The Election Vote: The Deeper You Look, The Worse it Gets

vote fraud

In this article, I’m going to discuss two companies, Dominion, and ES&S. I would advise investigators not to go to sleep on ES&S.

I’m not going to repeat all charges that have been leveled at Dominion Voting Systems. But look at what happened in Texas, when the Secretary of State had an analysis done in the fall of 2019.

The report was titled, “Voting System Examination Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite 5.5-A.” [1] It was prepared by James Sneeringer, Ph.D. Designee of the Attorney General of Texas.

The devil is in the details, so here they are:

“Adjudication results can be lost. In the [prior] January exam, during adjudication of the ballots in the test election, one of the Dominion representatives made a series of mistakes that caused the entire batch of adjudication results to be lost. We did not see this problem again during this exam, but the adjudication system is unchanged, so this vulnerability is still present. Recommendation: Certification [approval of the Dominion system] should be denied.”

“Installation is complex, error prone, and tedious. I counted 184 steps in their installation manual before deciding to estimate the remaining steps. I estimate a total of about 500 steps are required to install the software. I did not count steps that merely said something like ‘Click OK’ or ‘Click Next.’ This installation manual is 412 pages long with an additional 23 pages of front matter — contents, lists of figures, and the like…Recommendation: Certification should be denied.”

“Test Voting. During our voting test, we discovered that some party names and proposition text were not displayed, and one scanner was not accepting some ballots. These all turned out to be errors Dominion made in setting up the standard test election used by the Secretary of State. In the case of the scanner, it had accidently been configured not to accept machine-marked ballots. The other problems were caused by leaving some fields empty during election setup, something that the EMS software should not allow, or at least highlight. Recommendation: Certification should be denied.”

“Misleading Message. The ballot-marking devices incorrectly informed voters that they were casting their ballots, when in fact they were only printing them. The ballots are not be counted until they were scanned on a different device. Recommendation: Certification should be denied.”

“USB Port Vulnerability. The ICX ballot-marking device has an indicator light on top to show poll workers when the station is in use. That light is connected by a USB port. When Brian Mechler’s phone was attached to the USB port, the ICX scanned the files on his phone and did not complain, although Dominion later showed that the event was logged. When a USB drive with files was inserted, the ICX sometimes complained and sometimes did not, apparently according to the content of the USB drive and whether it was present when the ICX was first powered up or inserted later.”

The examiner’s final conclusion: “I cannot recommend certification. Computer systems should be designed to prevent or detect human error whenever possible and minimize the consequences of both human mistakes and equipment failure. Instead the Democracy Suite 5.5-A is fragile and error prone. In my opinion it should not be certified for use in Texas.”

If that doesn’t give pause for thought, nothing will.

Now we turn to ES&S, another voting machine company in use in the US. It has a long track record. The source here is a PROPUBLICA article, “The Market for Voting Machines Is Broken. This Company Has Thrived in It,” [2] dated October 28, 2019, by Jessica Huseman. Key excerpts:

“In Georgia, where the race for governor had drawn national interest amid concerns about election integrity, ES&S-owned technology was in use when more than 150,000 voters inexplicably did not cast a vote for lieutenant governor. In part because the aged ES&S-managed machines did not produce paper backups, it wasn’t clear whether mechanical or human errors were to blame. Litigation surrounding the vote endures to this day.”

“In Indiana, ES&S’ systems were plagued by mishaps at the local level. In Johnson County, for instance, the company’s brand-new machines faltered in ways that made it difficult to know whether some people had voted more than once.”

“The vote in 2006 in Sarasota, Florida…There, ES&S machines lost around 18,000 votes; it is still unclear why. The loss was far more than the margin of victory, and a lawsuit followed that ultimately resolved little. The company said in a statement that a variety of testing done on its machines supports its claim that the devices were not at fault, but the county wound up canceling its dealings with the firm shortly afterward.”

“Despite such stumbles, ES&S — based in Omaha, Nebraska, and employing roughly 500 people — controls around 50% of the country’s election system market, the company says, meaning that some 70 million Americans vote using the company’s equipment.”

“A ProPublica examination of ES&S shows it has fought hard to keep its dominance in the face of repeated controversies. The company has a reputation among both its competitors and election officials for routinely going to court when it fails to win contracts or has them taken away, suing voting jurisdictions, rivals, advocates for greater election security and others.”

“ES&S files many such suits. In May 2016, for instance, ES&S unsuccessfully sued Colorado over its decision to buy statewide uniform voting equipment after the state moved to a vote-by-mail system. The company also sued Colorado county over the issue, and it lost these cases as well.”

“In Wisconsin, after the 2016 national elections, ES&S sued to prevent Jill Stein, a Green Party candidate for president, from obtaining information about its machines that might have assisted her in her bid for a recount. A judge rejected ES&S’ argument that submitting to Stein’s request would compromise its proprietary technology.”

“ES&S has also threatened lawsuits against voting rights activists. In 2018, it warned it would sue Audit USA — a small nonprofit that advocates for election security — for posting the company’s manuals for scanners online (it hasn’t done so). The same year, the company repeatedly said it would initiate litigation against security researchers who bought old ES&S machines and attempted to hack them at a conference on cybersecurity. The company also sent letters to its own customers, saying it would sue them if they participated in such conferences or provided ES&S equipment to the events.”


I’ll close for now with excerpts from an American Thinker article by Jay Valentine, “Big Data to the Rescue: The Electoral College Meets Data Pattern,” [3] November 13, 2020:

“Here’s the summary: For the election returns in many precincts to happen the way they did, Biden would have to flip a coin 1,000 times and get heads every time. We aren’t done here.”

“He would also have to do it over and over again, in scores, perhaps hundreds of precincts.”

“Welcome to big data analysis.”

“Industrial fraud is always discovered with statistical analysis… Industrial fraud is pretty cool because from the outside, it is invisible…”

“When subject to statistical analysis against known patterns, industrial fraud stands out like a dinosaur walking through a field of peanut butter. It is unmistakable.”

“Is such analysis proof?”

“Yes, it is proof that there is an anomaly of such proportions that it must be investigated. And this isn’t hard. Remember, all the data you need to do the analysis is after-the-fact voting data. You do not need to see a single ballot.”

“…you just need to know that in precinct after precinct, there is an unmistakable pattern that the more people vote for Trump over Biden the greater the number of Trump votes the counting machines scoop from Trump to Biden.”

“The pattern [of vote-flipping] is one that can only be done by machines, like a computer. There are too many transactions, with too straight a line, across too many precincts, to be the guys with the ballot boxes arriving in the middle of the night. They are extra fraud.”






Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.


  1. Go back to COBOL and have locally managed mainframes instead. If your ballot won’t process, it goes back in the envelope and back to the sender with a replacement non VOIDed ballot. If you don’t get it back to the election station in time, sucks to be you, or surrender your mail-in at the time you go to the physical polling station to vote in person.

    Have an optical video recording system to record every valid ballot processed. Have hourly tallies that go out on radio and TV during election special broadcasts held at local TV and radio stations. Pass that information up to the federal govt. and they distribute it to the national radio and TV networks and have a dedicated website also, so that results are published basically in triplicate and there’s an open line to/from the polling stations to state election offices and the federal govt. That way, I know that you know that he knows that she knows that the 6PM hourly and cumulative totals are best-effort accurate, and there’s no point in anyone fishing or fudging because the whole thing’s going down on the DVR with a duplicate off-site independent copy being recorded, and it ALL has to match. So keep your hands in your pockets and stand well away from the tallying equipment or face an on-the-spot $500 fine. In the event that hand-sorting or counting has to be done, the people doing it are sworn law enforcement/direct support, and they, too, are being video’d in HD etc. etc. And, finally, the voter gets a receipt copy either physical or by email. And while you’re at it, everyone likes apps, so, you can compare your vote to your county/state vote ON your app and Bob’s your uncle. But the main machine in every county runs COBOL, is itself non-networked, code IS 100% verified, certified, railroad-sealed, cant’ touch this, and 100% Made In USA. If it’s apparently not ‘unhackable’ now, then figure out a way to make it unhackable. Would it work?

    • Why use a computer at all?
      Give each person a piece of paper with the list of names.
      One piece of paper for President, one for Governor, one for Dog Catcher etc.
      Mark the preferred candidate with a cross.
      Put the paper in a box.
      Separate the votes by candidate under secure conditions.
      Count the pieces of paper.
      Lock them up for 100 years in case there is a query.
      Even simpler, put out a box for each candidate.
      Give the voter a dollar, tell him to put it in the box for the candidate he prefers, or if he doesn’t like any of them he can keep the dollar.
      Count the dollars (and you can give them to the candidate as consolation for losing.)
      It would be a hell of a lot cheaper and quicker than the current fiasco.

  2. OR simple Common Sense…tells you it was a coup.
    Trump had hundreds of thousands @ GA Rally…Biden had 12 News media @ one of his Rally In GA.

  3. There are 3 parts to this article: a summary of Texas’ assessment of Dominion’s product; a summary of various issues ES&S systems have had, as well as that company’s penchant for litigation; and, finally, a series of quotes from Jay Valentine’s article.

    The first two are interesting, and contain nothing I have a problem with. But neither of those topics show, or even claim to show, that the systems are skewed toward one candidate over another. In fact, the issues called out in Texas, for example, are typical of any software acceptance test – calling out deficiencies in a system found during a defined test period. But not one of these deficiencies favors one candidate over another.

    It isn’t until the third topic (the quotes from Jay Valentine’s article) that we get some indication that votes have been systematically switched from Trump to Biden. However, this Valentine’s claims do not follow from the first two topics presented in this article. Yet it is presented here as if C follows directly from A and B. There is no such connection.

    Furthermore, I spent time researching Valentine’s article, including looking into how it is he claims that Trump votes were switched to Biden. His arguments do NOT hold up under scrutiny. One major source of his claim is from a video in which Dr. Shiva shows mathematically that the outcome in Michigan cannot be attributed to chance. However, Dr. Shiva’s math is horribly misleading and omits charts for Biden that show the identical pattern as for Trump. The comments to this video point out this omission time and time again. But perhaps the best explanation as to why Dr. Shiva is full of bull is found in a response video by Matt Parker and found here I encourage anyone to watch both Dr. Shiva’s video as well as Matt Parker’s.

    Another crucial source for the Valentine claims is none other than that great bastion of unbiased truth, The Epoch Times. The friggin Epoch Times??? Are you kidding me??? The same media empire that fully subscribes to Q Anon conspiracies as well as the claim that all victims of the 9/11 attacks are secretly still alive and are working as slaves in an underground facility.

    So, although I have no issue with the issues discussed here concerning Dominion and ES&S (both of which have issues that are not skewed toward one candidate), I have zero confidence in the claims put forth in the third section here, which cite Jay Valentine’s rather dubiously sourced (Epoch Times and Dr. Shiva) article. I’m willing to drink the Koolaid, but I’ve got to have some more trustworthy sources that what appears here. And, no, it doesn’t need to be MSNBC or CNN or NYT. It just needs to be something or someone with a better track record than the absolute jokes that are The Epoch Times and Dr. Shiva.

Comments are closed.