How Reliable Are Election Results?
Don't we do audits?
The Myth
Maybe, you grew up thinking that elections are fair and that no one does them better than the USA. That is certainly what we’re taught in school. I was lucky, because my parents were deeply involved in politics; and although they were highly idealistic, they were unflinchingly cynical. So I learned to hold those two concepts together. It’s possible to strive for a fair process and still know that the current one is profoundly flawed.
The Emotional Rollercoaster
Many of you are in shock. Anger. Grief. Denial. Rage. Frustration. Panic. Confusion.
How could this happen? We thought one thing was happening in the election, and now it looks like something totally different happened. We feel like the ground is shifting under us like quicksand and things are being reflected through a fun-house mirror and it isn’t what we expected, or signed up for, or want.
Or, if you’re on the other team you’re feeling pretty good. You went through the Anger, grief, denial, rage, frustration, panic and confusion in the last four years and now you’re feeling like the scale has been balanced, and justice has been served.
Or maybe you’re an old-timer who has been watching this issue for decades, like me.
Either way. I’m guessing if you’re here, it’s because you have some doubts about the accuracy of our elections. I share them. And I have for a long time. And I’m not able to go back in the closet now and pretend that everything is OK. It’s not. And that becomes more and more clear with each election cycle.
In a recent Public Affairs Council survey, 63 percent of Americans did not believe the 2024 election would be both open and honest. That was in October of 2023. I have to believe the percentage of those with doubts is even higher now.
I’m Tired of the Gaslighting
I’m tired of David Becker saying, “It's normal for supporters of the losing candidate to be disappointed … But our elections are secure and transparent, and the outcomes are verified by the audited paper ballots that 97% of voters cast (including in all of the swing states).”
Can Current U.S. Post-Election Audits Confirm Accuracy?
No. They cannot.
The claim, from David Becker above that 97% of voters ballots are audited is quite simply not factually accurate. (Interesting to see that David Becker has blocked me.)
Let’s look at whether 97% of voters ballots in the U.S. are audited meaningfully
Most states audit at most from 1-3% of the vote. Firstly, statisticians say that this is not a reliable sample to determine if the outcome is correct.
Additionally, states that are doing what’s called a “risk-limiting audit” that statisticians prefer, often do not perform those audits in a way that is reliable or meaningful. Here is an excerpt from a paper by the leading expert in the country on election audits: Philip Stark, Distinguished Professor of Statistics at University of California, Berkeley, regarding the Georgia, 2020 risk-limiting audit, which he did not find reliable.
[Regarding the Georgia 2020 “risk-liming audit] “There is no indication of widespread fraud, but there is reason to distrust the election outcome: the two machine counts and the manual `audit' tallies disagree substantially, even about the number of ballots cast.
Some ballots in Fulton County were included in the original count at least twice; some were included in the machine recount at least thrice. Audit results for some tally batches were omitted from the reported audit totals.
The two machine counts and the audit were not probative of who won because of poor processes and controls: a lack of secure physical chain of custody, ballot accounting, pollbook reconciliation, and accounting for other election materials such as memory cards.
Moreover, most voters voted with demonstrably untrustworthy ballot-marking devices, so even a perfect handcount or audit would not necessarily reveal who really won …
Georgia illustrates unrecoverable errors that can render recounts and audits `security theater' that distract from the more serious problems rather than justifying trust.”
This was an assessment of the 2020 election risk-limiting audit, however in 2024 Georgia is still using the same “demonstrably untrustworthy ballot-marking devices,” so its “risk-limiting audit” is not a reliable check of who voters chose.
There is actually some really interesting information coming out about the audits that have been conducted in 2024 that we’ll discuss soon. Check back.
Looking at audits in a few other states:
In Colorado, a partisan election official decides what races gets audited.
In Pennsylvania they have two audits that seem equally unimpressive. They have a 2% audit that counts 2% of the ballots, or 2000 votes, whichever is less. This audit is apparently for show, because “There is no statutory guidance on whether the audit results are binding … and no guidance on whether the audit could lead to a full recount.”
Then there is also the Pennsylvania “risk-limiting audit.” They randomly pick a race to audit. In this case one that no one seemed worried about. They picked the State Treasurer’s race. Then they use that audit to claim the results of all the races are accurate. Even though they haven’t done a risk-limiting audit on any other races. Professor Philip Stark notes,
“…a properly conducted RLA of some contests in an election does not show that any other contests in that election were decided correctly.”
And the “risk-limiting” audit was only done in 32 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties and it’s not legally required for the public to be able to watch the audit. It “is only open to those authorized to be present, which includes the candidates and their appointed watchers and attorneys, … there is no requirement that the results be made public.”
These states I’ve mentioned are the “best-case” scenarios. They are some of the states that say they are doing “risk-limiting audits”. Most of the other states are doing less audits and a less robust type of audit. With a few notable exceptions such as New Mexico, where last time I checked the audit was following best practices. In Maryland they do a thorough check of the digital ballot images, but it is controversial as to whether those are a reliable source to audit.
There is a database of all U.S. post-election audits at VerifiedVoting.org where you can learn more.
Beyond the procedural problems with our post-election audits, a full 30% of voters are using hybrid touchscreen or all-touchscreen ballot-marking device (BMD) voting machines. Three of the top election security and auditing experts in the country have said, “Elections conducted on current BMDs cannot be confirmed by audits.”
This is why we disagree with David Becker’s statement that “the outcomes [of U.S. elections] are verified by the audited paper ballots that 97% of voters cast (including in all of the swing states”
When Is the Data Coming?
Soon. We are doing an in-depth analysis of the 2024 election results, as well as many other aspects of the 2024 election that we’ll be sharing.
Our first analysis is of the “drop-off” effect. Drop-off is what we are calling the difference between the votes for president and the votes for Senate, or other down-ballot races, for both the Democrat and Republican parties. There is a large drop-off on the Republican side. Much larger than the Democratic side. Meaning more voters voted for Trump for president, but then didn’t vote for the Republican candidate for Senate or Attorney General. We’re working on bringing you exact percentages and total number of votes involved in about 15 states.
We are doing the final QC (Quality Control) checks now to make sure everything is accurate. A lot of the team worked on this all week and through the weekend. We are working as fast as we can, while still ensuring that the analysis is 100% accurate to the best of our ability.
As we said in the last post: In the meantime the Pennsylvania drop-off analysis and explanation are on the SMARTelections.us website and were also discussed in this TikTok. The North Carolina analysis was discussed on this TikTok.
We’re also having top advisors review the data and give us input about what it means, or how we might explain it.
Stay tuned.
Thank you so very very much
Thank you to everyone who read the last post and shared it, and subscribed, and now came back for more.
A special thank you to the paid subscribers and Angels. We are immensely grateful for your support, which is allowing us to continue our work and scale up our efforts.
And thank you to those who contributed to our fundraising drive. We made our 5k goal by Friday midnight and will receive the 5k in matching funds! We are especially grateful to one Angel donor who did a lot of the heavy lifting helping us reach this goal — and we also appreciate every single dollar from every donor. You are making it possible for us to move forward with our goal that all U.S. elections will be fair, secure, accessible, well-administered, publicly verifiable and have full public confidence. Please donate if you haven’t yet.
We’ll also be back with a special fun bonus next week! Anyone who donated $100 or more will be eligible for that bonus, whether you donated last week or are just donating now.
Think for yourself, or others will think for you without thinking of you.
~ Henry David Thoreau
 | A guest post by
|
Weigh the ballots.
If I understand one mode of fraud concern, some claim that the tallying computers were hacked or modified by insiders, in concert with hacks or inside jobs on the polling computer database.
Not easy. But doable. That would mean votes with no ballots.
The latter polling database hacks would have been enabled by soliciting names, addresses, and signatures from voters by Musk's minions, which has been reported, but is far from properly adjudicated.
That was strange and nearly illegal, and maybe illegal, regardless.
That is, one mode of attack would have fake votes tabulated in the main database, with a corresponding non-voter marked as 'voted' in the polling database.
So there would be votes with no paper ballots.
So, count the ballots ! Complicated.
No. Just weigh them.
That is just one mode of attack, but it should be put to rest. There are others.
Henry Ford used to calculate his accounts payable by weighing the invoices.
This would be much more accurate, and quick.
thanks, best luck to US -- b.rad
Your team has covered a lot of ground. This is vital work. I hope one day our votes will be secure and trusted, thanks to hound dogs like you!