Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Quest and Questions Continue: Some Election 2020 Updates
Since November 2020 I’ve been tracking, categorizing, and, where possible, evaluating as many allegations about Election 2020 illegalities as I can. My efforts continue in my big “Keeping Track” post (or my short book; off-Ricochet version here) and its sequel (off-Ricochet version here). The 2020 election was a mess, to say the least. My efforts to figure it out are something of a mess as well, but the quest continues!
This post will be the fourth in a series of short intros–the sequel to “Intro to Eight Election Fraud (and Related) Claims” and “One Year Later: What Do We Know?” and “Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.” There’s lots more fun in the big post. Although it is very long, you can go there and CTR+F for keywords without having to read too much.
Specifically, this post will be an introduction to and update on several interesting things about the 2020 election. Which things? Nothing in particular; just the ones I felt like talking about in this post: a few updates on Wisconsin, True the Vote, and electronic vote-counting machines.
One Category of Illegally Counted Votes in Wisconsin: Not that Many
The Wisconsin Elections Commission botched a lot of things in 2020, and chapter 14 of my big post goes over some of them in detail. Some of their advice was bad, fraud-enabling advice–but still legal. Some was worse. When they recommended that election workers fill in missing witness addresses on ballot envelopes, they were recommending something illegal. (More on this in “One Year Later,” still more in “Keeping Track.”)
But how many ballots were illegally managed here? Since writing the “One Year Later” post, I’ve found a clue: There were probably around 116 of them.
That number is extrapolated from information I found in a report here from the Legislative Audit Bureau. The LAB is a government agency in Wisconsin answering to the state Legislature which conducts audits of things the state government does, and which audited the 2020 election.
116 is very much a ballpark estimate, and the numbers could be much higher–or lower. I’m cautious, and I prefer to work with lower estimates, so I give this one a working estimate of . . .
75 illegally counted votes in Wisconsin.
Not a lot in the grand scheme of things. But not ok.
Worse in Wisconsin
More is rotten in the state of Wisconsin than 75 votes illegally counted under the advice of the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The same report explains that the LAB “physically reviewed 14,710 certificates in the 29 municipalities, where a total of 470,028 absentee ballots were cast in the November 2020 General Election” (page 42).
These votes were counted, but some should not have been. Here are some interesting numbers (from pages 42-43):
–a sample of 14,710 certificates (i.e., ballot envelopes with a witness address and signature) from 29 municipalities;
–a total of 470,028 absentee ballots cast in these municipalities;
–15 certificates from the sample missing a witness address in its entirety;
–8 certificates missing a witness signature;
–and 3 certificates missing the voter’s signature.
So it looks like 15 + 8 + 3 votes in a sample of 14,710 were illegally counted. That’s about 0.177 percent of the votes. The Bureau is confident that its sample represents the 470,028 ballots from the same municipalities, so the number of likely illegal votes in this category from these municipalities is 0.00177 times 470,028.
That’s about 831 illegally counted votes in these locations.
If we run the ratio from their sample for the whole state, where a total of 1,963,954 absentee ballots were cast in 2020, we get 3,476 illegally counted votes. However, the LAB is not confident that their sample represents the whole state. So I would suggest a low working estimate of around 2,000 illegally counted votes in these categories statewide, about a tenth of the Biden margin of victory.
Could be worse. But that is still very bad.
But Wait! There’s More in Wisconsin!
So much more. (See “Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission” for the big ones!) Let’s look at a bit of chapter 6, section 87 of the laws of Wisconsin:
The envelope shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots.
That’s an important sentence. Here’s another:
Any ballot not mailed or delivered as provided in this subsection may not be counted.
This means the voter personally has to deliver it in person if he’s not mailing it. The voter, and no one else, is the person in question. I go over this in a more detail in the big post, but here are a few pointers.
First, if the voter and no one else is not the person in question, why does section 87 mention mailing? Mailing is only mentioned because it’s what you do when you don’t deliver your own ballot in person.
Second, notice how “delivered” parallels “mailed;” the person doing the action of the verb is the same person. The “or delivered in person” phrase is a parallel process giving the voter another way of fulfilling his own responsibilities; it’s his responsibility to deliver it in person if not mailing it.
Third, check out chapter 12, section 13. Section 13 is on election fraud, and the third bit of section 13 gives a lettered list of things which “No person may” do in Wisconsin. Here’s Letter n: “Receive a ballot from or give a ballot to a person other than the election official in charge.” In other words, putting together a complete sentence out of the third part’s intro and Letter n, the law says: “No person may receive a ballot from or give a ballot to a person other than the election official in charge.” The only flexibility allowed in the process of giving that ballot is: The Post Office.
But the Wisconsin Elections Commission isn’t on board with this law, and it gave some advice to cast votes illegally. In their March 31, 2020, memo on dropboxes, they say, “A family member or another person may also return the ballot on behalf of the voter.”
No, they may not.
Again, in this document giving some policies for voting in nursing homes, the WEC says that ballots “can also be returned to the clerk’s office in-person at the request of the voter” (page 3).
Wrong again, WEC.
True the Vote and 2,000 Mules
Enough about Wisconsin. Let’s do some other stuff!
The movie 2,000 Mules has received some much-deserved attention, if still not nearly enough. I still haven’t watched it–yet. (What, do I look like I’m made of time? But it’s on my list!)
But you can learn a lot about this stuff from other sources, including some clips here from an interview on The Charlie Kirk Show–this episode–with True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips. Did you know that the cell phone pings indicate that “Two mules in Arizona also trafficked ballots in Georgia”? And did you know that True the Vote checked the cellphone data in months that were not election month to confirm that the same sort of activity was not happening then?
And then there’s this True the Vote report from March of 2022. Did you know that they connected the cellphone ping data with video evidence in Georgia? Did you know that “202 intermediaries made 4,282 individual drop box visits” in Maricopa County, AZ? Did you know that they “received testimony from witnesses and informants disclosing that intermediaries were typically paid $10 per ballot for each ballot they collected and delivered”? Did you know that “a change in behavior seemed to occur on or around December 23, 2020, the day after Arizona authorities announced that fingerprints on absentee ballot envelopes helped uncover an illegal ballot harvesting scheme in that state”? Specifically, this changed: “After that announcement, individuals depositing ballots into drop boxes in Georgia are seen wearing blue surgical gloves. They often put them on just before picking up their stack of ballots and remove them as they exit the drop box area.”
You can’t write that all off by saying that some fact-check on the internet said that ping data aren’t very precise.
I can’t promise you there were no false positives in this data, if (hypothetically) the ping data really are not very precise and if someone drove past a dropbox and past one of the nonprofit locations on the way to work.
What I can tell you is: This is evidence to be taken very seriously, and it makes a solid inference-to-the-best-explanation argument. The sort of cheating we’re talking about is a perfectly normal human behavior for which many lefties had ample motive and abundant opportunity in 2020, as enabled by those election illegalities that were not fraud as such but which were fraud-enabling as well as by all the other 2020 rule changes that made cheating as well as voting easier. This perfectly normal–even predictable–illegal election behavior is the perfect explanation for data including:
–cell phone pings,
–the difference in the cell data from different months,
–video evidence corroborating said pings in Georgia,
–a witness in Georgia,
–the presence of some suspected mules at the BLM riots,
–two suspected mules turning up in two swing states,
–and non-selfie photos of bunches of ballots at dropboxes.
That’s a lot of facts that are very well explained by a perfectly normal human behavior. It is very likely that these allegations are, in very large and disturbing measure, correct.
About Those Voting Machines
Yeah, they’re not secure. Maybe some are, but not all of them.
Did you know that many voting machines really do have online access capabilities through built-in modems? I know that now.
Did you know that the online access is for reporting results fast, that the machines are supposed to have the modems switched off while the votes are being counted, and that they’re supposed to be switched on only after the counting is finished? I know that now, too. I learned it from page 22 of a Michigan Senate report.
So everything should be ok as long as there are rules in place, right? You know, rules to make sure Republican and Democrat poll observers both verify the modems are switched off before the votes are counted? Rules to make sure the modems are only switched on after the observers verify that the results have been duly printed and delivered? Yeah, everything should be ok if we have those rules.
But have you even heard of rules like that? I haven’t. I don’t think they even exist. If they do, why aren’t we talking about them all the time? Why haven’t we all heard of them? Why don’t more people know about the modems? Why do fact-checkers falsely claim that the machines simple don’t connect to the internet? Why aren’t those rules the first thing explained in every fact-check on the election?
Until those rules exist in 50 states plus the District of Columbia, I recommend the Office Space treatment for voting machines with online capabilities. And guess what! The feds got one right here. They recommend that all states “use the VVSG 2.0 standards as a floor and move to ban the presence of any hardware with network capability from inside a voting system.”
That’s right: Your federal government, and specifically the Election Assistance Commission, recommends here that voting machines with online capabilities not be used in American elections anymore.
This is not about what did or didn’t happen in the 2020 election. It’s not evidence that any of the voting machines were hacked. You have to look at 2020-specific data to make a case for or against that.
The point here is much simpler, and it’s not about 2020: Apparently the voting machines are not nearly as secure as they should be. You can read “G. K. Chesterton’s Take on Electronic Voting Machines” (off-Ricochet version here) for more on this.
But You Said “Quest and Questions”! Where Are All the Questions?
They’re all over the place. Even my answers are wrapped in questions: Did I weigh this piece of evidence too heavily, or that piece too lightly? What aspect of this situation have I missed? How might I change my mind if I had time to rethink this? What relevant evidence for a bad election have I forgotten, or missed entirely?
Beyond that, the questions are everywhere I don’t even have answers yet.
I’ll do some more specific questions in a later post, G-d willing.
Ok, Great. So Now What?
Now we continue to try to figure out what happened in 2020, follow the evidence, make distinctions, and reform America’s voting processes. One improvement would be some rules requiring that representatives of both parties sign off on the modems being switched off before the count, and sign again before they can be switched on. But this would be better: No more vote-counting machines that have any kind of internet connectivity at all. And voter ID everywhere. And clean up the voter rolls. And enforce the currently existing voter laws. Punish lawbreakers. And tighten up security on mail-in ballots or, better yet, have a lot fewer of them.
But if you were looking for me to summarize my answers so far, then ok–just read the last paragraph!
As a rule, claims of election illegalities must be examined on a case-by-case basis. They vary according to whether they concern specifically Biden votes, whether they concern fraud as such or some lesser illegality, what sort of reasoning their arguments use, and whether their arguments have withstood any kind of critical scrutiny. Some have. Some have been verified in one way or another. There is good evidence that illegally cast or counted votes well exceeded the Biden margin of victory in five swing states (on which see my forerunner posts). Not every vote illegally cast or counted in 2020 is a fraudulent Biden vote, but they do tend to enable fraud and, in addition, some are Biden votes, fraudulent votes, or both. The evidence that illegally cast or counted votes well exceeded the Biden margin of victory in the swing states is very strong, and the evidence that illegal actions actually flipped swing states is also pretty good. The 2020 election was not ok, and America can and should do better.Published in General
To add to his collection of asterisks.
Performance enhancing drugs?
Election-enhancing counting, etc.
If Bill Barr addressed and analyzed each of your points, one by one, I might watch that. But not if done in a stacked hearing.