From irregularities to fraud in at least twenty-one states…
Caucuses, 2016: As if insufficiently trained volunteer staff, voter confusion, inadequate voter registration forms, and general disorganization weren’t telling in themselves, in multiple locations the awarding of delegates came down to coin tosses — literally. Inexcusably hours-long lines, a lack of paper ballots, and poorly trained elections workers meant general disenfranchisement pervaded caucus locations. The situation so outraged voters, it was characterized a “fiasco.” Those who did manage to procure a ballot discovered Clinton propaganda in plain sight; though electioneering is prohibited at polling locations. Chaos in the Republican caucus mirrored that in the Democratic event, including reports of ballot mismanagement; one was allowed to fall to the floor and was ripped up by a volunteer unsure of its validity. Another witness tweeted “some guy voted for trump twice.” Caucus volunteers, who are required to forego campaign gear, sported Trump paraphernalia and, as another Twitter user claimed, were “Actively bullying folks. Not checking IDs.”
This is just the iceberg of information that fills the internet pages of irregularities, fraud, misappropriation of ballots, and pure avoidance of rules. In 43 states, the voting equipment for the Presidential election are over a decade old, but the data discovered is the irregularities are more from data pointing towards fraud as the likely source. The research has been done by several independent in-depth examinations, of the accuracy and security of the U.S. electronic voting systems, all with closely aligned numbers. These numbers show total votes varying from state to state and precinct to precinct, and sometimes as high as 10% or more, from the examination by hand counts and the computer totals given.
Electronic Voting – Hand
This examination, and the documentation that this reporter could find consists of data from the last 5 presidential cycles and the data shows there are significantly large discrepancies between the small precincts using hand counts compared to the large precincts using computer counts. In the overwhelming majority of the twenty-one states analyzed, data indicates, that the totals reported may not be correct. When voters are purged from voting lists, registrations are lost, party affiliations are changed without the voter’s knowledge, and huge differences in exit polls compared to the official results will allow the strongest proponent of the computerized voting to believe that if there is fraud in one area, then it is plausible that there is more fraud. We also see huge variances between computer counts and hand counts of same ballots.
Another huge issue is the 2016 technological advances that allows one to hack into the voting systems. One examiner was able to hack into a system within 36 hours, which is a very short amount of time, and can be started as the systems go online prior to election day. Proof has come to light that Iran and China have been discovered in hacking the U.S. Voting systems, as well as we find it rapid in the Democratic party, and in fewer accounts by the Republican party.
“We need to immediately implement robust audit procedures. Then, as rapidly as possible, we must join the other legitimate democracies of the world and implement a system of paper ballots, hand-counted in a secure process that is open to the public, invites media scrutiny, and has strong chain of custody protocols. In this way, we can achieve accurate, verifiable results. Each citizen of the United States, and indeed the world, deserves this from us.”Tags: voter fraud