Naomi Wolf: Shocking Anomalies Found in First Ballots

Thanks. Ginny Garner. 

Lew,

Naomi Wolf’s series of posts on X today addresses the voting tabulators used now in early voting nationwide:

We are getting ballots sent in by voters to [email protected]. By late today we will have a platform where you can upload your own vote! The votes will be public facing and your name/address will be private facing. I ask X, ⁦ ⁩ to offer the same public service so we can have distributed multiple verification of the vote. (Also to dial down security risks. If we all do this no one can stop any one of us). 

But even with these first ballots I see shocking anomalies. There is a bar code like pattern from PA on a ballot I pinned. Our developer says it is machine readable. Is it a code that just verifies this is a real ballot in a sequence? Or does it signal ‘read this as D/ read this as R?’ Depending on the algorithm used by the machine, machine reading can ignore what the voter filled out and just read the code.

That’s why it’s nonsense to have machines ‘counting’ ballots. If you don’t know what the algorithm is set to count, you literally cannot know what has been counted. Just because there are filled in bubbles or checkmarks does not mean the machine has been programmed to count those. Other ballots have NO identifiers on them. A verifiable ballot should have a set of numbers that corresponds to the voters on the voter roll. Or that at least confirms a ballot in a sequence of legitimate ballots that matches the number of registered voters. No!!!! Most ballots coming in to us have NO identifier that a hand counter can match to voter rolls! In other words ANYONE CAN FILL THEM IN. Or add to the total.

People really have to understand how machine reading works. If the code is written to read a barcode and not the filled-out bubbles, that’s what the machine will return.

The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.