Every state that claims that by ‘auditing’ a couple of machines and running a few ballots through these machines, that election results can be confirmed as valid, are lying. They will never be able to confirm an election’s validity using this approach.
A reader shared this with us. She forwarded our post about the 200,000 ballots in Wisconsin that the Wisconsin Supreme Court said were likely invalid. Nothing has been done to address these ballots from the 2020 election and we asked why.
The response from Wisconsin Senator Alberta Darling was to provide the voter a canned letter from the Wisconsin Election Board (who many believe are corrupt) and end it there. Senator Darling shared the following:
The second page of the canned letter says this:
This letter says absolutely nothing and shows Senator Darling does not care. How could any elected official be alright with this year’s election results? In Wisconsin over a hundred thousand ballots were dropped late on election night, perhaps some in her district, all for Biden, and she doesn’t seem to give a damn – like so many Republicans across the country.
The politicians either don’t want to do anything that will address the issues from the election, or they don’t know what to do. Five days ago the Wisconsin Senate announced that it was ordering an audit of the state’s 2020 election results:
The state’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee voted six to four along party lines to order the audit, which will be conducted by the Legislative Audit Bureau, a non-partisan body that enjoys the trust of both Republicans and Democrats.
All four Democrats on the committee voted against the audit, however, and voiced concerns that it could further undermine trust in the system. There have been widespread unsubstantiated allegations of nationwide voter fraud since the November election.
The problem is that the legislative body that will perform the audit does not have the capabilities to perform a forensic audit of the ballots from the 2020 election. It is doubtful that this body will be able to analyze the Wisconsin ballots like a professional like Jovan Pulitzer can. It is a step in the right direction but as we’ve seen already, performing work that does not address the target area in an audit is an audit that might as well not be performed.
The answer is to perform a forensic audit of all ballots in a designated state or area to determine if the ballots are legitimate or not. We shared this before. An audit of a few machines and a review of a few ballots through those machines will not confirm the validity of an audit. The only way an audit can confirm the validity of the election is to look at every ballot and determine its validity based on the proper characteristics of that ballot (e.g. paper type, the ink used, the structure of ballot, folds in ballots, etc…). This can be done in a very short period of time using modern technology and inventor Pulitzer has this technology:
The people of Wisconsin should demand an adequate forensic review of the 2020 ballots or they will never have free and fair elections again. The Democrats will steal every single election going forward unless this is done.
(The author speaks from an expert’s point of view. He was involved in hundreds of audits during his career auditing millions of records. When looking at a large data set of records, the machine functionality is almost irrelevant. The focus of the audit should be on the input and the output of the system. The ballots that are counted must be valid and the results should equal the total of valid ballots. If these don’t agree then you know the machines are not working properly.)
UPDATE: We did receive a response from Senator Darling’s office which shared the following:
- Our response did not include a letter from the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Rather, the email consisted of a response authored by our staff that stated that Senator Darling “is committed to pursuing meaningful election reform this legislative session” and that there are “several pieces of legislation are in the drafting phase that seek to tackle a handful of issues identified in hearings and investigations the legislature conducted into the November election.”
- Our response did not consist of solely the letter from the Joint Audit Committee. Rather, that letter was included in a link in the response and the scope of the audit of the Wisconsin Elections Commission was included in the body of the response authored by our office.
- Our response represented a review of the current state of election reform in the legislature. We feel a responsibility to provide constituents with the most up-to-date information on the state of pending legislation, and our response was representative of that priority.
[Note the response didn’t mention the election was stolen despite the whole country knowing the ballot drop in Wisconsin at 3:42 am has yet to be explained.]