Mainstream critic of election fraud evidence misses multiple points

Mainstream critic of election fraud evidence misses multiple points. By Bart Marcois.

In “A Whopper of An Election Rigging Claim,” [Andrew] McCarthy clarifies that the “68 percent error rate” [in Antrim County, Michigan] means 68 percent of events in the log are reports of errors. It does not mean that 68 percent of the votes were put in an error category, and then adjudicated. The ASOG report, however, never made the erroneous claim: it was a misinterpretation that went viral.

I reached out to Ramsland and asked him to comment on the reported error rates.

“We simply reported the facts that of approximately 15,000 lines of event reports, approximately 68 percent of them are reported errors and this is not acceptable,” Ramsland told me. “It does not mean that 68 percent of the votes are incorrect. There could be one to even as many as four errors reported in connection with every vote that goes to adjudication.”

“But if even four errors correspond to every vote going to adjudication, this has 17 percent of the votes going into a bucket where the operator or the machine itself gets to decide how that ballot is to be voted,” he added. “That’s ridiculous.” …

No bipartisan review of paper ballots:

McCarthy says the paper ballots in Antrim County have been subject to bipartisan review. Not true. They’ve been locked away since Election Day, except in one small township where ballots were unlocked for a short time on November 6. That was not a bipartisan review, it was just a re-feeding of the ballots into the same machine.

Examination of the tabulation tapes revealed transfers of around 600 votes from one candidate to another between the first vote and the recount in some local races that had only a few hundred voters.

That wild inaccuracy and similar one in a different Antrim County township provided the evidence that prompted Judge Kevin Elsenheimer to order the forensic audit of all Antrim County voting machines. McCarthy has completely ignored the meat of the problem with the voting machines.

Ramsland highlighted the problem with the hand count.

“If one were to do a real hand audit, it would start with a scan of the paper ballots to find which ones are real, and which ones are fake,” he said. “Non-official paper and/or ballots that were marked using the same commercial inks that printed them would be found used in this election. Mail-in ballots that were inadequately creased, or missing from the postal and/or printing company records, would be found and discarded as fakes as well. And only then could someone sit down and hand count the actual real ballots and compare them to the results.”

Ramsland noted how some of the error messages were for “wrong sized paper used for the ballot and incorrect formatting of paper ballots. Why would this occur in such volume?” …

The obvious questions go begging:

“What are they so afraid of?” Ramsland asked. ”What is this fanatical effort to avoid real audit or transparency?”

Why won’t Democrats just allow audits? You would think it’s in their collective interest to prove that their hands are clean and that the elections were clean. You would think that they would want an investigation because it would exonerate them. But they don’t. What are they hiding?

And why have the media neglected to ask these questions?

More at the link.