by Joe Fried
Pennsylvania does not require ID when voting by mail. That is bad enough. But just before the 2020 election, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court eliminated the only other way to determine if a ballot comes from a real voter: It ended signature matching.
Donald Trump is likely to win the most votes in Pennsylvania, but unless he leads by at least 3 percent on Election Day, it is likely that Kamala Harris will be declared the winner.
If that happens, the Republicans will have to take extraordinary steps to dispute the stolen election.
To understand the need for an extra 3 percent, we must review the serious problems of the 2020 election, which remain today.
Two big problems
Pennsylvania does not require ID when voting by mail. That is bad enough. But just before the 2020 election, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court eliminated the only other way to determine if a ballot comes from a real voter: It ended signature matching. That absurd ruling remains in effect for the 2024 election, so there will be no way to determine if mailed ballots are submitted by legitimate voters. Indeed, there will be even less security for the 2024 election because the radical Pennsylvania Supreme Court just ruled that ballots no longer need to be dated.
The problem in Pennsylvania is not just theoretical: It led to an invalid certification of the 2020 election. On Dec. 28, 2020, nearly two months after the 2020 election, 16 members of the Pennsylvania legislature put out an urgent press release warning that 202,377 ballots (nearly 3 percent of the total vote) had not been matched to registered voters.
In response, the state's Secretary of State said, effectively, the “check is in the mail.” These were her words (almost two months after the election):
...some counties have not yet finished entering into the SURE system what are called voter histories. Each history is tied to the record of the individual voter who cast a ballot... [T]hese counties included Philadelphia, Allegheny, Butler and Cambria, which would account for a significant number of voters...
The Secretary’s explanation was good enough for mainstream media “fact checkers,” who immediately declared that the problem raised by 16 Republican legislators was “debunked.” But no one in media bothered to follow up to see if the ballots were finally matched to registered voters. I can tell you, factually, they were not.
A high-quality data analysis firm called “Verity Vote” prepared a meticulous analysis that compared ballots received by each county to the number of registered voters who actually voted in each county. Pennsylvania’s unique registration system, called the SURE system, indicates total registered voters as well as the number of registered voters who actually voted in the prior election. For that reason, it is possible to compare ballots to actual registered voters who voted.
To prepare the analysis, Verity Vote purchased voter registration updates from the Pennsylvania Secretary of State for each week from late October 2020 through the beginning of February 2021. At all times, there was a voter deficit ranging from 121,000 to 202,000. As a veteran auditor with over 40 years of experience, I independently obtained registration data and reviewed the Verity Vote analysis extensively. It was completely accurate.
If you wonder where the phony ballots came from, here is the answer. True the Vote (TTV), the data analysts behind the 2000 Mules movie, estimated that there were 210,000 to 275,000 Pennsylvania ballots harvested just before the 2020 election. Although the mainstream media declared that the TTV estimates were faulty (too imprecise), those “fact checks” were simplistic. As I note in a separate article, a review of six so-called “fact checks” showed that...
- No fact checker mentioned the very precise cell phone tracking that is possible when multiple GPS signals are used. According to the U.S. federal government (GPS.gov), when two or more cell phone frequencies are combined, it is possible to obtain results accurate to within centimeters, or even millimeters (instead of several feet). That is information the fact checkers ignored.
- Fact checkers also ignored TTV’s claim to have used three different types of signals — not just one. TTV asserted that, by combining 3 signals, it achieved average real life accuracy to within 39 inches (not the 40 foot accuracy reported by fact checkers). By “real life accuracy” I mean the accuracy achievable after consideration of buildings, trees, and other obstructions.
Although no one can say for sure that the 210,000 - 275,000 ballot estimate is accurate, or that TTV was as meticulous as it claimed, it is virtually certain that a huge number of ballots were illegally harvested, and those harvested ballots probably accounted for much of the problem reported by the 16 PA legislators, and confirmed by Verity Vote.
Unfortunately, there is no reason to think that there won’t be fake ballots in Pennsylvania’s 2024 election. After successfully smearing the 2000 Mules movie, Democrat ballot harvesters probably feel more emboldened than ever before. They will cheat again.
The solution
As I stated earlier in the American Thinker, the Trump team must be prepared to accumulate strong evidence to prove that votes are suspect. Once the election is over, the only method that will work is post-election voter canvassing.
Although the exact method will vary by location, here are some of the specific steps that will be required:
- The voter database of each large county must be obtained. It should include all registered voters and their addresses, and it must identify the voters who cast a mail-in ballot.
- A large sample of addresses must be selected from the population of people shown to have voted by mail. The sample must be representative of the county’s population, and it should be selected by an expert statistician.
- Trained volunteers should knock on the doors of selected voters.
- When a resident responds at the door, the volunteers should identify themselves as private citizens who are conducting voluntary election integrity research.
- Several questions should be asked:
- Did you vote?
- What method did you use to vote (in person or absentee)?
- How many ballots did you receive in the mail for yourself?
- How many ballots did you receive for person(s) who do not live here?
- What did you do with any extra ballots received?
- When all data are received, the results should be compiled and analyzed.
After the 2020 election, a massive canvassing effort was performed in Maricopa County, Arizona. It determined that 5.7 percent of the alleged voters were unknown at the voting address. Unfortunately, the survey was produced far too late to be useful. In Macomb County, Michigan a survey determined that there was a problem with about 18 percent or more of the alleged voters. That canvass effort was shut down prematurely by Dana Nessel, Michigan’s radical Attorney General.
There are other factors to consider:
- Even though canvassing activity is legal in most areas, Democrats will furiously try to block any canvassing, so lawyers must be familiar with election and solicitation laws for each community.
- The surveys must be completed within days after the election, before memories fade and people get confused.
- For each major county within a swing state, a bi-partisan group of leaders should be selected. If possible, these leaders should be retired judges, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and accountants, and they should have unblemished credentials. They will select and supervise the volunteers.
- A professional statistician must be used, and she must select a sample large enough to achieve high confidence with a small margin of error. For most counties the required sample might range from 500 to 1,000.
- Accurate records of all responses must be kept. If discrepancies are found, sworn affidavits should be obtained, if possible.
When done properly, the findings will be solid evidence that can be used in an election lawsuit. It won’t prove that a particular candidate won, but it can show that a new election must be held.
There is one more option, and it is much better: Trump can avoid all of this by increasing his lead to over 3 percent by Election Day.
Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License
Joe Fried is an Ohio-based CPA who has performed and reviewed hundreds of certified financial audits. He is the author of the book, Debunked? An auditor reviews the 2020 election, and How Elections Are Stolen, which outlines 23 problems that must be fixed before the 2024 election. More information can be found at https://joefriedcpa.substack.com/, Joe’s permanently free Substack account.
Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/09/trump_may_not_win_in_pennsylvania_em_until_after_the_election_em.html
No comments:
Post a Comment