# Who Added an Algorithm to New York State’s Voter Registration Roll, and Why?

Guest post by Jerome Corsi – originally published at American Thinker – republished with permission.

Dr. Andrew Paquette, who serves as research director of the all-volunteer citizens’ group New York Citizens Audit (NYCA), has proven that New York state’s voter registration roll now contains an algorithm designed to facilitate election fraud.

One must understand how voter registration data works to appreciate just how serious this is. All registration data is predicated on algorithms, which are basically equations added into the registration in chronological sequence to transform a voter identification number (“Voter ID No.”) into a code.

In an honest system, the voter who registers first gets Voter ID No. 1, the second voter to register gets Voter ID No. 2, etc. In other words, there’s a direct correlation between the date order of registration and the ID No., with the ID Nos. increasing by increments of one.

However, Dr. Paquette has discovered a different algorithm. This one changes the Voter ID No. assignment so that the ID Nos. no longer increase by increments of one that are tied to the order in which voters register. Instead, the ID Nos. appear scrambled, with no linear sequential order.

Why would someone do this?

To begin, please understand that altering voter registration data with an algorithm is prima facie evidence that someone committed a crime. In an honest world, voter registration rolls are supposed to be honest. When criminals who want to commit election fraud control state boards of election, any algorithm that’s added to the voter registration database to alter the orderly flow of accessible information is presumptively fraudulent.

“The algorithm that is still added to the New York state voter registration database is a complex mathematically driven cryptographic scheme that involves National Security Agency-level of complexity,” claims Dr. Paquette.

Paquette describes the algorithm as a “Spiral Cipher” recoding of the New York state voter registration voter roll. Table 1 below shows the problem (red column numbers added for clarity). Column 1 has registration dates. Column 2 has the County Voter ID No. (“CID”), which is assigned when people register by county. Column 3 has the State Board of Election No. (“SBOEID”), which reflects the state’s translation of the CID into its own database.

The first problem is that the CID and SBOEID numbers bear no relationship to each other, although they should. The second, more serious, problem is that the numbers bear no rational relationship to the order in which the registrations were supposed to have taken place. For example, the numbers in column 2 climb sequentially. The numbers in column 3 (the SBOEID numbers) do not, something spelled out in columns 5 and 6.

Even registration dates from the 1800s have been altered so that the CIDs and SBOEIDs assigned to those voters appear randomly assigned. After all, in 1850, 22 million voters were not registered in New York state. More importantly, two voters registered on the same date, 1/01/1850, should not have CIDs or SBOEIDs so numerically distant (see columns 5 and 6). Nor would voters registered from 1902-1907 have lower CIDs and SBOEIDs than those registered in 1850.

Paquette concluded that the Spiral Cipher’s purpose, by separating registration dates from logically ordered ID Nos., makes it possible to hide and, when needed, track the fake voter registrations.

This is because, while the ordinary reviewer cannot figure out how to track voter IDs, the Spiral Cipher creator knows where the falsified records are in the database. When those who need more votes for a specific candidate than legitimately exist, they can surreptitiously have mail-in ballots sent to fraudulent SBOEIDs.

These absentee ballots can lie in reserve to be called upon when needed. Then, they can be certified for the election because they’ll have an apparently legitimate SBOEID.

Placing an information-tangling algorithm into a state voter registration roll appears to be a clear violation of state election laws. That’s because American election laws invariably specify that state boards of elections have a responsibility to maintain voter integrity, in relevant part, by making the voter rolls fully transparent and publicly auditable. Using a cryptographic cipher to confuse the data in a way that resists auditing would clearly appear to violate these requirements.

In summary:

• This particular Spiral Cipher scheme would appear to explain why bad actors want to suspend vote tabulations on election nights when a preferred candidate is losing.
• During the tabulation pause, they can obtain enough of the mail-in ballots with fraudulent SBOEIDs to throw the election.
• When tabulation resumes, the preferred candidate will suddenly overtake the opponent, a pattern that can be repeated until the election is a lock for the preferred candidate. The election fraud would be difficult to challenge legally precisely because the fraudulent mail-in votes were certifiable.

In a 2023 article entitled “The Caesar Cipher and Stacking the Deck in the New York State Voter Rolls,” published in the Journal of Information Warfare, Paquette explained his hypothesis that the algorithm systematically builds the potential for election fraud into the New York State Board of Elections voter registration roll.

In his 2023 paper, Paquette noted the following:

There are hundreds of thousands of illegally generated registrations in the official NYSBOE [New York State Board of Election] voter rolls. The exact number is unknown, but it is not less than about 338,000 for registrations active for the 2020 General Election (NYCA 2022). If other elections are included, the number of apparently illegal registrations jumps to between 1.2 and 1.4 million.

Since then, Pacquette has upgraded his original estimate registration jumps from between 1.2 and 1.4 million to closer to a minimum of 2 million.

None of the arguments presented here “proves” that Joe Biden “stole” 2020’s general in New York or anywhere else. The point of this article is to raise questions about voter integrity, especially because similar algorithms have been found in several other state board of election voter registration rolls, including, importantly, in Ohio.