This particular update on audits of the 2020 election results will focus on what is going on in New Hampshire. It turns out that the auditors have identified a primary cause for the exceptionally high error rate in the ballot tabulations. And this cause is not limited to just Windham, New Hampshire. It is probable that this issue may exist in many other states.
Some background…There were four seats in the State legislature up for grabs in the Windham area in November, 2020. When the results were published via automatic tabulation, the four Republican candidates had all won. This was not surprising since Windham is a Republican area. One Democrat, Kristi St Laurent, had lost by just 24 votes. She asked for a recount.
During the first recount it was discovered that Republican votes were undercounted and one Democrat candidate was overcounted. And it wasn’t just a few votes. In an election where roughly 9,000 votes were cast, each Republican had been undercounted to the tune of some 300 votes. Kristi St Laurent had received more than 90 “extra” votes. The net was that she had lost by over 400 votes not 24. Never in New Hampshire history had vote totals been so far off.
The State of New Hampshire authorized a full forensic audit. A second hand recount matched the first. This indicated that there was some major problem with machine tabulation of the ballots.
The auditors wondered if folding a ballot was a source of the problem. See the image below.
The Washington Examiner notes:
Washington Examiner – As many as 60% of ballots with machine-made or handmade folds were improperly counted by the town’s four scanning machines, Harri Hursti, one of three auditors selected for the process, told the New Hampshire Union Leader on Monday. “The error rate was way higher than we expected,” Hursti said.
[…] if someone voted for all four Republican candidates and the ballot happened to have its fold line going through St. Laurent’s target, then that might be interpreted by the machines as an overvote, which would then subtract votes from each of those four Republican candidates,” said Philip Stark, another member of the three-person audit team, according to a WMUR 9 report last week. “Conversely, if there were not four votes already in that contest by the voter, a fold line through that target could have caused the machine to interpret it as a vote for St. Laurent.”
The issue pertains to absentee ballots. These have to be folded and sent in. If you happen to be voting Democratic, it is not an issue. However, vote for four Republicans and then fold the ballot through Kristi St Laurent’s oval, and presto you get a disqualified ballot. Yes, that’s right, the ballot becomes disqualified.
As Sundance notes:
This outcome is also what creates the disparity in votes cast and actual voting percentages as identified in the tabulation results for specific machines. The higher the number of overvoted ballots, ie (disqualified) ballots, through a machine, the more flawed the tabulation result as a comparison of all voter ballots through similar machines. This is what has been identified in Windham, New Hampshire.
The Windham election officials, and auditors with a vested interest in the position of the New Hampshire state officials, have said the ballot folding issue, aka “the overvote issue”, is isolated to just that one city, Windham.
However, the research teams have identified other counties in New Hampshire with the exact same “overvote” issue, which creates the exact same disqualified ballot issue, and matches the exact same statistical anomaly in the tabulation results as seen in counting machines in other counties.
The issue is far more widespread than just Windham. The exact same pattern of high “overvote” ballots resulting in skewed tabulation results from specific machines has been identified in neighboring counties.
Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the folding issue impacts all of the races on the ballots (local, state and federal) because the “overvote” ballots were disqualified.
Although disqualification of ballots may have taken place here, overvotes do not necessarily need to be disqualified. They can be “adjudicated.” This is true in any state using Dominion machines and software.
As one computer expert noted:
One of the features is the ‘Reject Settings tab’ where parameters can be set for how a machine identifies and deals with potential errors. In theory, poll-workers are trained to recognize ballot-scanning errors, and separate them so that a voter can correct any mistakes, but this is not practical with mail-in votes or large numbers. Crucially, the software allows for errors to be ‘overridden’ and transmitted to a host computer.
This points to the MO found in Antrim, where the machines were configured to manufacture errors at a rate of 68% (the Election Assistance Commission only allows an error rate of 1 in 250,000). These ballots should have been returned for the voters to correct, but they weren’t. In fact, errors on this scale should have stopped the Election, and the machines taken out of service under EAC rules requiring recertification.
They would have produced error messages on the machine LCD such as ‘over-vote’, but an operator could manually override these messages, transmitting the ballots to a computer operator who could then decide how to apportion them between the candidates. This is how fraud is possible. The process of ‘Adjudication’ allows a third party to select who wins an Election, not the voter, or it could be a ‘man-in-the-middle’ on the network who decides (which is where the Lindell data and Frank Algorithm comes in).
The tell-tale sign is ‘ballot rejections’, and that’s what we are seeing in Antrim, Windham, Ware, Coffee, Fayette, Luzerne, and Fulton, where ballots are processed as errors, and placed in a computer folder for a third party to allocate.
We saw it happening on video in Fulton, because the poll-workers were repeatedly running the same batches into the machines, deliberately creating over-vote errors by recirculating the same ballots that were then pooled into a computer folder where a third party could allocate them to Biden. This happened during fake shutdowns, and were followed by huge ballot-dumps for Biden in the overnight count. Just 4 large overnight ballot-dumps in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania decided the Election for Biden. The good Election supervisors in Coffee County subsequently made a video showing how every ballot they scanned into their system was classified as an ‘error’ and passed to a computer for ‘Adjudication’, and the operator was able to change all the votes.”
This is an interesting insight into how election fraud could be perpetrated. An error rate of 68% is unbelievable yet it did happen in Michigan. How were those votes handled? If the same ballots were fed into the tabulation machines over and over as was evident in Fulton County, Georgia, how were those “votes” handled? How many other ways was fraud committed?