New Data from SmartElections, Bullet Ballot Inconsistency and Letters from Cyber Security Experts suggest the 2024 Election was Rigged for Trump. FULL details on this page

“Russian Tail” In 2024 Voting Data Reveals Election Hack

Analysis of the ballot-level data from Clark County, Nevada, shows vote anomalies resembling the “Russian Tail Hack” theory, a method of algorithmic vote manipulation.

• Vote Pattern Anomalies: Analysis of early voting data shows an irregular shift in vote tallies processed by high-volume tabulators. Specifically, these machines displayed an increased share of votes for Donald Trump and a reduction in votes for Kamala Harris.
• Tabulator Correlation: The discrepancies were most pronounced in tabulators that processed larger batches of ballots, with results skewing closer to 60%+ for Trump and 40%- for Harris as the volume of ballots increased.

These anomalies mirror what election security experts have referred to as a “Russian Tail Hack”. What is the “Russian Tail Hack”? This theory suggests foreign actors use algorithms to subtly alter vote totals in key areas, maintaining overall statistical plausibility while targeting high-impact precincts.

Drop-off vote data provided by SmartElections and Stephen Spoonamore. The margin for Trump’s victory in the swing states is less then the amount of votes potentially flipped from Harris to Trump. Data shows red flags in the election data, and demonstrate that Harris actually won the election if there was a vote flipping hack. 12-25-2024

Bullet Ballot Inconsistency In The 2024 Election

Jessica Denson discuses why swing state recounts should be conducted

Per the above article: An effort to access voting system software in several states and provide it to allies of former President Donald Trump as they sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election has raised “serious threats” ahead of next year’s presidential contest, according to a group of experts who urged federal agencies to investigate.

The letter sent by nearly two dozen computer scientists, election security experts and voter advocacy organizations asks for a federal probe and a risk assessment of voting machines used throughout the country, saying the software breaches have “urgent implications for the 2024 election and beyond.” The breaches affected voting equipment made by two companies that together count over 70% of the votes cast across the country, according to the letter.

“The multistate effort to unlawfully obtain copies of voting system software poses serious threats to election security and national security and constitutes a potential criminal conspiracy of enormous consequences,” the group wrote in a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, special counsel Jack Smith, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Jen Easterly, director of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. “We must protect our most sacred tenet of democracy — the security of our vote.”

The full extent of who received the bomb threats is not clear. None are believed to have been deemed credible. NBC News compiled a list of 67 locations in 19 counties, based on local news reports and state and local election officials’ statements, all of which appear to have received similar threats. Of the 67 locations, 56 were in 11 counties that voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 election, including the eight most populated. Those high-population Democratic counties include voting locations for Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Detroit, Michigan; Phoenix, Arizona; Atlanta, Georgia; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Maricopa County, Arizona, which Biden won by a slim margin, has consistently been the subject of election denialism conspiracy theories. The other five — Michigan’s Wayne County, Pennsylvania’s Philadelphia County and Georgia’s DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties — were some of the largest Democratic strongholds in their respective states.

Computer Scientists: Breaches of Voting System Software Warrant Recounts to Ensure Election Verification – Free Speech For People

A group of computer security experts have written to Vice President Kamala Harris to alert her to the fact that voting systems were breached by Trump allies in 2021 and 2022 and to urge her to seek recounts in key states to ensure election verification.

Per the above article:  “A group of computer security experts have written to Vice President Kamala Harris to alert her to the fact that voting systems were breached by Trump allies in 2021 and 2022 and to urge her to seek recounts in key states to ensure election verification. Vice President Harris argues that this extraordinary and unprecedented breach in election system security merits conducting recounts of paper ballots in order to confirm computer-generated tallies. The letter also highlights the fact that the post-election audits in many key states will be conducted after certification and after the window to seek recounts closes, and that therefore recounts should be sought promptly.

The letter states: “Possessing copies of the voting system software enables bad actors to install it on electronic devices and to create their own working replicas of the voting systems, probe them, and develop exploits. Skilled adversaries can decompile the software to get a version of the source code, study it for vulnerabilities, and could even develop malware designed to be installed with minimal physical access to the voting equipment by unskilled accomplices to manipulate the vote counts. Attacks could also be launched by compromising the vendors responsible for programming systems before elections, enabling large-scale distribution of malware.”

“In December 2022 and again in 2023, many of us, concerned by the security risks posed by these breaches, wrote to the Attorney General, FBI Director, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director outlining the security concerns and urging an investigation. Though there have been limited, localized investigations, there is no evidence of a federal investigation to determine what was done with the misappropriated voting software.”

The letter is signed by Professor Duncan Buell, Ph.D., Chair Emeritus — NCR Chair in Computer Science and Engineering, Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Carolina*; David Jefferson Ph.D., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory* (retired), Election Integrity Foundation*; Susan Greenhalgh, Senior Advisor for Election Security, Free Speech For People; Chris Klaus, Chief Executive Officer, Fusen World*; William John Malik, Malik Consulting, LLC*; Peter G. Neumann Ph.D., Chief Scientist, SRI International Computer Science Lab*; and Professor John E. Savage, Ph.D, An Wang Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, Brown University*.

As motivated as Americans were about this being ‘the most important election in the history of the United States, with reports of ‘Record new Voter Registrations’, including 337,000 attributed to Taylor Swift, stadiums full of supporters at rallies never seen by Joe Biden, Republican voters crossing party lines to vote for Harris, a record number of women voting for Abortion Rights, concerns of Republicans cutting Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security, concerns about Project 2025, it defies logic that more people voted for Trump than Harris.

The ‘official’ vote count showing less people voted in 2024 than 2020 should sound Alarms

Trump saying he was going to be a ‘Dictator on day one’, warnings from military leaders and previous staff that re-electing Trump poses a significant danger & could be the “End of Democracy as we have known it”, saying he was going to lock up opponents who criticized him, saying news outlets which criticized him should be shut down, saying people who criticized the Supreme Court should be jailed, a pathological liar who fact checkers claim made over 30,000 false statements while president, his inciting an insurrection which caused 5 deaths and injuries of countless Capitol Police; it’s beyond belief that a majority of Americans actually voted for Trump, including all 7 Swing States.

To believe that Trump legitimately won the 2024 election, you have to believe women doesn’t care about reproductive rights, the majority of Americans are stupid, unformed, aren’t aware of and/or don’t care about his pathological lying and his vile, vindictive, outrageous behavior.

Trump, Musk and Putin had motives to insure Trump is installed as President. Trump was desperate to be ‘elected’ President to stay out of prison. Vladimir Putin, with his resources of some of the most nefarious computer hackers in the world wanted Trump to be President because he knows Trump will do anything he wants, including stopping aid to Ukraine, so Putin can win the war and achieve his goal of illegally annexing the entire country of Ukraine. Elon Musk has many reasons to want Trump to president, which include financial and legal. Per the above article; “A Wall Street Journal report claims Musk has been in contact with Putin since 2022, discussing personal and geopolitical matters”. According to news reports, Trump and Musk have had numerous contacts with Putin.

Rachel Maddow points out in this video how Trump kept saying “I don’t need your votes…. get out and vote just this time…. you won’t have to do it anymore… we’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going have to vote anymore.”

After Trump supposedly “won” the 2024 election, she never mentioned a word about her previous concerns which makes one wonder if there’s a ‘NEWS BLACKOUT’ in which everyone in the media is being told to not question the outcome of the 2024 election.

Cyber Security Expert Stephen Spoonamore’s Letter to Kamala Harris about the 2024 Election

November 15, 2024

Honorable VP Kamala Harris
The White House
Office of the Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 20500

Dear Madam Vice President.

This is my second Duty to Warn Letter regarding hacking of the 2024 Presidential Election. The first letter on November 7 was directed to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Officials. Both warnings are made per DNI Clapper’s 2015 directive to all agencies and contractors associated with intelligence and financial agency technologies to warn of suspicions of hacking.

Professionally I have worked as the CEO or CTO at seven high technology firms including two which specialized in hacking and counter-hacking operations. My clients have included numerous governments DoD, DHS, Dept. of State, F100 Financials and F500 Industrials.

I am a lifelong Republican who has long placed service and participatory democracy over party. In government, I have twice been invited to SoCom to give lectures on electronic warfare and techniques to find terrorist money laundering and gave a keynote speech of the National Counterintel Summit on this same topic. I served as an after-action reviewer of communications and data failures on 9/11 under the direction of Jim Woolsey and FDNY Commissioner Scopetta, and later co-wrote multiple hacking risk analysis of Smart Grid technologies for the Obama administration.

You should reverse your concession, call for both a full investigation of criminal activity and demand hand recounts in all seven swing states.

In my professional view there are multiple and extremely clear indications the Presidential vote was willfully compromised.

I wholly agree with the public letter of Duncan Buell, et. al. of Nov. 13th stating they believe there is a possibility of hacking and calling for hand-recounts.

This letter’s clear call to action is commendable, but its cautious tone may belie the severity of what I believe has happened. In my view it is a near certainty the results have been changed at a scale which reversed the US Presidential Election. They imply there is a chance a hand-recount will show you won more votes. I am stating a hand recount will most likely show you did win. Both letters call on you to act.

In my view, a capable and skilled series of exploits, electronic tools and hacks were used to change the Presidential vote in all seven swing states. These activities have reversed the outcomes in at least Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. I will lay out the basics of the attack, starting with unusual elements within the results. I will then outline two processes which could have been followed to insert these false results into the system. Finally I will outline how I would recommend investigating.

Unusual elements within the results.

The results of the attack are improbable in the extreme and well tailored to the sole benefit of your opponent.

Approximately 600,000 votes are for Donald Trump but with no down ballot choices. These are either inserted “bullet ballots” for the Presidential race or manipulated data fields. They are surgically added to totals in limited jurisdictions and within only the seven swing States. This historically unprecedented set of numbers found in the 2024 swing states is absent in every other state. In AZ, MI, NC and WI the effect of these drop-off votes reverses the voters’ will and even more improbably always pushes the winning margin beyond the mandatory recount numbers.

It is a result too perfect for belief. It is a bespoke and programmed outcome. In other states including PA and NV, removing these strange and bespoke added votes, it appears Donald Trump may have won the cast votes but within a margin which would force recounts. The inserted votes raise his totals, to avoid any scrutiny during mandatory recount results which would have slowed his claim on the Presidency. In GA and FL the same pattern exists with unclear impact on the results.

This attack is not technically difficult. It is modest in scale. It would require:

Modest and common computer programming skills.

Access to 10-100 tabulators or to the handful of facilities programming them in advance.

A credible database of voter IDs of non-voters around which to create false ballots.

Perhaps as few as 1, but more likely 3-5 human program managers.

Access to eBollBook Data during the election to determine who had not voted.

(Possibly) Human access to some tabulators during counting.

If I was asked to lead this hack, I would expect to have a core team of 6-10 people, and operating costs under $10M with a timeline of 3-12 months.

The tell: A historically absurd number of Trump-only bullet ballots or undervote ballots.

There are always a handful of voters who cast a vote in one race which they care about, and do not make other selections on the ballot. These are called bullet ballots. In Presidential Races since 1980, these bullet ballots rarely account for more than 1% of the total votes including in Mr. Trump’s winning 2016 election and losing 2020 election, and when they do it warrants further investigation. In 2024 in the 43 non-swing states, bullet ballots make up a nominal >1%. In the seven swing states the numbers are so high to be unbelievable, unprecedented and demanding of further investigation. Here is analysis from totals as of late Nov. 12th

Here are the unprecedented results of drop-offs in the two western swing states:

AZ – 123K+ 7.2%+ of Trump’s total vote. Enough to reverse the outcome.
NV – 43K+ 5.5%+ of Trump’s total vote. Enough to exceed recount threshold.

It is my belief these two states have illegally added votes.

For comparison, examine Trump’s 2024 results in three states which border AZ and NV. They have equally passionate Trump supporters, but have the normal levels of drop off or bullet ballots.

ID <2K 0.03% of Trump’s total.
OR <4K 0.05% of Trump’s total
UT <1K 0.01% of Trump’s total.

In the case of Idaho and Utah, Mr. Trump was a run-away winner and had no need to add votes. In the case of Oregon, Ms. Harris was a run-away winner and adding votes to Trump’s total would add risk without adding value.

The same pattern of large numbers of drop-off votes or bullet ballots exists in the totals of MI, NC, PA, WI.

North Carolina is the most extreme. The public results indicate over 350K voters cast a ballot for Trump and no other race making up over 11% of Trump’s voters in NC drop off votes or bullet ballots.

Hack Part 1: Creating the pool of bullet ballot voters.

There are two possible methods to execute this attack. The simple version would only manipulate electronic totals and hand-counting the target precincts would discover this. The second involved ePollbook hacking and introducing bullet ballots. This would add the need to compare the ePollBook timestamps to find possible bad actors or other sources for these anomalous votes.

When Mr. Musk announced his $1M lottery for people to go online and sign a pledge to vote for Trump, I became personally suspicious of why such a promotion would be done. I signed up to see what information he wanted and what the pledge actually stated. He did not want to know people’s socials or send them texts. To sign up you had to provide your street address. That was all they cared about. Once they had the people’s names, and street address this would allow for building a pool of ghost voters who could logically be marked for fake ballots, structured in a manner which matched ePollBook and precinct data. You, as a member of law enforcement, understand criminals need certain pre-conditions to act. A database of pledged supporters with street addresses is required for this hack. Law enforcement should immediately find the team of programmers who pulled the lottery data capture. They will find those programmers immediately parsed the data into a system based on voting precincts and created macros to constantly update the pledged lists of who had cast a vote, and who had not. The programmers likely did not know they were working on a system to be used to steal the election. When confronted with that fact, law enforcement would likely gain cooperating witnesses.

Musk’s team used this system to build a list of voters pledged to vote for Trump. This list could also be used to make a ghost-ballot voter list. ePollBook data is nearly always linked to the internet, and in many jurisdictions this link was being made in real time via Mr. Musk’s Starlink or any available wireless network. Throughout the day, Musk’s team could compare existing turnout models to likely outcomes, based on well established voter profile databases vs. the actual voter turnout coming in from the ePollBooks. They would have been able to have a very good estimation in the closing hours of polls how many votes short Trump would likely be at the tabulation level. They would also have exact lists of the pledged voters for Trump and would know who had not shown up. The pledged voters who did not vote, became the bullet ballots. With any network connection to the ePollBooks, or via other compromised connectivity, they could be marked as voted.

Hack Part 2: Matching the tabulation to the ePollBooks.

The exact number of added voters to the ePollBooks as having voted would have to match the tabulation process. This attack could have been done in at least two different ways.

The easiest method to execute phase two, is also the easiest to discover by hand-recount. In a few jurisdictions where the tabulators either had network connectivity, approved or otherwise, or where a person on the team had physical access to the tabulation machine, the Trump votes that were added to the ePollBooks, would need to be added to the tabulators. At which point the ePollBooks and the tabulation totals would match, having been digitally stuffed with demographically credible voters for Trump. But there will be no paper ballot for these votes. A hand-recount will quickly discover the fraud.

As I write this letter, several hundred people are self organizing on Reddit and other forums. They include: data scientists, statisticians, and legal experts. They are examining the precinct level data of every swing state, and by Monday these teams will have lists of many precincts where these historically unprecedented Trump bullet ballots occur. The highest likelihood is that those ballots don’t actually exist. Those votes were electronically created but have no paper. This would be easily proven with a hand recount.

A second possibility involves the same compromise as described above, but is then combined with human ballot stuffing, or ballot substitution, at tabulation to match the epollbook numbers. This possibility is raised as it appears these historically unprecedented bullet ballots fall heavily in a few counties. Maricopa County AZ, seems to be the source of the vast majority, perhaps nearly all, of the AZ bullet ballot voters for Trump. If these ballots were introduced it would require co-conspirators working inside the tabulation center.

I appreciate that many people, even sophisticated people outside this field, think this hack is an impossible task. It is not. Just 8 weeks ago the world watched a vastly larger and more complicated one. Unknown hackers intercepted over 3000 communications devices over 24 months destined for use by Hamas across the entire Mideast. The devices all had additional software, hardware and explosives inserted. The devices were then delivered to users and functioned normally for months until the hackers triggered the inserted series of exploits and explosions.

This hack, the entire world witnessed, was orders of magnitude more complicated than introducing Trump bullet ballots into – at most – 100 tabulation locations. I have personally managed full year long operations in which hundreds of credit card point of sale devices were rebuilt with added hardware and software and inserted in order to discover fraudsters and money laundering. No one knew we were there. The users never were aware. The devices did their normal job processing credit cards for merchants. While they also did a hacked job and helped my team and I root out criminals. The access, technical difficulty, and scale of the election hack I am describing is less than either of these. But the effect is vastly greater, and the FBI has excellent people who could address this very quickly.

Lastly, this hack methodology may or may not have some correlation with the series of Bomb Threats called in by Russian affiliated assets. The use of distraction or diversion of this kind is common. My first thought was, and my thinking remains, these bomb threats were called into tabulation centers and precincts where the hackers had already planned to conduct ghost bullet ballot introductions. I believe they wanted a disruption in the chain of custody, so lawyers could claim after the hacking events that the chain of custody on the ballots was flawed. The creation of the false-argument of a broken custody chain would be used as a pretext to prevent hand recounting, as hand recounting would not match the Trump favorable result. However, by a reverse of that logic, any jurisdiction which was subject to a bomb threat was forced to break standard operating procedure. This alone should be grounds for you to ask for a hand-recount.

Lastly, I have been advised by an attorney that Arizona and Georgia have mechanisms in place for members of the public to demand a recount, but only you have the ability to demand a recount across all the jurisdictions of concern.

A final formal note. This is principally a Duty to Warn letter. It is also a fulfillment of my constitutional oath of office as possibly the lowest level sworn office of public trust in America. I was appointed by my township to serve as a local Parks Commissioner. I am the public appointee to the Mt. Nittany Conservancy, a nature reserve. I have spent the last four years variously overseeing how public funds are spent on sports fields, kids playgrounds, hiking trails, and bike paths. To do this, I must make annual conflict and financial disclosures and I must swear nearly the same oath you did. I am under the sworn obligation to defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which, I am honored to do.

I will continue to investigate with a growing group of volunteers. We are also planning to offer rewards for information. But our efforts to preserve the integrity of this election can not take this to completion. You, and only you, can call for a full hand-recount and engage the vast public resources at your disposal. I can’t. This is all I can do.

Let me know how I can help.

Sincerely,

ESignature – Stephen R. Spoonamore

College Township PA

Former CEO or CTO of multiple Technology Firms

https://www.linkedin.com/in/spoonamore/

CC: Secretary. of States and Governors of AZ, FL, GA, MI, NC, NV, PA and WI. Additional PA representative Chris Dush (PA State Sen.), Paul Takac (PA State Rep.), Dustin Best (PA College Township Supervisor), and Robert Ziegler (PA Milhiem Township Supervisor.)

COPY OF LETTER TO PA GOVERNOR JOSH SHAPIRO FROM CYBER SECURITY EXPERT STEPHEN SPOOMAMORE ABOUT THE 2024 ELECTION

TEXT OF LETTER SENT TO VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS BY COMPUTER SCIENTISTS

November 13, 2024

The Honorable Kamala Harris
The White House Office of the Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Vice President Harris,

We write to alert you to serious election security breaches that have threatened the security and integrity of the 2024 elections, and to identify ways to ensure that the will of the voters is reflected and that voters should have confidence in the result. The most effective manner of doing so is through targeted recounts requested by the candidate. In the light of the breaches we ask that you formally request hand recounts in at least the states of Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. We have no evidence that the outcomes of the elections in those states were actually compromised as a result of the security breaches, and we are not suggesting that they were. But binding risk-limiting audits (RLAs) or hand recounts should be routine for all elections, especially when the stakes are high and the results are close. We believe that, under the current circumstances when massive software breaches are known and documented, recounts are necessary and appropriate to remove all potential doubt and to set an example for security best practices in all elections.

In 2022, records, video camera footage, and deposition testimony produced in a civil case in Georgia1 disclosed that its voting system, used statewide, had been breached over multiple days by operatives hired by attorneys for Donald Trump. The evidence showed that the operatives made copies of the software that runs all of the equipment in Georgia, and certain other states, and shared it with other Trump allies and operatives.

Subsequent court filings and public records requests revealed that the breaches in Georgia were part of a larger effort to take copies of voting system software from systems in Michigan,5 Pennsylvania,6 Colorado7 and Arizona,8 and to share the software in the operatives’ network. According to testimony and declarations by some of the technicians who have obtained copies of the software, they have had access for more than three years to the software for the central servers, tabulators, and highly restricted election databases of both Election Systems & Software (ES&S), and Dominion Voting Systems, the two largest voting system vendors, constituting the most severe election security breach publicly known.

Combined, their equipment counts nearly 70% of all votes nationwide. Ninety-six percent of Arizona voters use Dominion and ES&S equipment; 100% of Georgia voters vote on Dominion machines; 98% of Nevada votes on Dominion voting machines and the remainder uses ES&S; 69% of Michigan voters’ ballots are counted on Dominion or ES&S equipment; 89% of Pennsylvania voters ballots are counted on Dominion or ES&S equipment; ES&S counts 92% of North Carolina ballots; and either ES&S or Dominion counts 97% of Wisconsin votes.

Possessing copies of the voting system software enables bad actors to install it on electronic devices and to create their own working replicas of the voting systems, probe them, and develop exploits. Skilled adversaries can decompile the software to get a version of the source code, study it for vulnerabilities, and could even develop malware designed to be installed with minimal physical access to the voting equipment by unskilled accomplices to manipulate the vote counts. Attacks could also be launched by compromising the vendors responsible for programming systems before elections, enabling large scale distribution of malware.

In December 202212 and again in 2023,13 many of us, concerned by the security risks posed by these breaches, wrote to the Attorney General, FBI Director, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director outlining the security concerns and urging an investigation. Though there have been limited, localized investigations,14 there is no evidence of a federal investigation15 to determine what was done with the misappropriated voting software.

Other relevant parties have pointed to the serious risks posed by the misappropriation of the voting software. Before it was known that partisan operatives had taken the software, Dominion Voting Systems objected vehemently to providing its software to the same partisan actors who ultimately got copies through voting system breaches, stating that to give its software to biased actors would cause “irreparable damage” to the “election security interests of the country.”

Before the breaches in Georgia had been confirmed, the Georgia Secretary of State’s chief information officer testified that having copies of the software would provide a “road map” to the ways the system could be accessed. The Georgia Attorney General opposed providing copies of the software to lawyers for the Trump campaign in a late 2020 election challenge, arguing that images of the voting system software would provide “the keys to the software kingdom.”

Notably, U.S. elections are potentially resilient because there are paper ballots recording the voters’ intent in most states, meaning that even if the voting system is at risk, the will of the voters can be determined reliably by recounting the paper ballots by hand (although we are aware that not all paper ballots are verified by the voter, and not all states take adequate care to protect the ballot chain of custody.)

Audits will be conducted in some of the most scrutinized states, but in key states they will not be conducted in a timely way that could reveal any concerns with the vote count. In addition, in most states the audits are insufficiently rigorous to ensure any potential errors in tabulation will be caught and corrected, and they cannot be considered a safeguard against the security breaches that have occurred. Specifically, Georgia’s audits are non-binding, and Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin laws do not provide that the audit be conducted before certification. Therefore, it would be impossible to know for these critical states if the audits uncovered errors or miscalculations before the state deadlines to seek recounts.

Among swing states, only Arizona’s audit laws ensure that, if enough discrepancies are identified, the audit hand count will be expanded to correct a potentially incorrect result. In other words, aside from Arizona, in contested states, there is no legal mechanism for the audit to correct the outcome, no matter how much error the audit uncovers. Given these facts, the only guarantee for rigorous, effective audits of the vote in the swing states will be through candidate-requested statewide hand recounts.

The facts around the voting system breaches are not disputed; it is well-documented that there were severe, multiple voting security breaches before the 2024 election. To ensure that voters can have confidence that the breaches in security did not taint the results of the 2024 election, we recommend pursuing hand recounts in, at minimum, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania as they will provide insufficient safeguards against threats posed by the breaches of the election software and will not provide important information in a timely way.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Duncan Buell Ph.D.
Chair Emeritus — NCR Chair in Computer Science and Engineering
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
University of South Carolina*

David Jefferson Ph.D.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory* (retired)
Election Integrity Foundation*

Chris Klaus
Founder
Internet Security System*

Susan Greenhalgh
Senior Advisor for Election Security
Free Speech For People

William John Malik
Malik Consulting, LLC*

Marilyn Marks
Executive Director
Coalition for Good Governance

Peter G. Neumann Ph.D.
Chief Scientist,
SRI International Computer Science Lab*

John E. Savage
An Wang Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
Brown University*

https://www.youtube.com/live/VrFb-rLVF10

Jessica Denson speaks with Duncan Buell PhD, Chair Emeritus of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of South Carolina, who penned a letter with other top election security experts to the White House alerting VP Harris that she should request recounts in swing states.

New York, New York – As electors in each state are voting for President and Vice President today, SMART Elections, a nonpartisan organization focused on security and public oversight of U.S. elections, is releasing a comprehensive analysis of the 2024 Presidential election phenomenon commonly referred to as “drop-off”. The detailed study includes six swing and eleven non-swing states and confirms what has been widely discussed on social media, Substacks, Reddit forums and among political advocates on both the left and right: in six of the seven swing states, and in all but four of the non-swing states they examined, there are considerably more votes for the Republican presidential candidate than for the next down-ballot race. The study calls this pattern “drop-off” and tracks the percentage of the drop-off and the number of votes involved, county by county, in all 17 states. The analysis for each state is available at SMARTelections.us

Drop-off: Democratic vs. Republican

By contrast, there is no large drop-off between the Democratic presidential candidate and the next down-ballot race. On the SMART Elections Substack, they post, “Instead, on the Democratic side, we find an opposite phenomenon. There are a large number of votes for the Democratic Senate candidate (or major down-ballot race) where there is no vote for the Democratic presidential candidate (Harris).”Drop-off Leaves Democrats and Republicans Both Asking QuestionsIn a press conference on December 11th, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called attention to the strange drop-off phenomenon. He opened the press conference by saying, “The elections are over and the American people have spoken. Former President Trump will be the next President of the United States of America.” However, Jeffries ended his press conference on a different note, pointing out the odd contrast that in five of the seven swing states where election results show Donald Trump as the victor, the Senate races and sometimes the majority of
down-ballot races were swept by Democrats. “What happened in the other five?” he demanded. (24:24) “In North Carolina,” he continued, “notwithstanding the fact that Donald Trump won at the presidential level, Democrats won the Governor’s race, the Lieutenant Governor’s race, the Attorney General race, the Secretary of State race, and the State Supreme Court, in North Carolina, on that very same day that Donald Trump won the presidential election.”

Republicans have also taken note of the drop-off figures, wondering conversely why the large Republican vote for president is somehow not reflected in their Senate and other down-ballot races.
Number of Votes Involved is Larger Than Margin of Victory

The number of votes contained in these drop-off margins are startling. In five of the six swing states that are included in the analysis, the margin of drop-off votes is greater than the margin of victory.

● Arizona
○ Drop-off margin = 267,956
○ Margin of victory = 187,382
○ Drop-off is 80,574 votes more than the margin of victory
● Michigan
○ Drop-off margin = 99,109
○ Margin of victory = 80,103
○ Drop-off is 19,006 votes more than the margin of victory
● Nevada
○ Drop-off margin = 70,067
○ Margin of victory = 46,008
○ Drop-off is 24,059 votes more than the margin of victory
● North Carolina
○ Drop-off margin = 341,949
○ Margin of victory = 183,047
○ Drop-off is 158,902 votes more than the margin of victory
● Wisconsin
○ Drop-off margin = 58,178
○ Margin of victory = 29,397
○ Drop-off is 28,781 votes more than the margin of victory

Methodology of the Study

In order to accomplish the analysis, SMART Elections assembled a team of data scientists to gather and analyze 2024 election results. The team meticulously extracted and cross-checked election data. Each analysis was done independently by two separate data analysts. The results were then compared and confirmed to
be identical before publishing. In most states the analysis compares presidential votes to Senate votes in the same party. When there is no Senate race, the Attorney General or Governor’s race was used in the comparison instead.

Different Demographics, Similar Drop-off

The most unusual aspect of the drop-off is its consistency. Statistical oddities are usually explained by specific demographic realities. Certain populations with their idiosyncratic voting behavior patterns create specific data sets that can be unique. However, with regard to the drop-off numbers, states with vastly different demographics are exhibiting the same patterns. Arizona and North Carolina would seem to be quite removed from each other demographically. However, Harris has 6% fewer votes than the next down-ballot race in both states.

Causes of the Drop-off Remain a Mystery

What specifically is causing the drop-off is unclear. Possible explanations include:

● Democratic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supporters may have supported Trump in the presidential race due to Kennedy’s endorsement, but voted with the Democratic Party on down-ballot races.

● Pro-Palestinian voters, especially young voters, may have chosen not to vote for president, or split their ticket.

● Split-ticket voters may have chosen to cast a ballot for Trump while voting for down-ballot Democratic candidates

.● New Republican voters were possibly excited for Trump and not other candidates.

● Racial and gender bias against Vice President Harris may have contributed to her low numbers.

● All of these may have been factors in the election results. Some Explanations Don’t Add UpThe numbers for some of these explanations do not pan out. For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s poll numbers in Nevada, according to FiveThirtyEight, had fallen to 5% by late August when he dropped out and endorsed Trump. The SMART Elections Data Team has calculated the drop-off by political party, but it can easily be calculated for all voters as well. The Republican drop-off was approximately 5% of all presidential voters (1,484,840 votes) in Nevada. Kennedy withdrew from the ballot in Nevada and threw his support to Trump in late August. In theory, the 5% of Nevada drop-off (calculated from the number above of all presidential voters) could be a result of Kennedy voters supporting Trump and then voting Democratic in the down-ballot races. But it is highly
implausible that Trump received 100% of Kennedy’s 5% support and that 100% of those voters then voted for a split ticket.

By comparison, a study by Yale, Harvard, Columbia and MIT scholars found split-ticket voting by Democrats in 2020 was 1%. Furthermore, there was not a single state where Kennedy actually received 5% of the vote. In states where he remained on the ballot, he generally received less than 1% of the vote. Nationally he received 0.5%.

The number of young people voting in 2024 is also insufficient to solely account for the drop-off. Exit poll data from the National Election Pool found that voters ages 18 to 29 made up just 14% of all ballots in the 2024 election. According to the same exit polls, Trump had 46% support among those young voters. So Trump’s 46% of the 14% of young voters equals a 6.4% conservative voting block nationwide. Using Nevada again as an example, in this case, we’ll compare the percentage of these young conservative Trump voters to the 9.87% Republican drop-off in Nevada. Clearly, a 6.4% voting block cannot create a 9.87% drop-off effect. If Harris’ negative support in some states is due to young people, angered by her position on Gaza, not voting for president; then why in Michigan, with its high Muslim population and active don’t vote for president campaign, is her drop-off still positive—even normal— (0.87%)? But in Montana, a state with a much smaller pro-Gaza movement (100 – 150 protestors at this rally), Harris’ drop-off rate is negative -19%. Possibly, some combination of the various explanations have combined to create these drop-off numbers, but the consistency of the drop-off across a vast array of demographic landscapes remains surprising.

Error or Manipulation Cannot Be Ruled Out

The possibility that the drop-off is connected to some type of error or manipulation cannot be ruled out. There is no concrete evidence of foul play, and Vice President Harris chose not to request recounts, but public confidence would benefit from further scrutiny of the election results. SMART Elections recommends that all states conduct a transparent, public review of voting machine source code, audit logs, ballots, voter sign-in files, and election records, such as poll tapes, to generate confidence in the election results. This type of robust investigation would go a long way to reassure voters, especially if the process was open and inclusive. Co-founder and Executive Director Lulu Friesdat says, “Voters don’t want to wonder if their votes are counted correctly. They want to know.”

There are a number of well-established vulnerabilities to the U.S. voting machines in this election.

● The hard-wired password to Dominion’s voting machines was well known and even published on t-shirts. Dominion is one of the two major U.S. voting machine vendors.
○ The Dominion password and alleged exploits were advertised prominently on an internet forum. ○ On November 18th, @RedBear331 with the handle “Hacking Democracy” makes multiple claims of accessing voting machine totals:

■ “What did we do? Added, switched, & deleted votes with SQL. No logs. No trails. Democracy? More like democracy, unplugged.”

■ “ SQL Democracy – Mission Accomplished Democracy Suite EMS relies on duct tape & a backdoor password: “dvscorp08!” .This hardcoded “security” + SQL commands = Trump’s victory. We started in AZ, GA, PA… but didn’t stop there.Your democracy is a house of cards. ”

■ “SQL database from a local EMS system (now Patriot County). Hardcoded backdoor password: “dvscorp08!”, still live in systems across the country. Default Super Admin account Detailed exploit guide to replicate our methods. Screenshots of tampered registries”

● A 2023 letter from top election security experts warned the Department of Justice that the majority of voting software used in the U.S. had been stolen and released on the internet. “The conspirators sought and obtained copies of voting system software from both Dominion Voting Systems and Election Systems & Software (ES&S), which together count over 70% of U.S. votes.” The experts convey urgency, even a sense of panic, saying, “democracy is literally on the ballot.” The letter was covered by PBS.
● A more recent 2024 letter also to the Department of Justice by security advocates requests that “the Department of Justice (DOJ) initiate an investigation into the 2024 presidential election in light of reports of bomb threats, voter intimidation, voting system theft, documented “back doors”
in that equipment that can be used to maliciously alter the results, and related concerns.”

Citing a Public Affairs Council study, Friesdat says, “Prior to the 2024 election, only 37% of Americans told researchers they believed the election would be both honest and open. The percentage of voters with complete confidence is likely even less now.”

Stephen Spoonamore, the data scientist behind a viral “duty to warn” has uncovered results from an analysis of the 2024 election, specifically an inconsistency in bullet ballots

Republicans have a history of voter suppression, voter purges, Gerrymandering and other unscrupulous tactics to ‘win’ elections. Also, many voting machines and software is made by Republican owners.

In 2004, Computer Programmer Clint Curtis testified to congress how he was paid by a Florida Republican Speaker of the House to develop software which could rig & flip elections, proving election rigging has been of interest to Republicans for a long time.

VP Harris ignored letters dated 11/13/2024 & 11/15/2024 urging her to recount the votes in Swing States.

Kamala Harris kept saying during the 2024 election ‘When we Fight, We Win’. She is now proving those words to be a empty campaign slogan and has proved she is a COWARD by failing to demand recounts in Swing States.

According to the above article, Harris retreated to a 7 million dollar estate in Hawaii @ $1,300 per night instead of ‘Fighting’ to save our country by ordering recounts as recommended by Computer Security Experts.

If recounts by independent organizations show the 2024 election was hacked & stolen, and Trump is found to be an illegitimate President Elect, VP Harris, Democrats and the Media will be as culpable as Republicans for helping to put Trump in the White House.

POSTS LIKE THESE ARE ALL OVER SOCIAL MEDIA

In 4 years, elections in the U.S. could be like Orban’s Hungary and Putin’s Russia… merely ‘window dressing’ where elections will be rigged for Republicans, who have been subverting Democracy for years by Gerrymandering, Voter Purges and other unscrupulous tactics.