Human Error?

Plausible deniability of the year tale comes with "machines bumping up against each other"

I probably could have commented on this several times since the recount nonsense.

The unintended consequences of the Jill Stein recount, was to officially put the Michigan Secretary of State on notice that there are irregularities with the voting in the motor city. Of course the unspoken truth has always been known, but proof of such shenanigans was elusive and considered inconsequential for most elections.

Given the revelation of fraud, and the incredible magnitude which it has appeared, it would seem only proper to fully investigate all of those who are entrusted with our voting responsibility in these precincts.  Criminal sanctions are likely warranted in some cases revealed by Stein’s efforts, yet the players caught with their hands in the cookie jar are not going to admit culpability too easily.  From the New American

Some observers say the discrepancies could be due to repeated attempts to stuff ballots into malfunctioning machines; more than 80 jammed in Detroit on election day. “This is not the first time,” either, adds Daniel Baxter, elections director for the city. As Time reports, quoting him, “‘We’ve had this problem in nearly every election that we administer in the city of Detroit.’ Baxter says that the machines were tested for accuracy before election day [sic] in accordance with state and federal guidelines, but that sometimes the machines ‘hit up against each other and malfunction’ as they’re being transported to the precincts.”

Striking. If this is an ongoing problem, it should have been addressed long ago. As for machines hitting up against each other during transportation, this is what foam padding is made for. Note, however, that claims of malfunction can be a great cover for vote fraud: “Of course the numbers don’t match up with the dang machines we have to work with!”

This author gets it.

Funny thing is, I wish I had penned my ‘on-the-other-hand’ opinion of the recounts while blasting them for wasting our time and money. It wasn’t hard to imagine such an effort biting back, especially considering the liberal propensity to cheat.  I suppose in the end, it was partly the fear of more cheating that engaged my imagination and held me to accept the win by ‘our guy’ as-is.

However, the poll books need to be opened and examined and right now.  Those who show up as voters in the precinct records need to be queried; “Did you vote that day?” If they did not, and they will testify to that and they are recorded as voting, it is clear a criminal act has occurred.

I would recommend starting from the last entries.  If there was a push to match numbers of voters with numbers on the seals of those bags with insufficient ballots, it would likely come at the end of the shift.

In any event, vote integrity is job number one for our esteemed election officials right now.  The way in which this is pursued may yield a future of very different expectations.

Human error, or predetermined results editing by local officials, it matters very little.

A well executed forensic effort in Detroit will likely pay off for years.


You Betcha! (12)Nuh Uh.(0)

  5 comments for “Human Error?

  1. Sue Schwartz
    December 20, 2016 at 7:11 am

    Since 1994 when the ballot scanners were first introduced and all the election fraud found involving these machines--what is the most interesting issue for me, is the lack of cleverness. 25+ years later the same manner of fraud exists. Technology hasn't improved the fraud. I still maintain that elections and the election process has been privatized being owned by foreign companies--We the People do not own the proprietary software and aren't even allowed to examine the programming running the machines. The software can be accessed remotely from outside the precinct--even the Patented paper the ballots are printed on is own by foreign sources. It's a well-kept secret--Russia Tampering with the Election--Ha, Ha, --we need to add Spain, Scotland, Ireland, even Vancouver--where the publishing companies owning the technology of the entire election process really are. It's been fun for me being vindicated only because now ya'll know what I witnessed and been exposing since 1994. Just call me Suffragette Sue.

    You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(1)
  2. 10x25MM
    December 20, 2016 at 7:39 am

    In Detroit they ran paper ballots with preferred votes through the scanning machines multiple times, then threw away a corresponding number of other ballots with unwanted votes. This was facilitated by fake vote scanning machine failures, so the voters would leave their uncounted ballots with the poll workers to be scanned later when the adult supervision was absent. As you might expect from DPS graduates, they didn't get the corresponding ballot disposal counts quite right in many precincts.

    This particular fraud was mostly aimed at the DPCS school board race, not the Presidential race. With 70 candidates on the ballot, the DPCS board race was ripe for vote fraud. Almost all the ballots in these precincts (95%) were cast for Hillary, so it didn't much affect the Presidential vote count.

    You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(0)
  3. KG One
    December 20, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    "However, the poll books need to be opened and examined and right now. Those who show up as voters in the precinct records need to be queried; “Did you vote that day?” If they did not, and they will testify to that and they are recorded as voting, it is clear a criminal act has occurred."

    I'll save everyone the hassle (even you, Jason), by telling you right now: Good Luck finding even one voter who is willing to step forward on this.

    One would think that the usual political agitators (i.e. Shabazz, Riddle, etc.) would be right on top of this like stink on you-know what.

    But where have they been?

    Getting their names in the local media going after Mayor Fouts in Warren only goes so far.

    They honestly don't care about what a farce the elections have been turned into within Detroit.

    Again, good luck finding anyone (within Detroit City limits) who does!

    You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • Corinthian Scales
      December 20, 2016 at 5:08 pm

      Going after Fouts? I thought that was puss-boy Calley's shtick?

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
  4. Sue Schwartz
    December 21, 2016 at 6:45 am

    10x25MM you are so right--I forgot about the 70 school board candidates. It's always a local issue that brings out the most fraud and as it happens--it was a school issue back in 1994. None-the-less, there are too many people involved in this particular conspiracy due to the amount of precincts which participated in the fraud. I would indict the City and county Clerk and every precinct captain, seize the ballots and the machines--and let them tell a federal judge how this happened on their watch.

    In 1994, the machines were rigged to kick out only "no" votes. Then a poll worker pushed a button on the back of the machine and the ballot was sucked in. After this happened to my ballot, I stood in the precinct and listened to the machine make one sound for yes, and another sound for no. That's how I realized there were phone modems in those machines. When my ballot was sucked in, it made no sound. The vote total was presented as 70/30% yes. During the Hand recount in two (out of four) precincts, enough uncounted "no" ballots were found to reverse the entire outcome of the vote. County Clerk Lynn Allen showed up, took everyone to Lunch, and when they returned, ran the already hand-counted ballots through the machine and the vote total came out the exact same as the election. I surmised that pushing that button on the back of the machine somehow watermarked the ballot so that forever that ballot could never be counted by the machines. With regard to the phone modems, which they denied vehemently, a couple of elections later, in an absentee precinct, I watched as a manufacturer's rep, called the machine from her cell phone and booted it back up--but there was no phone modems in the machines. Just call me Suffragette Sue.

    You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *