Clink above image or here for link to James O’Keefe’s undercover videos that expose and explain how quickly and easily legal (but horrible) “ballot harvesting” morphs into illegal fraud. Project Veritas deserves the financial support of all of us.
d. It is well known and documented that “ballot harvesters” often pay for these “extra” ballots. Here in New Jersey, the going rate is $30 to $50. Videos from Minnesota indicate that the going rate there is $100.
e. “Ballot harvesters” can easily complete and drop off as many “extra” ballots as they can find or buy. Unlike with in-person voting, he or she does not have to sign the certification flap in front of an election official. The completed ballot can then be dropped off at any mailbox in the country, or any drop-box in the State at any hour of day or night. There is absolutely zero risk of being caught or punished for completing or voting voting an “extra” ballots.
3. “Ballot harvesters” are likely to “drop off” or “dump” their ballots in the mail or a drop box at the last possible moment. That minimizes or avoids the chance of an alert local election worker noticing that a ballot is coming from somebody who moved, died, or already complained that he or she did not receive a mail-in ballot.
4. “Ballot harvesters” can easily drop off “extra ballots” or even completely fake ballots if they are needed after votes have been counted. In many battleground states, mail-in ballots are received and opened in large centralized centers, rather than small polling places where representatives of both parties are present. Videos show large numbers of ballots being dropped off in unmarked sacks and boxes, with no bi-partisan inspection, accountability or verification as to where or how those ballots were dropped off, or on what day time. It appears that there were no efforts to close or end receipt of mail-in ballots at drop-off boxes at 8pm on November 3 as required by law. It appears that many post offices failed to mark the day or time of mail-in ballots to confirm that they were received by 8pm on November 3 as required by law. In New Jersey, Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy “ordered” that Boards of Election accept ballots “without postmarks” if the post office delivers them “by 8pm Thursday!” This is in complete violation of New Jersey Election Law!
5. It is not logical for late votes in battleground states to be lopsided for Biden and Democrats.
a. Democrats urged their supporters to vote early as soon as ballots were mailed out in September. Most Republicans and Trump supporters were suspicious of mail in voting. Even when urged to vote early, many were determined to vote or deliver their vote on Election Day “to make sure my vote counts”. Is logical that the first votes to be sorted, opened and counted were mostly Democrat votes for Biden. It is logical that more last minute, Election Day votes were for Republicans and Trump. This was in fact the pattern until vote counting in key battleground states suddenly stopped at about . It is NOT logical for the latest votes in battleground states to be lopsided for Biden and Democrats.
b. President Trump’s support was low when early and mail-in voting began, but high during the two weeks before Election Day. According to Rasmussen Reports, Trump’s poll numbers dropped to as low as 44% in early October after the First Debate. That was when early and mail-in voting began. However, Trump did better in second debate and Town Hall. Trump also benefitted from his quick recovery from COVID and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Trump was running between 48% and 52% during the last two weeks before Election Day. It is not logical for the latest ballots in arriving in battleground states to be more in favor of Biden and Democrats than ballots that arrived when Trump was less popular.
c. Trump received historically large support from blacks and Hispanics in Democratic majority areas. According to The Washington Post, Edison Research national exit polling found that 55 percent of white women, 18 percent of black males, 8 percent of black women, 36 percent of Hispanic/Latino men, 28 percent of Hispanic/Latina women and 37 percent of all other voters cast their ballots for President Trump. https://www.vox.com/2020/11/4/21537966/trump-black-voters-exit-polls. It is not logical for late ballots in battleground states, even in mostly Democrat black and Hispanic majority voting districts to show little or no support for Trump when earlier arriving ballots show significant support for Trump.
6. There is no excuse for large numbers of “provisional ballots” on Election Day. These ballots were created for people who attempt to vote in person on Election Day, but who are not on the voter registration books. Usually, there is a valid reason for this. Often the person has moved without filing a change of address, is on parole for a criminal conviction, or is not a citizen. In the past, courts were closed for all business other than Election Matters on Election Day. If a voter was denied the ability to vote because his or her name was not on the books, he or she had to testify under oath before a judge to qualify. These situations were very rare. Provisional ballots were designed to avoid the need for these unusual court appearances. The challenged voter would complete a “provisional ballot”. Provisional ballots would be examined only if they were enough to change the outcome. If so, these ballots were to be examined the way a judge previously examined. Routinely counting thousands of “provisional ballots” for people whose names did not appear on registration books, and who in the past would have to testify before a judge is NOT normal. Atlantic County is “expecting more than 10,000 provisional ballots”. The whole purpose of voter registration in advance is to let candidates know who is eligible to vote three weeks before the election so that candidates can meet them and try to win their votes. And to make sure they are real people. This cannot happen when 10,000 new people, not on the books, suddenly show up and are able to vote.
7. What can we do?
a. All Republicans who lose by a narrow margin should Immediately file legal challenges where late mail-in and provisional ballots massively favored Democrats and Joe Biden and changed the outcome.
b. Immediately investigate every late mail-in and provisional ballot and document whether or not that ballot is a duplicate, and whether or not that person voted in the last five elections.
Immediately check addresses on late mail-in ballots against current addresses for each voter.
c. When necessary, send volunteers to the the addresses listed on questionable ballots to find out whether or not that voter lives at the address listed on his or her mail-in ballot.
We are a group of roughly 150 ordinary citizens who mostly live near Atlantic City, New Jersey. We volunteer our time and money to maintain this website. We do our best to post accurate information. However, we have made mistakes. If you see any mistakes or inaccurate, misleading, outdated, or incomplete information in this or any of our posts, please let us know. We will do our best to correct the problem as soon as possible.
If you agree with this post, please share it as much as you can. Please simply click the Twitter or Facebook icons below. Or better yet, please copy the link, or all or part of the content for this post, and paste it in the “comments” section of your local newspaper, your local “micro-newspaper” like Patch.com, or in any of the unwanted articles from CNN or other “mainstream” spammed into your Facebook feed before an election.
Seth Grossman, Executive Director
LibertyAndProsperity.com
info@libertyandprosperity.com
(609) 927-7333
Sources:
1a. “How Lyndon Johnson Won 1948 Election He’d Lost by 20,000 Votes”: (From New York Times Book Review of “The Years of Lyndon Johnson. Means of Ascent”. Feb 11, 1990)
https://www.libertyandprosperity.com/how-democratic-pres-dent-lyndon-johnson-won-the-election-he-lost-20000-votes-in-1948/
1b. Results of the 2009 Iranian presidential election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2009_Iranian_presidential_election
The 2009 Iranian presidential election was characterized by huge candidate rallies in Iranian cities,[1] and very high turnout reported to be over 80 percent.[2] Iran holds a run-off election when no candidate receives a majority of votes, and this would have been held on 19 June 2009.[1] At the closing of election polls, both leading candidates, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir-Hossein Mousavi, claimed victory, with both candidates telling the press that their sources have them at 58–60% of the total vote.[3] Early reports had claimed a turnout of 32 million votes cast although the actual figure could not be determined until all of the votes were counted.[4][5] Mousavi warned the Iranian people of possible vote fraud.[6]
According to Reuters, several noted political analysts contested the results immediately.[7] The website mowj.ir announced that Mousavi in fact was the person that received the majority of the voting and that his name was replaced by Ahmadinejad’s.[8] Mousavi urged his supporters to reject what he saw as “blatant violations” of democracy and its replacement by “the rule of authoritarianism and tyranny.” He declared on Friday:
“The results announced for the 10th presidential elections are astonishing. People who stood in long lines and knew well who they voted for were utterly surprised by the magicians working at the television and radio broadcasting”.[2]
Allegations of fraud[edit]
Farideh Farhi, professor at University of Hawaii, says the result was “pulled out of a hat.” Among several anomalies that she addresses, she points at the “secret” Iranian government polls reported by Newsweek on June 5 estimated that Mousavi would win 16 to 18 million votes, and Ahmadinejad just 6 to 8 million and the final “official” figures, that gave Ahmadinejad 24.5 million votes, and Mousavi 13.2 million.[10]
Mohtashami, former interior minister of Iran, who was in the election monitoring committee of Mousavi’s campaign claimed that according to official censuses, the number of counted votes in 70 municipalities are more than total population of people who could vote in those regions. In all those cities Ahmadinejad won by 80% to 90%[11] On June 17, Tabnak, the news agency close to defeated candidate Mohsen Rezaei who got only 678,240 votes in the election stated that “Mohsen Rezaei, until yesterday afternoon, found evidence that proves at least 900,000 Iranians , based on their national ID cards, voted for [him].”[12]
BBC Iranian affairs analyst Sadeq Saba found abnormalities in the way results were announced. Instead of results by province, the “results came in blocks of millions of votes,” with very little difference between the blocks in the percentages going to each candidate. This suggested that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did equally well in rural and urban areas, while his three opponents did equally badly in their home regions and provinces as in the rest of the country. This contradicted “all precedent in Iranian politics”, where Ahmadinejad had been very popular in rural areas and unpopular in the big cities, where ethnic minorities had favored anti-establishment candidates, and where candidates had tended to carry their home provinces.[13] Another anomaly, according to British-based researcher Ali Alizadeh, is that a large turnout did not favor the opposition, since in elections, both in Iran and abroad, “those who usually don’t vote, i.e. the silent majority, only come out when they want to change the status quo.”[14] Historically, low turnout has always favored conservatives in Iranian elections, while high turnout favors reformers. That’s because Iran’s most reliable voters are those who believe in the system; those who are critical tend to be reluctant to participate.[15] According to modern Middle Eastern and South Asian historian Juan Cole, there were several anomalies in the election results. Official reports gave Ahmadinejad 50% of the vote in the city of Tabriz despite the fact that this was the capital of Mousavi’s home province, Eastern Azerbaijan, where Mousavi’s rallies were well attended and which has traditionally given good turnouts for even “minor presidential candidates” who came from the province. Ahmadinejad also won Tehran by over 50%, even though his popularity in larger cities is considered to be low. Meanwhile, Karroubi, who received 17 percent in the first round of the 2005 presidential elections, got less than one percent of the vote this time,[16] and lost even his own province of birth, despite the tendency for Iranian voting to follow ethnic lines.[17] A survey of votes by a London-based think tank Chatham House found that in a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad had received “not only all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters and all new voters but also up to 44 percent of former reformist voters — despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.”.[18][19]
1c. Venezuela Vote Fraud. Reuters, AUGUST 2, 201710:47 AM
Venezuela stands by election count despite fraud allegation
By Hugh Bronstein, Cassandra Garrison
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-idUSKBN1AI1WT
CARACAS/LONDON (Reuters) – Venezuela’s president rejected accusations on Wednesday that his government inflated turnout figures from its constituent assembly election, branding them part of an effort to stain what he called a clean and transparent vote.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-idUSKBN1AI1WT
The company that provides the country’s voting machines said that the government’s claim that 8.1 million votes were cast in Sunday’s poll overestimated the tally by least 1 million.
President Nicolas Maduro also criticized the accuracy of a story reported by Reuters that only 3.7 million people had voted by 5:30 p.m. on Sunday, according to internal electoral council documents, compared with the total 8.1 million ballots counted by authorities.
The documents, which break the data down into Venezuela’s 14,515 polling centers, show that 3,720,465 people had voted by 5.30 p.m. Voting ended at 7 p.m. and election experts said doubling the vote in the last hour and a half would be unlikely.
“We stand by our story,” Reuters global communications chief Abbe Serphos said in an email.
Maduro was defiant.
