Exposing the Achilles Heel of Democratic ballot dumping

Exposing the Achilles Heel of Democratic ballot dumping
AP Photo/Matt Slocum

Much discussion has been underway looking at the anomalous surges in ballots for Biden and the statistical distortions that this has entailed, including almost statistically impossible spikes in voter participation rates both historically as well as in compared with other voting areas in the states.

But it will be very difficult to change election vote numbers by court order based on statistics alone. Harder evidence is required. I would like to elaborate on one potential path forward to achieve that – but time is crucial.

Let us begin with the basic mathematical equation of elections:

Number of voters = Number of ballots

Which in the way the 2020 election was conducted translates to

Number of same-day voter signatures + Number of ballot envelopes = Number of ballots

Examination of each of these three components is very important (as I will summarize at the end), but the equation is central. That is, if the right side is greater than the left side, then we have the problem of naked ballots, ballots that are not connected with voters but are in the stream by themselves.

My hypothesis is that the Democrats were not prepared for the extraordinary strong showing that Trump achieved and thus had to resort to desperate measures to add Biden ballots to the count stream, and in particular were not able to cover these naked ballots with either signatures or valid envelopes, and at a scale that leaves them vulnerable to exposure and may even allow for incontrovertible mathematical correction that at a first pass would not require attempts at statistical adjustment

What we have reported is the right side of the equation – number of votes, which corresponds to the number of ballots. Not exactly the same – some ballots may not contain votes for certain offices, which may be an issue for certain down ticket races, but it is likely that almost all ballots will contain a Presidential vote, especially any fraudulent ballots.

So we have the right side (approximately) – what we need then is the left side: (1) the voter signature books for the precincts, (2) the ballot envelopes from that precinct collected by the county – and then do the addition.

For example as a first pass, if we have 250 signatures and 450 envelopes, then we should have 700 ballots for that precinct. If we actually find 1,000 ballots for that precinct, then 300 of them are “naked” (i.e. invalid) that do not have a voter connected with them.

But since we don’t know which votes correspond to valid vs. naked ballots, it ordinarily would be difficult to impossible to know how one would remedy this overvote. For instance, in the above case, if we have a 60-40 split between candidates, that means 600 votes for one, 400 votes for the other. While 300 of the votes we know are invalid, there’s no way really to unscramble the egg to know just how these invalid votes distribute to the two candidate totals. Proration is not going to get agreement from the candidate with more votes. A real conundrum here.

But this where the Democrats may have left themselves vulnerable.

In particular, we know that the areas of suspicious vote dumping are occurring in cities where the Democrat percentage of votes is very high to start with, so that if you dump more ballots, you will just increase that percentage and end up cooking your goose. So for instance, using the above example,

If instead we have a 90-10 split between candidates, that means 900 votes for one, 100 for the other, and 300 invalid ballots. Now here, while we again don’t know which votes are invalid, it is mathematically incontrovertible that in the most extreme scenario that the trailing candidate’s votes all come from invalid ballots, that’s only 100 ballots – the other 200 ballots MUST be from the leading candidate, leaving a net loss of 100 votes for the leading candidate.

And if the numbers were goosed to 95-5, the correction is even better (in that case the leader would see a net loss of 200 votes.)

That assumes that the court would take the extreme position of throwing out all of the votes of the trailing candidate. The court may be willing to take a more lenient view.

Where do we go with this…

Evidently, we need to gain access to precinct signature books and the envelopes in order to compare with the vote totals for that precinct. But since we can’t examine all precincts in these urban areas in a timely fashion, we will need to sample a few precincts, perhaps 1-2%, such that if we do uncover “naked ballots” in substantial quantities, the court will be willing to order a full count – or some other remedy for these discrepancies. The sooner, the better, especially if court orders will be needed.

Other comments (as promised above)

Of course, other traditional methods of ferreting out fraud or misconduct are important, including a a few – thought I’m sure others have considered these:

re signature books: identifying duplicated signatures or other irregularities (dead signers or impossible signatures)
re envelopes: look for missing postmarks, missing signature on outside
re ballots: unusual percentages of votes only for Biden

Trending on RedState Video