The Elements That Must Be In Place To Change Elections
In Part 1 I outlined in somewhat wonky but high-level detail how computers started to fulfill their long-touted promise over the last three decades, now capable of routinely handling massive, daunting, formerly impossible tasks. Part 2 was somewhat dense but provided facts and figures on Colorado voting and highlighted a number of strange happenings, weird “bidness” and goings on with the last three elections that resulted in Colorado turning blue in 2018 and produced odd voting results in 2020.
I didn’t belabor the point, but the basis of the Colorado election-ahem- “improvements” since ~2013 were touched upon therein or can be read in the monstrous legislation (whoever funds NPR should be totally embarrassed by what political hacks they’ve degraded to in the 21st century (shouldn’t we be???)) being pushed through congress that should be labeled “Instituting fraud: Carter and Baker be damned, how democrats win every election from now on.”
The big challenge for Part 3 is building the case that there is causality and a direct correlation between the computer advancements outlined in Part 1, the loosened and lax election procedures covered in Part 2-albeit, implemented over time, but given a steroidal shot by COVID hysteria in 2020, that provided for and set up the conditions ripe for election mischief.
I don’t want to take up space rehashing some of the factoids from Part 2. But several merit re-emphasis, including a point I did not make that struck me as odd but I wanted to double check the figures.
Based on the total number of votes President Trump received in 2020-1,354,607-he would have beaten Obama the first time in 2008, as an incumbent president in 2012, and would have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016-or himself! If the Libertarian candidate didn’t take some 5% of the 2016 vote or 144K votes, DJT might have beaten her as well (the Libertarian or Independent candidate normally gets only ~1.5% or 35-50K Colorado votes and only ~3% nation-wide. And this is the guy-Gary Johnson-that infamously had brain freezes and geography problems: “And what is Aleppo?”)
The bottom line is DJT garnered enough votes to win any presidential race in Colorado in the 21st century-except this one.
Biden was leading in the polls in Colorado by as much as 11%: he won by ~14% while he underperformed in most every other state as the democrats took a drubbing down ballot. He did so with no or very little visual support state-wide in the way of signs, posters, enthusiasm-particularly in comparison to DJT.
Pundits describing DJT’s policies and voters general dislike of him “personally” as the major issue flies in the face of his getting 162K more votes than 2016 against arguably a more popular candidate, with a slight percentage more of the overall total. The objective or target in this scenario appears to have been centering on a solution where Biden (and Hickenlooper’s) votes were going to be increased by an amount that would avoid any recount risks and could not possibly be approached by Trump or Gardner based on historic norms.
The reason the changes to the election procedures are a critical enabling factor is the difficulty faced in producing fraudulent ballots and votes in sufficient numbers to change outcomes. In the past it was a time-consuming and risky process to create a stack of ballots in time to have an impact when you in theory only had a matter of days to complete the deed, complicated by the fact that you don’t know or have any way of telling how many votes you might need.
When voting ends on a date certain with a limited window it used to be a tight coordination act to hit the “gates” necessary as the outcome crystallizes-the term “scrambling” comes to mind. Extending the voting date to a voting window maximizes the amount of time available for mischief makers.
Now you can make all the arguments you want about why all these election “modernizations” were necessary to maximize turnout, and there are as many “yada, yada, yadas” in there as there are “but, but, buts,” but the plain fact is people have historically done fine doing their civic duty with a voting date, augmented by Absentee Ballots where necessary which have never amounted to very many of the overall count.
Several years ago now I was involved in a spirited debate on Twitter where a very smart, borderline intellectual “author” and his peeps-who were like canine protectors-were touting the immense difficulty or sheer impossibility of producing tens or hundreds of thousands of votes to affect an election.
Now in truth, a congressional district has some 750K people and it doesn’t take very many “thumbs” on the scale to sway those elections (I would submit Orange County 2018 ballot harvesting and Colorado 2018 as the poster children example of this based on the outcomes.) I thought I was in the “providing information” mode about massive cloud analytics capabilities resident in the new tabulation machines, most of which have a modeling and simulation mode. They unsurprisingly attacked me like I was trolling their intellectual “leader.”
For anyone believing that engaging in some variant of ballot generation still requires a massive amount of people and labor to accomplish, weeks and months of time, and luck not to get caught, you are absolutely correct: a “boiler-room” or “sweat-shop” type operation a la the 1930s-1990s would be difficult and fraught with risk. Too many people required, talk is cheap, loose lips sink ships.
What has changed is modern copier and reproduction capability. Xerox, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Epson, Sequoia, Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) and other commercial high-tech companies made it sweatless to produce almost perfect ballots, and scanners long ago implemented within the Post Office demonstrate they can be easily processed in massive amounts. But there was still a bit of technology left to solve to help with the ballot marking itself and the analytics that help avoid scrutiny by getting the numbers like porridge (just right.)
But that’s so yesterday. All those previous challenges have been solved, enabling the way for solutions in the form of analytics via Hammer and Scorecard-although these are likely the legacy systems, at this point like Pong compared to X-Box or PlayStation (XBOX X generation, PlayStation 7th generation.)
A person hell-bent on mischief by paying or having someone on the inside in the voting tabulation business could accomplish the level of manipulation required to achieve a desired election result with only a handful of people or even one central player with the right access under the right conditions. What would these attributes consist of (skillset, access, conditions?)
Well right up front despite what many think, I don’t need to spend time creating a lot of ballots. If I can get the Secretary of State (SOS) to advocate for doing a mass mailing to everyone on the Central/Consolidated Voter File (CVF)-or better yet, to everyone identified in the previous census, plus everyone who has shown up on state tax paperwork-ever-plus anyone who has registered a vehicle, boat or interacted with the Department of Motor Vehicles over the past several years-that creates the right condition for what we need: names. We need names to produce massive, believable numbers.
The condition we are trying to meet is having sufficient numbers to credibly produce the voting totals we are going to use to ensure a match-on the one hand for the polls in cases where they are favorable-Colorado, Michigan, Pa, etc., or for fodder to make up ground on the other hand where we need to (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, etc.)
In a simple case where “our candidate” is up in the polls by 11%, we need a sufficiently high number of potential voters to produce those numbers given a worst-case scenario where the voters aren’t motivated and don’t listen to the polls: but regardless of how the voting goes there is a central plan.
Plus, we want and need a bit of margin to fight off the audit triggers because we want to avoid scrutiny at all costs-although we are not worried about the audit because we have a “friendly” SOS-a key position that democrat pundits went after in earnest with the SOS Project in the wake of the Bush V Gore election. The project ended in 2010 but found other leftist deep pockets to pick up the scheme/plan and funding (Soros revived the original project.)
We the People and the politicians we support misunderestimated how the left identified Florida’s SOS Harris as the key lynch pin behind the Bush-Gore result, notwithstanding the fact that Gore never led at any time in that process (except for an early and bad projection call.)
Leftists learned the lesson during that election that the relatively unheralded SOS position is a key player in election “bidness” and how essential a malleable SOS is to achieving necessary changes that the legislature might be reticent to entertain. A key element of control over elections strategy is to avoid triggering any audits that would invite scrutiny in a close contest. A bigger margin reinforces the “nothing to see here” mantra.
We also have somewhat of an insurance policy in the form of the cloud analytics: if everything goes bad-the polls, the projections, the turnout-if it all goes against our desired end state, we have a circuit breaker possibility in the form of the tabulation software where we can pause tabulation and counting to reset parameters. This would involve the use of the CVF to invoke the 1% outcome outlier variation that modeling and simulation showed could happen. Somewhat of a tell in this regard is when fractional votes emerge somehow in the process (more on this in Part 4.)
That action (circuit breaker) involves shutting things down, loading new variations, cleaning out the proverbial “sofa cushions” to extract every last possible vote available from the state CVF while keeping turnout believable: or not, if necessary, as this is the “final protective fire” phase of the operation and as Yoda said, “Do or do not do, there is no try.”
We don’t need anybody in a room filling out ballots. In fact, we don’t need ballots at all. And in truth we don’t need or care about voters at all: Biden unthinkingly made this clear on numerous occasions, in this case while speaking to Michigan voters. Biden made this statement after meeting with Michigan leaders, including key democrats like Governor Gretchen Whitmer who was a serious candidate for Vice President, has a rabid DJT hating state AG and a feckless SOS. What could this possibly mean?
This other video is more blatant, with Biden stating:
Now I realize Snopes is to fact checking what Baghdad Bob or CNN are to reporting, but the manner in which they find an out for Biden’s violation of the politician’s creed-making the mistake of saying the “quiet part out loud”-byway of “republicans pounce” and “words taken out of context” and incomplete cherry-picked video, is just precious and a standard tactic, technique and procedure of the lamestream media echo chamber and fact checkers in general: nothing to see here. But isn’t this statement incredible?
In doing so I also want to setup and explain how easy it would be to produce some “fudge” or vote margin by experts administering the voting system from such a capability and how simple it would be to hide such an atrocity from most cursory audits and reviews done by inept government bureaucracies incentivized to do the “SGT Schultz” thing, motivated by partisanship, hamstrung by a lack of technical chops and expertise, focused on outcomes. With ineptitude comes bliss derived from ignorance.
How many people would it take to make this election produce an outcome, regardless of what the votes decided? Well, it would take one voter tabulation machine subject matter expert who knows how the system works and how to produce outcomes from a central node.
In Part 4 I will go into detail about how a central controlling tabulation operator could avail themselves of these resources to produce the outcome desired. While a bit technical and actually quite sophisticated and audacious, the execution would be complex but easy for a skilled operator. But definitely traceable and noticeable from the resulting anomalies in the data for anyone interested in getting to the bottom of it.
OBTW, the picture above announced that SOS Griswold-who “mistakenly” posted voting machine passwords-was not charged nor audited by the legislator: nothing to see here.
Max Dribbler
22 December 2025
Originally published 24 June 2021
LSMBTGA: Lamestream media echo chamber (LMEC-L) social media (SM) big tech tyrants (BT,) government (G) and academia (A)
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: AmericanFreeNewsNetworkSubstack
TruthSocial:@AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA