Another wrinkle worth investigating in the 2020 election fraud fiasco

As is their right, a segment of Americans appear to protest the presidential contest by not voting for any candidate while voting down ballot, for example on the Senate race.  The number of protest “no votes” appears to be significant enough to impact a close election.

This is a fascinating article, and I am very focused on the Biden-only ballot numbers.  Why not have 500,000 or 1,000,000 Biden only ballots to secure an election?  I believe that all involved are smart and know that numbers on that scale would create major concerns due to the new vote totals.  So, then, how do you try to determine a safe number of Biden-only votes?

You look at the number of ballots with no presidential selection, and you cast a ballot only in the presidential election.  This would allow those votes to appear to be part of the normal totals — i.e., it keeps the Senate vote totals in balance with presidential vote totals.  Let’s take a look at three states in play that had a presidential candidate and a Senate candidate:

State	Biden only	Total Presidential	Protest No-Vote	% Biden only Plus No-Votes
Arizona	98,000	3,254,513	19,897	3.62%
Georgia	90,000	4,916,651	15,982	2.16%
Michigan	115,000	5,435,176	25,425	2.58%

My initial assumption was that someone took time to “cure” the protest “no-vote” ballots by selecting Biden.  With poll-watchers and ballot-handling protocols, that would be a challenge and a good magic trick.  Instead, it looks as though they could have created Biden-only ballots.

Previously, we looked at ten states with significant Senate races, and we found that between 1.50 and 3.36% more people appear to have voted in the Senate race than the presidential race.  When I add the Biden-only ballot totals to the protest no-votes of the three contested states above, it brings the percentage of estimated number of protest no-votes in line with the surrounding states.  It looks as if someone could have added the proper number of Biden-only votes into the vote totals to keep the total ballots between the presidential race and the Senate race in balance.

Why is this important?  And how does it help pull the curtain back?

If you want to increase votes for your candidate and you don’t want to raise concerns, you have to increase votes for your candidate in a way that does not raise obvious red flags like 500,000 more people voting in the presidential election than voted in the other down-ballot races.  Therefore, someone would have to monitor various data and metrics, including the number of ballots without a presidential selection.  That person could then supply totals to the teams that are preparing Biden-only ballots.  Those ballots would then be fed into the counting machine as recent arrivals.

Admittedly, this explanation is not proof of fraud.  It is merely an explanation of how it could have happened.  How could this potential fraud be proven?  And how can people dig into this further?

· Can someone with access to the data publish the actual number of ballots without a presidential candidate selected — i.e., the protest no-vote totals by state?  And, for good measure, the total number of ballots cast by state?  I would be willing to add them to my spreadsheets and publish the results.  Are the totals in line with my estimates?

· It might be interesting to see the total ballots cast by county with the requested data at the county level.  Are only certain counties voting Biden only?  And do those counties have protest no votes for president?

· Can we examine Mrs. Clinton only ballots from 2016 in all states?

· To be fair, we need the data for both parties’ candidates as far back as it is available.

· With most of the world watching the total votes to each candidate, who would monitor no-votes on the day of the election?  Who had access to the reporting on the metrics for the number of ballots without a presidential candidate selected?

· When did those data or that metric become available for the first time to the individuals monitoring the election?

· When did the Biden-only ballots begin to appear and in what numbers?  I.e., did the ballots begin to appear after the data or metrics for the protest no-votes began to be available?

· Where did the Biden-only ballots appear?  Are they spread throughout the state or the county or isolated to one precinct?

The clock is ticking.  There are smart people with access to more data.  Please continue the analysis or help me to do it.  Alleging fraud will not change any minds or the outcome.  Following the data trails like this one could lead us to an individual behind the magic trick.  If one method of fraud can be discovered, then the perpetrators can be discovered.  Once some of the people are identified, it could then allow the proving of fraud before the Electoral College meets.  To guarantee the desired outcome in a presidential election would have needed multiple methods of fraud, and it would have to be a small group that is coordinating and monitoring.  If one in that small group can be discovered, it may also allow an examination of all the activities that impacted the election.

Maker S. Mark (a pseudonym) is an active manager with 30 years’ experience in asking questions and solving problems in business I.T. and operations.

As is their right, a segment of Americans appear to protest the presidential contest by not voting for any candidate while voting down ballot, for example on the Senate race.  The number of protest “no votes” appears to be significant enough to impact a close election.

This is a fascinating article, and I am very focused on the Biden-only ballot numbers.  Why not have 500,000 or 1,000,000 Biden only ballots to secure an election?  I believe that all involved are smart and know that numbers on that scale would create major concerns due to the new vote totals.  So, then, how do you try to determine a safe number of Biden-only votes?

You look at the number of ballots with no presidential selection, and you cast a ballot only in the presidential election.  This would allow those votes to appear to be part of the normal totals — i.e., it keeps the Senate vote totals in balance with presidential vote totals.  Let’s take a look at three states in play that had a presidential candidate and a Senate candidate:

State	Biden only	Total Presidential	Protest No-Vote	% Biden only Plus No-Votes
Arizona	98,000	3,254,513	19,897	3.62%
Georgia	90,000	4,916,651	15,982	2.16%
Michigan	115,000	5,435,176	25,425	2.58%

My initial assumption was that someone took time to “cure” the protest “no-vote” ballots by selecting Biden.  With poll-watchers and ballot-handling protocols, that would be a challenge and a good magic trick.  Instead, it looks as though they could have created Biden-only ballots.

Previously, we looked at ten states with significant Senate races, and we found that between 1.50 and 3.36% more people appear to have voted in the Senate race than the presidential race.  When I add the Biden-only ballot totals to the protest no-votes of the three contested states above, it brings the percentage of estimated number of protest no-votes in line with the surrounding states.  It looks as if someone could have added the proper number of Biden-only votes into the vote totals to keep the total ballots between the presidential race and the Senate race in balance.

Why is this important?  And how does it help pull the curtain back?

If you want to increase votes for your candidate and you don’t want to raise concerns, you have to increase votes for your candidate in a way that does not raise obvious red flags like 500,000 more people voting in the presidential election than voted in the other down-ballot races.  Therefore, someone would have to monitor various data and metrics, including the number of ballots without a presidential selection.  That person could then supply totals to the teams that are preparing Biden-only ballots.  Those ballots would then be fed into the counting machine as recent arrivals.

Admittedly, this explanation is not proof of fraud.  It is merely an explanation of how it could have happened.  How could this potential fraud be proven?  And how can people dig into this further?

· Can someone with access to the data publish the actual number of ballots without a presidential candidate selected — i.e., the protest no-vote totals by state?  And, for good measure, the total number of ballots cast by state?  I would be willing to add them to my spreadsheets and publish the results.  Are the totals in line with my estimates?

· It might be interesting to see the total ballots cast by county with the requested data at the county level.  Are only certain counties voting Biden only?  And do those counties have protest no votes for president?

· Can we examine Mrs. Clinton only ballots from 2016 in all states?

· To be fair, we need the data for both parties’ candidates as far back as it is available.

· With most of the world watching the total votes to each candidate, who would monitor no-votes on the day of the election?  Who had access to the reporting on the metrics for the number of ballots without a presidential candidate selected?

· When did those data or that metric become available for the first time to the individuals monitoring the election?

· When did the Biden-only ballots begin to appear and in what numbers?  I.e., did the ballots begin to appear after the data or metrics for the protest no-votes began to be available?

· Where did the Biden-only ballots appear?  Are they spread throughout the state or the county or isolated to one precinct?

The clock is ticking.  There are smart people with access to more data.  Please continue the analysis or help me to do it.  Alleging fraud will not change any minds or the outcome.  Following the data trails like this one could lead us to an individual behind the magic trick.  If one method of fraud can be discovered, then the perpetrators can be discovered.  Once some of the people are identified, it could then allow the proving of fraud before the Electoral College meets.  To guarantee the desired outcome in a presidential election would have needed multiple methods of fraud, and it would have to be a small group that is coordinating and monitoring.  If one in that small group can be discovered, it may also allow an examination of all the activities that impacted the election.

Maker S. Mark (a pseudonym) is an active manager with 30 years’ experience in asking questions and solving problems in business I.T. and operations.