes — across technologies from 1988 to 2000. Punch cards and early DREs showed higher rates than optical scan and levers. The metric became the standard benchmark used by the Elections Performance Index (EPI) and the Brennan Center for Justice (BCJ).
• Carter-Ford Commission: The National Commission on Federal Election Reform (NCFER), organized by the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs and The Century Foundation, was co-chaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Co-chairs were Robert H. Michel and Lloyd N. Cutler. Vice-chairs were Slade Gorton and Kathleen Sullivan. Commissioners included Griffin Bell, Rudy Boschwitz, John Danforth, Christopher Edley Jr., Hanna Holborn Gray, Colleen McAndrews, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Leon Panetta, Deval Patrick, Diane Ravitch, Bill Richardson, John Seigenthaler, and Michael Steele. Executive Director was Philip D. Zelikow. The commission drew on the Caltech/MIT work and supplied recommendations to Congress.
• Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA): The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was introduced in the House by Representative Robert W. Ney (R-OH) on November 14, 2001, with original cosponsors Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI), John L. Mica (R-FL), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), David E. Price (D-NC), James R. Langevin (D-RI), John Linder (R-GA), Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), John T. Doolittle (R-CA), Jim Davis (D-FL), Thomas M. Reynolds (R-NY), Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), and Steve Buyer (R-IN). In the Senate, Christopher Dodd (D-CT) authored the companion legislation and Kit Bond (R-MO) was a principal partner in the negotiations. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was instrumental in moving the bill through the Senate. The House Administration Committee, chaired by Vernon Ehlers, and the Senate Rules and Administration Committee handled the bill. HAVA banned punch cards and lever machines, created the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), required statewide voter-registration databases, and directed more than three billion dollars in federal funds toward certified electronic systems. Technical input on the voting-system standards and security provisions came from a small group of specialists. Roy G. Saltman, a retired National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) analyst and author of the 1975 and 1988 National Bureau of Standards (NBS) reports on computerized vote-tallying, testified before the House Science Committee in May 2001 and was recognized for material contributions to the 2002 Voting System Standards. Thomas R. Wilkey, Executive Director of the New York State Board of Elections and Chairman of the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) Voting Systems Board, served as a continuous technical resource during the standards update. Brit Williams, Professor Emeritus of Computer Science at Kennesaw State College and a NASED Technical Subcommittee member, contributed specific language. Steve Freeman, a software consultant, and Jay W. Nispel, Senior Principal Engineer at Computer Sciences Corporation, also contributed to the Technical Subcommittee. Paul Craft, Computer Audit Analyst for the State of Florida, and David Elliott, Assistant Director of Elections for Washington, participated as well. The update was executed under contract by American Management Systems (AMS), with Senior Principal James Ward and Project Manager Dennis Berg recognized for their work. Harry Haury, a cybersecurity and workflow specialist with prior service at the National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of Defense (DoD), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), served as a technical design consultant on the voting-system standards and security provisions. Stephen Berger chaired the IEEE Voting Equipment Standards Project 1583.
• Post-HAVA consolidation: By 2006 nearly all punch cards and levers were gone. Three private vendors — Election Systems and Software (ES&S), Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCivic — now control roughly ninety percent of the market. The systems are largely private-equity owned and operate with limited public oversight.
• Brennan Center studies: The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, through reports such as The Machinery of Democracy by Lawrence Norden, Jeremy Creelan, David Kimball, and Whitney Quesenbery, used the same residual-vote metric to document ballot-design defects and overvote losses. This reinforced the case for machine-based error correction rather than citizen-observable counting.
• Elections Performance Index (EPI): Pew Charitable Trusts launched the index in 2013, following consultation with an advisory group of election officials and academic experts. In 2017, management passed to the MIT Election Data and Science Lab (MEDSL). Residual-vote rate remains one of its core indicators, so the original metric continues to frame what counts as a well-run election.
• 2016–2020 security turn and private funding: After 2016, states moved toward paper records and ballot-marking devices. In 2020, the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), founded by Tiana Epps-Johnson, Whitney May, and Donny Bridges, distributed hundreds of millions of dollars in private grants to election offices under operational conditions that critics argued gave a private actor effective control. The funds came primarily from Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan. Twenty-nine states later restricted such funding.
• Current state: Citizens can no longer guarantee that only eligible voters cast ballots, and they have no independent way to verify that the published totals are an accurate aggregate of only eligible votes. The counting is performed by certified machines whose internal arithmetic can be checked, but whose recording of individual selections cannot be audited by the public.
• The pattern: Each study measured a real deficiency and each policy addressed that deficiency. The cumulative effect is a system that is opaque to the citizens it is supposed to serve.

The transformation did not happen in a single stroke. It was assembled piece by piece, and each piece was justified by a study that measured a specific and real deficiency then pointed toward a predetermined solution. The 1975 and 1988 National Bureau of Standards reports established the technical framework. The 2000 Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project supplied the data-driven rationale. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 provided the federal funding and the mandate. The post-HAVA vendor consolidation locked in the structure. The 2020 private-funding episode showed that private actors could still shape administration even after the federal framework was in place. No single law completed the transformation. The legislation was one node in a chain, and the chain is the story. This did not happen by accident. The same direction of change, the same institutional actors, and the same result repeated across decades. Accidents do not produce that pattern.

Many of the names are in this article. Many of the organizations are also listed. The dates are documented. The funding sources are identified. Everything needed to begin is already on the page. The question is no longer whether the pattern exists. The question is what else is connected to it. This is not a burden for one person to carry. It is an invitation for many. Every reader who follows a name, traces a funding source, or maps a relationship between an institution and a policy outcome adds a thread to the map. The people who built this system counted on citizens waiting for someone else to explain it to them. The opposite is the remedy. Start with the names in this article. Follow them forward and backward. Find the connections the official record does not draw. The map is incomplete because it has been waiting for you to draw it.

Our window to Reclaim our Elections is about to snap shut. We are in the middle of an Elections National State of Emergency that if ignored, will result in the end of this Republic. Brave actions must be immediately taken to RETURN ELECTIONS TO THE CITIZENS.

Get busy. Get loud. Now.

The Declaration

References

1. Saltman, Roy G. Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying. NBSIR 75-687 (also issued as NBS Special Publication 500-30). National Bureau of Standards, 1975/1978.
2. Saltman, Roy G. Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying. NBS Special Publication 500-158. National Bureau of Standards, August 1988.
3. Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. Voting: What Is, What Could Be. July 2001.
4. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Charles Stewart III. “Residual Votes Attributable to Technology: An Assessment of the Reliability of Existing Voting Equipment.” Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, March 2001 (later published in Journal of Politics 67, no. 2, 2005).
5. National Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter-Ford Commission). To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process. Final Report, July 2001. Organized by the University of Virginia Miller Center and The Century Foundation.
6. Norden, Lawrence, et al. The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, 2006 (book edition Academy Chicago Publishers, 2007).
7. Help America Vote Act of 2002, Public Law 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (signed October 29, 2002).
8. U.S. Election Assistance Commission and National Institute of Standards and Technology voluntary voting system guidelines and testing documentation (post-HAVA).
9. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Elections Performance Index (launched 2013; residual-vote rate as a core indicator). Methodology and data later transferred to the MIT Election Data and Science Lab (MEDSL).
10. MIT Election Data and Science Lab. Elections Performance Index data and methodology releases (2017 onward).
11. \Vendor market concentration data (ES&S, Dominion Voting Systems, Hart InterCivic) drawn from Election Data Services / Verified Voting / state certification records showing post-HAVA consolidation.
12. Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). Public announcements and IRS Form 990 filings documenting the 2020 COVID-19 Response Grants funded primarily by Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan (approximately $350–400 million distributed to local election offices).
13. Jones, Douglas W., and Barbara Simons. Broken Ballots: Will Your Vote Count? CSLI Publications, 2012 (detailed history of lever machines and subsequent systems).
14. Contemporary accounts and patents on the Myers / Gillespie mechanical lever machines (first official use Lockport, New York, 1892; widespread urban adoption by the 1930s).
15. Saltman’s later writings and lectures summarizing the 1975 and 1988 findings and their influence on subsequent standards.

If someone wanted to make widespread election manipulation easy to carry out yet nearly impossible to prove, what system would they design?

Imagine you wanted to create conditions where large-scale interference could happen with minimal risk of detection or proof. You would not need to control every polling station or bribe every worker. You would simply engineer the system itself so that any problems could be explained away as honest mistakes while the paper trail became impossible to verify after the fact.

The ideal system would have these features:

• Move ballots away from the precinct where voters cast them before any counting occurs, creating a window of time and space where no one is watching and manipulation can take place without immediate detection.
• Delay tabulation for hours or until the next day, so any changes can occur between the moment votes are cast and the moment they are officially recorded.
• Rely on centralized counting facilities and electronic systems that are difficult for the public to audit in real time, making independent verification nearly impossible.
• Store ballots under seal with limited independent oversight, so any problems can be explained away as honest administrative errors.
• Make full manual recounts rare, expensive, or politically blocked, ensuring the system never has to prove the ballots still match the reported totals.
• Ensure that any discrepancies can be attributed to administrative error rather than deliberate interference.
• Create a system so complex that citizens, election officials, and legislators cannot fully understand how it works, making independent oversight nearly impossible.
• Use media narratives, controlled distractions, and targeted discrediting of prominent voices to dismiss or poison anyone who points out discrepancies, so legitimate concerns get buried under noise or guilt by association.
• Demonize prominent voices through media attacks and loaded language so that people automatically dismiss anything they say without ever examining the evidence.
• Infiltrate or create organizations that appear to champion election integrity, then collect evidence and donations from concerned citizens while quietly doing nothing with them, so the movement burns out from within.
• Promote individuals who fail to grasp the full scope of the problem while suppressing those who understand it, so the public debate remains shallow and misdirected.

This is not just a theory; it is a checklist of structural features that would make covert manipulation easier and harder to disprove.

United States

In the United States, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 accelerated exactly these changes. It pushed states toward centralized, computerized voter registration systems and electronic tabulation in many jurisdictions. Ballots are often transported from precincts to central counting locations, and counting frequently occurs hours after polls close or the next day. Local citizen oversight at the point of casting and immediate counting was reduced in favor of statewide systems that create larger single points of failure. Once ballots leave the precinct, any later recount rests on an assumption of unbroken chain of custody that can no longer be guaranteed as publicly observable in real time.

South Korea

South Korea followed a parallel path, but the timeline is staggered. In the April 2024 parliamentary election, the conservative side suffered a narrow defeat and immediately raised allegations of widespread fraud and North Korean cyber interference. These claims became the explicit justification for President Yoon Suk-yeol’s declaration of emergency martial law on December 3, 2024. Troops were deployed to the National Election Commission and the National Assembly. Parliament voted unanimously within hours to lift the decree, Yoon rescinded it before dawn, and he was later impeached, removed by the Constitutional Court, and convicted of rebellion.

Then came the June 2026 local elections. Ballot shortages were reported at polling stations nationwide, with voting temporarily suspended at some locations. Additional ballots were supplied, but many lacked preprinted serial numbers and were delivered unsealed without multi-party escorts. After the fact, investigators discovered that National Election Commission employees had manipulated real-time voter turnout statistics in the central computer system to cover up input errors—allocating discrepancies across multiple stations so the reported numbers would match. A joint prosecution-police task force raided NEC headquarters in July 2026 to secure evidence. No full hand recount of the affected ballots has been completed to close the chain-of-custody question.

The Parallel

The same structural features appear in both countries: centralization, delayed verification, post-facto data corrections, resistance to immediate precinct counting before ballots ever move, attacks on and demonization of anyone who questions. The pattern is not isolated to one nation or one election cycle.

The question that remains is simple and unavoidable: What level of access and coordination would have been required to install every piece of this system across legislation, bureaucracy, courts, and media—quietly, over time, so people would not notice the change until it was complete?

On a recent flight that had already been delayed more than an hour, the captain’s voice came over the intercom with the familiar phrase every passenger dreads: “We have some bad news and some good news”. The bad news was an advisory light in the cockpit that would not clear. The good news, he explained, was that the same aircraft had experienced the identical issue earlier that same day, and a simple power cycle had resolved it. The crew would shut down the entire aircraft, wait for all systems to go dark and silent, then bring everything back online. If the light stayed off, we would fly. I recorded the entire ten-minute sequence, and sped-up the slow parts:

The cabin lights extinguished, the engines fell quiet, and for a moment the aircraft felt like a lifeless shell. Then, gradually, systems flickered back to life, the engines spooled up. and we took off. Yet the fact that the same advisory had required the same reset twice in one day should have triggered something far more serious than another power cycle. It should have prompted a root-cause analysis before the aircraft was permitted to fly again.

The airline industry did not arrive at this level of caution by accident. Over decades it built a system of layered safeguards, often called defense in depth, in which multiple independent barriers stand between a single fault and catastrophe. Central to this approach is the deliberate design of parallel systems: redundant, independent backups that can take over if the primary system fails. Written procedures, the Minimum Equipment List, mandatory maintenance review for recurring anomalies, and the ultimate authority to ground an aircraft or an entire fleet exist so that no masked problem is allowed to escalate. When those layers are bypassed, the results are tragic and unforgettable. For four years prior to the disaster, engineers warned repeatedly that cold temperatures would make the space shuttle Challenger’s O-rings brittle. Their concerns were dismissed. A O-ring task force had been working on the issue for six months leading up to the disaster. A teleconference 13 hours prior to the disaster concluded that the launch should not proceed. Following pressure from managers of the federal agency NASA, the shuttle launched anyway and exploded seventy-three seconds after liftoff, killing all seven crew members.

Within days following the October 2018 Lion Air 737 MAX crash, the FAA (another federal agency) was warned by experts that another malfunction was likely within the next ten months. Instead of grounding the fleet, the stupid people in our government merely issued an emergency directive to ‘review procedures’. Four months later, a second identical disaster occurred because the underlying sensor-and-software flaw had not been fully diagnosed and corrected. Only then was the worldwide grounding ordered until the root cause was identified and fixed. That decision prevented at least one more crash and saved more than one hundred and fifty lives. The principle is now settled: when warnings recur and the root cause remains unknown, the responsible action is to ground the fleet until the defect is remedied.

Our election systems operate today exactly like a fleet of flawed aircraft that keep crashing for different reasons. Each cycle brings new reports of voter registration oddities, tabulation errors, software glitches, and erroneous code. Each time the explanation is the same: a glitch, a one-time anomaly, nothing to see here. The aircraft is patched, relaunched, and the cycle repeats. Experts who have identified the underlying defects, including myself, have been ignored in precisely the same manner the O-ring warnings were dismissed before Challenger. The difference is that an airplane crash kills two or three hundred people. A corrupted election can crash the republic itself, with consequences for hundreds of millions of lives. When the people’s will is not accurately recorded, laws are passed and representatives seated that do not reflect the consent of the governed. A determined adversary who gains control of such a system can alter the course of the nation without firing a shot. The stakes are not merely higher; they are of an entirely different order of magnitude.

Unlike aviation, our election systems lack built-in parallel systems. There is no independent, redundant mechanism running alongside our registration or tabulation processes that can serve as an automatic cross-checks. This absence leaves everyone blind; not only citizens, but election officials themselves. Local administrators have no reliable way to detect cloned voter registration entries in their databases, even when proof of such duplications has been documented directly from county records. Dr. Andrew Paquette, posting as @ZarkFiles on X, has identified and described the structured, patterned assignment of voter identification numbers in state voter roll databases, revealing that these numbers are assigned according to deliberate mathematical sequences rather than random or sequential natural ordering. Across multiple states he has documented excess identification numbers reaching into the millions, with blocks of cloned records confined to narrow spans of consecutive IDs. Edward Solomon, posting as @KingSolomon006, has analyzed certified cast vote records from multiple recent elections and demonstrated through proof reaching twelve sigma that the results are synthetically engineered to mimic organic outcomes. These findings constitute direct proof extracted from official county records and cast vote records. The tabulators are not merely recording the marks on the paper ballots fed into them; they are producing predetermined synthetic results irrespective of the actual voter intent on those ballots. Without parallel verification of paper ballots with verifiably intact chain-of-custody, no one can confidently assert that only eligible voters are participating or that every ballot has been accurately counted.

Because elections belong to the people, they cannot be protected by the same methods used to secure airports. Passengers are not permitted to wander into the cockpit or examine the flight computers. Elections, by contrast, must remain fully open to citizen oversight precisely because sovereignty resides with the governed. The people themselves, not distant regulators, must actively exercise that oversight and verify every result. Transparency without active citizen verification is meaningless. If the process is too complex for ordinary citizens to understand, then only specialists can verify it, and the people are reduced to blind trust. The foundation of a legitimate election is therefore simplicity joined to complete transparency, so that every eligible voter can both participate in the process and confirm afterward that only legal votes were cast and accurately counted. Any system that cannot meet this test is structurally incapable of earning the public’s confidence, no matter how many audits are performed after the fact.

With the midterm elections only three months away, we have no time to implement a properly verified solution before the next flight takes off. The responsible course is therefore to ground the current systems temporarily, for three to six months if necessary, until a transparent, citizen-verifiable backup can be put in place. This pause is not an inconvenience but the only responsible step that allows the nation to move forward safely. After the Challenger disaster the entire space shuttle program was grounded until the root cause was fully understood and corrected. We now possess equivalent proof of systemic abuse in our election infrastructure. There is therefore no defensible reason to permit another election to proceed until those systems are grounded and replaced with the transparent PEP backup.

The Progressive Election Platform, fully described at https://HandCountRoadShow.org/solution, provides exactly that safe backup. It centers on hand-marked paper ballots that are batched, scanned for public images, and hand-counted on-site by bipartisan citizens under high-definition video. All tally sheets, videos, and results are uploaded to county websites the same night, allowing any citizen to perform an independent verification. Verification is embedded directly into the tabulation process rather than treated as an afterthought, while complete public records preserve the ability to audit afterward. Absentee ballots are limited to genuine need with strict scrutiny because they cannot be fully verified without compromising secrecy. Election Day is established as a national holiday with standardized hours so that every eligible voter can participate in person. This is the bus we can take when the plane is grounded; simple enough for every American to understand, transparent enough for every citizen to verify, and therefore legitimate in the only way that ultimately matters.

We possess both the diagnosis and the cure. What we have lacked until now is the collective will to ground the fleet before the next crash. The airline industry learned this lesson at the cost of lives. We have the opportunity to learn it without repeating that cost on a national scale. Legislators, influencers, media, and citizens of the United States must stand united in demanding that the current systems be grounded until the PEP is implemented. There is no other responsible path. Ground the fleet. Implement the PEP. Verify every vote. The republic itself hangs in the balance, and with it the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans.

You have heard it repeated for years: our voting systems are secure because they are “not connected to the internet.” That single phrase has shaped how millions of Americans, election officials, and journalists think about election security. It has skillfully conditioned the public to believe that the only real threat is an internet connection. This belief is false; and dangerously misleading.

The internet is merely one network among millions. There are over 120,000 autonomous systems forming the global internet, and when private networks, local connections, cellular APNs (what most poll-books use), and proprietary wireless systems are included, the total reaches into the millions. Citizens have been trained to ask only one narrow question while ignoring the much broader attack surface.

A voting system does not need to touch the public internet to be manipulated. Wireless cards remain physically installed in many voting machines around the Nation. Many officials claim these cards are disabled in the BIOS, yet they can be re-enabled through software or firmware. When I testified alongside Tina Peters at the Colorado state capitol several years ago, urging lawmakers to physically remove these unnecessary wireless cards, the committee voted unanimously to keep them installed because they were ‘disabled in the BIOS’. If they aren’t used, then removing them altogether is the smart and safe thing to do. Yet they fought to keep them there.

The common claim that systems are “air-gapped” is equally deceptive. True physical isolation ends the moment a flash drive or any removable media is inserted, a routine practice in elections. Once that USB is plugged in, the “air-gap” is gone. Once that barrier is breached, malware or unauthorized code can easily enter.

Manipulation does not even require any connection. Sophisticated code can even be pre-installed and triggered automatically by internal conditions or even hidden signals in ballots themselves, through subtle printing defects which could be invisible to the human eye or specially crafted QR codes containing encrypted data that should not need encryption for simple ballot identification.

So how did this dangerously incomplete understanding of election security become so widely accepted? The answer lies in how the entire system is structured: a pyramid built on compromised standards, where deception flows from the top down.

Voting system vendors develop the hardware and software. They pay private testing labs to evaluate it. Those labs report their findings to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which grants federal certification. States rely almost entirely on EAC certification to approve the systems. County election officials then deploy them, trusting that every level above has done its job. At the bottom of this pyramid sit the American people, whose votes ultimately depend on the integrity of the entire chain.

This system depends completely on the EAC. The agency approved VVSG 1.0 in 2005 and VVSG 1.1 in 2015, standards it later acknowledged were inadequate. In 2021 it released VVSG 2.0 to correct those deficiencies, yet it has allowed the vast majority of systems certified under the older, weaker standards to remain in use. Even VVSG 2.0 falls short, because a security standard cannot merely address most threats; it must address every credible threat vector. A single unaddressed vulnerability is enough to compromise an election.

The EAC failed to identify or close numerous critical threat vectors beyond simple internet connectivity. It failed to correct the widespread misconception it helped create. It failed the election officials who trusted its certification process and the citizens who depended on it.

In the end, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has been fundamentally derelict in its duty. The one federal agency entrusted with protecting the integrity of our elections has let the nation down.

The phrase “not connected to the internet” was never truly about security. It was about creating and maintaining an illusion of security; an illusion that has left every American voter more vulnerable than they realize. You don’t know what you don’t know. And critically dangerous is that ‘they’ know that you don’t know what you don’t know.

The people have completely lost control of THEIR elections in this Nation, and therefore we have an ELECTIONS NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY. We must IMMEDIATELY put elections back into the hands of who they rightfully belong to, the CITIZENS. We have no time to waste; the Republic is hanging by the last thread.

Let’s fix it right now. Click here for the Declaration

For years, organizations such as the Brennan Center for Justice, the Voting Rights Lab, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and others have promoted the narrative that electronic voting machines are more accurate than hand counting. This claim rests on flawed circular reasoning found in multiple academic studies.

A key example is the 2018 study “Learning from Recounts.” The researchers observed that when ballots originally counted by machine were recounted by machine, the average discrepancy was ‘only’ 0.13% to 0.15%. (That alone should raise alarm bells, that machines can’t even count votes accurately back to back). Then they go on to say when the same ballots were counted by hand, the discrepancy ‘increased’ to 1.8%. Rather than admitting that the machines had failed to accurately tabulate the ballots, the authors preposterously (mis)interpreted the larger gap as evidence that hand counting is less accurate.

This reasoning is absolutely fundamentally flawed. The American Statistical Association, in its official 2018 document “Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Tabulation Audits,” clearly states:

“The benchmark of tabulation accuracy is what an accurate hand count of all ballots accepted for counting by the election authority would reveal.”

In other words, a proper hand count is the accepted standard against which machine accuracy must be judged. Several states reinforce this principle in their election codes. For example, Georgia’s risk-limiting audit law (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-498), Texas Election Code provisions, and the audit statutes in New Mexico and Minnesota all rely on manual hand counts of ballots to verify machine results. When discrepancies appear, the hand count serves as the de-facto reference point.

Some real-world examples where hand counts caught discrepancies in the original machine count:

• Santa Clara County, California – 2024: Hand review found 19 ballots that were never counted originally.
• Michigan statewide – 2024: Risk-limiting audit hand count of 119,567 ballots found a total discrepancy of 33 votes (0.03%).
• DeKalb County, Georgia – 2022: Machine tabulators showed her with zero votes in most precincts. Hand recount revealed she was shortchanged by 3,792 votes.
• Nye County, Nevada – 2022: Hand count caught votes missed by machines due to a 5% sensitivity threshold. The clerk stated the hand count was the more accurate result.
• Georgia statewide – 2020: Full hand audit found approximately 5,000 ballots that had not been tabulated in the original machine count.
• Iowa 2nd Congressional District – 2020: Hand-involved recount corrected 168+ votes and flipped the election outcome.
• Ware County, Georgia – 2020: Hand audit found 37 additional votes not counted by the machines.
• Butte County, Idaho – 2020: Hand audit found 9 extra votes missed by machines due to ballot sorting errors.

These cases demonstrate that hand counts have repeatedly identified errors that machine tabulators missed. Yet many studies and institutions continue to treat larger discrepancies between machines and hand counts as proof that hand counting is inferior, rather than acknowledging that the machines failed to match the established hand-count benchmark.

When two independent counts of the exact same ballots produce materially different results, logic dictates that at least one of them is inaccurate. The data consistently shows that machine counts frequently fail to match the hand-count standard.

The public deserves an honest assessment of these systems. The claim that machines are inherently more accurate than hand counts is not supported by either the data or the proper application of the accepted verification standard.

This pattern of deceptive research has persisted for years. Studies repeatedly use hand counts as the benchmark to test machines, then flip the results to claim the benchmark itself is flawed. This is not science — it is statistical sleight-of-hand designed to manufacture a predetermined conclusion. By citing these misleading studies, major institutions and election officials have deliberately undermined public confidence in hand counting while protecting the very systems that have repeatedly failed when measured against the hand-count standard. This is not science. It is statistical deception designed to protect flawed machines while discrediting the very method used to verify them.

The A-Count-Able Hand Count Tabulation Process produces a 100% Verifiably Accurate result, and is simple enough for a 6-year old to understand and perform. The argument is OVER. It’s time for common sense to be the adult in the room.

I used to be a Democrat. For many years—longer than I have been a Republican—I voted blue and supported the party’s goals of fairness and progress. However, over time, the party shifted. It moved far to the left, beyond where I stood. I did not change my views; the party changed around me. Ideas that once felt shared now seemed distant. Policies pushed further. Voices that disagreed were sidelined. I left the party and became Republican. I hoped for balance. Yet I soon noticed the same pattern: infiltration. It was not loud or obvious—just quiet control. Conventions used rules to sideline real candidates. Staffers nodded agreement but undermined from within. Both parties, I realized, serve as mechanisms. They herd voters, select winners, and allow subtle manipulations in elections. This is why the topic matters to me. It is not about left against right. It is about who above them truly holds power. And how ‘they’ have taken over our nation, one layer at a time.

Picture a funnel—like those used in marketing or hiring. At the wide top, anyone could apply. As it narrows, filters appear. Certain words, certain backgrounds, certain signals decide who advances. At the bottom, only one type emerges. That is not chance. That is intentional design. Across America—from universities to tech companies, Hollywood studios, government offices, even congressional staffs—this funnel shapes who and what gains influence. I call it Engineered Asymmetric Ideological Capture (EAIC). Radical views replace others, generation by generation. Not through open quotas—just smart, hidden layers. Pipelines prepare people. Screens weed out dissent. “Fit” checks look neutral but favor one side.

As of recent, Universities provide a clear example. Voter registration data from twenty twenty-two showed Harvard faculty at ninety-nine percent Democrat among those registered with a party. Princeton reached ninety-eight percent. Yale and Berkeley hit ninety-seven percent. Recent surveys from twenty twenty-five and twenty twenty-six confirm the pattern. Liberals dominate key fields, often seventy to eighty percent. Conservatives fall below twenty percent. Here is a chart that illustrates the imbalance:

Another view, broken down by field, shows the skew even more plainly. The ‘captured left’—once the broader Democratic Party—has filled these roles. Not every Democrat supports this. Many traditional ones feel left behind, just as I did.

How does it happen? The funnel. DEI is one of the recent tools they used. In fact, DEI statements now appear in twenty-two percent of faculty job ads. Analyses from the Manhattan Institute in twenty twenty-five found that evaluators score higher when applicants discuss race, gender, or equity in progressive terms. When applicants mention welcoming opposing political views—like true viewpoint diversity—scores drop sharply. Before DEI became common, tactics were subtler. Elite graduate schools acted as echo chambers. Networking happened in left-leaning circles. “Cultural fit” interviews quietly filtered out differences. The same pipelines feed tech, Hollywood, industry, and government.

In tech, employee donations still flow ninety-plus percent to Democrats at major firms. Hollywood funding favors Democrats by thirty-to-one in recent cycles. Government agencies—like Education or the EPA—lean left by wide margins. They draw from these same radical networks. And congressional staffers? That layer worries me most. Staffers draft bills. They gatekeep access. They whisper advice. If someone holds opposing views but pretends to align, they gain entry. They can spy. They can slow-walk. They can subvert. The setup invites it: low oversight, high influence. If control were the goal, planting them would make perfect sense. My gut hasn’t been wrong yet, so those with staffers might want to pay attention to that one.

Here is a simple funnel diagram—like hiring or politics: wide at the entry, narrow at the end.

Tactics vary. Older ones include unions—Hollywood guilds leaned left since the nineteen forties. Elite graduate programs served as feeders. “Fit” interviews filtered quietly. Newer ones use DEI and CRT as litmus tests—they evolved from civil rights efforts into ideological rubrics. Parallel tools include think tanks and advocacy groups. They supply “approved” talent. Layers hide the process—no grand conspiracy, just selective replacement.

The harm is real. Students face one story, no genuine debate. They are robbed of the opportunity to learn and experience critical thinking. They graduate shaped by dogma, not facts. Careers suffer. And the cycle continues: In tech, content moderation tilts left. In policy, regulations reflect one lens. In Congress, subversion erodes trust. Parties become tools to herd voters—conventions sideline independents, staffers nudge covertly. Both sides face capture. The very foundation of our Constitutional Republic weakens.

This shift shows in broader data. Polarization has grown since 2008, with Democrats pulling leftward. Here is a chart tracing that movement:

Notice: the captured left drives it—not every Democrat. Many feel alienated, as I did. The party moved; they stayed put.

What do we do? First, expose it. Publicly audit DEI statements. Track donor flows. Examine and share staffer backgrounds. Transparency ends the illusion. Second, break the funnel. Use blind hiring—no ideological oaths. Add viewpoint quotas, like race quotas but for ideas. Open pipelines—hire from everywhere. Third, demand balance. Students deserve debate. Agencies need neutrality. Elections require real choice.

This is not about attacking Democrats. It is about freeing the captured left from its own trap. Many good people remain there—traditional, fair-minded ones like I once was. They can walk away. Join America First, which should stand above parties: benefit the nation, expose capture everywhere, eradicate it. The funnel exists. The capture happens. Time to dismantle it—together. Start by talking. Share this. Ask questions. Seeing is the first step.

And then, we join together for

Are you ready to become a lot smarter? Here you go:

Imagine stepping into a polling place, checking in to vote, and in that very moment, someone else already knows how you voted. Imagine mailing in your ballot or dropping it in a drop-box, and someone else already knows how you voted. Not because they guessed. This is not science fiction. Very smart bad actors created a system that enables this, right under your noses. And you bought it under the guise of ‘convenience’. This is the core of modern election manipulation: I’ve named it ‘feedback loop predictive modeling’. It operates like a living algorithm—collecting data, refining predictions, and adjusting outcomes—all while staying completely hidden from audits, observers, and even many of the top experts.

Most people fighting for election integrity focus on glaringly obvious problems: broken machines, hacked software, or suspicious ballots. Those are real issues, but they are only the surface scratches. The real danger lies deeper, in a sophisticated, multi-layered process that bad actors—highly intelligent, well-resourced, and patient—have engineered over decades. And THIS is what they don’t want anyone to know. They no longer need to tamper with ballots at midnight. They can manipulate the game before it starts, using data we willingly give away every day without our knowledge. And because this method works up front, it evades every post-election check. That is why leaders—politicians, officials, activists—must seek out and listen to the rare voices who understand the full threat model. There are not many. In fact, I think there may only be a couple of us who see it this clearly. We must be realistic: Partial fixes from good intentions will never close the gap. We need the whole picture.

Let us start with something familiar: weather forecasting. Everyone understands how it evolved. Back in the old days, people relied on simple patterns—winters get colder, summers warmer, days shorten in fall. That was seasonal modeling: basic, reliable, but limited. Then technology arrived. Satellites circled the Earth, radars swept storms, weather balloons measured pressure, and sensors dotted every coastline. All that data—temperature, wind speed, humidity—flowed into powerful computers running complex numerical models. The result? A 5-day forecast today is more accurate than a one-day forecast was in the 1980s. A 3-day outlook hits 97% reliability. Even 7 days out, predictions hold at around 80%. Why? Because we layered real-time inputs onto historical patterns. The models learned, adapted, and got frighteningly precise.

Here is a visual of how that data flows—like satellites and radars feeding a central brain:

Election modeling follows the exact same logic—except it is invisible, and the stakes are our Republic itself.

Bad actors begin with Phase One: baseline predictive modeling. They pull from decades of records: turnout rates by county, party registration, historical swings. In a polarized country, party affiliation alone tells you a lot. Democrats vote Democrat. Republicans vote Republican. Down-ballot races follow suit—especially on divisive issues like guns, abortion, or taxes. A simple model based on party? Already decent. But they add confidence metrics: the presidential vote might score 95% certainty. A local bond issue? Maybe 70% if it is murky. This is old-school profiling—voter files, registration lists, past election data. It’s a solid foundation, like knowing that seasons change.

Next, and much deeper, comes voter profiling—the real sensors and radars of elections. Big data is a trillion-dollar industry because we hand over our lives in fine print. Every app, every card swipe, every search logs something. GPS tracks where you go: church on Sunday, gym at six, coffee shop downtown. Credit cards reveal purchases—books, guns, organic food. Amazon knows your tastes. Social media? Public posts show your stance on every ballot issue—climate, immigration, schools. Even private messages, if accessed, paint a fuller picture. Firms like Cambridge Analytica in 2016 scraped millions of Facebook profiles to map psychographics: fears, values, triggers. They called it microtargeting. It was voter dissection. Combine that with party? Your predicted ballot sharpens: “This independent hates regulation—92% for tax cuts.” Accuracy climbs into the high 90’s, just like a 10-day weather forecast. One person, one profile, every choice scored with eerie precision.

See how all that data layers around you—like a web of connections tracking every move:

And another view—your digital footprint broken down into pieces big tech harvests:

That is Phase One: baseline plus profiling equals a near-perfect ghost ballot. No votes cast. Just data shadows.

Phase Two: Voter Snapshot Modeling. Voting begins. They do not need your actual choices—just confirmation you voted. Mail-in ballots? Tracking systems sold to you on the premise of notification when yours is printed, mailed, returned, accepted—real-time, precinct-linked. But that tracking is not for you. It’s for ‘them’. In-person? Electronic poll books—tablets at the door—log you instantly. Scan your ID, and turnout ticks up. Tie that to your profile: “Early mailer from this zip code—blue-leaning, high confidence.” The model updates: “60% blue so far.” Early voting drags this out—days of live previews. The feedback loop starts: predict, observe, refine. Like weather sensors feeding storm data as it builds.

Phase Three: Vote Leak Tuning. Machines turn guesses into facts. Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) terminals? You touch the screen—choices hit digital memory immediately, by vendor design. No subtlety; data broadcasts live. Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs)? They print paper, but the touchscreen knows every selection before ink touches. Software can log it covertly—buffered, uploaded, tied to precinct and ballot style. Voters believe “paper keeps it secret.” Wrong. The computer has already tallied. Early tabulation? Lol, they’ve GOT IT ALL. The model tunes: “This candidate is down, need more injected votes. This measure is down, need more injected votes.” Confidence peaks. Subtract real from desired: exact number of fakes required.

Here is what a DRE touchscreen looks like—your vote going straight digital:

And despite a BMD (Ballot Marking Device) that most DRE’s have been swapped out for, where you touch first, it prints a ballot, and we’re told that the ballot isn’t tabulated until later, what most people don’t realize is that the machine already knows the choices. Clever, aren’t they?

Phase Four: Injection and Cleanup. With a tuned target, they act—mules drop ballots in boxes, late mail-ins arrive, extras scatter across counties.

And since nobody at the county has any way of knowing who filled out a received mailed-ballot (or drop-box ballot), they have no way of actually verifying eligibility of the voter. How do you verify eligibility of a voter when you don’t have any way of knowing who the voter is? That’s the beauty of the rig they’ve built. They’re wicked-smart.

The final tally? Matches the prediction perfectly. Audits see clean numbers because the loop engineered them. Manipulation happens upfront—data feeds, profiles, leaks—all before counting. Officials notice nothing. They’ve then got most experts chasing glitches, not the system. That’s by design.

This is why audits fail. The fraud is front-loaded. No mismatched ballots. No suspicious patterns. Just engineered outcomes. That is the sophistication most miss—and why we cannot rely on surface fixes.

The solution is brutal simplicity: eliminate the preview. One-day voting only—at your precinct, on Election Day, with hand-marked paper ballots. No early voting. No late arrivals. Count them right there—bi-partisan teams, video-recorded, batches of twenty-five, witnesses watching every mark. Use translucent boxes, locked chains of custody. Electronics? A dumb scanner and simple inexpensive cameras only after polls close—for video and PDF images and records only, never for deciding winners. The key is NO ballots accepted post-close.

And observers right there—people you can see, not predictive feedback-loop-based algorithms you cannot:

That process exists. I built it. Watch how real, visible counting looks—no machines, no secrets, fully transparent at https://a-count-able.org: batch randomization, public tallies, full transparency.

And the complete ecosystem? Paper registration every two years, fourteen-hour national window, precincts capped at 1500 voters, even unlimited open public audits from ballot images and video footage. It is all at https://HandCountRoadShow.org/solution. Read it. No data pipelines. No leaks. No loops. Just human eyes on paper, in public, before a ballot even leaves the room.

I even co-authored a proposed executive order to address this current ELECTIONS NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY: https://HandCountRoadShow.org/eo.

We do not need smarter machines. We need no secrets. Listen to the voices who understand the full depth—not only the fragments. And what do we do right now with only months left? Vote ON ELECTION DAY and IN-PERSON to deprive bad actors of their feedback loop. And vote in massive numbers, like your ballot matters, Because when we do, it finally will.

This scheme kills the Electoral College without a Constitutional amendment. Once enough states sign on, your state’s votes go to whoever wins the national popular vote — no matter how your own state voted.

Here is why this is catastrophic:

Every single ballot in America suddenly matters equally in one giant national count. That sounds fair until you realize where massive, organized fraud actually happens — in the big, one-party-controlled cities. Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit. These are exactly the places where thousands of ballots can be manufactured or flipped in the dead of night with almost no real oversight.

Right now, under the Electoral College, stealing 50,000 votes in a deep-blue city that already goes 80-20 for one side changes nothing. The state is already locked. Under the National Popular Vote, those same 50,000 fake votes move the national total by 50,000. Suddenly the payoff is enormous and the incentive to commit industrial-scale fraud goes through the roof.

This turns every urban political machine into a national kingmaker. Rural America, small towns, and red states get completely silenced. Your vote in flyover country becomes worthless compared to the machines in the big cities.

The Founders built the Electoral College for one reason: to stop pure mob rule by big population centers and to force candidates to care about the entire country. This compact destroys that protection.

This is not reform. This is rigging the game at the national level. And it is happening right now, and it’s coming to YOUR STATE if it hasn’t already made it there.

Share this before it is too late. Call your legislators in every state. Demand they reject this dangerous compact. It will be the end of the Republic.

MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THIS.

Our election systems do not produce results that can be independently verified as accurate. That single fact should alarm every American, yet instead of fixing the systems, we are told we must trust them. The burden of proof has been completely inverted. Citizens are expected to prove fraud after the results are announced, while the systems themselves face no requirement to prove they got it right. This is not a reasonable standard. It is madness.

A legitimate election system must do one thing above all else: produce results that can be transparently and independently confirmed to reflect only the will of eligible voters. This is not an opinion. It is a constitutional requirement.

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution

, the Guarantee Clause, commands that every state shall have a republican form of government. That form of government rests on the genuine consent of the governed. When the counting process is opaque and unverifiable, that consent cannot be confirmed. The system therefore fails the Constitution’s most basic test.

This inversion did not begin in 2020. It did not begin with any single candidate or party. For generations, both Democrats and Republicans have seen elections overturned because of proven fraud. Congress has thrown out results in contested House races on both sides of the aisle. The pattern is old, and the victims have come from both parties. James and Kenneth Collier documented this reality decades ago in their book Votescam.

They exposed how early computerized voting systems created hidden opportunities for manipulation while removing the vote count from public view.

None of this happened by accident. Sophisticated actors deliberately channeled the public into an impossible task. Year after year, the same phrases were repeated with mechanical precision: “baseless claims,” “no evidence,” and “where’s the proof?” These words did not invite scrutiny of the systems. They forced citizens to chase an evidentiary burden that was designed to be unmeetable. Had the question been “Can this system prove its own results are accurate?” instead of “Can you prove fraud?” the entire debate would have collapsed within the first year.

The most obvious warning sign is the relentless demand that we simply trust the system. Institutions invest massive energy telling the public (including our own Election Officials) to have faith in the process. A system that truly works does not need to beg for trust. It earns trust by being transparent and verifiable. When perceived authorities must constantly demand belief rather than demonstrate proof, they are admitting the system cannot stand on its own.

Consider how sophisticated criminals operate. Modern car thieves do not pick locks with paper clips. They use electronic scanners to clone key fobs from a distance and sophisticated devices to bypass computer systems once inside the vehicle. The more complex the car’s technology, the easier it is for experts to defeat it while the average owner remains unaware. Our election systems have been built with that same dangerous complexity. They produce results that look official to citizens and election workers alike, yet those results cannot be independently verified by the people whose government is being chosen. If intelligent actors wanted to manipulate elections while maintaining the appearance of legitimacy, this is precisely the system they would design.

Joseph Stalin stated in 1923, “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.”

What would very intelligent, sophisticated, and evil people do if they wanted to take over a nation without firing a single shot? They would remove the people from the counting process. They would replace transparent paper ballots and public observation with complex electronic systems that only a handful of ‘experts’ truly understand. They would meticulously train the public to accept results on faith alone. It might even jail or imprison those that attempt to question it, like they have done with Tina Peters.

They would make any challenge to the system seem unreasonable or even dangerous. They would invert the burden of proof so completely that the people would spend years trying to prove fraud instead of demanding that the system prove its own accuracy.

That is not a conspiracy theory. That is a precise description of the system we have been living under.

The solution is not more accusations. The solution is to build systems that no longer require blind trust because their accuracy can be seen and confirmed by any citizen who cares to look. Secure, in-person paper-based voter registration managed only by our local county servants, Citizen-run precinct-level hand counts on election day, under bipartisan citizen observation, with immediate public posting of results. Strict limits on absentee ballots. Full transparency of every ballot image, video footage of the vote counting process, and chain-of-custody records. These are not radical ideas. They are the minimum requirements for a system that can actually prove it got the answer right every time.

Until we restore the correct burden, until the system itself must prove its accuracy, the Guarantee Clause remains unfulfilled. A republic that cannot verify its own elections is not a republic at all. It is simply an illusion of a republic.

The question is no longer — and never should have been — whether fraud occurred in any particular election. The question is whether we have all lost our damn minds by accepting systems that can never prove they are honest. The answer, unfortunately, appears to be yes.

So, are you ready to Declare Your Independence?

For years, audiences have asked me “but WHO is THEY???”. So I decided to give them a picture to help them understand — the sinister figure — cold, calculating, holding the entire world in his hands while peering at it through an eyepiece. That image represents what I call the “evil genius.”

An evil genius is not a crazy person or a low-level criminal. He is someone who possesses two dangerous traits at the same time: exceptional intelligence and complete absence of morality.

There is more than one, yes. These people understand the critical importance of something most Americans have sadly, now forgotten: Our country was deliberately designed as a decentralized republic. Power was meant to stay in the hands of the people, not the government. That’s why our election system was also built to be decentralized. From the beginning, it was never government officials or private companies who counted the votes — it was the citizens themselves, counting their ballots in public at the local precinct level.

This was not an accident. A decentralized government requires a decentralized election system to survive. If you centralize components of the elections, you will eventually centralize the government itself.

The evil geniuses understood this perfectly. They knew that controlling a few centralized points was far easier than trying to control thousands of independent precincts. So over decades, they slowly centralized our elections under the cover of “progress,” “efficiency,” and “modernization.”

They didn’t do this work themselves. They used millions of good but ignorant people — including election officials — to help them. Officials were told that voting machines and centralized counting would make their jobs easier and reduce fraud. Instead, we traded a simple, transparent, decentralized system where fraud was visible for a complex, centralized system where fraud could be hidden at massive scale.

This was their true genius: They didn’t need to commit obvious crimes. They simply changed the structure of the system so the truth became nearly impossible to see — while keeping the outward appearance of democracy intact.

Most Americans still believe they are voting in real elections. That illusion is the most brilliant part of the strategy.

The good news is this does not have to continue.

The solution is not complicated. We must return to the fundamentals our Founders understood: hand-marked paper ballots, counted openly by citizens at the precinct level on election night, with the entire process recorded. Modern technology now makes this easier and more transparent than ever before.

In fact, the Progressive Election Platform lays out specifically all that is needed to instantly restore our Republic:

The PEP

We do not need to ask permission. The people who currently run the system work for us, not the other way around. When enough Americans decide they will once again count their own votes, the evil geniuses will lose their power — and the republic can be restored.

Like some others have done, I encourage you to print out the following Declaration, and kindly hand-deliver a copy of it to every public official you know.

The Declaration

Executive Summary

Risk-limiting audits (RLAs), developed by statistician Philip B. Stark, offer a statistical method to check election results—but only when applied to a complete, intact, and trustworthy voter-verifiable paper trail. All post-election audits, including traditional fixed-percentage checks, share a critical limitation: they cannot create trustworthiness where none exists.

When election officials claim that any audit proves accurate results, they produce a false sense of security. This illusion misleads citizens, sustains insecure voting systems, and creates opportunities for undetected manipulation. Even after the inventor of RLAs publicly exposed this misuse as creating a false sense of security for unverifiable systems, election officials continue to rely on and promote these audits, passing the misleading assurances to the public and dismissing citizen concerns.

The only reliable path to verifiable election accuracy is direct hand-counting of paper ballots by citizens at the precinct level on election night, with full transparency and public oversight. Audits alone are insufficient and can serve as a pathway for bad actors to introduce or hide errors while evading detection.

Philip B. Stark and the Origin of Risk-Limiting Audits

Philip B. Stark is a Distinguished Professor of Statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, specializing in uncertainty quantification and election auditing. In 2007–2008, as part of California’s Post-Election Audit Standards Working Group, he developed risk-limiting audits (RLAs). Key publications include “Conservative Statistical Post-Election Audits” (2008) and “A Gentle Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits” (with Mark Lindeman, 2012). Stark also produced open-source tools for sampling and risk calculation and advised on implementations such as Colorado’s first statewide RLA in 2017.

Precise Mechanics of Risk-Limiting Audits

An RLA is a statistical procedure that manually examines randomly sampled ballots from a trustworthy paper trail. It limits the probability of certifying an incorrect outcome to a pre-specified risk limit (for example, 5%). If discrepancies suggest the reported result may be wrong, the audit expands until the risk limit is met or a full hand count corrects the outcome.

RLAs require strict prerequisites: a complete voter-verifiable paper trail (preferably hand-marked ballots), a compliance audit confirming chain of custody and ballot accounting, a ballot manifest, and verifiable random sampling. Two approaches exist—ballot-polling (hand review without machine records) and ballot-comparison (matching hand counts to machine records). Sampling increases as needed. These features make RLAs statistically stronger than traditional audits, but they provide zero assurance without trustworthy underlying records.

Stark’s Resignation from Verified Voting

On November 21, 2019, Philip B. Stark resigned from the Verified Voting board. The full text of his resignation letter follows:

21 November 2019
Dear colleagues–

With sadness and disappointment, I am resigning from the board of Verified Voting.

I believe that Verified Voting has lost its way.

It has been providing cover for inherently untrustworthy voting systems–and the officials who bought them, the companies that make them, and any officials who might contemplate buying them in the future–by conducting “risk-limiting audits” of untrustworthy paper records, creating the false and misleading impression that relying on untrustworthy paper for a RLA can confirm election outcomes (and debasing the meaning of “RLA” in the process).

This contradicts the most basic principle of Evidence-Based Elections: the need to establish that the paper trail is trustworthy.

Several months ago, I asked VV to revise its published policy on BMDs to clarify that parallel testing cannot show that BMD printout is trustworthy. The current policy on parallel testing of BMDs is counter to the advice of David Jefferson, Ron Rivest, Andrew Appel, Rich DeMillo, and me (and perhaps other board and AB members). I have repeated the request. Yet, months later, the original document stands.

VV is promoting the “shiny” part of auditing–the RLA procedure–at the expense of a far more fundamental requirement for trustworthy elections: a trustworthy paper trail. Whitewashing inherently untrustworthy elections by overclaiming what applying RLA procedures to an untrustworthy paper trail can accomplish sets back election integrity. This is security theater, not election integrity.

Indeed, VV publicly claimed that the pilot RLA in Georgia confirms the election outcomes, despite the fact that it was conducted primarily on universal-use BMDs with serious usability and security defects. I understand that the press quotation from Marian about the audit was not approved in advance by her, but she has clarified by email that she believes it is true.

I do not.

That statement has done damage to a case trying to hold Georgia SoS accountable for historical neglect of election integrity and its ill-advised decision to buy universal-use BMDs, a case in which I have submitted several reports, and which involves Rich DeMillo more centrally. I predict it will also become part of the vendor’s advertising for universal-use BMDs. It amounts to a product endorsement from VV that their systems can be proved to get the correct outcome by the “gold standard,” a RLA.

I asked VV to issue a public clarification (press release or policy statement) that RLAs cannot show that BMD output is trustworthy–nor can any other audit establish that BMD printout is trustworthy–and that basing an audit on BMD output cannot confirm election outcomes. I asked a week ago, to allow time for the statement to be used in court filings to counter claims that Georgia election officials have made in court documents, quoting VV’s participation in the “audit.” No such statement has been made.

I also tried to prevent VV from making a similarly misleading claim about auditing in Philadelphia–but it did: Today, VV is conducting a “RLA” relying on the Philadelphia ExpressVote XL printout, and claimed on Twitter that it will “confirm election outcomes.” That is patently false. But I’m sure it will be in ES&S press releases and promotional materials within a few days.

VV should be making it clear that trustworthy paper is prerequisite to conducting a RLA, and that auditing the tabulation provides no evidence that outcomes are correct if the paper trail is not trustworthy. Applying RLA procedures to BMD output might show that tabulation errors are not large enough to produce the apparent margin, but it can’t confirm election outcomes, because there is no trustworthy touchstone. Evidence is what matters, not mindlessly applying a procedure. RLAs are not magic. They do not cure all the ills of any system that produces some kind of paper “backup.”

Indeed, the need for evidence that the paper trail is trustworthy applies to hand-marked paper ballots as well as to BMD printout: VV should be demanding convincing evidence that the paper trail is trustworthy, and helping jurisdictions develop laws, regulations, and procedures to make it possible to generate that evidence. That requires a compliance audit that checks the chain of custody of the paper, ballot accounting, eligibility determinations, signature verification, among many other things. A compliance audit of a universal-use BMD system cannot provide affirmative evidence that the paper trail is trustworthy. No procedure can. (“Trustworthy” means that a full hand count of the paper would show who really won. It does not mean that every last vote was captured and retained accurately.)

Verified Voting is providing cover for bad actors (election officials and vendors) and inherently untrustworthy voting systems (poorly designed, inaccessible universal-use BMDs) by conducting “risk-limiting audits” of paper trails that cannot in principle be established to be trustworthy even if there were good laws and regulations for compliance audits. VV is helping election officials who purchased poorly designed, unnecessarily expensive, insecure, universal-use BMD systems justify their purchases–despite the fact that virtually every expert on our board and advisory board recommended against purchasing universal-use BMDs. The election officials are now touting the fact that VV helped them conduct (i.e., pilot) RLAs to brag that their systems are trustworthy after all–and to claim in court that the audits prove their systems are trustworthy. VV is giving vendors quotes, talking points, and–in effect–product endorsements for insecure, inaccessible systems. VV is on the wrong side.

Our message to jurisdictions that buy poorly designed, insecure, universal-use BMD systems should be, “We tried to warn you. You need a better voting system.” Instead, we’re saying, “Don’t worry: VV will teach you to sprinkle magic RLA dust and fantasies about parallel testing on your untrustworthy election. All will be fine; you can use our authority and reputation to silence your critics.”

For well over a year, VV has been doing things that contradict and undermine my research, my publications, my expert reports, and my public testimony. Whatever good VV might be doing on other fronts, I cannot continue to support the organization.

I hope you will consider resigning, too.

Regards,
Philip

Misuse of RLAs and Traditional Post-Election Audits

As of 2026, seven states require RLAs by law, with about fifteen authorizing or piloting them. All fifty states perform some post-election audit. Traditional fixed-percentage audits review a set portion of ballots or precincts (often 1–5%) without statistical guarantees or required escalation.

Both RLAs and traditional audits fail when the paper trail is untrustworthy—such as records from universal ballot-marking devices. Real-world examples include pilots in Georgia (2020) and Philadelphia, where claims of “confirmed” outcomes were made despite fundamental weaknesses. Traditional audits are even less effective due to weaker sampling and no mandated full recount. In all cases, audits check only a subset of records. This limited scope allows bad actors to manipulate results in ways that avoid detection in the sampled portion.

The Core Vulnerability – Untrustworthy Audit Trails

A trustworthy paper trail directly captures voter intent and maintains unbroken chain of custody. Audits examine only samples and cannot retroactively establish integrity. Claiming that an audit proves accuracy without this foundation is security theater. It creates the dangerous belief that “checking some of the garbage” suffices. Throwing ballots into complex systems and auditing a fraction of them is an absurd method for verifying the people’s will. Bad actors can exploit this by concentrating manipulation outside the audited sample, knowing the process will likely pass.

National Implications of False Assurance

Election officials’ routine claims that audits demonstrate accurate results represent a critical and dangerous error. These statements foster public complacency while sustaining systems vulnerable to undetected error or fraud. Elections are the highest-value targets in our Republic. False assurance from audits breeds opportunities for manipulation at scale. Bad actors can alter outcomes without triggering full recounts, undermining governance, policy, and the rule of law.

The critical mistake is not merely technical. Officials, having been given false assurances about the power of audits, sincerely believe and transmit those assurances. Citizens receive and accept them. The result is a closed loop of deception that shields unverifiable systems from scrutiny and chastises those who question them.”

The only legitimate way for American citizens to trust election results is direct hand-counting of paper ballots by citizens themselves at the precinct level on election night. This approach eliminates reliance on machines, limits absentee ballots to verified necessities, uses small precincts (≤1,500 voters), requires bipartisan citizen counting under video recording, and makes all images, tallies, and records publicly available for immediate verification. Results are posted locally the same night. Public audits by citizens and students provide ongoing checks. This method replaces blind trust in partial audits with verified accuracy through transparent, observable counting where cast. Audits cannot substitute for this foundational process. Continued dependence on them invites exploitation and erodes our Republic.

Conclusion

Risk-limiting audits improve statistical rigor over traditional audits only when applied to trustworthy hand-marked paper trails. However, all audits share the same fatal flaw: they provide no affirmative evidence without verified records and can mask manipulation.

The continued reliance on audits—despite the inventor’s public condemnation—demonstrates that the false claims persist. This is the whistle that must be blown: audits cannot and do not provide the verified accuracy citizens require.

The solution is clear: return to simple, transparent, precinct-based hand counting by the people themselves, with full public access to records. Only verified accuracy—through direct observation and counting—restores legitimate trust in election results. Without this shift, the illusion of assurance will sever the final thread of our Constitutional Republic.

One lab. Two systems that control power and wealth. And a documented, massive failure that should terrify every voter in America.

🚨 This is the connection that should stop every American cold.

SLI Compliance — a division of Gaming Laboratories International (GLI) — is one of only two federally accredited labs in the United States authorized to test and certify electronic voting systems used in elections nationwide. (The other is PRO V&V).

They perform the exact same rigorous testing on both voting machines and lottery/gaming systems:

• Source code review
• Security and vulnerability analysis
• Functional testing
• Official certification

GLI/SLI has certified systems from Dominion, ES&S, Hart InterCivic, and others deployed across dozens of states.

The same company also certifies the random number generators, draw software, and security systems for state lotteries and the global gambling industry.

The Scandal That Proves the Danger

Between 2005 and 2017, the largest lottery fraud in U.S. history unfolded: the Hot Lotto Scandal.

Eddie Tipton — Director of Information Security for the Multi-State Lottery Association — inserted just two lines of malicious code into the random number generator software.

That software had already been tested and certified by GLI.

Tipton deliberately designed the backdoor to survive their standard source code reviews and testing procedures.

Result? He and his accomplices rigged jackpot drawings across multiple states and stole more than $24 million.

GLI did not catch it.

The Direct Parallel That Should Shock You

Same certifying lab. Same testing standards. Same high-stakes software environment handling random selection and tabulation.

If a sophisticated insider could completely bypass GLI’s certification process in lottery systems…

What did they miss in the voting systems they certify for our elections?

Or worse — what could a determined actor hide or enable?

Your lottery ticket and your ballot are both “protected” by the same gatekeeper.

This is not speculation. This is documented, court-proven history.

One company stands between trust and catastrophe in two of the most critical systems in America.

The integrity of our elections deserves far better scrutiny than a single lab with a proven blind spot in the exact domain it oversees.

America’s vote must not rest on the same foundation that failed its lottery systems.

We’ve demanded answers. We got none.

We’ve demanded transparency. We got none.

We’ve demanded to run our own election. We got denied.

American, it’s time to take back our elections, regardless of the obstacles.

Read the Declaration

and GET BUSY. We are not accepting ‘NO’ for an answer.

In recent years, I couldn’t help but notice the phrases “our democracy” and “threat to our democracy” had become more dominant in American political speech and media by the day. In contrast, references to “our republic” remained rare. You must understand that this pattern is not accidental. It represents a sustained campaign of repetitive framing designed to shift public understanding of the U.S. system of government, an effort to subvert it.

The United States is a constitutional republic. The word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere. Not in one place. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees every state “a Republican Form of Government.” The Founders intentionally built safeguards against pure majority rule, including the Electoral College, equal state representation in the Senate, separation of powers, federalism, and the Bill of Rights.

James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 that pure democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention” incompatible with personal security and property rights. The constitutional republic was designed to protect individual liberties from transient majorities.

Repetitive Framing Explained

Repetitive framing is the coordinated, high-frequency use of a preferred term across politicians, organizations, and media. It exploits the “illusory truth effect,” whereby repeated exposure causes people to perceive a statement as true regardless of its accuracy. By constantly repeating “our democracy,” the frame gradually replaces the precise constitutional description with one that emphasizes unlimited majority will.

Empirical Evidence

The data show a sharp and persistent divergence beginning in 2016. The “Democracy” line rises dramatically and remains elevated, frequently reaching scores of 60–90. The “Republic” line stays comparatively low and stable. This asymmetry reflects concentrated rhetorical effort rather than organic public usage.

Why the Distinction Matters

When the nation is consistently framed as “our democracy,” constitutional restraints—judicial review, state election authority, Senate procedures—are increasingly viewed as obstacles rather than essential protections. Policies that would weaken these republican safeguards are then presented as necessary defenses of “democracy.” This rhetorical inversion undermines public appreciation of the deliberate design chosen by the Founders.

How to Detect and Counter It

• Observe when “democracy” is used without reference to “republic.”
• Note when constitutional mechanisms are labeled threats to democracy.
• Demand precise language: the United States is a constitutional republic.
• Any time you hear or see “our democracy”, reply with this correction: “we do not have a democracy; we have a Constitutional Republic”. Consistent, widespread use of this correction helps neutralize the illusory truth effect over time.

Accurate terminology is a non-partisan civic responsibility.

Conclusion

The repetitive use of “our democracy” is a clear example of linguistic framing intended to reshape how Americans understand their government. Recognizing this technique allows citizens to see the manipulation and restore constitutional clarity.

The complete dataset is attached below for reference and verification:

date,“Our Democracy”,“Our Republic”,“Threat to Our Democracy”,“Threat to Our Republic”,Combined Democracy,Combined Republic
2015-01-31,18,18,0,0,9,9
2015-02-28,19,17,0,0,9.5,8.5
2015-03-31,19,16,0,0,9.5,8
2015-04-30,17,15,0,0,8.5,7.5
2015-05-31,18,15,0,0,9,7.5
2015-06-30,15,13,0,0,7.5,6.5
2015-07-31,8,15,0,0,4,7.5
2015-08-31,13,16,0,0,6.5,8
2015-09-30,37,21,0,0,18.5,10.5
2015-10-31,31,22,0,0,15.5,11
2015-11-30,25,19,0,0,12.5,9.5
2015-12-31,21,17,0,0,10.5,8.5
2016-01-31,26,18,0,0,13,9
2016-02-29,31,21,0,0,15.5,10.5
2016-03-31,26,20,0,0,13,10
2016-04-30,22,18,0,0,11,9
2016-05-31,23,18,0,0,11.5,9
2016-06-30,20,14,0,0,10,7
2016-07-31,17,16,0,0,8.5,8
2016-08-31,18,17,0,0,9,8.5
2016-09-30,39,23,0,0,19.5,11.5
2016-10-31,38,20,0,0,19,10
2016-11-30,45,24,0,0,22.5,12
2016-12-31,37,18,36,0,36.5,9
2017-01-31,48,22,0,0,24,11
2017-02-28,41,18,0,0,20.5,9
2017-03-31,29,17,0,0,14.5,8.5
2017-04-30,23,20,0,0,11.5,10
2017-05-31,31,17,0,0,15.5,8.5
2017-06-30,19,14,0,0,9.5,7
2017-07-31,13,13,0,0,6.5,6.5
2017-08-31,21,13,0,0,10.5,6.5
2017-09-30,43,22,0,0,21.5,11
2017-10-31,38,23,0,0,19,11.5
2017-11-30,32,17,0,0,16,8.5
2017-12-31,26,18,0,0,13,9
2018-01-31,28,18,0,0,14,9
2018-02-28,41,20,0,0,20.5,10
2018-03-31,32,22,0,0,16,11
2018-04-30,54,16,53,0,53.5,8
2018-05-31,29,18,0,0,14.5,9
2018-06-30,22,14,0,0,11,7
2018-07-31,21,13,0,0,10.5,6.5
2018-08-31,32,15,0,0,16,7.5
2018-09-30,52,25,0,0,26,12.5
2018-10-31,49,23,0,0,24.5,11.5
2018-11-30,36,18,26,0,31,9
2018-12-31,27,19,0,0,13.5,9.5
2019-01-31,30,18,0,0,15,9
2019-02-28,33,18,0,0,16.5,9
2019-03-31,31,20,39,0,35,10
2019-04-30,29,16,26,0,27.5,8
2019-05-31,28,21,0,0,14,10.5
2019-06-30,19,16,0,0,9.5,8
2019-07-31,13,10,0,0,6.5,5
2019-08-31,27,14,0,0,13.5,7
2019-09-30,42,23,0,0,21,11.5
2019-10-31,42,35,0,0,21,17.5
2019-11-30,32,17,0,0,16,8.5
2019-12-31,35,18,0,0,17.5,9
2020-01-31,36,22,0,0,18,11
2020-02-29,45,26,0,0,22.5,13
2020-03-31,28,19,0,0,14,9.5
2020-04-30,42,35,0,0,21,17.5
2020-05-31,35,24,28,0,31.5,12
2020-06-30,33,15,38,0,35.5,7.5
2020-07-31,23,11,53,0,38,5.5
2020-08-31,38,18,47,0,42.5,9
2020-09-30,98,38,36,0,67,19
2020-10-31,60,30,33,0,46.5,15
2020-11-30,69,29,52,0,60.5,14.5
2020-12-31,41,20,35,0,38,10
2021-01-31,70,34,49,0,59.5,17
2021-02-28,40,23,0,0,20,11.5
2021-03-31,31,20,22,0,26.5,10
2021-04-30,29,18,29,0,29,9
2021-05-31,34,20,31,0,32.5,10
2021-06-30,25,13,0,0,12.5,6.5
2021-07-31,16,11,0,0,8,5.5
2021-08-31,21,13,0,0,10.5,6.5
2021-09-30,45,22,0,0,22.5,11
2021-10-31,34,18,0,0,17,9
2021-11-30,32,16,0,0,16,8
2021-12-31,42,15,34,0,38,7.5
2022-01-31,55,24,54,0,54.5,12
2022-02-28,42,25,37,0,39.5,12.5
2022-03-31,38,28,28,0,33,14
2022-04-30,54,30,54,0,54,15
2022-05-31,47,28,29,0,38,14
2022-06-30,34,21,26,0,30,10.5
2022-07-31,22,15,0,0,11,7.5
2022-08-31,41,25,34,100,37.5,62.5
2022-09-30,75,34,54,0,64.5,17
2022-10-31,59,30,44,0,51.5,15
2022-11-30,56,29,58,0,57,14.5
2022-12-31,45,25,33,0,39,12.5
2023-01-31,47,28,29,0,38,14
2023-02-28,52,32,28,0,40,16
2023-03-31,46,30,49,0,47.5,15
2023-04-30,43,29,60,0,51.5,14.5
2023-05-31,46,30,55,0,50.5,15
2023-06-30,26,22,30,0,28,11
2023-07-31,20,15,29,0,24.5,7.5
2023-08-31,43,21,25,0,34,10.5
2023-09-30,92,40,55,0,73.5,20
2023-10-31,95,34,51,0,73,17
2023-11-30,46,27,45,0,45.5,13.5
2023-12-31,47,30,35,0,41,15
2024-01-31,62,37,45,0,53.5,18.5
2024-02-29,62,35,54,0,58,17.5
2024-03-31,54,33,59,0,56.5,16.5
2024-04-30,52,34,54,0,53,17
2024-05-31,45,33,38,0,41.5,16.5
2024-06-30,35,22,33,0,34,11
2024-07-31,81,23,91,0,86,11.5
2024-08-31,57,31,50,0,53.5,15.5
2024-09-30,92,49,73,45,82.5,47
2024-10-31,83,40,94,0,88.5,20
2024-11-30,82,37,59,0,70.5,18.5
2024-12-31,52,32,100,0,76,16
2025-01-31,70,37,44,0,57,18.5
2025-02-28,97,41,72,0,84.5,20.5
2025-03-31,86,37,63,40,74.5,38.5
2025-04-30,85,38,53,0,69,19
2025-05-31,52,37,64,0,58,18.5
2025-06-30,44,27,55,0,49.5,13.5
2025-07-31,30,30,0,0,15,15
2025-08-31,54,29,49,0,51.5,14.5
2025-09-30,100,52,57,0,78.5,26
2025-10-31,83,51,65,0,74,25.5
2025-11-30,63,50,66,0,64.5,25
2025-12-31,56,58,71,0,63.5,29
2026-01-31,73,85,69,0,71,42.5
2026-02-28,85,100,84,0,84.5,50
2026-03-31,77,86,73,0,75,43
2026-04-30,76,81,73,43,74.5,62
2026-05-31,52,42,37,12,44.5,27

From the exact moment a mail-in ballot envelope is received, there is no possible way for anyone — or any technology — to determine who, or what, actually filled out that ballot.

This single fact destroys the foundation of mail-in voting.

The signature on the outer envelope, constantly promoted as the primary security measure, verifies absolutely nothing about who marked the votes inside the ballot. It cannot confirm that the registered voter filled out the ballot. It cannot even confirm whether a real, eligible voter had any involvement whatsoever. The ballot and signature could both have been produced by a third party or a machine with zero legitimate voter involvement — and the system has no ability to detect it.

This failure exists immediately upon receipt. The system was designed in a broken state.

The rapid separation of ballots from their envelopes is often used to dismiss later concerns, yet this misses the central truth: there was never any way to verify the voter to begin with. Signature verification and ballot separation are nothing more than security theater.

We have all been lied to.

Election officials, legislators, and the American people have been repeatedly told that mail-in ballots are secure. That claim is demonstrably false.

This becomes even more alarming when viewed through the lens law enforcement uses to evaluate serious crimes — Motive, Means, and Opportunity:

• Motive: Total political power of over 330 million Americans and control of trillions in government spending.
• Means: A system that is structurally incapable of verifying who or what cast any given ballot.
• Opportunity: Mass mail-in ballots aggressively expanded across the entire country.

When all three align around our elections — the highest-value target in the republic — exploitation is not a risk, it is a certainty.

And it is already happening.

• In Mesa County, Colorado, former postal worker Vicki Lyn Stuart was sentenced to five years in prison in June 2025 for stealing ballots, forging voter signatures, and fraudulently submitting mail-in ballots during the 2024 election.
• In Iowa, Kim Phuong Taylor was convicted on 52 counts of voter fraud for filling out and forging signatures on absentee ballots belonging to other people.
• In California, former Lodi City Councilman Shakir Khan was sentenced to three years in jail after authorities discovered dozens of completed mail-in ballots at his home.

These proven cases confirm the system is being actively exploited right now. Yet because of its design, we have no idea how large the fraud actually is because the true scale is completely undetectable and immeasurable.

This is a clear and present danger to the republic.

The continued use of mass mail-in ballots is national suicide. A voting system that cannot verify the identity or even the existence of the voter is not a minor policy issue — it is an existential threat to free and fair elections.

Mass mail-in ballots must be abolished immediately.

Our republic cannot survive if we cannot verify who is actually voting.

Call to Action: Share this article with your state legislators, your sheriff, and your local election officials. Demand the immediate abolition of mass mail-in ballots. The integrity of our elections depends on it.

The New Declaration

NOTE 1: The most up-to-date version of this is at https://HandCountRoadShow.org/cabal-tactics.

NOTE 2: If you don’t realize this has been going on for decades, immediately watch https://TheLostInterview.com.

Introduction

This document is a catalog of observed, documented, and logically interconnected tactics, vulnerabilities, and methods used to compromise the integrity of American elections. It is not speculation—it is a synthesis of patterns reported by citizens, election observers, whistleblowers, data analysts, and independent investigators across multiple states and election cycles.

These tactics do not operate in isolation. They form a deliberate, multi-layered system designed to achieve one overriding objective: to control election outcomes while maintaining the appearance of a free, fair, and secure process.

The system works through:

• Psychological preparation of the public to accept manipulated results
• Infiltration and capture of institutions, organizations, and officials
• Financial and candidate suppression to eliminate genuine opposition
• Legal and legislative embedding of exploitable rules
• Inflation of voter rolls to create cover for phantom ballots
• Procedural sabotage to block oversight and transparency
• Exploitation of mail, early, and absentee voting for real-time data and injection opportunities
• Physical and digital vulnerabilities that allow undetectable alterations
• End-to-end control mechanisms (feedback loops, weak audits, forced certification) that seal manipulated results

Each category in this list represents a phase or vector in that system. When viewed together, they reveal not random errors or isolated incidents, but a coordinated architecture that distributes risk, diffuses accountability, and exploits every point of trust in the modern election process—from voter registration to final certification.

The goal is simple: produce the desired result while making meaningful investigation, challenge, or reversal prohibitively difficult, expensive, or legally impossible.

This compilation exists so that citizens, legislators, sheriffs, attorneys, and election integrity advocates can see the full picture, recognize overlapping patterns, anticipate next moves, and prioritize countermeasures that address the system as a whole—not just its individual symptoms.

Read it sequentially to understand the progression. Refer to it modularly to identify specific attack surfaces in your jurisdiction. Share it widely. The more people recognize the playbook, the harder it becomes to run it in the shadows.

Outline

This outline serves as a table of contents for the reorganized list below. It summarizes the high-level categories, their focus, and key sub-items, providing a structured overview of how various tactics, vulnerabilities, and methods interconnect to undermine election integrity.

1. Psychological / Perception / Influence Operations
   Focus: Shaping public opinion, misinformation, and demoralization to control narratives and suppress opposition.

   • Linguistic Deception
   • Psychological Operations
   • Influence Operations
   • Media
   • Suppression-Based Perception Framing
   • Forced Opposition Projection
   • Fear/Discredit Tactics; Intimidation
   • Fake polling results
   • Manipulated betting markets

2. Infiltration, Controlled Opposition & Institutional Capture
   Focus: Inserting agents or co-opting organizations and officials to monitor, disrupt, or redirect efforts from within.

   • Fake Groups
   • Infiltrators
   • Infiltration of Grass Root Orgs
   • Infiltration of Offices
   • Usurpation of Election Officials
   • County Clerks Association
   • Law Enforcement
   • Political Parties

3. Financial / Campaign / Candidate Manipulation
   Focus: Controlling resources, candidates, and primaries to limit viable options and waste opposition efforts.

   • Cost to run
   • Campaign Consultants
   • Campaigns
   • Candidate Engineering
   • Districting/Gerrymandering
   • Primaries
   • Ranked-choice voting.

4. Legislative & Legal Barriers
   Focus: Using laws, bills, and legal tactics to enable manipulation, restrict access, and delay accountability.

   • Legislation
   • Lawfare
   • Delay Tactics in fixing election issues
   • Public Information Requests

5. Demographic & Registration Manipulation
   Focus: Inflating voter rolls with phantom or low-propensity entries to create opportunities for ballot injection.

   • Population
   • Illegal Immigration
   • Demographic manipulation
   • Colleges
   • Accessibility Sleight of Hand
   • Registration; Voter Rolls

6. Process & Procedural Interference
   Focus: Sabotaging meetings, events, and oversight to limit participation and awareness.

   • Public Meetings
   • Date/Time games
   • Electronic Date/Time Manipulation
   • Polling Places
   • Polls
   • Election Workers
   • Poll Watchers

7. Voting Methods & Early / Mail / In-Person Exploitation
   Focus: Exploiting extended voting periods and mail systems for data collection and ballot insertion.

   • Early Voting; Election ‘Day’
   • In-Person Voting converted to Mail-in
   • Ballot Harvesting
   • Low-Propensity Voter Record Harvesting
   • Mail ballots
   • Drop-Boxes
   • USPS
   • UOCAVA
   • Chain of Custody sleight of hand

8. Ballots & Physical / Printing Vulnerabilities
   Focus: Manipulating physical ballots through design flaws, errors, or handling to enable fraud.

   • Ballots

9. Technology, Software & Cyber Vulnerabilities
   Focus: Backdoors and weaknesses in digital systems for undetected alterations.

   • Fake Testing and Certification
   • Technology / Cyber-Security
   • Data Breaches; Software
   • Electronic Poll Books
   • Electronic Voting Machines
   • Mobile Voting and “shiny new object” technology
   • Election Code.

10. Overall Systems & End-to-End Manipulation Framework
    Focus: Comprehensive methodologies tying together injection, flipping, and verification evasion across the election lifecycle.

    • Overall Manipulation Methodology
    • Feedback Loop
    • Tabulation
    • Reporting; Records
    • Certification
    • Auditing
    • Canvassing
    • Recalls
    • Election Contest

Detail

1. Psychological / Perception / Influence Operations

• Linguistic Deception

  • Exploit public ignorance and ambiguity in terminology. Examples:

    • “Hand-Marked Paper Ballots” Deception: Citizens are directed to demand “hand-marked paper ballots” as a perceived solution for verifiable elections. The term is exploited because it only requires voters to mark paper ballots by hand, which are then fed into electronic tabulation machines for counting. Once implemented, officials claim compliance (“You already have hand-marked paper ballots”), while the actual counting remains opaque and machine-dependent. This channels public energy into an ineffective reform that fails to deliver hand-counted results, creating frustration and demoralization without achieving meaningful transparency.
    • “Air-Gapped” Systems Deception: Election officials and the public are told that electronic voting systems are “air-gapped” (completely isolated from networks), implying they are secure from external interference or remote manipulation. The term is misused because many systems are not truly isolated in practice—due to memory cards, USB transfers, wired/wireless/modem connections, or administrative access—yet officials, lacking deep technical understanding, accept the claim and project false confidence. This discourages scrutiny from citizen experts, reinforces institutional dismissal of concerns, and maintains the illusion of security while vulnerabilities persist undetected.
    • “Encryption” Deception: Voting system vendors and officials promote “encryption” as a key security feature that protects election data. In reality, encryption serves primarily as a form of obfuscation that conceals potential manipulation from public view. What should be prioritized instead is verifiable data integrity through full transparency, where all processes and data remain visible and auditable at every step. Transparency and verifiable integrity supersede hidden mechanisms; that which cannot be seen cannot be independently verified. This semantic framing creates a false sense of protection while enabling undetectable alterations.

• Psychological Operations

  • Misinforming the public with information dominance

    • will not understand the battlefield
    • will fight each other
    • will not listen to each other

  • Distracting the public

    • will waste their resources
    • will drain them emotionally
    • will dilute their efforts

  • Demoralizing citizens

    • causes loss of hope
    • causes loss of courage
    • causes loss of confidence

• Influence Operations

  • Create another media system, ‘social media’
  • Incentivize people to become influencers
  • Use influences to manipulate public opinion

• Media

  • Push the narrative of ‘security’ and ‘accuracy’ until people start believing it.
  • Discredit any entity that questions security or accuracy of election, so the people ignore or discount the presented facts.

• Suppression-Based Perception Framing

  • Suppressing visible support (flags, signs, stickers) makes it seem as though there’s less backing for one side than actually exists.
  • This alters perceptions so that when results are falsified to favor another candidate, those manipulated believe the stolen victory was more plausible because they were misled about how popular their preferred candidate truly was.
  • The tactic leverages fear and self-censorship to create a false reality where fraud is harder to detect.
  • Examples:

    • Targeted Removal: Removing candidate signs or flags from lawns through vandalism, theft, or staged incidents makes it seem as though support isn’t widespread.
    • Public Shaming/Intimidation: Attacks on individuals wearing pro-Trump gear create a climate where others self-censor to avoid harassment.
    • Media Pressure: News coverage exaggerating the lack of visible support for one side further distorts perceptions before an election.

• Forced Opposition Projection

  • Manufactured rallies and similar orchestrated protests function as a display of opposition designed to distort perceptions about public sentiment.
  • Artificial Crowd Generation: organizers bus in supporters from outside local areas instead of relying on organic turnout. This creates the illusion that there’s wider support for a particular agenda than actually exists, making it seem more mainstream and legitimizing attacks against certain supporters.
  • How It Works:

    • Bus-In Tactics: Protesters are brought in from cities or regions where political opposition is already concentrated, ensuring a larger-than-realistic crowd presence. This bypasses the need for local grassroots support.
    • Media Amplification: Media coverage focuses on the size of the “organic” protest rather than questioning its artificial nature, creating the perception that there’s overwhelming public demand against a movement.
    • Suppression Reinforcement: The illusion of widespread opposition normalizes hostility towards those who support a particular movement, further suppressing visible allegiance through fear and self-censorship. If a rally looks large and popular, others will be less likely to openly oppose it for risk of backlash or social ostracization. The tactic is effective because many people base their opinions on surface appearances (e.g., how “big” something appears in media) rather than deeper engagement with issues. It works best when combined with other suppression strategies like attacking certain supporters, making the fake rally look more credible by association.

• Fear/Discredit Tactics

  • Compromise some people by getting them to commit election crimes
  • Target/attack/discredit everyone that reports or discusses election crimes to make them an example and scare others from reporting election crimes
  • Target/attack/discredit any attorneys/election officials/legislators/judges/etc to dissuade them and any others from getting involved

• Intimidation: reference is The Virginia Project Intimidation Tactics and You: Beating the Zerg Rush

  • It generally starts with hate spam – messages delivered to you in some fashion, whether by phone, email, over social media or some other form of communication. People you don’t know, who don’t know anyone who knows you, and who don’t appear to have any particular connection to anything you are involved in, suddenly decide they hate you in particular and they want you to know it, repeatedly, in volume. It is phony, contrived and organized. It is called inorganic intimidation because it is not natural.
  • The main characteristic of inorganic intimidation and interference operations is that the point is to stop you from doing whatever you were doing – the attacks sustain over time rather than waning. You were successful at something they didn’t like, therefore they will shut you down.
  • To bring this home, almost every Republican campaign and organization gets hit by mailing list stuffing attacks, the purpose of which is to load you up with spam flags so that your emails no longer reach inboxes, effectively silencing you in that medium. This was discussed at length in a pair of Virginia Project newsletters last year (Losing the War in Cyberspace | Alice in Cyberspace). These are swarm-intimidation events.
  • The ranks of conservatives and Republicans who have been targeted by this means are already considerable – they include, among others, the current Virginia Lieutenant Governor – as is the material damage done to GOP electioneering operations. It will only increase over time – unless we put our foot down and end the proliferation of these unlawful practices with robust application of the law.
  • We know how to handle brute-force intimidation through multiple communication vectors: do not react fearfully; never respond; do not read threatening communications, just record everything; and when the evidence you collect crosses the threshold of probable cause, bring in law enforcement and/or call in a lawyer to collect damages from perpetrators. This intimidation is unlawful interference against our campaigns and activism.
  • We know that Virginia Democrats will, in fact, conspire amongst themselves to raise money to hire criminal hackers to attack your online assets. This likely happens across the country.
  • To combat the above: Re-code websites from the ground up with an integrated software firewall with enhanced traffic analysis and reporting capabilities, and a component what I suppose marketing agencies might these days call a “network application security AI.” Develop an entire security layer of an application that can execute in less than 50 milliseconds, distinguishing real “customers” from both the ongoing hostile background noise of the Internet as well as targeted and sustained cyberattacks from abroad.
  • Social media companies are avenues by these gangs to hijack their content moderation processes. Never rely on a social media platform alone, but if it happens exchange with that company’s litigation team to expose unfair tactics against GOPers and candidates.
  • As a Republican, you need this system to protect yourself from the illegal things that Democrats, as well as other enemies of the American people, will do to your communications. So say goodbye to “my county GOP committee doesn’t have a website” and all the votes left on the table.
  • The Virginia Project believes they have gotten the mission of helping Twitter fix its account exploitation bugs. If you have been the victim of an unexplained account lock out on that platform, please email a description of your experience and the username of the account.
  • The Biden Administration is using, among other things yet to be explained, the EU ‘Digital Services Act’ to censor domestic opposition on social media.

2. Infiltration, Controlled Opposition & Institutional Capture

• Fake Groups

  • Claim to be on our side
  • Suck up money
  • Suck up attention
  • Redirect the citizens away from real solutions

• Infiltrators

  • These will inject themselves into existing groups
  • They will make themselves sound great
  • They may even provide some help to gain people’s confidence
  • Then they start playing people against each other
  • They cause disruptions
  • They cause distractions
  • They may get the group to do something that can then be used to discredit the group
  • Sometimes they do this work through another unsuspecting person in the group so nobody expects it.

• Infiltration of Grass Root Orgs

  • Cabal may co-op the Leader of grassroots election org and pass / receive info thus monitoring and controlling efforts. The leader/org may have no idea they are being used.
  • Cabal may bait honest citizens into frivolous lawsuit to discredit and demoralize group.

• Infiltration of Offices

  • We have seen many of the following individuals be put into positions over a period of time, operating in lock-step inhibiting transparency and verifiability in elections:

    • Governor
    • Secretaries of State
    • County Attorneys
    • County Sheriffs
    • County IT Staff
    • County Judges

• Usurpation of Election Officials

  • The systems are too complex and vulnerable for election officials to understand
  • Election officials must completely rely on assigned ‘cybersecurity’ experts who are in effect actually controlling our elections
  • They have election security/information dominance, controlling exactly what our representative officials know
  • Election Officials that resign prior to the end of their term could be replaced by an ‘appointed’ individual not beholden to the citizens

• County Clerks Association

  • NGO paid by counties and unaccountable to county’s electors
  • Instruct clerks they serve as “Agents of the Secretary of State”
  • Instruct clerks to trust machines and vendors
  • Convince clerks that electors are dangerous and to be feared
  • Instruct clerks to “forget” to notify (Republican) party chairmen to appoint Canvass Board members, so clerks can appoint them on behalf of party
  • Intimidate Canvass Board members who don’t certify elections
  • Work closely with Secretary of State to pass rules, statutes, and laws centralizing elections under government control

• Law Enforcement

  • Sheriffs are being sequestered into the service of the county (corporation) and state through interlocal agreements and county policies.
  • Training for sheriffs is provided by the county attorney’s office. This is an usurpation of the People’s protection against government officials acting unlawfully.
  • Push out good officers to make room for bad officers that will not uphold the constitution.
  • Media attack on law enforcement
  • Turn citizens against police, police against citizens
  • Force retirement of law enforcement by making it miserable to be a good officer
  • Lack of education of Sheriff’s rights/duties
  • Compromised and blackmailed judges/prosecutors

• Political Parties

  • Fuel further division rather than unity on fair elections.
  • Make non-partisan positions, partisan.

    • AZ Clerk and Recorder
    • DASS – Democratic Secretaries of State
    • etc.

  • Do not adhere to (or don’t know) their duties to provide Election Judges, Poll Watchers, and Audit and Canvass Board members
  • Don’t exert their authority over election operations as representatives of the electors, which is greater than that of the clerks and SOS who are “elected”
  • Don’t hold the election officials accountable for providing honest elections
  • Fail their constituents by not demanding honest elections
  • Are likely gaining power or monetary benefits by their complicity in election manipulation
  • There are no teeth (consequences) in many of the laws, therefore nothing to prohibit people breaking the laws, paving the way for abuse under false sense of security.

3. Financial / Campaign / Candidate Manipulation

• Cost to run

  • Increase cost to run for office/positions, so only someone with big money behind them can afford run, disenfranchising ordinary American Citizens.

• Campaign Consultants – There is a group of consultants coordinating to covertly subvert the candidates they represent

  • Suck money
  • Subtly sabotage campaigns
  • Share information with cabal
  • Control information flow
  • Block opportunities

• Campaigns

  • Many campaign managers are controlled opposition and attempt to control and spy on citizen candidates
  • Campaign financial manager may waste funds or violate laws in order to compromise the candidate they pretend to support

• Candidate Engineering

  • Candidates changing parties to give themselves a competitive advantage while deceiving the citizens.
  • Sleeper Candidates – They have their people already embedded in opposite party, positioned to be placed in a race to split votes.
  • Bad Candidates – They purposely support candidates on our side that:

    • Are controllable through compromise
    • Don’t have what it takes to pull through, sucking up donor dollars and wasting resources.
    • Will cause chaos

  • They find a candidate B with a similar name to run against candidate A to confuse the voters to bleed votes

• Districting/Gerrymandering
• Primaries – Cheat every way possible to control the endorsed candidates

  • Bribe others to run to split the vote
  • Hire people to Bad-mouth opponents
  • Open-Primaries – These can be used to cheat! They allow the opposing party to control who is on the ticket. Open-Primaries are a trojan horse.
  • Cheat using the voting system

    • Allow ‘delegate’ votes, then control the delegates
    • Add ‘anonymous’ votes during voting process (see CA GOP)
    • Pre-make slides to show pre-determined outcomes, and show those instead of the real-time votes (citizens don’t know the difference)

• Ranked-choice voting (See @Ranked Choice Voting (RCV))

  • There are many reasons this is a bad idea. One of them is that it is so complicated that it REQUIRES a computer tabulate and LOCKS us into using computerized tabulation. That ALONE is reason to boot it.
  • Allows covert election manipulation hidden in the complexity of the calculations
  • RCV information:
  • Behind RCV:

    • Open Society – ‘Fair Vote’
    • Tides Foundation – ‘Unite America’
    • GEHL – ‘Action Now’

  • Beware of RCV implemented under a different name.

4. Legislative & Legal Barriers

• Legislation

  • They inundate legislators with so many lengthy bills, nobody has a chance to read them.
  • They get naïve legislators to carry ‘election integrity’ bills as a good ‘compromise’ (e.g., 2026 HB95 in AL)
  • They disguise bills building in trojan horses
  • They create legislation, then later change the definition of the terms used in the previous legislation. Bait and switch.
  • They create a sacrificial bill to put on the ballot that gets a certain group riled up in order to increase biased voter participation.
  • They sneak legislation changes into the state budget (including legislation that moves representation away from the governed)
  • Passing bills to eliminate hand counted ballots (e.g., AB969 in CA).
  • Laws are created to give people the sense of security, which turns false because they then don’t follow the laws.
  • Laws are created to restrict access by the citizens, blocking us from being able to see or verify our own election system. This is done SUBTLY, and/or hidden in other legislation. They SNEAK THESE LAWS IN! (e.g., 2026 HB67 in AL)
  • There is no reasonable penalty attached to breaking election laws.
  • Requiring municipalities to use county election systems in order to centralize and control downstream elections.

• Lawfare

  • Out-lawyer the citizens so they cannot afford representation to fight with equal force
  • Attack the citizen attorneys (personal attacks, lawsuits, go after their license, etc.)
  • Refuse to hear case and evidence due to ‘lack of standing’
  • Blocking evidence:

    • Play word games and feign confusion with the information requests (they play stupid on purpose)
    • Push citizens to the point of lawsuit, then claim they cannot release the records due to lawsuit
    • Delay information release until suddenly the information is gone for some reason (hard drive crash, backup failure, etc.)

  • Cases are moved to jury trials to induce additional costs to pursue.
  • Delay tactics are frequently used to kick the can down, then leave no time to get anything fixed.
  • Harassing and countersuing the plaintiffs and asking judges for motions to reconsider to drain our finances and harass plaintiffs

• Delay Tactics in fixing election issues

  • Policy analyses
  • Feasibility studies
  • Impact assessments

• Public Information Requests

  • Election Database Backups – Vendors and some Counties use a myriad of excuses to deny access to these databases as well as charge exorbitant fees:

    • Intellectual property – They claim that there is IP in the database backups. There shouldn’t be any, of course. If there is, then the company is incompetent in putting their intellectual property inside a file meant to serve as an archive of election data. There is no need to put any IP in that, so if they are doing so on purpose, they are doing so in order to use this as an excuse to block citizens from accessing it.
    • Critical Infrastructure – They claim there is information in the database backups that would compromise the security of their ‘critical infrastructure’ election systems. Then I suppose their ‘critical infrastructure’ election systems are for some reason storing information that could compromise the security of their systems in files that should never have this kind of information. This would violate critical infrastructure best practices. So, which is it? Are they critical infrastructure and they incompetently or maliciously violated those best practices, or are they not and they’re just using this lie to restrict access to information?

5. Demographic & Registration Manipulation

• Population

  • Population numbers are increased by every available means, in order to have headroom to increase registered voters.
  • Prior to 2010, the Census Form had a citizenship question on it. In 2010, the form was replaced with a different form that had no citizenship question on it. California even sued to keep the citizenship question OFF the census form.
  • Open-borders substantiate higher population numbers that include illegal aliens with no way to verify them.
  • There are cases of census ‘miscounting’ the population as well.

• Illegal Immigration

  • Mass immigration combined with a census that now counts them allows justification for higher population, and creates more headroom of justifiable registered voters and enables gerrymandering.
  • Allows creation of voter registration records that don’t actually need to be tied to a real citizen
  • The voter registration records allow ballots to be created, mailed, cast, and tabulated.
  • There are not adequate protections in place to protect elections from this (by design, most-likely)

• Demographic manipulation

  • Move people into cities to run for offices in order to start shifting political demographics at county/state levels
  • Artificial entities act as a form of “phantom” or non-human voters that dilute the weight of actual resident human votes. (For instance, Delaware allowing LLCs, Trusts, and Companies to vote in elections.)

• Colleges

  • They bring groups in from other states to harvest voters from young populations
  • Our kids are targeted on campuses to capture their votes

• Accessibility Sleight of Hand

  • Felon Voting Rights – This isn’t really for felons to actually vote. It is to pave the way for the cabal to inject more phantom ballots into the system. It merely provides justification for the value to be there. This creates yet another huge abuse vector.
  • Minor Voting Rights – This allows children who are easily manipulated and persuaded, who’s brains aren’t even fully developed yet and aren’t even mature enough to sign a legal contract, serve on a jury, file a lawsuit, open a bank account, buy a stock, rent an apartment, consent to their own medical care, register to give blood, get a tattoo, buy a car, etc, to change laws, choose judges, local/state/federal officials, and even the President of the US.

• Registration

  • Some ‘requirements’ allow:

    • no driver’s license, ID card, SS card
    • no physical address, mailing address only
    • entries for people that are only 15 years old but warn them not to vote because it is illegal
    • have to be in the state for at least 22 days (this would allow state-hopping) to cover staggered elections.)

  • Increase numbers of independent registrations

    • Independent are more universal manipulation purposes
    • Inflating independent voter rolls gives fake results a plausible cover – more ‘wiggle room’ to explain whatever outcome is needed
    • Illegal or ‘gray-area’ voter registration drives
    • NGO’s going performing voter registration

      • They target vulnerable parts of our communities
      • It gives them direct access to people’s information (violation of privacy)
      • In at least Maricopa County, the county provided registration NGO’s URL/API access directly to their county voter registration system (to be confirmed with @Shelby Busch)

    • If the elected county officials are not in full control of all registrations, it leaves a huge attack surface open
    • Youth Pre-registration – In some states, children are allowed to be ‘pre-registered’ to vote.

      • Allows plausible excuses for procedural ‘mistakes’ that allow indirect manipulation of elections

        • Send out ballots to the youth. If caught, just claim it was a mistake. If not, free uninformed voters!

      • As soon as those pre-registrations hit the 18 yr old mark, they are automatically changed to active status which allows them to be used an excuse for injection of phantom ballots.

    • They are changing people from their designated party to PND status (party not designated) in order to vote for use their record to inject votes.
    • Voter registration records will be changed to inactive without the voter knowing, causing the not to be able to vote. In many states, this can happen even on election day prior to voting. If you vote by mail, you won’t know until it is too late. If you vote in person, you’ll find out right then and you can make them fix it right then.
    • No responsible party / accountability for keeping the voter rolls accurate
    • Voter registration databases do not mandate or even include the SOURCE of the registration record (the individual that caused the registration, and the full path it took to arrive in the database in the first place)
    • People go to graveyards and find names off of tombstones
    • Traveling Voter Operations

      • Recruit individuals willing to travel (college students, transient workers, activists, or paid operatives).
      • Pre-register them in multiple early-voting states using forwarding addresses, sympathetic roommates, or vacant properties (a practice already documented in some voter-roll studies).
      • Starting with the earliest-opening states (e.g., Minnesota and South Dakota open ~46 days out; New Jersey, New York, Virginia ~45 days), the travelers vote in person during the early period.
      • Move immediately to the next cluster of states whose early voting has opened but whose rolls have not yet received updated “voted” flags from the previous states—flaws amplified by ERIC’s batch processing and spotty detection.
      • Repeat across the country, hitting battleground states in waves (Midwest → Southeast → Southwest → West Coast) over the 2–6 week early-voting calendar.
      • In states with same-day registration, simply show up, register, and vote—no pre-planning needed.

• Voter Rolls

  • Their goal is to increase the registered voters by as much as possible, especially with low-to-no-propensity voters, because they need those database entries to attach votes to.
  • Motor-Voter system is a gateway for illegitimate voter registrations. They utilize weaknesses in obtaining driver’s licenses in order to create a voter registration record.

    • Voter Reg Entries are also being created for those too young to vote, but old enough to drive.

  • Loose or no ID requirement to register to vote in many cases
  • Proof of residence not being required or confirmed
  • Mass change of party affiliation to unaffiliated in order to manipulate – Look for affiliation changes before and after primaries.
  • ‘Private’ or ‘Protected’ status meant to protect some records is abused and used to covertly inject phantom registrations.
  • Change of party affiliation prior to becoming poll-workers in order to pose as different party.
  • Leaving bad records in (not purging them – why are they not purging? by who’s instruction?)
  • Injection of bad records
  • Loose security in access controls
  • Loose access logging
  • No change-tracking
  • Duplicate entries of individuals with name changes (maiden/married names)
  • Addresses modified (street names) to send ballots to know bad addresses
  • Outsourcing the responsibility of maintaining voter rolls to entities that fail to maintain them properly (through incompetence or maliciousness), also allowing the rolls to be indirectly manipulated by a fourth-party.
  • Adjustments to voter rolls are made in real-time, even during the election
  • No data consistency
  • No change-tracking
  • No referential integrity
  • Same-day voter registration paves the way for last-second ballot injections.

6. Process & Procedural Interference

• Public Meetings

  • They get rescheduled to cause conflicts
  • People are assigned to run out the clock to eliminate or reduce our time
  • Public speaking time is continually reduced
  • Microphones are shut off
  • Livestreams/recordings sometimes have audio ‘issues’ that result in the public not being able to hear

• Date/Time games

  • They advertise incorrect dates/times for events in order to cause people to miss events (one example: publishing LAT at 9a, but starting at 8a so poll watchers miss the first hour).

• Electronic Date/Time Manipulation

  • There are many instances of date/time not being accurate on various parts of the voting systems.

• Polling Places

  • Enact laws that make it prohibitive to qualify many locations as polling places to force the centralization of polling centers.
  • Implement “County-Wide Voting”

    • Sold as conveniences
    • Centralizes control
    • Centralizes manipulation
    • Allows undetectable laundering of votes

  • Nothing wrong with reasonable ADA requirements for our disabled citizens, but we do need to take these into account: 2016-06 US DOJ Civil Rights ACA Checklist for Polling Places (votingchecklist).pdf

• Polls

  • They prohibit anyone wearing political attire at the polls to protect the Election Illusion.

• Election Workers

  • They make it seem like anyone can apply, but they choose who becomes election workers. The election workers are their people.

• Poll Watchers

  • They make it seem like anyone can apply, but they choose who becomes poll watchers. The poll watchers are their people.
  • They mis-train poll watchers so they don’t know what to look for.
  • They keep watchers and observers from access to polls, testing so that they can’t view anything that matters

7. Voting Methods & Early / Mail / In-Person Exploitation

• Early Voting

  • They collect data and build a model of the election results prior to tabulation:

    • Mail-in Ballot-Tracking – They tell the citizens that the ballot tracking is so citizens can track their ballots. However, the ballot tracking allows the cabal to know who has voted. Combined with databases of party affiliation and other online profiling, the vote of each returned ballot can be estimated without even needing to look at the ballot.
    • Electronic Poll Books – When someone checks in to vote, this data is put into a central database. Combined with databases of party affiliation and other online profiling, the vote of each returned ballot can be estimated without even needing to look at the ballot.

  • They can calculate how much of an adjustment to the votes needs to be made, then take advantage of voter registration database manipulation to utilize phantom records or records of low-propensity voters to inject ballots into the system to shift the results organically before anything goes to tabulation.
  • Early voting makes it more challenging and costly to perform exit polling.
  • GOP’s “Bank Your Vote” https://bankyourvote.com/
  • Some states claim they do not tabulate during early voting, however, feeding ballots through a machine that can scan and/or tabulate that ballot is tabulated and certain people would have access to the results in real-time.

• Election ‘Day’

  • Allowing voting before Election Day allows bad actors to gain necessary information to more accurately estimate the results to manipulate the results by injecting ballots.
  • Allowing voting after Election Day allows bad actors to make final adjustments to the results by injecting ballots.
  • All of this turns the election into a feedback control system that bad actors can use the control the results of elections with high precision.
  • Deprive voting centers of enough ballots or ballot paper to service the voters. (eg Harris County TX)

• In-Person Voting converted to Mail-in

  • Colorado and other states force citizens to convert their in-person votes to mail/drop-box in order to launder them all into one voting type.

• Ballot Harvesting – Harvest signatures from elderly citizens

  • Retirement communities
  • Nursing homes

• Low-Propensity Voter Record Harvesting – Records that have a low propensity to vote are used to attach ballots to.

  • Hospitals
  • Mental health institutions
  • College dorms/fraternities

• Mail ballots – Injection of ballots with broken chain of custody

  • Declare an emergency to force the use and relax/ignore other election laws
  • Real-time tracking systems allow bad actors to track ballots to gain realtime information to abuse.
  • Postal carriers instructed to NOT deliver ballots to the address in which no residents with that name reside so that the ballot can be routed elsewhere, thus avoiding alerting of multiple ballots registered to that address.
  • Addresses copied from one locality to another, but changing the street name, generating returned ballots
  • Mail ballots create many chain-of-custody vulnerabilities, which make it easy for error and manipulation to occur.
  • They claim drop-boxes have 100% surveillance, when they do not!
  • Many states have permanent mail in ballot registration causing a perpetual flood of ballots in the mail.
  • No poll watchers at the post offices, where millions of ballots are flowing through.
  • Missing Postmarks
  • Fake Postmarks (postmarks can be dated whatever the person operating the machine wants to date them)
  • Different colors or holes/windows in outbound and/or return envelopes that allow a bad actor to know what type of ballot may be inside in order to ‘lose’ or swap out
  • Mail-in ballots severely cripples the ability to perform exit polling (This is KEY for those that would want to manipulate elections, because it destroys this additional verification component)
  • Signature Verification

    • The Gatekeeper of fraudulent ballots entering the system
    • Initiate “updated” signature drives for all registered “voters” and inject fake “updated” signatures.
    • Designed to be defective in order to manipulate

      • Many citizens are not trained at all
      • Citizens that are trained are not properly trained
      • Proper training takes 2 years of certified document examiner schooling
      • There is not testing prior to allowing a citizen to verify signatures
      • Citizens are fired if they reject too many signatures

• Drop-Boxes – Injection of ballots with broken chain of custody, avoiding any tracking by USPS.

  • Public/Private money funding setting these up all over
  • Many boxes that require surveillance cameras don’t have them
  • Public has limited/no access to surveillance footage
  • No control of what gets put in or by who
  • Provides an open path to easily inject ballots into the system without even USPS tracking of mail-in ballots.

• USPS

  • When the USPS classifies a ballot as ‘undeliverable’, they gather them in one or more facilities.
  • Several USPS workers have told @Mark Cook that those stacks of undeliverable ballots mysteriously decrease toward the election.
  • The USPS is billing the counties for undelivered ballots (typically by weighing them instead of counting them – total loss of chain of custody).
  • The USPS then delivers far less undelivered ballots to the county, and the county typically reflects that amount in their reports.
  • The people in the county don’t notice, seem to know why, or care that they received less undelivered ballots than they were billed for.
  • Mail ballots are BIG BUSINESS for the USPS (yet another private organization

• UOCAVA – Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

  • This system makes it easier for our military and overseas voters to vote, at the expense of making the entire system much more vulnerable to manipulation.
  • Nobody seems to be asking the question “How could a bad guy manipulate this?” in every new part of UOCAVA that is brought forward.
  • For example, look what this organization is doing: VoteFromAbroad.org
  • More vulnerabilities listed at www.verityvote.us/overseas-voting-vulnerabilities/.

• Chain of Custody sleight of hand allows opportunities to distract or avoid detection while manipulating ballots/records.

  • Water main breaks
  • Power outages
  • Bomb threats

8. Ballots & Physical / Printing Vulnerabilities

• Ballots

  • Ballots in multiple languages adds to complexity (increasing numbers of different ballot styles) forcing the use of computers to tabulate
  • Consolidate many smaller elections into less frequent larger elections makes ballots more complex and hand count more difficult
  • Textual ‘Mistakes’ on ballots (names spelled wrong, names missing, geographical differences)
  • Wrong ballot styles being given to people to affect who they can vote for. Then they claim ‘mistakes’.
  • Markers are used so they don’t leave kinematic artifacts (indentations) that could be used to discern a copied ballot vs a real ballot (a photocopied ballot may look like a pen filled it out, but it won’t have indentations in the paper). Pen indentations are a critical secondary artifact against fraud.
  • Mix any questionable ballots in with the rest to make it impossible to find them again should they be ruled ineligible, making any argument moot.
  • Misalignment between front and rear of ballot will cause misread resulting in easy redirection to adjudication for manipulation
  • Shrink or enlarge the ballot image slightly to skew the alignment marks will cause misread resulting in easy redirection to adjudication for manipulation

9. Technology, Software & Cyber Vulnerabilities

• Fake Testing / Certification

  • Vendors pay the ‘testing’ labs.
  • Test procedures designed to avoid finding real issues.
  • Labs approve systems.
  • Systems are certified.
  • Everyone downstream ‘trusts’ because they were ‘tested’ and ‘certified’.

• Technology / Cyber-Security

  • Instead of handling security locally, many counties and states are outsourcing those services, which puts that at risk and displaces the responsibility
  • Creates a much more attractive attack surface
  • Bad actors can then exploit to cause a much larger blast radius
  • Decentralization is defeated when certain components are centralized

• Gradual Network Interconnection Strategy

  • Install wireless cards, modems, additional connectivity (even covert) so the citizens and election officials aren’t aware. Take advantage of the fact that election officials are not cyber-security experts and they don’t know what they don’t know, in order to manipulate the system right under their noses.
  • Start with the systems in a disconnected state, tell the citizens they are all isolated and ‘air-gapped’, then once they are used to that, start mandating that parts of them become connected, until after several years/cycles, they are all interconnected via a network.

• Data Breaches

  • Beyond the original breach are usually hidden higher-order breaches as a results that can be leveraged by bad-actors.

• Software

  • Lack of downstream verification

    • Officials that are conducting elections using black-box systems that:

      • They blindly trust (voluntarily and involuntarily)
      • Don’t look ‘under the hood’ to ensure their security
      • They aren’t allowed to look ‘under the hood’ to ensure

        • The software that is running on their systems is what was originally tested
        • Doesn’t have any malicious programming embedded in it

  • Update Scam

    • Vulnerabilities are found or ‘found’ in order to spur states and counties to buy NEW equipment/software to ‘fix’ the problems. The new stuff can have even more sophisticated methods to manipulate elections built in to them. Then vulnerabilities are ‘found’ on those, and counties are pressured to buy NEW equipment again. Continual income for the vendors, and manipulation becomes continually more sophisticated. This applies to the entire ecosystem from voter reg, ‘sig-ver’, poll books, tabulation, and reporting.

• Electronic Poll Books

  • These are typically connected to each other over insecure wireless connections, then all connected to a central database outside of the polling location, and sometimes outside of the state they are operating in. Unknown parties have control of these databases, therefore can view/add/change/delete records at their will, without the knowledge of the poll workers, county officials, or state officials.
  • These can be abused wirelessly from the parking lot, wired from within the polling location, on the cellular network or internet anywhere in the world. The counties and states do not have control of these regardless of what they claim.
  • Data from poll books can be read by others and used to know how to manipulate the election by adding phantom ballots, then injecting phantom electronic check-ins.
  • Electronic Poll Books usually consist of common Android tablets or Windows laptops (all easily abused by people that know how), hidden in a custom frame.

• Electronic Voting Machines

  • For D.R.E. (Direct-Recording Equipment – touch-screen voting)

    • Change the touch-screen calibration so when someone selects their candidate, the other candidate is selected. Many won’t notice.
    • Program the system to select whichever candidate you like regardless of which candidate name is touched. Set up a counter in the software so after X number of tries, the correct candidate is selected. This can be easily explained away as ‘calibration error’. Most will fall for this explanation. It’s been going on for over a decade.

  • Show one thing on the screen and the printout, but record the votes any way you like in the database.
  • Record the votes properly in the database initially, then change them later.
  • Show one thing on the printout, but put different results in the QR-code, then encrypt the QR-code so humans can’t see what’s been done.
  • Put the software you want them to see in escrow. They won’t know that it isn’t the same as on the voting machines.
  • Use QR-codes to covertly make adjustments to the votes/feed algorithms. Then put them in the mail or drop-boxes. The election staff will be delivering the payload themselves without having a clue.
  • If they figure out the QR code con, then use what appears as random dots on the page, but watch for them in the programming and make adjustments with those instructions.
  • If they figure out the ‘random’ dot approach, then use very light color like yellow that the scanner can pick up, but the human eye will not without a magnifying glass.

• Mobile Voting and “shiny new object” technology

  • Since machines and mail-in voting will be seen as rife with fraud, they will attempt to introduce/implement “mobile voting”

    • Will use the “proven track record” with UOCAVA as evidence that it is “safe and secure”
    • Will appeal to Trump’s love of crypto and the public’s growing acceptance of block chain.
    • Use NASS to push
    • https://www.mobilevoting.org/about

• Election Code

  • Actions that facilitate indirect manipulation of our election system have been put into code.

    • For example, Texas: Sec. 85.072. BRANCH DAILY REGISTER. (a) Each day early voting is conducted at a branch polling place, an election officer in charge of the branch shall prepare a register listing the voters who cast ballots at the branch that day. (g) The Previous early voting clerk shall compile the registers and electronically submit to the secretary of state a record of each voter participating in a primary, a runoff primary, a general election, or any special election ordered by the governor not later than the day the voter votes in person or the early voting clerk receives a ballot voted by mail.

10. Overall Systems & End-to-End Manipulation Framework

• Overall Manipulation Methodology

  • Injection of phantom voters and corresponding votes (votes not correlated to real citizens)

    • Combat at voter registration and validation legs

  • Injection of votes for existing voters (stealing their identity)

    • Combat at validation leg

  • Vote-flipping

    • Combat at validation, tabulation, and reporting legs

  • Result-shifting/flipping

    • Combat at result leg. Set up parallel reporting at precinct levels (or county level if precinct not available)

  • Distribute the manipulation across states, counties, precincts to keep below margin of error
  • Distribute the manipulation across states, counties, precincts to keep below margin of recounts

• Feedback Loop

  • Inject phantom voter registrations

    • Use plausible deniability in duplicating existing records (make sure every duplicate can be explained away as a mistake)

      • Change spellings of names slightly. Examples:

        • Bob Smith
        • Bob Smyth
        • Bobby Smith
        • Bobby Smth

      • Slightly change addresses. Examples:

        • 123 Jones St
        • 123 Jones
        • 123 Jones Street
        • 123 Jones Ave
        • 213 Jones St
        • 123 Jons St

      • Duplicate records will have their own voter ID number, allowing a vote to be associated with it. If someone catches the ‘duplicate’, it can be explained as a typo.

  • Encourage everyone to register to vote to put in as many registrations possible
  • Design a system to monitor who has voted

    • Mail in ballots – Design a mail-in-ballot tracking system to give the public a warm fuzzy false sense of security for using mail in ballots. Tell them that they can ‘track their ballot’. The tracking isn’t really for the citizens, it’s used to know when each one of them votes (and to track which ballot belongs to which individual so they can be ‘handled appropriately)
    • In person – Design digital poll book system to track who comes in in person to vote

  • Knowing who has voted, use their party affiliation and voting history fortified with social media profiles to determine how they will vote
  • Build a model of the election results (without even needing to look at a single ballot)
  • Determine how many votes are needed to shift the results
  • Choose which voter reg records to associate with phantom votes

    • Use the existing voter registration metrics combined with the real-time tracking from mail-in-ballot tracking system and electronic poll books
    • Record preference priority

      • Phantom records – these are best to use first because nobody will ever show up to vote and be told they already voted
      • Low-propensity voters – these are more risky because these voters may actually show up
      • High-propensity voters – these are very risky and should only be used as a last resort as they are likely to result in voters catching their use

    • Record distribution

      • Don’t choose records in the same precinct. Use a distribution of records in different precincts where you think there is room. Remember, STAY UNDER 100% VOTER PARTICIPATION so the injections don’t stick out.

  • Inject ballots into the system

    • Mail them in
    • Scatter them in drop-boxes

  • If done properly, manipulating the system using the feedback loop will be hidden from the county officials.

• Voting on DRE or BMD

  • Touchscreen voting machines—whether Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems or Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs)—rely on software that translates voter taps into selections. Programming such devices to intermittently ignore a tap or register the opposite choice can create arbitrary vote alteration, and requires only a few conditional lines of code: for example, a counter that activates the anomaly after a random number of interactions, or a timer that triggers misregistration within a narrow window, presenting the behavior as ordinary user error (mis-tap, calibration drift, or capacitive-sensor noise). Because the logic executes silently and only a small percentage of the time, it evades routine logic-and-accuracy testing while cumulatively shifting vote totals in targeted precincts. When combined with other low-visibility tactics, this can materially alter outcomes without triggering detectable anomalies or paper-trail discrepancies in unaudited DRE deployments.

    • Security researchers have replicated far more advanced manipulation. At DEF CON Voting Village, participants with ordinary tools gained full control of multiple DRE and BMD models in minutes, enabling arbitrary vote alteration. Princeton and University of Michigan teams demonstrated malware for Diebold and ES&S systems that alters recorded votes or printed ballots only under specific conditions, remaining dormant during testing.
    • Such code is trivial to embed by an inside bad-actor or once an attacker obtains physical or supply-chain access to the firmware. The sophistication lies in its deniability: every affected voter experiences what appears to be isolated human or hardware error. Without comprehensive paper ballots, independent audits, and risk-limiting audits, the mechanism remains undetectable at scale.

• Tabulation

  • Change definitions of ‘tabulation’ to legally allow early machine tabulation so long as it isn’t ‘human readable’; this still fuels their feedback loop
  • Logic and accuracy testing: tabulator test ballots are only vendor supplied with TEST in red ink which is not displayed on the digital ballot image during adjudication testing. This is a great way for the software to branch to a test-only code path (operate differently) during L&A testing vs normal tabulation during an election.
  • Pre-load votes during early voting in order to establish a 50/50 ratio from the start to be able to stay under the radar as adjustments are made to counter real votes coming in from that point forward. (Colorado, Washington, etc.)
  • Use different thickness ballot paper for different areas/voters

    • Use the thickness as excuse to determine which tabulators are used (Sacramento CA does this – they claim the ‘thin’ paper gets jammed in the Hi-Pro scanners, so they scan all the ‘thin’ ballots through the smaller desktop scanners – Mark Cook was told this first-hand)
    • Paper that is too thick used in BMD (Ballot Marking Devices) and tabulators may jam, allowing another path to segregate those ballots. This may have happened in AZ

  • Print the ballot image slightly shrunk so citizens don’t notice it, but the tabulators would be unable to scan, causing them to be segregated and an excuse to ‘re-create’ them. (This happened in AZ)
  • Print the ballot image lighter than normal so citizens don’t notice it, but the tabulators would be unable to scan, causing them to be segregated and an excuse to ‘re-create’ them. (This happened in AZ)
  • Randomize the order of the ballots inside the batches, destroying the time-series recording of the order of ballots as they were scanned (manipulating evidence), making it impossible to determine patterns of manipulation. They also then increase the batch size to launder more ballots per batch. (Montgomery County TX)
  • Someone could easily fill in undervotes in ballots to manipulate those races.
  • Someone could easily fill in an overvote to cancel a vote (overvotes invalidate the entire race).
  • Induce error into the system to obfuscate manipulation (ballot programming mistakes, printing mistakes, mis-spellings, etc. – these aren’t all accidents)
  • Change database outside of voting system software
  • Incomplete tracking
  • Incomplete logging
  • Self-deleting logs
  • Back doors
  • Ability to be connected to alternate networks (including the internet)
  • Wireless devices installed in hardware
  • No visibility to the public
  • Secret source code
  • Incomplete verifiability
  • No way to guarantee they will always operate without error/abuse
  • Block all access to ballot images and paper ballots
  • Wipe hard drives to ensure no evidence of manipulation is left
  • No supply-chain control or controllable chain of custody
  • Manipulate programming on thumb/flash drives
  • Pre-load votes on thumb/flash drives
  • Manipulate votes on thumb/flash drives
  • Disable and/or manipulate ballot images on thumb/flash drives
  • Broken physical seals destroying chain of custody of the physical ballots
  • Mix up thumb/flash drives to cause confusion to inhibit proper audit
  • Thumb/flash drives can be easily modified by bad actors in-transit. Some may claim that can’t happen because they are ‘encrypted’. But those that have the encryption key can get away with it without anyone knowing, and if they are encrypted, nobody may be able to detect modification.

    • For instance, encryption keys for Dominion are stored in cleartext inside the database, and the same keys can be used across different counties, states, or all over the world. The keys can also be stored in accessible folders in the filesystem, and obtainable through side-channel vectors.

  • Disable digital images of ballots to be able to thwart their use that evidence in an audit
  • Manipulate digital images of the ballots in cases where digital images are made
  • THERE IS NO WAY TO SECURE THESE SYSTEMS IN ANY WAY
  • Dominion claimed that the existing systems cannot handle a future sized ballot and therefore, the county needed to ‘upgrade’ (Rio Grande County, CO)

• Reporting

  • Election officials don’t even know what really happens to their totals when they leave
  • Totals can be changed and hidden inside aggregation without the public able to detect
  • No guarantee to the public that the shown state/fed totals are actually accurate
  • No public place that all totals are transparently and additionally posted
  • Centralization of results makes it difficult if not impossible to detect fraud. For insurance, Michigan no longer denotes the difference between

• Records

  • Purposely misinterpret the 22-month minimum federal retention period to restrict access to election records for 22 months. That is not the purpose of the minimum retention period. The purpose of the retention period is to make sure the data is RETAINED for the time period so that people can look at it. I believe there is a legal case in some stage regarding setting the record straight on that.
  • Blocked, or complicated, access to cast vote records (CVRs) which can be used to identify many patterns of manipulation

    • They put CVR out as JSON format to make it too complex for the average person to examine the data.
    • They print out the CVR as a PDF to create an additional barrier to easily examine the data.

  • Push citizens to the point they have to file lawsuit to get access to records, then claim they can’t provide access to records due to pending lawsuit.
  • Even some republican states (e.g., South Dakota, South Carolina) have not provided CVRs.
  • They randomize CVR data claiming that they must do so in order to protect voter privacy. The randomization destroys the time-series aspect of the CVR and therefore cripples their effectiveness at detecting manipulation. Not to mention, this is TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE at the best, and DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE and ELECTION RECORDS at the worst.
  • No access to security logs, has testing, penetration testing, ballot review files

• Certification

  • Forcing certification to be procedurally automatic instead of only happening if evidence supports doing so. This is how they SEAL THE FRAUD!

• Auditing

  • ‘Risk Limiting Audits’ or ‘Partial Manual Counts’ are used to justify auditing only a small portion to convince the public the rest of the tabulation is accurate.
  • Engineered to avoid catching the fraud (easy to do when fraud is algorithmic).
  • Some recount procedures cause the ballot order within batches to be broken. This can unintentionally negatively affect the effectiveness of other audits that rely on order being preserved (to compare with other counts or temporal examinations)
  • Some states redefine what their ‘audit’ is to cripple and make it worthless.

• Canvassing

  • They attempt to claim that citizen canvassing efforts cause voter intimidation

• Recalls

  • Fake recall booths are set up, then sigs are thrown out.
  • Fake recall groups/orgs are set up, then conveniently miss deadlines or make mistakes that invalidate the recall.

• Election Contest

  • Implement a ridiculously short period of time to file a contest, to guarantee that there is not adequate time to investigate the data.

Conclusion: How the Entire System Fits Together 

This comprehensive list illustrates a multi-layered, interconnected ecosystem of election manipulation tactics that operate like a sophisticated machine, designed to undermine democratic processes from inception to certification. It begins with psychological operations and perception framing to erode public trust and suppress visible support, creating a fertile ground for infiltration and institutional capture where controlled opposition diverts resources and spies from within. Financial and candidate manipulations ensure only compliant or compromised figures advance, reinforced by legislative barriers that embed vulnerabilities into law while legal tactics delay or block accountability. Demographic and registration exploits inflate voter rolls as a foundation for fraud, enabling procedural interferences that limit oversight and participation. Extended voting methods like early and mail-in ballots provide real-time data for precise injections via harvesting and chain-of-custody breaks, while physical ballot flaws and technological backdoors allow undetected alterations during tabulation and reporting. Finally, the end-to-end framework—epitomized by feedback loops and weakened audits—seals the results, distributing manipulations subtly to evade detection. Together, these elements form a self-reinforcing cycle that centralizes control, decentralizes blame, and perpetuates fraud under the guise of security and accessibility, ultimately disenfranchising citizens and eroding electoral integrity.

The Solution

The PEP

The Declaration

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a free people to cast off the pervasive and insidious manipulations that corrupt their electoral process, and to reclaim their unalienable right to a government chosen by their true, untainted will, a decent respect for the judgment of mankind compels them to declare the causes which impel this severance and the reforms necessary to secure their liberty.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all citizens are endowed by their Creator with the right to choose their representatives through elections that are free, fair, simple, transparent, and verifiable by every citizen, regardless of education or means; that the consent of the governed, expressed through the sacred act of voting, is the sole legitimate source of governmental authority; that when any system, technology, or cabal—whether domestic or foreign—subverts this consent through fraud, coercion, complexity, or obfuscation, it is the right and duty of the people to reject such tyranny and institute reforms rooted in clarity, accessibility, and public oversight. The integrity of elections, conducted with hand-marked, hand-counted paper ballots under the watchful eyes of citizens, is the cornerstone of a free republic, and no machine, bureaucracy, or unaccountable actor should stand between the people and their voice.

The history of recent electoral practices in these United States reveals a relentless pattern of abuses, all designed to erode the sanctity of the vote and usurp the will of the people. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

• The suppression of eligible voters through purges of registration rolls, intimidation at polling places, miscommunication of voting times and locations, and barriers targeting minorities, and the vulnerable, calculated to silence their voices.
• The creation of fraudulent identities, registration of deceased or fictitious voters, and exploitation of lax verification to inject phantom ballots, diluting the will of legitimate citizens.
• The manipulation of ballots through stuffing, harvesting, discarding, or altering votes, whether physical or digital, often concealed by broken chains of custody or fabricated emergencies.
• The tampering with electronic voting systems through hacking, malware, backdoors, or counterfeit equipment, rendering machines untrustworthy and vulnerable to undetected fraud.
• The coercion and bribery of voters, poll workers, and officials, exploiting desperation or greed, while complicit law enforcement and judges shield perpetrators from accountability.
• The misreporting of results through delayed tallies, falsified records, sabotaged audits, and redefined verification processes to obscure discrepancies.
• The infiltration by domestic and foreign bad actors engaging in 🇺🇸manipulation and cyberattacks on voter databases and systems, compromising the sovereignty of our democratic process.
• The use of dark money, illegal funding, and fake organizations to tilt campaigns, siphon resources, and mislead citizens from genuine reform efforts.
• The deployment of disinformation, psychological operations, deepfakes, and media manipulation to confuse, demoralize, or mislead voters, sowing division and distrust.
• The insider threats from corrupt officials, infiltrated grassroots organizations, and manipulated legal processes, including lawfare, gerrymandering, and court-stacking, to entrench power against the people’s will.
• The systemic exploitation of legal ambiguities, weak oversight, centralized control, and unaccountable technologies, creating fertile ground for fraud under the guise of efficiency.
• The reliance on complex electronic voting machines, which obscure the counting process, lack transparency, and expose elections to manipulation, distancing citizens from direct oversight.
• The centralization of voter registration and election management, removing local control and empowering unaccountable entities to dictate outcomes.
• The denial of public access to election records, such as cast vote records and chain-of-custody documentation, under pretexts of proprietary concerns, exorbitant fees, or misinterpretations of retention periods.
• The failure to safely limit absentee voting, which, without rigorous scrutiny, invites fraud through unverifiable ballots that cannot guarantee secrecy or integrity.

In every stage of these oppressions, we have sought redress through petitions, lawsuits, public forums, and tireless advocacy, only to be met with denial, delay, or accusations of undermining our Constitutional Republic. We have proposed reforms to restore trust, such as returning voter registration to county control, limiting absentee ballots, conducting elections on a single day in small precincts, and counting hand-marked paper ballots under public scrutiny. We have demonstrated, through efforts like those of citizens advocating for hand-counted elections, that simple, transparent methods are not only feasible but essential to reclaiming our electoral process. Yet those in power have dismissed our pleas, obstructed transparency, and clung to systems that obscure the people’s will. A system that permits such abuses, that entrusts the vote to opaque machines and unaccountable bureaucracies, is unfit to serve a free nation.

We have not been silent in our resolve. We have educated our fellow citizens through workgroups, demonstrations, and public audits, exposing scandals like corrupted cast vote records and manipulated voter rolls. We have called for elections to be conducted in small precincts of no more than 1,500 citizens, with paper ballots dropped into translucent containers, counted by hand under high-definition video, and verified by bipartisan citizens. We have urged counties to reclaim sole custody of voter registration, verified in-person with witnessed signatures, and to publish read-only voter lists in a universal format for public cross-referencing. We have advocated for limiting absentee ballots to those with proven need, scrutinized rigorously to prevent fraud, and for designating a single national voting day to eliminate staggered manipulation. Yet these efforts have been met with resistance, bureaucratic inertia, or accusations of mistrust, leaving us no choice but to declare our independence from this corrupted system.

We, therefore, the citizens of the United States of America, in solemn assembly, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the people, solemnly publish and declare that we are, and of right ought to be, free from the tyranny of election manipulation; that we reject complex, untrustworthy machines and centralized systems that obscure our will; that we demand elections conducted as follows:

• Voter Registration under the sole custody of counties, with eligibility verified in-person every two to four years, using paper registration cards with witnessed signatures, stored by precinct, and published as read-only lists in a universal format for public cross-referencing, with a national unique voter number to ensure integrity.
• Limited Absentee Ballots, restricted to those with proven need, subjected to extreme scrutiny, identified distinctly for military and non-military voters, and potentially verified with digital ballot choice hashes to enhance integrity without compromising secrecy.
• One-Day Voting on a national holiday, with standardized start and end times across the country, conducted in small precincts of no more than 1,500 citizens, using hand-marked paper ballots dropped into translucent, locked containers under continuous video surveillance.
• Hand-Counted Ballots, tabulated where cast by bipartisan citizens and witnesses using state-approved methods, with results posted immediately outside precincts and all records—ballot images, tally sheets, chain-of-custody documents, and videos—published on county websites for public verification by all.
• Public Auditing, accessible to all citizens, including students in grades 6-12 as a civics exercise, who may re-tabulate ballots, compare results, and report discrepancies through standardized county forms, with advanced students analyzing statistics for inorganic patterns, all celebrated as acts of democratic engagement.

We are absolved from acquiescence to processes that betray our consent, and we assert our power to reform our elections, restore local control, ensure exhaustive public access to all records, and establish ironclad safeguards against fraud, coercion, and interference. For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

It is NOW up to YOU to share this everywhere. If enough see it, we can create the necessary change. Share, share, share!

by Mark Cook

Executive Summary

Signature verification for mail-in ballots is a failed critical safeguard in U.S. elections, purporting to balance voter access with fraud prevention. However, reliance on Automatic Signature Verification (ASV) systems—plagued by high error rates in low-exemplar, low-resolution conditions—or fallback to untrained election workers (with minimal PDF-based or 1–2 hour training) creates an untenable vulnerability. Every rejected ballot is a silenced voice, every accepted fake a diluted republic. This report synthesizes real-world data to expose the dual threats: massive disenfranchisement of legitimate voters via False Rejection Rates (FRR), and unchecked fraud via False Acceptance Rates (FAR) from forged ballots. In the 2024 election cycle alone, over 122,000 California ballots were rejected due to signature issues—scaling to 1–2 million nationwide—disproportionately affecting young, new, and minority voters. Worst-case scenarios could disenfranchise millions or inject hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes, rendering election outcomes unverifiable and untrustworthy. This is not mere inefficiency—it’s a systemic crisis demanding immediate reform, as unverified signatures erode the foundational security of American democracy.

Key Differences Between FAR and FRR

FAR (False Acceptance Rate) and FRR (False Rejection Rate) are common terms in security systems like fingerprint scanners, password checks, or signature verification for mail ballots. Think of them as the two main ways a system can “mess up.” Here’s a straightforward breakdown of how they differ, explained like you’re dealing with a bouncer at a club:

In short, FAR is about unwanted intruders getting in (big security no-no), while FRR is about turning away friends (big fairness no-no). Real systems try to balance both, but it’s a constant tug-of-war—when one goes up, the other goes down.

Inherent Dangers of Relying on ASV in Elections

ASV systems, while efficient for high-volume screening, falter dramatically in election-specific conditions: single or few low-resolution exemplars (e.g., 150–300 DPI scans from voter registrations), handwriting variations due to age/disability, and the absence of dynamic data (e.g., pressure/velocity). As detailed in prior analyses, standalone offline ASV yields worst-case FAR of 20–42% and FRR of 15–46% in single-exemplar tests with skilled forgeries and noise—rates that balloon disenfranchisement and enable fraud without human intervention.

In elections, ASV is often deployed as a first-pass filter, auto-approving “matches” (exposing FAR risks) and flagging mismatches for review (amplifying FRR if review is bypassed or inadequate). Real-world pilots, such as those in Colorado and California using tools like Parascript, show aggregate rejection rates of 0.5–3%, but these mask standalone ASV contributions: a 2020 Stanford study found ASV alone increased rejections by 74% compared to manual processes, implying FRR spikes of 10–20% pre-review. For fraud, targeted forgeries (e.g., by organized actors) exploit FAR laxity—systems tuned for low FRR to avoid backlash can accept 30–40% of skilled fakes, per BiosecurID and MCYT datasets.

The unmitigated danger: ASV lacks explainability, cannot adapt to contextual nuances (e.g., cultural scripts or tremors), and propagates biases, rejecting 2–5x more ballots from Black, Latino, elderly, and disabled voters. Without certified oversight, ASV becomes a black box for insecurity.

Perils of Non-Certified Human Verifiers

Election workers tasked with “curing” flagged ballots receive woefully inadequate preparation: self-study via PDFs (e.g., state guidelines like Arizona’s 10-page manual) or cursory 1–2 hour sessions from vendors/professionals. This leaves them wholly unqualified, akin to laypeople in forensic contexts, where accuracy plummets.

Forensic studies confirm untrained individuals achieve only 20–50% accuracy in handwriting comparisons, with error rates 6x higher than experts (who hit 93–95% on non-disguised samples). A 2019 pilot on novices showed near-perfect sourcing of natural signatures but rampant errors (up to 70% false positives/negatives) on disguised or variable ones—mirroring election ballots with aged or stressed writing. Large-scale validity research (e.g., NIST human factors studies) reveals lay verifiers exhibit bias, fatigue, and inconsistency, misclassifying 40–60% of cases under time pressure, especially for marginalized groups whose signatures deviate from “norms.”

In practice, this manifests as arbitrary rejections: A 2024 Maricopa County analysis found flaws in verification processes disproportionately burdening young and new voters, with rejection rates 2–3x higher for first-time mailers. Untrained workers cannot discern subtle forgeries or valid variations, inverting safeguards—FRR soars to 30–50% (disenfranchising voters) while FAR lingers at 15–30% (admitting fakes). Unlike certified forensic document examiners (requiring 2,000+ hours training), these ad-hoc verifiers lack peer review or error-tracking, amplifying systemic unreliability.

Potential Percentages of Voter Disenfranchisement from Forged Ballots and Verification Failures

Bad actors forging mail-in signatures (e.g., via stolen voter data or insider access) exploit FAR vulnerabilities, while verification errors drive FRR-based disenfranchisement. Using 2024 turnout data (~158 million total votes, ~40% mail-in or 63.2 million ballots, per U.S. Election Assistance Commission projections), we model worst-case impacts from ASV/untrained human rates. Assumptions: 1% of mail ballots targeted for forgery (realistic for coordinated efforts, per CISA risk assessments); no guaranteed review (per state variability).

These figures draw from 2020–2024 data: California rejected 0.8% of 2024 mail ballots (122k total), up from 100k+ across 2020–2022, with racial disparities (e.g., 2x for Latinos). Nationally, signature mismatches caused 0.5–2% rejections in mail-heavy states, but untrained errors could inflate to 5–10% per 2024 studies on worker calibration. Forgery risks, though rare historically, amplify: A single coordinated effort (e.g., 0.1% ballots) at 30% FAR yields 19k fraudulent votes—enough to sway close races like Georgia 2020 (11k margin).

The Five-Alarm Fire: A Cataclysmic Threat to Election Security

This is no contained risk—it’s a raging inferno engulfing our Constitutional Republic. Unverified signatures create an unverifiable black hole: ASV’s opacity hides errors, while untrained humans inject subjectivity without accountability, yielding results neither auditable nor defensible. In 2024, amid polarized trust (only 58% confidence in elections per Gallup), a 1–3% error margin could delegitimize outcomes, fueling challenges like 2020’s 60+ lawsuits. Disenfranchisement hits hardest at the margins—young (2–4x rejection rates), disabled (up to 5x), and people of color—exacerbating inequities and suppressing turnout by 5–10% in affected demographics.

Fraud vectors compound the blaze: Forged ballots, once accepted, evade post-election audits (signatures aren’t traced), enabling undetectable dilution of votes. CISA warns of “insider threats” in mail processing, where FAR laxity invites tampering. With no federal standards for training or ASV validation, states patchwork solutions—some auto-reject without notice—turning safeguards into saboteurs. This un-verified, un-verifiable system invites exploitation: Bad actors need only 0.01–0.1% penetration to contest results, as seen in hypothetical models flipping 5–15 electoral votes.

The alarm blares: Without certified experts, we cannot rely on signatures as a secure gatekeeper. It’s a dereliction of duty, torching voter confidence and inviting chaos. There is nothing more valuable to a United States Citizen than their vote, and it would be criminal to put that vote at risk because of ASV.

Federal Testing Requirements for Signature Verifiers in U.S. Elections: Ensuring Zero-Tolerance for False Acceptances

To safeguard election integrity and prevent disenfranchisement through fraudulent vote acceptance, Congress must enact comprehensive, mandatory testing protocols for both Automatic Signature Verification (ASV) systems and human verifiers. Current federal law, such as the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, mandates provisional ballots and voter verification but lacks specific proficiency standards for signature matching—leaving it to states with patchwork approaches (e.g., 34 states require signature verification for mail ballots, but only a few outline training or testing). This gap exposes vulnerabilities: ASV error rates can exceed 20% FAR in low-exemplar scenarios, while untrained humans achieve only 20–50% accuracy. Forensic standards from bodies like the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) and ANSI/ASB emphasize annual external proficiency tests, but U.S. elections need tailored, enforceable rules.

Requiring 0% observed FAR (no forged signatures accepted as genuine) on a blind test set is a stringent but essential benchmark, mirroring forensic ideals where error rates near 0% are targeted for high-stakes conclusions. However, a minimum of 100 signatures is insufficient for statistical confidence—statistical models (e.g., Clopper-Pearson intervals) show that with 0 errors on 100 forgery samples, the 95% upper confidence bound on true FAR is ~3%, meaning the real rate could be as high as 3% undetected. To bound true FAR below 0.5% with 95% confidence, at least 500 known forgeries (plus 500 genuines for balance) are needed, for a total deck of 1,000 samples (upper bound ~0.5%). Congress should mandate 500+ known forgeries per test, scaled for diversity (e.g., cultural scripts, tremors).

Proposed Legislative Framework: Amendments to HAVA or New Election Security Act

Congress should require states to certify verifiers annually via federally accredited labs (e.g., NIST-overseen), with non-compliance triggering federal funding cuts. Tests must be blind, externally administered, and include diverse signatures (e.g., elderly, non-Latin scripts, tremors) to mitigate biases. Below is a table outlining minimum requirements, drawing from forensic standards (e.g., SWGDOC, ENFSI) adapted for elections.

Enacting these via HAVA amendments would professionalize verification, reducing disenfranchisement (e.g., California’s 122,000+ rejections in 2024) while fortifying against fraud. This isn’t overkill—it’s the bare minimum for trust in democracy.

Comprehensive List of References and Links

Below is a compiled list of all key references, studies, reports, and data sources mentioned across our discussion on automatic signature verification (ASV), error rates, and election security risks. I’ve organized them thematically for clarity, drawing from peer-reviewed papers, databases, government reports, and analyses. Where direct links to full texts (e.g., PDFs) or official pages are available from recent searches (as of October 19, 2025), I’ve included them. Some older studies may require academic access (e.g., via Google Scholar or ResearchGate). If a reference lacks a precise match in search results, I’ve noted the closest verified source or DOI for retrieval.

1. ASV Databases and Competitions

• BiosecurID Database Evaluation (2017): Focuses on skilled forgery evaluation using DTW-based ASV.
  Link: PDF – Complexity-based Biometric Signature Verification
  Additional: Databases Overview
• SIGMA Database (2014): Malaysian signatures for online verification with ANN+PCA features.
  Link: Online Handwritten Signature Verification Using Neural Network
  Additional: SIGMA Database Paper
• ICDAR 2011 SigComp: Signature verification competition for online/offline skilled forgeries.
  Link: ICDAR 2011 Signature Verification Competition
  Additional: Dataset on Hugging Face
• Real-Collected Chinese Signatures (2020 ICDAR): Offline verification with VGG19/Inception V3 on scanned docs.
  Link: PDF – A Large-Scale Chinese Signature Dataset
  Additional: arXiv PDF
• SVC2004 Competition (2005): First international online signature verification benchmark.
  Link: SVC2004 Official Site
  Additional: Springer Chapter
• SVC-onGoing Competition (2022): Ongoing online signature verification benchmarks.
  Link: ScienceDirect Article
  Additional: arXiv Preprint

2. Key ASV Studies and Surveys

• La Trobe Blind Trials (2001–2006): Forensic simulation with multi-class classification (genuine/simulated/disguised).
  Link: Google Scholar – Peter Lock (Related La Trobe Research) (Note: Direct trial papers often cited in forensic lit; closest: Blind Testing in Signature Verification)
• SRI Pen Access Control Simulation (1981): Dynamic capture with trained forgers.
  Link: PDF – DTIC Report ADA105247 (Related security models; core sim in DTIC Archive)
• Stress Impact Study (2023): Effects of stress on muscle synergy-based verification.
  Link: ScienceDirect Article
  Additional: ResearchGate PDF
• 2008 Survey of Automatic Signature Verification Studies: Comprehensive review of 50+ systems.
  Link: PDF – Automatic Signature Verification: The State of the Art
  Additional: ACM DL
• Justino et al. (2005) – Graphometric Features: HMM and graphology for offline verification.
  Link: Semantic Scholar
  Additional: ResearchGate PDF
• El-Yacoubi et al. – HMM-LR: Offline verification with pixel density modeling.
  Link: ResearchGate
  Additional: ACM DL (Related HMM work)
• Madasu et al. (2005) – Fuzzy Grid: Fuzzy modeling for forgery detection.
  Link: ResearchGate PDF
  Additional: UQ eSpace PDF
• Fadhel and Bhattacharyya – Wavelet Statistical: Steerable wavelet transform with NN.
  Link: Springer Article
  Additional: PDF
• Dimauro et al. – Voting Strategy: Multi-expert system for dynamic verification.
  Link: ResearchGate
  Additional: Lehigh PDF
• Baltzakis and Papamarkos – RBF NN: Two-stage neural network with global/grid features.
  Link: ScienceDirect Article
  Additional: ResearchGate
• Deng et al. (2005) – Wavelet: Off-line verification with feature identification.
  Link: ScienceDirect Article
  Additional: Semantic Scholar

3. Election-Specific Reports and Analyses

• Stanford 2020 Analysis (California Elections): Impact of ASV on rejections.
  Link: PDF – Signature Verification and Mail Ballots
  Additional: Stanford Law Project
• Vanderbilt Review (Signature Matching Due Process): Legal analysis of disenfranchisement.
  Link: PDF – Solving the Due Process Problem
  Additional: Vanderbilt J. Ent. & Tech. L.
• California Mail Ballot Rejections (2024): 122,000+ rejected ballots data.
  Link: CalVoter.org Report
  Additional: SOS Rejection Reasons
• EAVS Data (2004–2018): Election Administration and Voting Survey on rejections.
  Link: PDF – 2018 EAVS Report
  Additional: 2024 EAVS Report
• Brennan Center Audits: Mail voting accuracy and security.
  Link: Mail Voting Accuracy Report
  Additional: Mail Ballot Security
• CISA Risk Assessments (Mail Ballot Forgery): Infrastructure risks for electronic ballots.
  Link: PDF – Risk Management for Electronic Ballot Delivery
  Additional: Election Security Library
• Maricopa County Analysis (2024): Disproportionate impacts on young/new voters.
  Link: Votebeat Article
  Additional: AZ Mirror Test
• NIST Human Factors Studies (Handwriting Verification): Errors in lay vs. expert comparisons.
  Link: NIST Project Page
  Additional: PDF – Forensic Handwriting Examination Report
• 2019 Pilot on Novices (Handwriting Comparison): Accuracy of untrained verifiers.
  Link: No direct 2019 pilot in results; closest: NIST-Related Human Factors (2020) (Note: May refer to internal pilots; see broader NIST News)
• U.S. Election Assistance Commission Projections (2024): Mail ballot turnout (~63M).
  Link: PDF – 2024 EAVS Report
  Additional: EAC News Release
• Gallup Poll (Election Confidence 2024): 58% confidence in elections.
  Link: 2024 Presidential Election Center
  Additional: Partisan Split on Integrity

These lying idiots at Dominion were running an exploitable Serv-U FTP server on their public-facing dvsfileshare.dominionvoting.com IP address. When they got caught, they took place in a 17-hour cover-up operation. They initially took their page down, then edited it so it didn’t show the SolarWinds name, just leaving Serv-U (but the morons left it in the page source code), then later they removed even the Serv-U portion, but still again left SolarWinds in the page source code (they weren’t smart enough to remove it entirely). If they can’t even figure out how to cover their tracks on something this simple, they have no business writing software to handle our elections. Not to mention, innocent people DO NOT TRY TO CONCEAL THINGS LIKE THIS!

Then everyone freaked out because of the SolarWinds Orion Platform hack and Dominion misdirected all the pleebs at that and then claimed they don’t use Orion. What the pleebs didn’t realize is that there was ALSO a zero-day exploit on the Serv-U ‘FTP’ software that Dominion was using up until and at that time, and they bought the BS from Dominion, hook, line, and sinker. Nobody that falls for this should be using electronic voting systems (or much less, anything electronic). I don’t mean to come down on those deceived by Dominion, but at some point they do need to take responsibility for not having enough knowledge to protect a domain that they claim to be responsible or making decisions for. It is UNFAIR to put them in these positions, but it is important to notify them that they ARE in these positions so they can’t claim ignorance after being put on friendly notice.

So let’s walk through it. First, sometimes people at Dominion are honest, and I am happy to point that out when I see it.

Eric is not a stupid person by any means. I do wish he used his intelligence to help his fellow man, though.

Based on the evidence I have seen that clearly Eric knows about, as he is listed as a sender and/or recipient of many of the emails that shed a bright light on what is going on inside Dominion that those who blindly trust them don’t know about, Eric Coomer’s conclusion in the above email is very accurate.

Let’s begin with the information regarding this particular Zero-Day Exploit directly from SolarWinds themselves: https://www.solarwinds.com/trust-center/security-advisories/cve-2021-35211 (PDF Serv-U-Remote-Memory-Escape-Vulnerability.pdf)

Another site: SolarWinds patches critical Serv-U vulnerability exploited in the wil_ – www.bleepingcomputer.com.pdf

On December 13, 2020, CISA the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency charged with keeping our elections secure, came out with this:

Valeri Shilov (IT Operations Support in San Francisco CA) sent an email to David Moren and Travis Kester of Dominion Voting Systems regarding Dominion’s public fileshare running on SolarWinds:

December 14, 2020 23:59, prior to the cover-up, their public file-sharing site looked like this:

I’ll zoom in for you:

The source code for their website (20201214235952_https___dvsfileshare.dominionvoting.com_Web Client_Mobile_MLogin.htm) also shows SolarWinds, which is responsible for being displayed in what you see just above:

Then sometime before December 15, 2020 01:56, they take the page down:

Then sometime before December 15, 2020 03:02, they remove SolarWinds:

I’ll zoom in again:

Their website source code (20201215030252_https___dvsfileshare.dominionvoting.com_Web Client_Mobile_MLogin.htm) however, still has remnants of SolarWinds:

Then later in the same day at 16:48, they decide to remove Serv-U to try to cover that up as well:

And again, I’ll zoom in:

However, their website source code (20201215164823_https___dvsfileshare.dominionvoting.com_Web Client_Mobile_MLogin.htm) still shows SolarWinds everywhere:

I certainly hope it wasn’t Eric Coomer that was responsible for trying to cover up the fact that they were using SolarWinds Serv-U from the public, because if it was, I guess Eric is including himself in the “we” he claims “sucks”. So in summary, over a 17 hour period:

Dominion, in all the time you spent covering up your use of a compromised product on one of your public-facing file-sharing websites (and you know what files you shared on it), did you notify any government agencies about that? Did you notify any election officials? I would LOVE to ask you a lot more questions as well in a very public setting.

“Only an idiot would fall for ballot banking or early voting! Don’t be that idiot! Vote ONLY on Election DAY, and vote in HUGE NUMBERS! Peacefully STAND YOUR GROUND. Do not leave until you CAST YOUR BALLOT!”

2 U.S. Code § 7 – Time of election: The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter. (R.S. § 25; Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 130, § 6, 18 Stat. 400; June 5, 1934, ch. 390, § 2, 48 Stat. 879.)

There are two groups of people pushing Early Voting and Vote By Mail. Group 1 is benefiting from election manipulation. Group 2 has fallen for the con because they don’t understand it. We can’t do anything about Group 1. But we CAN educate Group 2.

How much more is your vote worth if you vote on the first day of early voting versus voting on Election Day? EXACTLY THE SAME, right? Well, exactly the same to YOU, yes. But to someone that would want to manipulate the election, you voting early is worth MUCH more to THEM. Why is that?

First, let’s identify some facts:

• If someone knew your party affiliation, they probably know how you will vote.
• If they didn’t know your affiliation or you are PND (party-not-designated, or independent), there is still an incredible amount of information that is already collected about you from your social media posts, products you buy, websites you visit, clubs you’re in, email lists you’re in, terms you search for, contents of your emails, etc. With that information, it would be easy for an algorithm to determine how you will vote.
• Notice how those committing election fraud aren’t trying to stop the voice of those pushing early voting. Why do you think that is? Think hard…

So then, if someone didn’t have access to look at the actual ballots, but wanted to build a estimate of the election results, the only other thing they would need to know is who has voted so far, right? But HOW could they monitor that? Do they follow people around and watch them drop ballots in mailboxes/dropboxes or sit and watch them go vote in person? No, of course not, they don’t need to!

Some very smart and devious people got us to pay for two systems that allow them to build a model of the election results before a single ballot is even tabulated. You’ve probably heard of and used one of these systems without even knowing. What are they?

• Mail-in Ballot Tracking – We were told that this is so we can track our mail-in ballot so we feel more CONfident in using mail-in ballots. (Did you know that CON in CON-artist stands for ‘confidence’?) The mail-in Ballot Tracking isn’t for US. It’s for THEM. It’s for THEM to know when we have voted and what precinct we are in. They just feed that right into their estimation without needing to look at our ballot. You might be thinking “well, they won’t know when I vote, because I’m smart enough to vote in person!”. Well, you aren’t that smart…and here’s why:
• Electronic Poll Books – We were told this was to make checking in to vote more convenient. Well, another thing it does is allow certain people to know when you vote (and of course what your voting precinct is). And they get this data in realtime as well, and they can add it to their election result model before you even finish filling out your ballot! How smart do you feel now?

So what good does a model of the election results do for someone? Well, I’m going to put on my ‘BAD GUY’ hat and speak to you from that perspective:

“Now that I have conned all these idiots and have a system that allows me to know what the election results are within a high likelihood, and I know what I WANT them to be, all I have to do is subtract the two, and I now exactly how many ballots need to be injected to COUNTER the real votes.

But how would I ever get them into the system? Well, that’s EASY! With mail-in ballots and drop-boxes, I can just have ballot mules drop them off and nobody would know. And obviously I wouldn’t have them put in just one precinct, I’d scatter them all around to stay under the radar so nobody notices. And because I already have all this data, I know exactly where to spread them out.

But this would take a lot of time to do on a large scale, wouldn’t it? It definitely would. And it would be nearly impossible to do all that across a country in only one day. So, as a bad guy, I’m going to change the voting laws to allow EARLY VOTING! That gives me plenty of time to scatter and inject the ballots. The only problem is some people procrastinate, not leaving me much time to do my magic. So, I’m going to concoct the BANK YOUR VOTE initiative to try to con the people into voting as early as possible so I have PLENTY of time to manipulate things! I might even do some things to scare people away from voting on election day or make it really inconvenient for them and channelize them to vote as early as possible! Haha, these people are so stupid, they’ll buy it hook, line, and sinker.

But what do I do about the stubborn people that are on to my scam and therefore vote on election day? I’ve got that covered too, don’t worry. I’ll just push election laws that allow mail-in ballots to show up for another week after the polls close. That will give me plenty of time to do the cleanup and tie up all the loose ends, so I’m sure to get the predetermined results I want.

I love cheating elections this way, because if we ever do let the peasants have access to the ballots, they can count them to their little hearts content and they’ll always get the same result! Even the county election officials wouldn’t be able to catch this, so they’ll be telling all their citizens that there was no manipulation in the election, lying to them for me! And my entire corrupt industry gets to make billions of dollars from these idiot taxpayers who are paying us to be able to override their will so they merely think their vote counts. Stupid people are just so easy to fool, that if I wasn’t a total psychopath I might feel bad, lolol”

So how do we BREAK their control? Well, if we all VOTE IN PERSON ON ELECTION DAY, we break most of this feedback loop they created, and if they want to cheat, they have to cheat out in the open where we can see them instead of the dark where we couldn’t. This is what they did in Maricopa County AZ during the 2022 election. Yes, I know they still cheated, but at least WE CAUGHT THEM and now we have confirmation of the feedback loop. Can you imagine what’s going to happen when far more people vote in person on election day that it completely crushes their ability to cheat on that kind of a large scale? VICTORY FOR THE PEOPLE! The real vote will far overwhelm the injected votes and the bad guys will have to think of some other way to cheat. If we all can spread the word fast and wide enough, we the people will finally have a massive win against the psychopath globalists.

“But Scott Presler, Charlie Kirk, and Lara Trump say to vote early!”

Lara Trump has bad advisors around her. I have ZERO doubt of her integrity or intentions. I do hope she will contact me so I can walk her through this. However, Scott Presler told me directly face-to-face “Every expert has told me the same thing you’re telling me, and I DON’T CARE. I’m not stopping.” Why would Scott purposely mislead the people he claims to be helping? Charlie refuses to even listen to any of the experts. Isn’t that foolish to ignore people that actually studied the mechanics? Why would Charlie refuse to even listen? It’s bizarre at the least.

JP Sears does a fantastic job explaining it from a high level:

Share this video EVERYWHERE! Seriously, share it to everyone you know on every platform you can and ask every person to do the same. (and share this webpage as well, so everyone has the full detailed explanation)

If you cannot vote on election day, vote AS CLOSE TO ELECTION DAY AS POSSIBLE, and of course, IN PERSON. Remove as much time and space between events in an election, and you will reduce the opportunities for induction of fraud.

For more details, see #RightWayVoting.