From one of our most sophisticated experts on the subject. (Shiva has not yet replied to her, Rebecca tells me.)
We all need to focus on the other, clearer signs of theft in Michigan (e.g , the late-night vote drop, rampant misconduct by election personnel, with collusion by Dominion) and elsewhere.
MCM
11/17/20
11:41AM EST All Rights Reserved. Permission granted to Mark Crispin Miller to publish this
content, in its entirety, to his email lists and blog.
Dear Dr.
Ayyadurai --
I would like to focus on the section of your recent
video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8xb6qJKJqU>
between minutes 27:30 through 43:10. I have issues with
some other parts of your analysis in the latter
half-hour of the video, but we can address those later.
Let's start with just this part for now.
This part of the video is
where you are discussing P = V and P != V where P is
the number of people who came in to vote and V is the
number of votes recorded as cast in a particular race.
Note that the race has to be 1 out of n candidates in
order for P = V (in races where you can pick more than
one candidate, like 3 out of 5, P would necessarily be
larger than V), so let's limit our discussion to just
1 out of n races. In actuality, P is almost never
equal to V in any particular race, because it is
well-understood that people skip races, EVEN ones at
the top of the ticket, like President and Senate,
though that tends to be more rare. We refer to this
skipping as undervotes. So the proper initial formula
should be P >= V which is anticipated and would be
more accurate to what actually happens in voting. What
should NOT be happening is P < V in 1 out of n
races. My strong suggestion is that you immediately
STOP using P = V and P != V in your discussions, and
you should issue a correction and only use P >=V
and P < V going forward (also making the
distinction that V represents the tally in a single 1
out of n race).
Moving on, let's discuss your assertions about P <
V for 1 out of n races. Is it possible for this to
occur using hand prepared voter verified paper ballots
(HPVVPB)? Certainly. A person can (and some do)
OVERVOTE, in other words, they could vote for more
than one candidate in a 1 out of n race. This is less
likely to occur if a voting system is used to prepare
the paper ballot that the voter verifies before
submitting it, because the software should block
overvoting.
But overvotes can and do happen when off-precinct
voting (such as mail-in or absentee) occurs with hand
prepared paper ballots. In-precinct, there is the
scanning step where the voter provides their ballot
and it should be rejected for anomalies, including
overvotes, if any are detected. The voter should be
(but is not necessarily always) informed about the
problem and given an opportunity to correct their
ballot on a new blank one (with the overvoted ballot
voided). But this checking does not typically occur
with mail-in / absentee voting. In the 2020 election.
This year, though, I have heard about some states
giving people opportunities to "cure" their ballot --
which may only apply to the signature portion on the
envelopes, but could (if the ballots are not first
anonymized) include detecting ballots that contain
overvotes. Generally speaking, though, my assumption
is that overvoted mail-in / absentee ballots will just
be scanned and the races that are overvoted will just
not be counted. Thus, if all things are working
properly with the scanners, then P < V should never
occur. Similarly, if an electronic voting system is
used to prepare Voter Verified Paper Ballots, the
VVPBs should never have overvotes, and if the VVPBs
are used for the counting (which should be, but
typically is not), then again P < V should never
occur.
This, then, leaves only the scanners and the voting
machines that are electronically reading and recording
the votes, where P < V could erroneously occur in
the tallies. Your discussion of this seems to be
focused on the "Weighted Race Feature" that Bev Harris
claims to have exposed in the Diebold voting system
documentation. The concept of shifting votes by
percentages was well known long before Bev's
discovery. I and others had written about this
possibility decades earlier. In fact, this type of
vote shifting is long understood to have been used
with mechanical lever machines (where tally odometers
are rolled back or forward as "pre-shifting" when the
machines were set up at the warehouses prior to the
election). With paper ballots, this shift can also
(and was believed to long be) effected through votes
being "stuffed" (added) or "pulled" (subtracted) prior
to the vote counting. Where such shenanigans become
detectable, though, is if the balance is somehow off,
such that the result exposes P < V. If you were
doing this shifting electronically using percentages
(as in your example), then P < V should never
occur, because the amount subtracted from one
candidate would counterbalance the amount added for
another (it is understood that some of the
subtractions could be distributed to numerous 3rd
party candidates, thus making the overall result seem
more plausible) and the end result would NEVER exceed
P (as long as the algorithm is careful about
roundings). It only would exceed P if the algorithm
used a FIXED number of votes to shift or add, and the
counterbalance was not calculated properly, or if
there were not enough votes cast in the race on that
machine to overcome the fix.
I'm not saying that this doesn't or couldn't happen.
What I'm saying is that vote shifting (what you are
calling the Weighted Race Feature) only exposes itself
if the programmers are very very stupid (which they
typically are not). OR, if the fact that this IS
occurring is INTENDED as a FEATURE (such as via the
Weighted Race Feature) to expose to party operatives
that this fix is actually going on. So, here you and I
may actually agree with respect to some (but not all)
of your shape analysis. There are detectable features
in the statistics that can clue us in to the
possibility that fraud could potentially be occurring.
But, even given these statistical shapes, do we really
know that INTENTIONAL fraud is actually occurring, or
could it just be a software bug?
I'm inclined to believe (and have no reason not to
believe) the latter, that it is an unintentional
software bug. And the evidence of this may very well
be in your analysis of the straight party votes!
But first, let's go back to the overvotes. Say the
scanners are programmed incorrectly to cast ALL votes
in an overvoted race. We need to also consider the
undervotes as well. Say there are 1000 voters, and in
a particular race, 50 people undervoted and 100
overvoted and all of the overvotes were added into the
tally, then there will be an excess in V of 50, hence
P < V. It would be easy to find the 100 overvotes,
though, in the hand counting, and removing all of them
from the tally will leave P > V by 150 so all would
be OK.
Let's now look at Straight Ticket Voting (STV), which
has been on the decline in recent years and only 6
states currently allow it. See:
<https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/straight-ticket-voting.aspx>.
As a metric of possible fraud (as you are using for
your later assertions in the video), it's not so great
anymore because there's now considerably less data.
But we should consider the possibility that STV also
could have been miscounted by the paper ballot
scanners in those states that still use it. Back in
the day of lever machines, it was fairly common for
people who mostly wanted to vote for one party's
candidates to pull the STV lever and then unselect the
candidates they didn't want on that ticket, and if
they wanted to, add someone else in their place.
That's perfectly legit. The problem with STV on paper
ballots (and maybe part of the reason why they are
going extinct) is that you can't really do a
de-selection of a particular race on a paper ballot.
If you select straight party, and then select a
candidate of another party in one or more races, then
what SHOULD happen is that the straight party vote for
that race should be subtracted and the selected
candidate added. Simple enough, but it is a fairly
complicated software problem, especially given the
many different ballot layouts that occur in a given
state. So, if we consider that all of the STV
subtraction is somehow not being performed or being
performed incorrectly, and if all of the votes
selected outside of the STV are being added, then
there could be an increase in the tallies, potentially
leaving P < V if the STV overvote is not offset by
undervotes.
From a programming standpoint, I think this scenario
is actually likely and it could explain some problems
with the vote tallies in the 6 states that are still
using STV. Unfortunately, we will likely never know if
the software is flawed (either deliberately or
unintentionally), because all of the vendors refuse to
allow independent inspection of their vote tabulating
equipment, ESPECIALLY after the election, which could
reveal numerous problems (including alteration of
internal program code).
That's more than enough for now. I'm hoping you'll be
open to discussion and encourage you to write back to
me with your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Mercuri, Ph.D.
Twitter: @NotableMercuri