Press "Enter" to skip to content

The 2020 “Black Box” Election Results are Totally Suspect: Logic Checking Jonathan Chait & the Partisan Fact Checkers

Let’s shed some light on Dominion and Smartmatic “black box” voting by logic checking the fact checkers who’ve been attempting to rebut what they are already calling a “conspiracy theory” before all of the evidence has been brought forward.

Jonathan Chait has an article titled “Trump’s New Vote Fraud Theory Is So Much Crazier Than You Realize” in which he attempts to rebut the notion that Dominion Voting may have manipulated the vote.

First I’m going to destroy Jonathan’s faulty logic, but make sure to read the end of the article where I discuss the serious data-driven evidence that Jonathan and others are completely ignoring.

[Full disclosure: I’m NOT a Trump supporter, and I did NOT vote for Trump.]

Fact Checkers Often Front-load their Argument with Insults & Implications

The first thing Jonathan does is insult Trump. Not a bad way to start if you’re not an honest person. He states that Trump’s new theory is crazier than his previous theories, and likens it to a spaceship that has left the galaxy entirely.

Calling someone’s ideas crazy does not constitute a valid argument. At least save your insults until after you’ve proven your case.

Then Jonathan subtly implies that Trump’s previous claims of election interference were illegitimate because Trump didn’t apply the accusations consistently toward Republicans who may have also committed fraud. This, again, isn’t a valid argument. You haven’t disproved that fraud took place on behalf of Joe Biden by merely pointing out that it could have also happened on behalf of Trump. Nor have you disproved the claim that fraud took place on behalf of Joe Biden by merely pointing out that Trump is a hypocrite. Trump’s hypocrisy does not invalidate the logic of his claim. It’s quite possible that fraud took place on behalf of Joe Biden and Donald Trump. And it’s quite possible that more fraud took place on behalf of Joe Biden than on behalf of Donald Trump. These sorts of subtle implications prove nothing.

But these sorts of insults and subtle implications do work to psychologically prepare the reader to accept the primary argument to come. And subconsciously, or perhaps quite consciously, that’s what Jonathan is up to here. He’s warming the reader up like a salesman.

Jonathan Chait isn’t interested in objectivity, he’s not a journalist, he’s a propagandist. He’s interested primarily in convincing his readers. (Well, let’s be honest, he’s interested in getting paid to write an article and he knows damn well that objectivity and fairness doesn’t sell clicks – fear and insults sell clicks.)

Okay, let’s leave the petty bullshit behind and move on to Jonathan’s argument.

An Awkward Attempt at an Appeal to Authority

Jonathan starts his argument out by quoting The Washington Post for no apparent reason.

“Trump “has become personally obsessed with the baseless Dominion claims and has asked campaign officials as well as national security officials in the government about the company,” reports the Washington Post.’

Interestingly Jonathan doesn’t even comment on this quote. He appears to have brought it up for no other reason than the hope that he can buttress his argument with the “baseless” claims of the esteemed Washington Post. (Which everyone in America knows is about the most biased news media outlet in the country.)

Truly, I have no idea why Jonathan quoted them since he doesn’t comment on the quote whatsoever, and it doesn’t add anything valuable to his argument unless you buy into the logical fallacy known as an “appeal to authority.” That is, unless you believe that you must accept as true anything an authority figure like The Washington Post says. I think we all know the dangers in blindly accepting the word of an authority, or expert. Well, perhaps, everyone expect Jonathan.

The Dominion / Smartmatic Theory as Presented by Rudy Giuliani

To Jonathan’s credit he does quote Rudy Giuliani at length. The following quote taken from Jonathan’s article is part of a transcript from a TV interview with Giuliani on Fox News. Giuliani is quoted as saying:

“It’s way beyond what people think, including a very, very dangerous foreign company that did the votes in 27 states, a company that’s not American, a company that’s foreign, a company that has close, close ties with Venezuela and, therefore, China and uses a Venezuelan company software that’s been used to steal elections in other countries.”

“I mean, I don’t think people have any idea of the dimension of the national security problem that Dominion creates. This Dominion company is a radical-left company. One of the people there is a big supporter of antifa and has written horrible things about the president for the last three or four years. And, the software that they use is done by a company called Smartmatic, a company that was founded by [Hugo] Chávez and by Chávez’s two allies, who still own it. And it’s been used to cheat in elections in South America. It was banned by the United States several — about a decade ago. It’s come back now as a subcontractor to other companies. It sort of hides in the weeds. But Dominion sends everything to Smartmatic. Can you believe it? Our votes are sent overseas. They are sent to someplace else, some other country. Why do they leave our country?”

“And this company had — and this company has tried-and-true methods for fixing elections by calling a halt to the voting when you’re running too far behind. They have done that in prior elections. Now, what happened on election night? He [Trump] was ahead by 800,000 votes in Pennsylvania. Impossible to catch up, unless you’re cheating, and same thing in Michigan, Wisconsin. He was ahead in all those states by numbers that, in prior times — and I can show this to you — networks would have called for him. But they didn’t call it for him.”

Immediately following this quote Jonathan does something that I just can’t stand. He tells you, the reader, that he doesn’t really need to do his job. He tells you that quoting this “completely implausible” statement by Giuliani is already enough to convince any sane person that the theory is, well, “completely implausible.” He tells you that you don’t need to look any deeper. You don’t need to ask any questions. You don’t need to investigate. And, by implication, neither does he. It’s already obvious, on its face, that the theory is implausible. He even implies that you don’t need to continue reading the article. You don’t have to understand the “details,” because it’s already obvious that the theory is “completely implausible.”

“Now, you don’t need to familiarize yourself with every detail in this story to understand that the general contours are completely implausible.”

Never the less, Jonathan won’t get paid if he doesn’t continue to write so onward his fingers march across the keyboard. (But, I think he’s secretly hoping that you’ll stop reading).

Unfortunately for him, I have not stopped reading, and I know how to think.

“First, the “mystery” Giuliani purports to solve — that Trump took the lead in several states on Election Night, only for subsequent voting to thrust Biden ahead of him — is not a mystery at all. As voting experts have explained for months, Republicans voted primarily on Election Day, while Democrats were voting disproportionately by mail. States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin tabulated Election Day ballots first.”

Jonathan’s first argument is that because more Democrats voted by mail-in ballot, and the mail-in ballots were counted after the in-person ballots were cast in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin it should come as no surprise that Trump took an early lead and then Biden caught up once the states started counting the mail-in ballots.

What Jonathan has done here is not disprove Giuliani’s allegation, but to offer another explanation. Offering an alternative explanation does not necessarily disprove his opponents explanation. It’s quite possible that they are both correct. It’s possible that mail-in ballots helped Biden catch up while at the same time voting machines manipulated the vote.

Offering another alternative doesn’t disprove, or invalidate, your opponents claim.

Now, having said that, an alternative explanation does act as evidence to persuade. So, it’s certainly not something we should fail to consider.

But, again, an alternative explanation itself doesn’t prove anything, because there are many explanations that account for both propositions being true. One could argue that the conspirators in charge of the voting machines purposefully waited until the mail-in ballots began being counted knowing that it would be easier to pass-off the fake votes, or “switched” votes, under conditions in which no one would question why Biden had received such a high percentage of votes. As Jonathan said, everyone was expecting in-persona voters to favor Trump and for mail-in voters to favor Biden. So it would stand to reason that someone who was planning on flooding the digital ballot boxes with fake, or switched, votes for Biden would wait until the mail-in ballots were being counted. That way they would have a convenient cover story.

Does Manipulating Digital Votes Require Hacking En Masse?

“Second, while it is possible to hack an individual ballot machine, it is not possible to hack the voting totals en masse.”

At this point I’m just going to have to be honest with the reader, Chait doesn’t have a fucking clue what he’s talking about. Manipulating the “digital vote” enough to influence who will win a close race hardly requires hacking “the voting totals en masse.”

You know how they say that your team is only as good as your weakest link? Well, “black box” (digital) voting has several weak links. In fact, Dominion has so many weak links that multiple states have refused to do business with them claiming that their voting systems are too vulnerable to hacking, and other less technical forms of manipulation and failure.

The first fact to consider in response to this claim is that manipulating votes at the digital level doesn’t require hacking thousand of ballot machines. If the digital votes are sent to a centralized server for tabulation, or reporting, then the votes can be switched there. Which is precisely what has been alleged. And that’s precisely why we need an investigation, and recounts. To dismiss the allegations presumptively is prejudicial if not downright deceitful.

Furthermore, there have been reports of votes being physically carried on USB drives which were misplaced. Gabriel Sterling, Georgia’s voting system manager, said Fayette County election workers didn’t initially upload votes stored on a memory card. Three issues like this in Georgia were responsible for tens of thousands of votes being “lost” narrowing Biden’s lead by 10%. A failure to update software in Michigan somehow resulted in thousands of lost votes. Once the problem was fixed Trump won the county. My point is that it only takes a few weak links here and there to effect the election results in a state. It only takes a couple missing USB drives in a heavily Republican county to cost Trump 10,000 votes. And in a close election such as the 2020 election 10,000 votes is a lot. Manipulating the election simply doesn’t require massive hacking of hundreds, or thousands, of voting machines.

Hacking on a small scale, which has over and over again been proven possible in courtrooms, congressional hearings, and university classrooms is incredibly easy. And, again, it only takes a few cases of this in a large county to steal enough votes.

The claim that a massive hacking effort is required is absurd.

Again, if the votes are at any point centralized on a remote server during the counting process then there’s no telling how the votes could be manipulated. There’s no controls, or oversight, on a remote server. Any computer connected to the internet is insecure for election purposes. It’s hard enough for digital forensics experts to determine what code is truly running on Election Day on thousands of machines at any given time much less a centralized server connected to the internet who’s code could easily be obfuscated.

And don’t get me started on digital voting machine audits. They are nearly worthless. Unless the code is entirely open source, and it can be verified that no other code is running on the machine through out the entire day, and he machine has no open ports (inside, or outside), and the machine is not connected to any other devices via bluetooth, the internet, or any other protocol, then the audit is worthless.

I could go on and on citing expert after expert who has said precisely the same thing I’m saying.

The DHS Rumor Control Website

The Department of Homeland Security has a rumor control site debunking various conspiracy theories, mainly promoted by the president and his allies, which explains that ballot tabulation is simply not vulnerable to this kind of hacking

The website Jonathan is referring to is the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency’s rumor control page titled, “#PROTECT2020 RUMOR VS. REALITY.”

Call me a skeptical – or, maybe, just call me aquatinted with history – but I don’t have much space in my trust locker for fact checks written by government bureaucrats.

I’ve been wanting to write about this website for a couple of weeks, because the logical fallacies in their “fact checks” are simply outstanding.

I won’t delve into a detailed rebuttal of all of their claims, but I will focus on their statements related to Jonathan’s claim that “ballot tabulation is simply not vulnerable to this kind of hacking.” Notice that I said claims, not arguments, because for the most part rather than backing up their claims with rational arguments, and facts, they back them up with assurances. After you strip out the technical, and legal, terminology many of their arguments resolve to “we assure you the government has laws against fraudulent activity.” Great, but having laws prohibiting an action does not mean people don’t participate in that action.

To be fair, the argument they provide in relation to Jonathan’s claims is more robust than some of their other arguments, but it’s still rather clunky. Here’s what the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Agency says about ballot tabulation.

State processes include robust chain-of-custody procedures, auditable logs, and canvass processes. The vast majority of votes cast in this election will be cast on paper ballots or using machines that produce a paper audit trail, which allow for tabulation audits to be conducted from the paper record in the event any issues emerge with the voting system software, audit logs, or tabulation. These canvass and certification procedures are also generally conducted in the public eye, as political party representatives and other observers are typically allowed to be present, to add an additional layer of verification. This means voting system software is not a single point of failure and such systems are subject to multiple audits to ensure accuracy and reliability. For example, some counties conduct multiple audits, including a post-election logic and accuracy test of the voting system, and a bipartisan hand count of paper ballots.

The Paper Trail Doesn’t Preclude Vulnerabilities it Exists to Rectify Them

First, the agency points out the the majority of votes cast will be on paper ballots, or using machines that produce a paper trail. This is all well and good, but note the subtle admission that a minority of votes are still without a paper trail all-together. I mean, really? The fact that we’re allowing any voting to take place without a clear paper trail is a miscarriage of justice. This mans that, in some cases, we can’t “allow for tabulation audits to be conducted from the paper record.” I hate to break it to you, America, but the number of votes that cannot be audited far outweighs the margin of Biden’s alleged victory by orders of magnitude. This means that it’s truly possible that we can never know who truly won a close election. There are simply too many un-auditable votes in existence.

It’s important to note that the agency says that the paper trail exists for a purpose, and it’s not that the very existence of the paper trail eliminates the possibility of fraud. No, the paper trail exists “in the event any issuesemerge with the voting system software, audit logs, or tabulation.” And that a is precisely where we stand. There have been software, audit log, and tabulation issues in multiple regions. Thus, the agency’s statement isn’t a “fact-check” proving “that ballot tabulation is simply not vulnerable…” Rather, it’s a reminder of the fact that these issues exist and paper trails make it possible to rectify miscounts that arise as a result of these vulnerabilities. So, now that these issues have been discovered it’s time to take advantage of the paper trail and rectify the miscounts.

Again, the agency admits that ballot tabulation is vulnerable and states that its vulnerability is the purpose of having a paper trail. If it wasn’t vulnerable then a paper trail wouldn’t be needed. This directly contradicts Jonathan’s claim that the agency “explains that ballot tabulation is simply not vulnerable. ”

At this point I’m not sure if Jonathan has the critical thinking skills necessary to see the glaring contradiction. He’s literally saying the exact opposite of what the agency claims. Which is rather disheartening considering how many people read his columns.

The Absence of the Public Eye Makes the Voting Machines a “Single Point of Failure”

Next the agency makes the argument that “these canvassing and certification procedures are also generally conducted in the public eye […] This means voting system software is not a single point of failure.

This, of course, is irrelevant to vital precincts and counties in swing-states where Republican election observers and judges were not allowed anywhere near the vote count. Notice the agency says that “observers are typically allowed to be present.” Typically? I think everyone would agree that “typically” is a problem in the same way that a non-existent paper trail is a problem.

Multiple vote counts in multiple states – especially those taking place at early morning hours – were absent of any election observers, much less Republicans who were in some cases harassed and thrown out. Some Republican observers of minority ethnicity had racial epithets hurled at them as they were threatened and eventually driven from vote counting sites. (Read the worn affidavits for more details.)

More than any other election in recent memory the 2020 election was not conducted “in the public eye.”

This means, according to the agency’s own argument, that the voting system software could be a single point of failure. Note again that the agency’s argument states that “these canvassing and certification procedures are also generally conducted in the public eye […] This means voting system software is not a single point of failure.

In the absence of the public eye the voting system software becomes a single point of failure. Period.

Irrelevant Counties

For example, some counties conduct multiple audits, including a post-election logic and accuracy test of the voting system, and a bipartisan hand count of paper ballots.

Fantastic, which counties perform a post-election logic and accuracy test? And is their logic and accuracy as off-target as Jonathan Chait’s? Which counties perform a bipartisan hand count of paper ballots? I’ll help answer this question: none of the vital counties in the swing-states at play in the 2020 election. As a result this assurance by the agency is irrelevant to our current situation.

The Agency’s Argument Hardly Addresses Jonathan’s Actual Claim

As you can see Jonathan’s claim that “ballot tabulation is simply not vulnerable to this kind of hacking” is not addressed directly by the agency. The agency’s argument is essentially that should ballot tabulation vulnerabilities be exploited a paper ballot count, overseen by election observers from both parties, will rectify the issue.

The only part of the citation that addresses Jonathan’s claim that ballot tabulation is not vulnerable to hacking is found in this single sentence about voting system software.

…such systems are subject to multiple audits to ensure accuracy and reliability.

This is the closest the agency comes to addressing the issue of whether voting systems are vulnerable to hacking. The rest of their argument addresses how the election process handles exploitation of voting system vulnerabilities (presumably after hacking has occurred). And it’s the election process itself that is currently being called into question.

Again, if the election system fails to address the vulnerabilities correctly, and transparently, then the voting systems become a single point of failure – or a single point of success if your goal is to commit fraud.

The Damning Data the Fact Checkers are Ignoring

Private data analysts have been pouring over the election data and they’ve found an impossible mathematical anomaly consistent across significant counties in the 2020 election.

The election data set shows each batch of votes coming in over the course of multiple days. Each batch contains votes for Biden and Trump.

President Trump took an early lead in swing-states across the board. This, alone, proves nothing.

Then, a strange thing happens, but something that could be explained in part by mail-in ballots. Again, I touched on this issue. The fact that mail-in ballots favor Biden does not alone address what we find in the data. Not even close.

Biden catches up to Trump in the early morning with batches of votes that heavily favor Biden – to a degree some argue is virtually impossible (96% Biden, 5% Trump). Also, note that rejection rates for absentee ballots, and mail-in ballots (in states that use them), is around 3%. In this election swing states had a rejection rate of .03%. And there is plenty of debate over whether this was justified since it appears there was a failure to match signatures, and require witness signatures and addresses. But I don’t have time to address all of that here.

What I want to focus on is what happened after Biden caught up thanks to these batches of votes that heavily favored Biden just enough to bring him neck-t0-neck with President Trump.

Then Something Impossible Happened

What happened next is mystifying to say the least. All of the vote batches that came in after Biden’s mail-in ballot boost had exactly the same ratio of votes between the two candidates.

Did you catch what I just said? Let me say that again using the data from Georgia as an example.

The next 53 batches of ballots contained the same exact percentage of votes for Biden and Trump. 50.05% for Biden and 49.95% for Trump. Over and over again, the batches have the same ratio.

This simply isn’t possible.

The Impossible Vote Ratios Showed Up Again in Michigan

The same thing happened in Michigan. Trump was ahead by a margin of 55% by about 10:30pm EST. Most of the batches favored Tump at 60%-40%, 70%-30%, and even 75-25%. Tump was in a consistent percentage fo the vote for hours, with 45% for Biden, and 55% for Trump in 63% of the batches. This remained consistent until the total vote count had reached about 88%. Around this time a load of 120,000 ballots are brought into the vote counting cite in Detroit.

Then at about 6:30 a.m. as single batch was reported of 141,258 votes for Biden, and only 5,968 for Trump. That’s 96% of the batch for Biden, 4% of the batch for Trump.

This allowed Biden to almost catch up, and then another mathematical impossibility took place. Numerous batches of vote came in with the same exact ratio of votes been the two candidates. 50.254% Trump to 49.746%. Notice that the ratio was the same in each batch to the thousandth decimal.

Then at 9:02 a.m. Biden receives two more help batches giving him the lead (49,3% to 49.2%). And then from that point on most of the batches that comes in (28 of 44) have an exact ratio of 49% Trump, 50% Biden.

Again, it’s not possible that hundreds of batches of votes all contained the exact same ratio between both candidates. There’s no other immediately available explanation for this other than fraud. And I suspect that’s why the mainstream media is ignoring this data completely. I’ve yet to see any “fact check” articles written to explain this away.

The Impossible Vote Ratios Showed Up Again in Virginia

President Trump lead for hours at a ratio of 52% to 46%. Then a massive batch of votes came in the middle of the night for Biden – 308,000. Then, following the massive batch, the ratios all but a few of the following 29 batches were all 55% Biden to 45% Trump.

It’s simply defies all logical and probability.

Then Something Very Similar Happened in Pennsylvania

President Trump lead by an average of 700,000 votes for hours. Then the Democrats found one million votes for Biden within a 48 hour span. Following this the ratios for Trump and Biden were almost exactly the same for the remainder of the count. Giving Trump only 40% of all mail-in ballot batches. Pennsylvania was a little different in that the ratio wasn’t precisely the same, but varied form 38-44% for Trump, the remainder for Biden. Again, even in the case where the ratio varied by 1-6% how is that even possible? Almost every mail-in ballot batch having almost the same ratio of votes? In all fairness I will admit that Pennsylvania’s dataset is not nearly as damning as the preceding examples as they show ratios that are exactly the same, in some cases to the thousandth decimal place. Never the less, it seems a bit too “on the nose” for almost every batch to have such a similar ratio.

And the Same Impossibility Showed Up in Wisconsin

Again, Trump was up, a trove of ballots brought Biden back into the race and then the rest of the batches came in at 50.102% fo Biden and 59.898% for Trump securing Wisconsin for Biden.

Exact Vote Ratios for Nearly All Vote Batches After Biden Caught Up in Each State

How do you explain that away? The data, by the way, is the same data made available by the New York Times.

I have yet to find a single “fact check” on the vote ratio issue. This only lends credibility to the argument that Jonathan Chait calls “crazy.” The argument that “ballot tabulation is simply not vulnerable to hacking.”

The hacking doesn’t have to take place at the voting booth. It can take place at a centralized server where the votes are “tabulated,” or “counted.” It doesn’t require that each voting machine have malicious code. It only requires that somewhere along the way as the data is transmitted it is changed. It may require only a few lines of code on one server.

I used to be a developer, I know how easy it is to obfuscate nefarious code and run it only at a certain time, or upon a certain command.

Having said that it is entirely possible that nefarious code is hidden on all of the Dominion, and Smartmatic, voting devices. But this doesn’t best explain what happened.

The easiest way to explain an exact ratio in every batch is a program running on a centralized server through which all of these batches were processed.

We Were Warned About Election Fraud

The fact is, we are warned (mostly be Democrats) for 20 years about digital/computerized voting machines. We were warned about “black box” voting. And thousands of IT forensics professionals have demonstrated how easy it is to hack an election. This is just a few of the thousands of reports on how vulnerable Americas electronic voting systems are.

Why a Data-Security Expert Fears U.S. Voting Will Be Hacked

The Vulnerabilities of Our Voting Machines

Some Voting Machines Still Have Decade-Old Vulnerabilities

Can the voting process be hacked?

An 11-Year-Old Hacked Into a U.S. Voting System Replica in 10 Minutes changing the results of the Florida “election” in fewer than 10 minutes

Hack the vote: terrifying film shows how vulnerable US elections are

Hackers Are Coming for the 2020 Election — And We’re Not Ready – Why the threats to our elections are more sophisticated and widespread than ever

How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes – Demonstrated by Princeton professor Andrew Appel

Of course, now that the it appears Biden has won the Democrats are claiming that this election was the most secure in US history.

Such a claim is ridiculous. The truth is that given the data we have this election was anything but secure in the swing-states where ratios of vote batches were repeatedly identical. Until we have a viable explanation for why that happened, I can only accept the most logical conclusion – that the election was rigged by “black box” voting systems like Dominion and Smartmatic.

Circumstantial Evidence and Motive

I’m not a Trump supporter, and I didn’t vote for Donald Trump. I don’t have a horse in the race, so to speak. But given all of the circumstantial evidence is it really that hard to believe that those who hate Donald Trump as much has Eric Coomer (the current vice president of U.S. engineering at Dominion Voting Systems) does wouldn’t go to any lengths to see the reincarnation of “Hitler” removed from office?

Eric Coomer, who openly admits to being with Antifa, is reported to have told fellow Antifa members on a Zoom Call, “Don’t worry about the election; Trump’s not gonna win. I made f***ing sure of that!” (Dominion Exec Admits to Fixing Eleciton)

According to a Facebook post by Coomer, only a “f**king idiot” could ever possibly vote for “that wind-bag f**-tard FASCIST RACIST F**.”

This is only one example of the partisan behavior, and Democrat connections, related to Dominion voting. I don’t have time to go through all of the examples here.

Just do a quick Duck Duck Go, or Start Page, search for partisanship at Dominion. Or, go one step further and do some research on the executives in the company. You’ll find lots of ties to democrats and plenty of partisanship.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest there was, at the very least, impropriety and mistakes that seem to have only just effect to Trump. To the tun of tens of thousands of votes. So far recounts in only a few counties have cut into Biden’s well into Biden’s lead. It’s quite possible that mistakes alone could win Donald Trump the electoral college if states would take a full, legal, recount seriously including rejecting mail-in ballots without matching signatures and/or proper witnesses – as the law demands.

There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest we need more than simple recounts. We need slow, analytical, forensic, fully monitored recounts.

Aside from that we need a thorough investigation into the voting data showing completely identical ratios of batches through out the night and morning giving Biden the win.

At this point that appears to be the smoking gun indicating that our voting system does, in fact, have vulnerabilities.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

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