By Life Site
The Trump Campaign has now filed suit to examine Michigan voting computers
November 12, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – On Nov. 10, Fox Business host Lou Dobbs remarked, “I don’t care what state you’re in, this computer voting system is wide open to fraud and intervention.” The President retweeted Dobbs’ remark a little while later, adding: “True, and wait until you see what’s coming!”
Part of what was coming was quickly revealed, when the Trump campaign filed suit in Michigan asking that the Secretary of State be enjoined from certifying the vote until the software used by the voting computers can be examined to verify its accuracy.
Now it should be obvious to everyone who has ever used a computer that Lou Dobbs is right. It wouldn’t take a programming genius to write a script that would instruct a voting computer to flip votes from one candidate to another.
Proving that this has happened is another matter though since—you will be surprised to learn--most voting computers don’t save a scan of the actual ballot. Instead, they simply read the ballot and tabulate the number of votes. This means that unless you can actually examine the actual computer and its operating software—something that the manufacturers and operators of such equipment fiercely resist, citing security concerns--you can’t easily prove fraud.
But there are tells that suggest that someone is manipulating the vote. Such sleuthing usually involves looking for unusual patterns in the resulting data. And Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, looking at voting tabulations from the state of Michigan, has found one that stands out.
Dr. Ayyadurai, I should note, is a person of significant accomplishments. He holds four degrees from MIT and is a world-renowned systems scientist, inventor, and entrepreneur.
He and his team set out to look at the precinct-level voting data from the recent election reported by the four most populous counties in Michigan: Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties in the Detroit metropolitan area, and Kent county where Grand Rapids is located.
Now everyone knows that America’s inner cities are deep blue Democrat, shading gradually through the suburbs to the deep-red Republican of the countryside. So Dr. Ayyadurai’s team expected to find, as the percentage of Republican voters increased, that the President’s vote totals would keep pace. (There would be some exceptions, of course, for precincts home to colleges and prisons, but by and large this is what you would expect.)
But when they plotted the precinct data that’s not what they found. Instead, they found that the redder the precinct, the more President Trump underperformed. That is to say, the higher the percentage of Republicans, the worse the president did in relative terms.
The graphs for three counties—Macomb, Oakland and Kent—are remarkably consistent. (You can view them on Dr. Ayyadurai’s YouTube presentation here.)
What they show is that, in precincts where Republicans are 20 percent or less, the vote for President Trump kept pace. But as soon as Republicans numbers more than 20 percent, he strangely starts losing votes. And the more Republican the precinct, the more votes he loses.
This doesn’t make sense. We all know how strong President Trump’s support is among Republicans.
And then there is this: In all three counties, the president’s vote reduction falls in a straight line with almost the same slope. Such data patterns do not occur by random chance.
It suggests to me that, in the bowels of the voting machine, some little algorithm is working away, calculating the percentage of the vote that Trump is receiving, and then switching votes to Biden when he begins to pull away.
This is exactly what the good doctor concludes: “Right at 20% [President Trump’s] vote gets linearly reduced. … as if an algorithm kicked in and votes were getting cut from Trump.”
So how many votes did Trump lose in these three counties alone? Dr. Shiva suggests that the number is at least 69,000, and maybe more. There are dozens of other counties in Michigan where this could have happened as well. Bear in mind that, as of this writing, the President is only “losing” Michigan by 156,000.
Now you understand when the Trump legal team is trying to get their hands on the actual computers so that they and their software can be examined. Finding an actual algorithm that docked votes from Trump while adding them to Biden would constitute proof positive that computer ballot fraud had occurred.
One final note: If evidence of vote-switching can be found in the form of an algorithm, Americans will want to know who is responsible for engaging in this election heist.
Old-style ballot stuffing of the kind that may have occurred in downtown Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia can be pinned on local pols. But who is going to take the fall if it turns out that computerized voting systems have been rigged all across the country to favor Dems? Just a guess, but I think this could go all the way to the top.
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order.