Since 2020 I hear a lot of talk from the right about democrats cheating in our elections. I hear a lot about mail in voting, ballot harvesting and such. Although there is some evidence that activity does occur, Nobody has actually proved how any of these “cheats’ put Democrats in the winning circle.
I’m not going to discuss any of these “cheats”. I’m going to tell you how the Democrats have been winning. You can ignore what I tell you and do nothing. If that is the case the Democrats will win in 2024, guaranteed.
Understand that when Newsom and almost the entire Democrat line up in California’s most recent elections claim victory when only 30% of the votes have been counted it should be obvious they know something everyone else doesn’t.
Back in 2018 I predicted TRUMP would lose in 2020. I predicted Newsom would win if he was recalled. I predicted Democrats would win in our most recent elections., regardless of who ran for office.
How did I know?
It’s pretty simple. They win because in California the election official is a Democrat and they are using a Risk-Limiting Audit Pilot Program for auditing our elections. The program is not Certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). I’m not even sure if using the system is legal.
After Newsom was first elected he and the Secretary of State did what all winners of a honest election would do and ordered the removal and replacement of all election equipment. Then and the Democrat controlled Assembly authorized the Risk limit program that was to remain in effect until Jan 1, 2021. On the first or second day of the RNC convention Newsom quietly extended the program until Jan 1 2023.
The following comes from California’s Secretary of State’s web page and related sites. All sources listed at end of write up.
California Pilot Program
In 2018, Assembly Bill (AB) 2125 authorized a risk-limiting audit pilot program that will remain in effect until January 1, 2021. Under AB 2125 and beginning with the March 3, 2020, Presidential Primary Election, a county may optionally use risk-limiting audits in lieu of the 1% manual tally. (See, Elec. Code, §§ 15365-15367.)
On August 27, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2400 (Quirk, 2020) to make changes to the Risk Limiting Audits pilot program created by AB 2125 (Quirk, 2018). AB 2400 permits a county to conduct a risk-limiting audit on one or more contests fully contained in the county rather than all contests held in the county as was required under AB 2125; deletes the AB 2125 requirement to conduct partial risk-limiting audits for each cross-jurisdictional contest; and extends the sunset date of the pilot program from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2023. These changes address concerns with AB 2125 raised by the working group the Secretary of State convened pursuant to AB 2125 and allows counties to participate in the pilot program without risking a full hand count.
The Secretary of State has promulgated regulations that implement and administer the risk-limiting audit pilot program. T Risk-
Limiting Audit Process in California
The process of conducting risk-limiting audits in California is summarized below. This process is available for public observation.
Public Notice of the Audit
Any county that chooses to participate in the pilot program must provide at least five days public notice. This webpage will list each county that has chosen to participate.
Audit Board Selection
The county elections official will appoint people to review ballot cards and identify voter choices. No fewer than three people will review each ballot, but the same people do not need to review every ballot. Audit boards may be comprised of volunteers from the public and elections office staff. All audit board members must complete and sign a declaration of intent to faithfully discharge audit board duties.
Generation of the Random Seed
Members of the public will be invited to take turns rolling 10-sided dice to generate a random number (or seed). The audit software will use this seed to randomly identify ballots to audit.
Entry of Election Data into the Audit Software
The county elections official will enter information about the election into the audit software that allows the audit software to randomly identify ballots to audit.
Identification of Ballots to Audit
The audit software will determine the number of ballots needed to audit in order to confirm the result of the election to a 95% certainty. The audit software will randomly generate a list of ballots to review.
Ballot Examination
Audit board members will review each ballot selected by the audit software and determine voter choices on all contests being audited. The county elections official will resolve any disagreements among audit board members.
Entry of Voter Choice into the Audit Software
The county elections official will enter determinations of voter markings made by the audit board into the audit software. The audit software will use this information to determine whether the expected result of the election is confirmed by those voter selections.
Statistical Confirmation of Election Results
The audit will continue until the audit software can confirm the results of the election based on the voter choice determinations made by the audit board on the ballots they review. If the results represented on the ballots reviewed do not agree with the election results, the audit software will generate a list of additional ballots to review. This process will continue until either the results of the election are confirmed, or all ballots cast in the election are reviewed.
Reporting of Audit Results
The county elections official will report the results of the risk-limiting audit in the certification of the official canvass of the vote, which is due to the Secretary of State within 30 days of the election. This report will include information about the ballots reviewed and anything unusual that occurred in the audit.
Risk-Limiting Audit Software Tool
All counties participating in the pilot program shall use an RLA software tool provided by the Secretary of State to conduct the audit. The Secretary of State has procured a tool called Arlo for this purpose. Arlo is a web-based tool based on open-source and freely available code that is provided by VotingWorks. VotingWorks is also providing hosting and support services for participating counties.
The difference between a 1% manual tally and a risk-limiting audit:
1% Manual Tally:Elections officials conduct a public manual tally of 1% of all ballots tabulated on a voting system during an election, including vote-by-mail ballots. This is a public process of manually tallying votes in 1% of the precincts, selected at random by the elections official, and in one precinct for each race not included in the randomly selected precincts. This procedure is conducted during the official canvass to verify the accuracy of the automated count. In a regular election year, counties hand count tens of thousands of ballots as part of the 1% manual tally. This process does not provide statistical evidence that the machine tally found the true winner for each contest on the ballot. This process also does not describe what should be done if the results of the manual tally do not agree with the election results. (See, Elec. Code, § 15360.)
Risk-Limiting Audit: Elections officials manually tally randomly selected ballots, stopping as soon as it is implausible that a full recount would show a different result than the ballots reviewed. As long as it is statistically plausible that a full recount would overturn the result, the risk-limiting audit continues to examine more ballots. Risk-limiting audits determine precisely how much hand-counting is necessary to confirm election results to a given level of confidence. The audit will continue until the audit software can confirm the results of the election based on the voter choice determinations made by the audit board on the ballots they review. If the results represented on the ballots reviewed do not agree with the election results, the audit software will generate a list of additional ballots to review. This process will continue until either the results of the election are confirmed, or all ballots cast in the election are reviewed.The closer the contest, the more ballots that must be examined to havestrong evidence – because fewer errors can change the outcome. The higher the desired confidence (e.g., 99% versus 90%), the more ballots that must be examined – because higher confidence requires more evidence. State law requires a 5% risk limit, or 95% confidence in the result of the election reported by the voting system. (See, Elec. Code, § 15367).”
Lets review a few key points mentioned.
‘”This process does not provide statistical evidence that the machine tally found the true winner for each contest on the ballot”
No it tells us if we should recount all the ballots.
“This process also does not describe what should be done if the results of the manual tally do not agree with the election results. (See, Elec. Code, § 15360.)”
If the count doesn’t agree with the election results then recount all the votes. Obviously.
The auditor For each targeted contest, will enter the contest name, number of winners, number of votes allowed, the name and votes for each candidate, and total number of ballots cast. Using randomly selected ballots, Arlo attempts to find a solution that validates the winners within the risk limit. It doesn’t validate actual total vote count. If Arlo produces results that tell us if a full recount would overturn the election results, they ignore it and continue using sample ballots until they can validate the reported winner..
Still confused?
They haven’t hidden what they are doing. They put it in writing multiple times on the California’s Secretary of State’s web page
“As long as it is statistically plausible that a full recount would overturn the result, the risk-limiting audit continues to examine more ballots”
“The audit software will determine the number of ballots needed to audit in order to confirm the result of the election to a 95% certainty”
“The audit will continue until the audit software can confirm the results of the election based on the voter choice determinations made by the audit board on the ballots they review. If the results represented on the ballots reviewed do not agree with the election results, the audit software will generate a list of additional ballots to review. This process will continue until either the results of the election are confirmed, or all ballots cast in the election are reviewed.”
Have you figured it out yet?
Since they are telling the world what they are doing it’s hard to say the Democrats are cheating. To be more accurate, they have outsmarted the right, in plain site.
What’s obvious is that nobody is paying attention.
What are the chances If we were to hand count all the ballots in states that use Arlo we would see a different winner?
The simple truth,
Risk-limiting audits consider contest margins and errors discovered by the audit, yielding a minimum of missing incorrect outcome, called a “risk limit.” You start with the assumption that there must be an incorrect outcome, and you audit until you disprove it or correct it. If you go through the first round and have found enough discrepancies that haven’t met the risk limit, then you conduct a second round, and continue conducting rounds until we meet the risk limit. The ballots are compared with the sample of the reported winner instead of the voting system.
The main function is to disprove the possibility of a inaccurate vote count, and find a way to validate the reported winner. So if, in fact. the vote count is actually inaccurate and the reported winner is not the actual winner there isn’t any possible way of finding out. This doesn’t validate the actual results. It’s a “work around'” from proving the vote count is correct and the reported winner is actually the winner.Basically whoever has the most votes, legit or not, at the time of the audit, is guaranteed to be the winner every time.
If the election official is a Democrat, they will not run the audit until the Democrat candidate has more reported votes then the opposition.
If you haven’t noticed already, Democrats have been changing their position on the systems they swore were secure while pushing to switch to risk limiting audits.
All the chaos, dice rolling events, talk about ballot security, procedure on how ballot boxes are handled, legal voters, Russia influencing in our elections, more security at polling stations , voter ID, etc. is just fluff and to keep your mind occupied. It creates a false sense of security while providing a distraction from the Risk limited audits.
What should be important concerns are now irrelevant.
Legit votes no longer matter in the California and states that use risk limiting audits. If you want to win the election just be sure you have more ballots(legit or not) counted at the time of the audit. Don’t forget to have a couple million ballots on standby when the opposition discovers a box of “lost ballots“.
Don’t take my word on it .
Here is what the founder of Voting Works has to say about risk limit audits.
You don’t run a risk-limiting audit because there was a problem,” Ben Adida, executive director of nonprofit Voting Works, said Tuesday in a webinar. “You run a risk-limiting audit to build more confidence in the outcome.
*When elections are legal and legit and all the ballots are counted, the confidence in the outcome comes naturally. It’s not necessary to build confidence.
There you have it. I have shown you the way. Now you know how Democrats have been ‘“winning“.
You have several options.
What are you going to do about it?
*You might ask the question “In California some republicans won in the midterms, how did that happen?’ It’s because what most people don’t understand is that Democrats have control of the state. That doesn’t mean the majority of voters are Democrats. Republicans far outnumber the democrats as far as being actual living people. What’s important to Democrats is to keep control. Some areas in California would be virtually impossible convincing people a Democrat won. It would draw so much attention that it would make people question the validity of all official seats the democrats won. I’m confident that if we counted every ballot that was a legal vote, Republicans would win every seat in the state.
Additional information, facts and sources.
Besides California what is the link between the Democrats, the Voting Works, other states and our elections?
What states use Arlo?
On Voting Works website they list the following. Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, California, Nevada, Washington, Michigan , Pennsylvania , Connecticut , Rhode Island
-
Keep in mind that there are other states that are not mentioned that use their product . Mississippi and Arkansas use their product. The minimum being 12 states that use their product.
-
For example ,“Arkansas Begins 2020 Election-Audit Pilot Program December 1, 2020 at 8:50 AM CST Source
All States that use Arlo minus North Carolina went to Biden in 2020
In 2020 battle ground states were Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada
At least 5 out of the 7 battleground states use Arlo
What is to the election officials party affiliation in these states?
Nevada- REP considered corrupt Rino by GOP
Georgia– REP- considered Rino by GOOP
Pennsylvania– DEM-
Michigan– DEM-
California– DEM
Virginia -2020 DEM Jan 2022 REP
North Carolina– DEM-
Connecticut– DEM-Denise Merrill Rhode Island- DEM-
Washington/strong>- In 2020, REP- Rino by GOP current DEM
Were there problems with the vote count in these states?
Were any of these states a key factor for election results in 2020?
Is it just a coincidence that Democrats always win in states that democrats are the election officials
About Voting Works
All this information is available to the public
Founder Ben Addida (Leftist)
He is the creator and maintainer of the open source Helios Voting System. Adida is also the Executive Director of the non-profit Voting Works which builds open and publicly accountable election technology.
Prior projects
Cal tec/MIT Voting Technology project Link to project
Donors Government grants and contracts, CISA and the NSF funded Voting Workswith in 2019 and 2020. Source
*The legality of branches of the federal government funding/influencing our elections should be questioned.
Donations from foundations , Democracy Fund, Schmidt Futures, and New Venture Fund are foundations that have funded Voting Works.
I won’t get into their top individual donors. I will mention that one being former Administrator at the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) (Obama apointee) The following link will list top donors. Source
Is Voting Works certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)? No
Hardware available for purchase, VxAdmin – EMS & BoD $2,000 VxCentralScan – Central Scanner $2,750 VxMark – Ballot Marking Device $1,750 VxScan – Precinct Scanner $2,500
I don’t know the Actual price for their services
From their News Room
Nov 14, 2021 Updated Jul 6, 2022
“How one company came to control San Francisco’s elections” “Bennett believes his long relationship with Arntz fills an important need for veteran leadership in a market lacking it. “The Elections Commission doesn’t know anything about California elections,” Bennett told The Examiner. “Most people in San Francisco don’t care about voting.”
November 25, 2020
“VotingWorks Partners with Security Compass to Secure Risk-Limiting Audit Software Arlo Ben Adida “Arlo, assessed by Security Compass, was used to support Georgia’s full hand-count audit. Arlo, a secure and open-source election audit tool developed byVotingWorks, received high marks in a recent third-party security assessment. Arlo was a key component of the state of Georgia’s risk-limiting audit (RLA) in mid-November, and is the only software of its kind, allowing any state to carry out a risk-limiting audit.” Source
December 1, 2020 at 8:50 AM CST
“Arkansas Begins 2020 Election-Audit Pilot Program Source
December 5, 2018
Ben Adida “Today, we’re excited to announce that the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) has agreed to become our host organization while we apply for our standalone non-profit status. Check out their announcement. This means VotingWorks is collaborating closely with the CDT’s experienced team to ramp up operations and begin in earnest the development of affordable, secure, open-source voting machines for use in US public elections. It also means that Voting Works can now accept tax-deductible donations by way of CDT.”
“The Center for Democracy & Technology is the ideal partner for us. They’ve been instrumental to most critical technology policy debates for the last 25 years. They’ve elevated the discussion around privacy and personal data control, security and surveillance, free speech online, and, of course, election security. They’ve done so in a uniquely non-partisan way, because democracy is non-partisan. We’re humbled and proud to be working with them.” Source
November 14, 2019
Ben Adida “Voting Works is now a recognized 501(c)(3) public-benefit corporation. We are incredibly thankful to the Center for Democracy and Technology that incubated us over the last year. And we want to tell you a little bit more about our governance structure.”
“Voting Works was founded by me, Ben Adida, and Matt Pasternack in November 2018. I serve as Executive Director and lead product/engineering, and Matt runs operations. Together, we answer to the Board, which is composed of me and two wonderful individuals: John Lilly and Ryan Merkley.”
“John Lilly was one of our first champions. His experience developing products in mission-driven companies, both for- and non-profit, is second to none. He was a General Partner at Greylock, and before that he was Mozilla’s CEO. He sits on the board of a number of exciting product-focused startups, as well as on the board of Code For America, an organization I deeply respect and look up to as a model govtech non-profit.
“Ryan Merkley is Chief of Staff at Wikimedia, before that CEO at Creative Commons. He brings unparalleled experience in non-profit operations and governance, especially around the creation of open-source-based movements. I had the pleasure of working with him when we were both at Mozilla.”Source
*Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) is Soros Funded Source
*Lilly left Greylock in January 2019 to dedicate himself more to activism, explaining “it’s crystal clear that 2019 & 2020 are crucially important years — certainly the most important time in a generation, but maybe much longer than that.” Code For America- Newsom gave access/control to California’s DMV, Identification and voting information to Code for America after he took office.
I highly suggest you research Code for America
Nov 16,2020
“Colorado takes one final step to verify the vote count. Here’s how an audit works.” “Counties with older systems that don’t read or export a voting record use a ballot-polling risk-limiting audit. This audit performs the same process, only the ballots are compared with the sample of the reported winner instead of the voting system,”
““You don’t run a risk-limiting audit because there was a problem,” Ben Adida, executive director of nonprofit Voting Works, said Tuesday in a webinar. “You run a risk-limiting audit to build more confidence in the outcome.””
“Risk-limiting audits consider contest margins and errors discovered by the audit, yielding a minimum of missing incorrect outcome, called a “risk limit.”
““You start with the assumption that there must be an incorrect outcome, and you audit until you disprove it or correct it,” Rudy said. “If we go through the first round and have found enough discrepancies that we haven’t met the risk limit, then we conduct a second round, and continue conducting rounds until we meet the risk limit.” source
From Influence Watch
“Voting Works is a left-of-center non-profit provider of voting machines and open-source election verification software. In November 2019, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced it would partner with VotingWorks to pilot the use of its vote verification software in six battleground states during the November 2020 election. In April 2020, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, VotingWorks announced it would be providing technological assistance to states and local jurisdictions seeking to scale-up voting by mail opportunities.
Voting works was created within and incubated by the left-leaning Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). CDT’s major donors include large left-of-center foundations, including George Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society, the Ford Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation. “
” An April 2020 news release announced Voting Works was building VxMail, a set of tools to help implement and deploy vote-by mail with services such as ballot printing, envelope stuffing, mailing, ballot receipt, signature verification, and ballot tabulation.VxMail is designed to assist jurisdictions that previously had only a few hundred ballots to deal with manually, but now may have thousands or tens of thousands” source
*Interesting fact- Calif has at least 24,000 precincts. They do a hand count audit of just 1 precinct
Sources:
If you want to play with the voting software here are the links to download
code links,
Consortium of Defense Analysts 