Some of my prior posts discussed the "pump and dump" software algorithm in Pennsylvania that assigned votes for Trump to a Third Party bin then would later reassign the votes to Biden. As I continued to examine Pennsylvania's voting results, the evidence supported that votes recorded for Green Party candidates were manipulated.
The analysis was based on a number of different factors, including performance in down ballot races, historical performance, software system requirements, and underlying election data (e.g., mail in ballot return rates, party registration, etc.). The analysis concluded 79-80K votes were switched from the Green Party write-in candidate.
 |
| Green Party's write in votes were perfect for vote switching |
ANALYSIS
1. The Pennsylvania Green Party and the Democrat Party engaged in a legal dispute over the validity of signatures gathered for inclusion on the ballot, alleging that the signatures were from dead people, wrong addresses, and illegible signatures. After the Green Party provided evidence to disprove the Democrats charges, the Democrats persisted with legal action to keep only the Green Party Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates off the ballot (citing irregularities in paperwork). As a result of the legal action, voting for the Green Party Presidential candidate could only be done by write-in.
2. Write-in votes by the Green Party (and others) require adjudication in the election software systems used in Pennsylvania (e.g., Dominion Democracy Suite, ES&S EVS 6030, and ClearVote 2.0). Green Party votes for President were recorded as “Other” in the voting system. In order to properly assign the votes, an election worker, under supervision, determines the voter's intent and assigns the vote accordingly.
3. Given that a large number of write-in votes were expected in advance, software could be loaded to the system to reassign a portion of those votes without going through the adjudication process.
4.
Between 71K and 80K people voted for the Green
Party candidates for Attorney General, Auditor General, and Treasurer. Those votes seemingly disappeared in the
Presidential race as only 7,672 write in votes were recorded in that contest. The uniformity of the Green Party votes across the board for AG,
Auditor General, and Treasurer is unusual in comparison to how the other parties voted. The pattern suggests manipulation or fraud.
7. The low number (8,136) of Libertarian mail-in
votes also appears improbable given that they cast between 24K and 58K mail-in ballots.
8. Turning attention back to total votes among the state-wide offices, the Green Party purportedly cast between 71K and 83K votes for the three state-wide office contests in 2020. Contrast that with 2016, when Green Party candidates received 159K votes for Auditor General and 170K for Treasurer (see below). Also note that the Green Presidential candidate (Jill Stein) received a fair amount of votes in 2016. The decline from 2016 suggests that votes were shifted away from the Green Party to another candidate.
9. Libertarian votes in 2020 appear suspicious because the Presidential candidate has less votes than the down ballot candidates. However, I compared the results of state-wide elections in other states (Oregon, West Virginia, Montana, and Missouri) and saw the same pattern; down ballot candidates outperformed the presidential candidate, thus the Jorgenson 2020 vote total is correct.
CONCLUSION
10. The various inconsistencies in Green Party voting patterns, the Greens writing in their Presidential candidate (that required adjudication), and the lack of transparency and detail of underlying election data combined to create an environment conducive for the switching/reassignment of Green Party votes to a different candidate. Based on analysis of Green Party performance in the Presidential election in other states, it is likely 70,000 to 80,000 votes cast for the Green Party presidential candidate were reassigned.
- Ray Blehar, 12/20/2020, 1:26 PM EST
No comments:
Post a Comment