by WorldTribune Staff, November 11, 2020
If judged by the standards the United States applies to other nations, how would the 2020 U.S. presidential election be evaluated by election observers and analysts in the United States?
For example, a report given to Congress in 2009 about Iran’s presidential election criticizes that regime for obscuring election observation:
Since no independent international observers were present for Iran’s elections, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of alleged vote rigging or election violations that may have taken place. The expulsion of most foreign journalists from Iran and the government’s interruption of mobile and internet communication have further complicated efforts to gain a clear picture of the events surrounding the election and its aftermath.
If the 2020 presidential election was held in a foreign country, the State Department and Western media would declare it “fraudulent,” California-based software engineer and data analyst Mark Chatham wrote for Revolver on Nov. 10.
In observing the elections of other nations, the U.S. uses a number of major themes to document and describe fraud:
• Independent observers (poll watchers) are removed or limited.
• Reports of widespread procedural irregularities. These include suspicious activities at polls and suspicious timing or behavior of vote-counting.
• Deviations in the very procedure each side uses for voting.
• A media which is firmly in one side’s camp, and a restriction of the availability of information for the other side. We often see attempts to restrict the other side from communicating.
• Statistical anomalies in the results which the (fraudulently) elected government and its media simply ignore.
Using the standards above underscores “how far American standards of democracy, competence, and rule of law have fallen,” Chatham noted. “In truth, we are dangerously close to becoming a corrupt tin-pot country, the likes of which we are all too used to lecturing on democracy.”
Reports of of election fraud in foreign elections contain reports of independent or foreign observers being denied appropriate access to monitor the proceedings.
“The United States media demands that the American public take their word for it that the election was legitimate. Strangely, they even defend obvious efforts to hide and obscure election procedures,” Chatham noted. “But when we introduce the standards typically applied to foreign elections, we see a radically different standard of legitimacy.”
An article in The Independent about Ukraine’s parliamentary elections in 2012 criticizes the government for a “non-transparent” vote tally:
Hundreds of Ukrainians protested alleged fraud in last month’s parliamentary election and the opposition threatened to boycott the new parliament and call for a re-vote today.
Western observers deemed the Oct. 28 parliamentary election unfair, saying the imprisonment of President Viktor Yanukovych’s arch-foe, Yulia Tymoshenko, and non-transparent vote tallying were a step back for democracy.
“It is plainly obvious that, when talking about foreign elections, Western media considers transparency of voting and vote-counting procedures to be of the utmost significance,” Chatham noted.
Based on those standards, shouldn’t ejecting opposition observers, as was done in Philadelphia on Nov. 4, be considered a form of fraud?
During the 2019 coup against against Bolivian incumbent Evo Morales, the vote count was stopped — without explanation — for four days, and then resumed, only to discover he was the narrow victor.
“Bolivians found this so obviously implausible that the army suggested he leave power,” Chatham noted.
As you read this excerpt from the BBC, you’ll have to remind yourself it’s about Bolivia, not the U.S.
With 83.8% of the votes verified, its website showed Mr Morales leading with 45.3%, leaving Mr Mesa in second place with 38.2%.
That result suggested there would be a run-off, prompting celebrations in the campaign camp of Mr Mesa, who jubilantly declared: “We’ve made it to the second round!”
But then the website with the quick count stopped being updated for 24 hours, prompting electoral observers from the Organisation of American States (OAS) to express their concern.
As counting was suspended, Mr Morales told his supporters he was confident that when votes from rural areas were tallied, there would be no need for a run-off.
When the quick count was finally updated on Monday evening, Mr Morales had a lead of 10.12 percentage points — just wide enough to stave off a second round.
The OAS electoral mission called the change “drastic and hard to explain.”
“The BBC and other western media found this deeply suspicious and an obvious indication of illegitimacy,” Chatham noted. “Western media does not credulously accept a ‘winner’ who emerges with a wide victory margin after a sudden and inexplicable suspension of the vote count.”
As WorldTribune.com has reported, Michigan found a profoundly alarming software bug with the Dominion vote counting software that is used in all of the key battleground states. In Georgia, engineers uploaded a poorly-understood, last minute software update to the state’s Dominion election machines.
A technology glitch that halted voting in two Georgia counties on Nov. 3 was caused by a vendor uploading an update to their election machines the night before, a county election supervisor said. Voters were unable to cast machine ballots for a couple of hours in Morgan and Spalding counties after the electronic devices crashed, state officials said. In response to the delays, Superior Court Judge W. Fletcher Sams extended voting until 11 p.m.
The companies “uploaded something last night, which is not normal, and it caused a glitch,” said Marcia Ridley, elections supervisor at Spalding County Board of Election. That glitch prevented pollworkers from using the pollbooks to program smart cards that the voters insert into the voting machines.
Ridley said that a representative from the two companies called her after poll workers began having problems with the equipment Tuesday morning and said the problem was due to an upload to the machines by one of their technicians overnight.
“That is something that they don’t ever do. I’ve never seen them update anything the day before the election,” Ridley said. Ridley said she did not know what the upload contained.
Neither Dominion nor KnowInk responded to a request to comment. A spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office also did not respond to follow-up questions about who uploaded the dataset and whether it had been reviewed and tested by anyone beforehand.
Georgia uses Dominion voting machines and KnowInk Poll Pads statewide — systems that the state only deployed in every county for the first time this year after replacing its previous 20-year-old electronic voting systems. It’s not clear why other Georgia counties did not have the problems Morgan and Spalding had.
“Let’s put our foreign election observer hats back on for a moment,” Chatham wrote.
The Georgia incident is extremely similar to something that happened during the 2019 Bolivian elections, according to a report by the Organization of American States.
In this case, the head of NEOTEC changed the official count software more than once in the middle of the process; recompiled it (at which time it lost integrity in terms of what was saved during the freeze); and put it in production. A significant amount of research has established that this is bad practice that is unacceptable in an electoral process. This confirms the negative effect of the lack of use cases, software testing, and acceptance tests, as previously described, all of which without question impacts the transparency of the process.
“Any American who can count should be immediately suspicious of ‘software bugs’ in vote-tallying systems,” Chatham noted. “And if the Dominion glitch weren’t alarming enough, 4chan hackers discovered a major exploit which allowed them to hack into Oregon’s voting system and change someone’s vote.”
Deviations in How Each Side Votes
“Of all the hot election procedure topics this year, universal mail-in voting, ostensibly in response to the coronavirus pandemic, has been the hottest,” Chatham noted.
Democrats and the leftist media said on a daily basis leading up to Nov. 3 that mail-in balloting was secure and voter fraud from mail-in ballots was rare.
but when absentee ballots were seen as something which favored the Republicans, Democrats and the leftist media were all too happy to point out the potential for massive fraud.
A 2012 op-ed in the New York Times even went as far as to argue that the elimination of absentee ballots provides more election security than requiring IDs at the polls.
“One would be hard pressed to uncover a single case over the last few decades in which impersonation fraud had the slightest chance of changing an election outcome — unlike absentee-ballot fraud, which changes election outcomes regularly,” Chatham noted.
The Media Controls the Narrative
“Perhaps the most important feature of how U.S./Western observers and governments write about foreign election fraud is their focus on the way the local media describes the process,” Chatham wrote.
“In these countries, the governments control the media. These governments want to crack down on their opponents’ ability to coordinate. During the 2009 Iranian election, Western media described restrictions on foreign and domestic journalists, reported disruptions of mobile phone networks, limited accessibility of some Internet sites, mass arrests, and clashes between civilian protestors and [government] forces.”
During the 2020 U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump’s Twitter page was littered with censorship and warning labels.
Twitter blocked a New York Post article showing how Hunter Biden had leveraged his father’s position in his business dealings in Ukraine.
“Working in lockstep with the favored candidate to suppress information which reflects him in a bad light is essential to rigging elections,” Chatham noted.
“Facebook — which, like every other tech and media company, views itself as the government, and President Trump as the opposition — even banned a #StopTheSteal group coordinating pro-Trump political activism,” Chatham added.
Trump supporters were deplatformed from major social media sites. Google unilaterally removed Breitbart from their search results for the query “Joe Biden.”
The New York Times was forced to correct a tweet after the paper initially claimed that “the role of declaring the winner” in the presidential election “falls to the news media.”
“Big Media and Big Tech told us they were going to censor the opposition, and they did,” Chatham wrote. “After all, as our own media reminds us (when talking about other countries), to finish the job of stealing an election one must squelch the ability of opposition activists and supporters to organize.”
Strange Statistical Anomalies
“Analysts of Russian elections have spent a lot of time developing statistical models to detect the extent of fraud. These analyses often involve looking at bizarre turnout statistics or even things like unusual number patterns,” Chatham noted.
While the major media refused to do its job, independent media and Internet sleuths did the work of digging into the data. And they uncovered some fascinating things.
Among the most damning analyses for this election comes from Twitter user Shylock Holmes, who alleges the following:
-During the late night vote tabulations which occurred in Milwaukee, Democrats wildly outperformed.
-Rather than Trump losing votes to both Democrats and third-party candidates late at night, the average difference in each dump between Trump and the third-party candidates, compared to the election day counts, averaged zero. In other words, Dems outperformed Trump and all third party candidates, while Trump’s performance with respect to the third party candidate did not vary from election day to the late dumps.
-Meanwhile, this seemed only to hold true for races which were competitive, e.g. the Presidential race, but did not seem to apply to various Congressional races where the Dem candidate was going to win comfortably.
-Critically, the Dem over-performance seems to vary with the net significance of any particular vote, at that time.
-In other words, this is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that, realizing they were losing, Democrat operatives filled out fake ballots in a hurry and didn’t bother voting on less contested races.
“This is a powerful line of reasoning which should be investigated further. If this holds up to peer review, it is likely the strongest statistical evidence yet that something was profoundly unusual about the ballots counted during the early hours” of Nov. 4, Chatham noted.
“It strongly appears that, during the middle of the night, the ballots counted all of a sudden just happened to favor Democrats much more dramatically than before.”