Georgia’s Hand Recount: Why It Is Almost Certainly Wrong

Georgia’s Hand Recount: Why It Is Almost Certainly Wrong. By David Evans.

Tim, a reader, asks about November’s Presidential vote in Georgia:

I watched the testimony of the data scientists from the Data Integrity Group and what they have shown is persuasive. I do have a question though. How do we as conservatives reconcile their findings with the hand counts in Georgia which still found Joe Biden as the winner?

Good question. Georgia eventually decided to recount their vote, even though they were not obliged to. They hand counted it, to avoid problems with machine counting. The recount found Biden won by 12,284 votes, less than 400 votes different from the original count of 12,670 votes. By the way, this winning margin is about 0.25% of the almost 5 million ballots counted.

There are two phases to a vote count, voting and counting. Georgia was plagued by fraud in both phases. A hand recount only affects the counting phase, but in Georgia even that was not enough even to eliminate fraud in the counting phase.

Phase 1: Voting

Are all the voters legal? How may ballots are cast by those not eligible to vote? Were fraudulent ballots added to the vote pile?

Andrea Widburg:

Phase one results in ineligible ballots that are fatally flawed and cannot legally be counted. For years, Democrats have been making Phase One fraud easier. Here are some of the methods they’ve used, often justifying them on minority civil rights grounds:

  • Motor voter registration (people are registered when they get a driver’s license), creating a massive number of registered voters, most of whom don’t vote.
  • Refusing to clean up voter registration rolls, creating millions of registrations tied to people who died or relocated.
  • Banning ID requirements at polling places.
  • Banning poll workers from comparing signatures on ballot sign-up sheets or mail-in envelopes to those on record.
  • Same-day registration.
  • Extending voting to a month-long period.
  • Absentee voting for anyone who desires.
  • Mailing ballots to every registered voter.
  • Voting only by mail.
  • Ballot-harvesting, which allows activists to collect ballots from voters and submit them. Harvesters can fill out ballots or dispose of ballots with which they disagree.
  • Judges and bureaucrats extending the voting deadline.

All of the above Democrat initiatives make the following types of fraud easier, particularly when paired with chicanery at the polling site, such as banning poll-observers:

  • People voting using another person’s ballot.
  • Postal workers backdating mailed in ballots.
  • Insiders obtaining and completing blank ballots en masse.
  • Repeatedly feeding the same ballots into voting machines.
  • Throwing out Trump votes.
  • Completing incomplete ballots.
  • Faking same-day registrations of non-existent voters.
  • Throwing out mail-in envelopes to make it impossible to winnow out fraudulent ballots. …

Trump’s team has acquired thousands of affidavits proving these frauds.

Once the illegal ballots are mixed in with the legal ballots, there is usually no way to un-mix them. The illegal votes will be counted, regardless of the counting method.

Andrea Widburg again:

In a brief video … here, Dick Morris explains that … to the extent there are still available envelopes from the mailed in (absentee) ballots, secretary of state Brad Raffensperger stated that the counters would not attempt to match the signatures.

The refusal to check signatures or otherwise try to validate mail-in ballots has created hugely anomalous rejection rates. Typically, Georgia rejects 3.5% of absentee ballots because they cannot be validated.  This year, says Morris, the rejection rate is 0.002%.  As Morris said, with nothing more, that discrepancy points to vast fraud.

Leah Barkoukis, on illegal ballots dumped into the vote count:

Susan Voyles, a Georgia poll worker with 20 years of experience, said in a sworn affidavit Tuesday that she noticed something strange about a batch of ballots that overwhelmingly favored Joe Biden, leading her to believe “additional absentee ballots had been added in a fraudulent manner.”

The observation came when she was serving as an auditor in the recount at the Fulton County Sandy Springs poll station.

“For our first assignment, we were given a cardboard box that contained only absentee ballots,” she wrote. “It was taped shut with packing tape with the seal of the Secretary of State. But the seal was blank, signed by no one, and no information had been supplied. There were no markings indicating the provenance of the box. The box was marked as Box No. 5—Absentee—Batch Numbers 28-36.”

Within that box were stacks of ballots, with roughly 100 in each stack.

“Most of the ballots had already been handled; they had been written on by people, and the edges were worn. They showed obvious use. However, one batch stood out. It was pristine,” she continued. “There was a difference in the texture of the paper — it was if they were intended for absentee use but had not been used for that purposes. There was a difference in the feel.”

The ballots also showed no markings to indicate where they came from or were processed. “These stood out,” she said.

With 20 years of handling ballots behind her, Voyles “observed that the markings for the candidates in these ballots were unusually uniform, perhaps even with a ballot-marking device.”

According to her estimate, 98 percent were for Joe Biden.

Gregory Miller:

In addition to concerns over a scarcity of well-documented statewide procedures for this process, there is one more controversy:

“With respect to the machine-marked paper records generated by ballot marking devices (BMDs), even if human eyes manually review votes by reading only the human-readable text of choices, can those paper records rightly be called a trusted and auditable record of voter intent that was verified by the voter?”

[Dr. Philip Stark of U.C. Berkeley, the inventor of risk-limiting audits] has explained in many forums that when voter’s choices on paper records are machine-marked (i.e., in other words an imperfect complex electronic computing device is inserted between the voter and the act of recording a choice) and furthermore, given research indicating that most voters do not take time to review and verify the machine-marked record, then it is problematic to assume that the BMD records are “auditable” records of voter intent.

Furthermore, many US voters have complained that the machine paper record recorded the opposite of what they voted. Oops, sorry, made a mistake — or is the machine software just flipping some votes? Elections using hand-marked paper ballots are so much more secure.

Phase 2: Counting

If by machine, who loads and checks the software? If by hand, are there scrutineers from both parties watching every ballot as it is counted?

Andrea Widburg, on counting errors in Georgia:

The best way to prevent humans from cheating is to watch them. Indeed, those of you old enough to remember the Florida recount in 2000 will also remember that the media wandered freely through the counting rooms, getting close-ups of people carefully examining each ballot for those infamous hanging chads. Everyone understood that the point was to get it right.

What happens, though, when the people in charge of the recount, in place of transparency, once again refuse to allow representatives of the parties to audit their work? What happens is this:

In Australia, we hand count votes — no machines. Each party with a member in the election sends along scrutineers to watch the vote count. Each vote counter has a scrutineer from each party watch them count each and every vote. Any scrutineer can challenge any vote, or any part of the process. Then they have to do it again until everyone agrees. In this manner, everyone agrees on the final count.

The Georgia counting process was not scrutinized. The vote counters could have simply made up the numbers of the hand count to match the earlier machine count, in order to hide any voting machine fraud. We don’t know if the hand count is correct, because they wouldn’t allow us to see it. Secret counting produces unaudited, suspect results. The Georgia recount was designed to hide vote fraud, not expose it. Georgia could have allowed proper scrutiny, but instead choose a secret process — the inference is obvious. By not allowing effective oversight by both parties, the hand recount is not credible.

Tim above referred to the data scientists who found problems with Georgia’s vote. Jon Dougherty:

A team of data scientists testifying before a state Senate panel in Georgia earlier this week said thousands of votes were switched from President Donald Trump to his Democratic challenger Joe Biden during balloting last month.

The team, led by Lynda McLaughlin that includes data scientists Justin Mealey and Dave Lobue, told the Georgia Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Wednesday they found that 17,650 votes changed from the president to Biden.

“What we have here is we actually have fraud that we can prove in this election, there was fraud in Georgia’s election, we can prove it with data,” Mealey, who served as a Navy electronic warfare technician for nearly a decade as well as a data analyst and programmer for the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center, told the panel.

“The voting will of the people of Georgia is not reflected in what was certified by the secretary of state,” Mealey, who currently works for one of the “Big Four” accounting firms as a programmer, added. …

The analysts said that the switches occurred at the county level and were difficult to detect at the state level because the decreases were offset by data uploaded by other counties that was accurate.

They alleged that a “clear example of vote switching” occurred in DeKalb county.

Around 9:11 p.m. local time, the analysts said that Trump got 29,391 votes while Biden received 17,218. But during the next update, the president’s vote tally had fallen to 17,218 and Biden’s increased to Trump’s previous total of 29,391, according to the published data.

That single event resulted in a swing (loss) of votes away from Trump of 12,173.

“I want to make that very, very clear that at no point in an incremental process, should you decrement it,” Lobue told the panel.

So Tim, it appears the hard recount was just theater designed to lend credibility to the result and deflect attention from the irregularities, without being a serious attempt to even count the ballots, let alone remove the illegal ballots.

It has mild propaganda value, but in a search for the truth the hand recount was worth almost nothing.