top of page

A WHITE PAPER on Presidential Election in Virginia -Quantitative Evidence of Fraud

Updated: Jul 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Virginia has not been seen as a hotbed of electoral fraud given the emerging narrative that Virginia is “Going Blue” and is not a “Swing State,” but nothing could be further from the truth. Analysis of the 2020 Presidential election in Virginia reveals that Virginia elections are marred by electoral fraud every bit as egregious as that found in any other state, and as such that narrative must be challenged.


Virginia has all the necessary infrastructure in place to enable outcome-determinative electoral fraud including, but not limited to, massively inflated voter rolls, widespread and uncontrolled absentee balloting, uncertifiable and non-transparent election management systems, drop boxes, an extended voting season, on-line hackable poll books and absentee ballot tracking, exposure to federal government surveillance and intrusion capabilities, ineffective post-election audits, and various roadblocks to preclude citizen oversight. Layered on all of this is the absence of robust governance by too many public officials charged with understanding emerging election fraud threats and investigating concerns brought forward by an informed citizenry.

Many Virginians have lost faith in elections at this point. A majority believe the 2020 Presidential election was stolen (as we do). Most distressing is that too many public officials in Virginia have danced around the election fraud issue, choosing to embrace the “normalcy bias” that elections are fundamentally fair and whistle past the graveyard hoping the inconvenient issue will go away. It will not. Given that little to nothing has changed to meaningfully address election fraud in Virginia, there is the realistic expectation that Virginians will be subject to a repeat of the 2020 Presidential election corruption in 2024.

This paper presents evidence of the fraud in the 2020 Presidential election. Several quantitative approaches are presented demonstrating that the election math just does not add up. Further, mathematical analysis presented here demonstrates that reported turnout statistics are largely meaningless in the presence of inflated voter rolls and election fraud.

The authors sponsored custom research from the Elections Fairness Institute (FEI) of Phoenix, Arizona to review 2020 Presidential election results for 11 Virginian counties. EFI is under the direction of Capt. Seth Keshel, a nationally recognized political statistician and elections expert. The research involves analyzing population, voting, and registration trends, accessing public information, and using sophisticated tools such as redistricting databases, to analyze counties’ election results at the precinct level to identify election results which are inconsistent with the data.


FEI found compelling evidence of material quantities of illegal absentee ballots in all 11 Virginian counties analyzed. In addition to their commentary, FEI’s analyses were supplemented by “Heat Maps”, enabling a visual representation of where various levels of electoral fraud were evidenced. Additional precinct-level heat maps of voter turnout ratios were produced as well by the authors, documenting disturbing numbers of precincts with extremely high or unrealistic turnout ratios.

The heat maps provided visual clues to likely ballot trafficking operations, either along major thoroughfares or around population centers. The analysis showed that election fraud was widespread around the State and not limited to the large population centers.

Electoral fraud as facilitated by absentee ballots, proprietary election management equipment, and inflated voter rolls represents, without exaggeration, an existential threat to the American Republic. Virginia is contributing to this demise by not directly addressing these threats in its own backyard.


Virginia’s Administration, and local officials, must take immediate and bold steps to mitigate election fraud. Those steps may include, for example, issuing executive orders:

  • Allowing for the hand counting of ballots,

  • Prohibiting the use of ballot drop boxes,

  • Requiring the removal of federal government surveillance tools such as Albert Sensors,

  • Restricting absentee mail-in voting given its proven association with election fraud,

  • Requiring forensic images of election management systems to be taken before and immediately after elections,

  • Recognizing that Risk Limiting Audits are wholly ineffective, and allowing for full forensic audits,

  • Limiting or eliminating early voting,

  • Requiring proof of citizenship to vote,

  • Requiring reconstitution of the voter registration lists.


Only timely decisive action by the Commonwealth’s Administration will short- circuit key election fraud vectors to prevent a rerun of 2020, in 2024.


Virginia Analytics Associates is a group of Virginian citizen civil rights activists focused on:

  • Educating Virginians on election corruption in Virginia,

  • Holding public officials accountable for election malfeasance and poor governance,

  • Driving meaningful actions to disrupt election fraud in Virginia.


Introduction

Faith in our elections has reached a dangerous low. A significant majority of voters believe either the 2020 Presidential election was stolen or there was likely malfeasance impacting the election. Over the last several years citizens and election integrity groups have focused on understanding how the election was stolen, and those in this community have proven beyond any doubt that our election systems cannot guarantee proper democratic outcomes.

Why are we concerned about the Presidential election in 2020? Looking forward requires looking backward and understanding what went wrong.

It appears very little, if any, quantitative, analysis has been performed to measure the extent of the election fraud in Virginia. This paper presents evidence that voters’ civil rights have been violated, and that there was material fraud in the 2020 Presidential election in Virginia. Although the election fraud may have been of sufficient magnitude to swing the election results reported by the State, the point is not to challenge election outcomes, but to provide documented proof that federal election law was not followed, and election fraud in Virginia is of the scale to be potentially outcome- determinative.

Looking forward to the 2024 Presidential election, nothing has changed which would mitigate the certainty of material fraud to come. Nothing has been done in Virginia to provide assurances that mail-in ballots are submitted by only eligible citizens. More non-citizens will be voting, or their identities will be used to facilitate illegal votes. Election systems have been proven to be easily hacked and vulnerable. Voter registration lists around the country and in Virginia have been shown to have breathtakingly high numbers of invalid registrations, reflecting years of benign neglect and/or intentional padding.

Understanding election fraud in today’s environment requires broad systems thinking and a grasp of the underlying technologies to appreciate exactly how compromised elections and election systems have become. Over time there has developed a complex and nontransparent election infrastructure facilitating election fraud through:

  • mail-in ballot trafficking,

  • ballot drop boxes,

  • dark money and private party election financing,

  • legislation designed to weaken election integrity,

  • lack of judicial resolve to try election fraud cases on the merits, rather than reject on standing,

  • suppression of information about critical election equipment vulnerabilities,

  • involvement of partisan NGOs and public-private partnerships in elections,

  • extended voting periods,

  • massively inflated voter rolls hiding hundreds of thousands of illegal registrations,

  • “proprietary” election software that is not permitted to be examined by experts,

  • uncertifiability of election equipment,

  • over-reliance on non-transparent election management for-profit organizations,

  • and online e-poll books and mail-in ballot tracking allowing real-time tracking of elections. Further, elections have been effectively federalized and centralized, unbeknownst to many Directors of Elections in Virginia. For example, Albert sensors which are provided by CIS and installed in county and state information systems are functional portals for government agencies and other public- private entities to have direct access into election systems without detection

1 Recent action to discontinue the use of the ineffective and partisan Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is a positive step towards improving list maintenance in Virginia.2


Finally, trust has been eviscerated by the inability for the public to have meaningful end-to-end forensic audits, efficient and accurate hand counts of paper ballots, or requirements for valid voter ID at the registration desk. “Risk Limiting Audits,” touted as providing election outcome assurances, have been demonstrated to be completely ineffective, and were designed to provide the patina of legitimacy to questionable electoral processes3.

It must be recognized that the predominant forms of fraud, namely mail-in ballot trafficking, voting computer manipulation, and inflated voter registration lists, as the catalyst for significantly inaccurate vote tallies, are likewise not prone to be seen directly by the majority of those working in the elections space. Most election fraud is either undetectable or goes unrecognized by Virginia’s Commissioner of Elections, Directors of Elections, elections officers and poll watchers at the precinct- level, Circuit Court judges, county sheriffs, and members of electoral boards.


(2) The Albert Sensor is an intrusion detection software/hardware system that has its origin in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Einstein program, which does network intrusion detection for federal agencies. It is provided and implemented by the Center for Internet Security for little or no cost, but contractually allows CIS to have full access to the county’s/state’s election systems. For a comprehensive treatment of the capabilities of the Federal Government to monitor and interfere in elections, refer to Countdown to Chaos, Silent Federalizing of Elections by Pulitzer, 2023. Pulitzer states:

  • An understanding of the network cyber structure created by CISA and the DHS creates the concept that the live monitoring of elections in real time, whether it be access to poll pads, voter registration, election office networks, polling locations, or vote tabulation systems, is nothing shy of peeking into the ballot box for those with the technical capability to do so. (p. 217)


America is at a crossroads as we face the consequences of the actions of the DHS, especially since 2017. This federal takeover of the election system might be the most serious situation the United States of America has faced since the Revolutionary War. Interfering with the right to vote is interfering with freedom itself. When the American election system is governed and managed with a structure that is invisible, accessible in real-time by federal agents of all kinds hidden within national fusion centers, equipped with artificial intelligence and other cyber tools that are able to access and change the election system while it is being utilized, transparency is no longer any part of the system. (p. 373)


3 Risk Limiting Audits (RLAs) are deficient in these areas:

  • The statistical methodology has been called into question by professional statisticians. Even the inventor, Peter Stark, has disavowed the use of RLAs, calling them “magic dust.”

  • The Virginia Department of Elections (ELECT) relies on an outside Left-leaning company to provide all statistical calculations and sample selections. ELECT cannot demonstrate an understanding of the statistical formulas nor reproduce the sample size calculations employed in any given audit. The process is not auditable.

  • There are no internal controls over the software used, nor has such software be independently audited or certified.

  • Vital validation of chain of custody of ballots, as well as the legality of ballots and the voters submitting such ballots, is absent in an RLA.

  • Despite serious shortcomings, ELECT implicitly (and we assert fraudulently) represents to the public that RLAs are the

equivalent of full forensic audits.


Further, the role of “Narrative” must be appreciated. The prevailing Narrative is that Virginia is or is becoming a “Blue” state. This has two implications:

  1. 1)  “Irregular” vote patterns, particularly in Northern Virginia, will not be investigated as irregularities will be attributed to “changing demographics.” Virginia Presidential elections will be called immediately after polls close, and irregularities will neither be investigated nor challenged.

  2. 2)  Maintenance of the “Narrative” both at the State and the National levels require that sufficiently high margins in Virginia for the selected federal election candidate be manufactured and reported.

Both of the above incentivize election fraud. The “Narrative” must be actively challenged.

Scope

Evidence of election fraud can take many forms. Presented here are several high-level quantitative demonstrations that indicate election fraud at scale in the 2020 Presidential election, in Virginia counties across the Commonwealth (VA). Certainly, these demonstrations are not precise as access to information, particularly information available to citizens, is constrained. Judgment is required to understand the context of this evidence. The results presented are believed to be directionally correct and taken together present a disturbing picture of material election malfeasance and maladministration, intentional and unintentional. The precinct/county-level evidence presented in this paper corroborates the scale and scope, as it appears that election fraud was committed in virtually every county that was evaluated.

Out of scope are discussions relating to “how” this fraud was executed, other than material presented in the appendix on the operation of ballot trafficking4 rings. It is anticipated a follow-up report will be issued outlining recommendations to mitigate the certain election fraud coming in the 2024 Presidential and other future elections.


Structure of this Paper

This paper has several sections:

Section A - Several quantitative techniques for estimating the number of fraudulent ballots in VA in the 2020 Presidential election are presented:

1. Evidence is presented that the reported election turnout rate for the State appears unrealistic.

2. Evidence is presented that the impact of Virginia’s massively inflated registration lists materially distorts reported actual turnout rates at the county and precinct levels.

4 Ballot trafficking is a form of organized crime, and is distinguished from ballot harvesting. 6


Section B – Detailed examination of the vote patterns and turnout ratio anomalies at the precinct level for 11 Virginia counties is presented:

1. Evidence is presented that there was ballot-stuffing and/or electronic database manipulation which resulted in extremely unlikely, if not impossible, turnout ratios in VA counties documented at the precinct level.


Appendices

Appendix A - Evidence of Ballot Trafficking Rings – the 2000 Mules Documentary

Presents evidence that ballot trafficking in 2020 was widespread and of sufficient magnitude to be outcome-determinative. Evidence of material ballot trafficking was not limited to “swing states,” but was found nationwide, including in Virginia.

Appendix B - Evidence of Ballot Trafficking Rings in Virginia

Election Fairness Institute’s political statistician Captain Seth Keshel has found evidence of ballot trafficking rings in the Northern Virginia, in the Richmond area, and in the Newport News area. Reprinted is an article on this topic from his Substack channel.

Appendix C – Calculation of Estimated False Registrations on Virginia’s Registration List

Based on reported ratios of registrations to citizen voting age population totals by county for Virginia, the calculation of the estimated false registrations is developed and presented.

Appendix D – The Existential Nation-State Threat and Mail-In Balloting

A partial transcript from a presentation by National Security Expert Brian Kennedy discussing the likely risk of the Chinese Communist Party’s printing of illegal absentee mail-in ballots in the 2024 Presidential election is presented.

Appendix E – Material unexplained adjustments were discovered in the Edison/New York Times data feed used for reporting the Virginia 2020 Presidential election results

Reproduced is a report by professional auditor and researcher Joe Hoft on the irregularities observed in the Edison data feed to the news media for Virginia as presented by the New York Times for the 2020 Presidential election. The takeaway is that unexplained outcome- determinative “adjustments” of a highly suspicious nature were found impacting the final vote tallies.

Appendix F – How Non-Disclosure of Absentee Ballot Totals by Precinct Hid Absentee Ballot Fraud

Election Fairness Institute’s political statistician Captain Seth Keshel discusses how the policy of not reporting absentee ballot totals at the precinct level for the 2020 Presidential election led to the cover up of impossible and/or extremely high real precinct turnout rates which would otherwise have disclosed a material amount of absentee ballot fraud. The focus is on Henrico County, which is one of the counties sponsored for analysis in this white paper.


Section A

A.1.1 - Reported Election Turnout Rate for the State Appears Unrealistic

Statistics reported by the US Census Bureau for the 2020 Presidential election present data that implies that the aggregate turnout rates for the nation and for Virginia are 91.9% and 94.1%, respectively.

The basic relationship between population, registration rates, turnout rates and reported total votes is as follows:

A x B x C = D,where

A = the number of citizens eligible to vote (referred to as citizens voting age population (“CVAP”) at the time of an election,

B = the registration rate applied to that population at the time of the election, C = the turnout rate of the registered population, andD = the number of votes reported.


The U.S. Census Bureau reported the following for the 2020 Presidential election:5




The Percent Eligible Citizens Registered percentage of 72.7% for the US is consistent with the last 5 prior presidential elections:




What is not directly disclosed but can be easily calculated is the implicit turnout rate between the total eligible US citizens resident population that is legally registered and the total votes: it is 91.9% and 94.1% for the US and VA, respectively, from the information above6.

These ratios appear to be unrealistically high, and are believed to be an indication of election manipulation. For context, if an assumption is made that the turnout rate is 80%, then the number of votes that are more than the number of votes expected using that assumption is 20.0 million votes for the US and 642,000 votes for Virginia.


A.1.2 - Vote Totals in Virginia Exceed Reasonable Expectations

The total number of excess ballots cast in the 2020 Presidential election in Virginia can also be estimated by a process that involves, for each county, multiplying the total number of eligible citizens by an estimate of the expected registration rate, and then multiplying that product by the expected turnout rate, which yields the expected number of votes for a county. That product can be compared to the actual number of ballots cast in that county. The results are summed for all counties.


The spreadsheet below follows the logic described above. The estimate for the eligible citizen populations was taken from the US Elections Assistance Commission site (cited above). Assumptions for the registration rate and the turnout rate to produce an estimate of the expected number of votes by county are input, and then the resulting calculation of the expected number of votes is compared to actual reported vote totals. An example of this process is captured below where both reasonable registration and turnout rates of 80% were assumed.

Using the reasonable assumptions of 80% for both the registration and turnout ratios, the excess votes were estimated to be 482,000.



6 It is not uncommon for turnout statistics to be based on eligible citizens and not registered eligible citizens, resulting in a significantly lower estimate of reported turnout. Further, and as discussed elsewhere, because of the large number of false registrations on Virginia’s RVL, turnout calculations based on State registration lists are easily misleading.


Various combinations of these assumptions were input into the model as well, with the resulting calculations of the estimated excess votes displayed in a matrix which is presented below. This shows the sensitivity of results to the various combination of assumptions. Note that the lower the assumptions used, the higher the excess votes. Further, note how high the two assumptions must be set to explain the actual results.




A takeaway from this model is that it requires very high turnout and registration rate assumptions to explain the high level of reported votes.

10

A.2 - False Voter Registrations Materially Obscure Real Reported Voter Turnout

It is established that the Virginia Registered Voter List (RVL) is materially overinflated7. Recent estimates suggest that the list likely includes more than 1 million false registrations (excluding inactive registrations). What may be underappreciated is that the high number of false registrations materially distorts the reported voter turnout.

Loudoun County Example

The reported results for Loudoun County are presented here as an example. A calculation based on US Census data suggests that Loudoun County’s share of those false registrations may be in excess of 75,000.8

US Census Bureau estimates for the ratio of registrants to the citizen voting age resident population for the last 6 Presidential Elections was presented previously. Note that the highest ratio was recorded in 2020 at 72.7%. Virginia’s reported ratio is slightly higher at approximately 76%.

Appendix C presents an excerpt from a pre-litigation letter filed August 8, 2023, against ELECT for alleged negligence in maintaining Virginia’s registration list. Note the impossibly high ratio of 113.5% for Loudoun County. This translates to a 38.5% difference (113.5% - 76.0%) from the 2020 US Census ratio, or in other words, more than 3 in 10 registrations are likely invalid registrations using this US Census Bureau metric. Note this analysis excludes inactive registrations, which would inflate these ratios significantly.9 The magnitude of this unrealistic ratio is confirmed by the Election Assistance Commission in the following table:



7 As one example, the law firm of Holtzman-Vogel filed a pre-litigation letter on August 8, 2023, against ELECT for inadequate registration list maintenance resulting in a high or impossibly high number of registrations given eligible populations in most counties in Virginia. See Appendix C.

8 See Appendix C9 Another proof point that needs investigating: Why are there such a high number of “inactive registrations?” These inactive registrations present the potential for even more election fraud. 11


Loudoun County reported total votes of 225,625 in the 2020 Presidential election, and total registrations (active and inactive) of 282,261 as of November 1, 2020 (see below).10



The reported turnout for Loudoun County in the 2020 Presidential Election was 79.9% based on 225,625 ballots cast and 282,261 registrations11. However, if the registration list provided by ELECT contains false registrations12, what is the impact on reported turnout of those false registrations?

The calculation is straightforward. If the US Census ratio for Virginia of 76.0% is used as an estimate of the actual registration rate, then the total registration number used in the denominator should be reduced by (1-(76.0/113.5)) = 33.0%. This estimates that the Loudoun registration list total is not 282,261, but rather 189,003 (a reduction of 93,258), producing a corresponding turnout of not 79.9%, but rather 119.4%.

As the above is likely a worst-case scenario, we can do a similar calculation assuming that, as an example, only half of the estimated 93,258 registrations are false (that is, the registration ratio is assumed to be 92.5%, which is still historically high). Then the registration list total becomes 235,632 (46,629 less), and the corresponding calculated turnout ratio becomes 95.8%. This is an indication of a serious condition requiring investigation.

For a given election, the registration voter list that is maintained at the state is downloaded to the counties, and turnout ratios are thus consequently based on real and false registrations. If the denominator in the turnout calculation is reduced to reflect only the naturalized or natural-born US Citizen resident population in the list, then the calculated turnout ratio is significantly higher. For example, if Loudoun County’s registration total was reduced by the 46,629 above, then the turnout rate would be 19.9% higher than what was formally reported.

10 https://www.elections.virginia.gov/media/registration- statistics/2020/10/Monthly_LocalityStatistics_2020_11_01_054252.pdf

11 Reported numbers are frequently changed, making exact calculations not possible.12 A false registration has a legal definition. It includes, among many other categories, people who have moved out of state,

duplicate registrations, or registrations installed fraudulently on the RVL. 12

Estimated Impact of False Registrations on Reported Turnout Ratios for 11 Virginia Counties

The authors of this report analyzed the 11 counties identified in the table below for the purpose of estimating what the 2020 Presidential turnout ratios would have been had the false registrations been excluded from the registration lists downloaded to the respective counties by ELECT. Clearly, the number of false registrations cannot be known, but they can be estimated. Consider the table below. Columns (2) through (4) were reported publicly. Columns (5), (6) and (7)13 present three estimates of the ratio of registrations to “citizens of voting age population” (CVAP) (see Appendix C for calculations). Note the general agreement of the ratios, all indicating serious list maintenance concerns.

In columns (8) through (11), the number of false registrations is estimated based on the US Census Bureau ratio of 75% (see Appendix C and above) and EPEC’s estimate for the CVAP and the estimate of registrations after removing the total number of inactive registrations. For the 11 counties, the adjusted registrations in Column (11) are determined by subtracting the estimated number of false registrations estimated by EPEC in column (9) from column (3)14. A revised turnout ratio is calculated and presented in column (12)15.



13 Electoral Process Education Corporation (EPEC) is a Virginia-based elections watchdog group specializing in analytics and registration list maintenance matters.

14 EPEC estimates were used here because they result in the smallest number of estimated false registrations. 15 For example, the revised turnout ratio for Albemarle is calculated as follows:

Expected registrations (col 10) = 75% of Adjusted Population (col 8) (83,845 x .75 = 62,884)Expected False Registrations (col 11) = Adjusted Registrations ( col 9) less Expected Registrations (col 10)(16,223 = 79,107 – 62,884)Revised Turnout Estimate (col 11) = Total Votes (col 2) / Expected Registrations (col 10) (1.0054 = 63,227 / 62,884)

13

The actual number of false registrations by county cannot be known. However, they are likely to be very significant. For example, the reported turnout for Albemarle was 77%, but if the ratio was calculated based on legal registrations only, it would be somewhere within the range of 77% to 101% (and more likely at the higher end).

Why Do Turnout Rates Appear Normal in the Presence of False Registrations?

Consider the example below. County X reports 250,000 registrations, 180,000 votes, and a turnout rate of 72%. Assume that 20% of the registrations were false (one-in-five), so the turnout rate assuming only legal registrations is 90%. Such a high rate would indicate the presence of illegal ballots and registrations. To make the turnout rates appear normal, the weighted average of turnout rates for the legal and illegal registrations based on their respective ballot and registration totals must appear reasonable. This is shown in the last line of the example. This is how ballot-stuffing can be made to look normal.



The following points may be made:

1. For the overall turnout rate to be about 76% statewide, the turnout rates for legitimate voters and for the illegitimate ballots must average to 76%. If a 76% turnout rate is representative of actual real voter behavior, then mathematically the “turnout rate” for illegitimate ballots from false registrations must also be about 76% as well.14

  1. If, as an example, approximately 50,000 false registrations are assumed to be on Loudoun’s RVL, then it can be crudely estimated that in the 2020 Presidential election there were 38,000 corresponding illegal votes.

  2. For the State of Virginia, it is roughly estimated there may have been 760,000 illegal votes based on the estimated 1,000,000 false registrations on Virginia’s RVL. That is, approximately 28% of the 2,687,000 absentee ballots cast could have been illegal.

  3. A key takeaway is that for every four false registrations on the rolls, three can (must) be voted illegally for overall turnout ratios to appear essentially normal. 15


Section B

B.1 - Turnout Rates at the Precinct Level Indicate Election Manipulation and Widespread Ballot Trafficking

The following precinct-level analysis is based on a) research and reporting by the Election Fairness Institute (“EFI”) and b) publicly available data on the Virginia Department of Elections site. The authors of this report sponsored custom research for 11 selected Virginia counties analyzed below. EFI offers specialized analysis under their “Precinct Mapping Program” where counties are analyzed at the precinct level to identify anomalies in reported voting that is not consistent with past elections, registration trends, population growth trends, redistricting data base information, and other available data. Precincts are “rated” based on the degree to which vote totals by candidate depart from expected results and trends.

The primary purpose for EFI’s reports is to identify precincts where there is an indication of election issues (such as ballot trafficking) or to assist citizens in canvassing to clean the voter rolls. EFI has analyzed more than 400 counties at the time of this report. More information about EFI may be found on their site: https://electionfairnessinstitute.org/about/

Statistics, Commentaries, and Heat Maps

This section is structured as follows: Basic statistics are reproduced from the EFI report, as well as an abbreviated commentary. EFI’s Precinct Watch Maps are reproduced directly from their reports. They serve as a useful visual representation of the extent of likely fraud at the precinct level, and for observing evidence of ballot trafficking routes and/or areas of suspicious activity.

Following that are Turnout Heat Maps and corresponding tables of precinct turnout ratios constructed by the authors. These maps highlight precincts where turnout statistics do not appear reasonable. Turnout calculations are calculated from vote data provided by EFI and from registration statistics available from the Virginia Department of Elections web site.

Note that often there are strong correlations between the two maps, but not necessarily.16

From the EFI report, precincts are coded as follows:

  • RED –

  • YELLOW –

  • GREEN –

  • GRAY –

High/Likely fraud. Strong unexplainable divergence from trend. Suspect possible fraud. Moderate divergence from trends.

Low/no fraud. Aligns with trends.Indeterminate (commonly due to redrawn precincts obscuring trends)

From the Precinct Heat Maps, precincts are coded by their turnout ratios:

  • RED –

  • ORANGE –

  • YELLOW –

  • GRAY –

Greater than 90%80% to 90%75% to 80%Less than 75% or Indeterminate

Keep in mind that the turnout ratio statistics are what would have been expected to be reported if turnout was reported at the precinct level by the counties and State without adjusting for any false registrations embedded in the registration voter lists. The presence of false registrations has the effect of lowering turnout rates.

17

ALBEMARLE COUNTY



BOTETOURT COUNTY




BEDFORD COUNTY



CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

ETOURT



UNTY


FAIRFAX COUNTY




FRANKLIN COUNTY

HANOVER COUNTY





LOUDOUN COUNTY






PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY MANASSAS CITY & MANASSAS PARK

NC






E

WPRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY ILLIAM COUN

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY



KEY TAKEAWAYS from HEAT MAP ANALYSIS:

  1. The denominators in the turnout ratios presented below are all likely to include false registrations which artificially drive the ratios down. As pointed out previously, if the impact of false registrations could be removed from the precinct-level registration list totals supplied by the State, many, if not all, of the ratios calculated here would likely be significantly higher.

  2. Note also that all turnout ratios include “inactive” registrations which further distort reported turnout rates by several percentage points.

  3. Note that virtually every county displays evidence of some (if not many) precincts with abnormal vote patterns or turnout levels, many reflecting the likely operation of ballot trafficking rings along major thoroughfares or around major population centers.

  4. While Ballot fraud might be expected in the larger metro areas, this analysis indicates it is just as likely in rural areas, where such activity would otherwise be least expected.


APPENDIX A

Evidence of Ballot Trafficking Rings – the 2000 Mules Documentary

The Documentary 2000 Mules16 - This widely circulated video documents the election integrity group True the Vote’s (TTV) efforts to expose the massive ballot trafficking operations during the 2020 election, and to quantify the likely outcome-determinative election fraud in the 2020 general election specifically in five “swing states.” The geo-tracking technology TTV used to track ballot mules is a proven technology and is the same technology used by law enforcement.



We cannot recommend more strongly that those concerned with election fraud view the documentary 2000 Mules as it demonstrates the clear and present danger to fair elections of widespread absentee mail-in balloting (and ballot drop boxes). While the focus of the 2000 Mules documentary was the ballot trafficking by 2000 “mules’ in the 5 “swing states,” they also reported they had identified over 50,000 individuals who exhibited such behavior around the country. The extent of ballot trafficking in Virginia simply cannot be known at this point, and no efforts to investigate this fraud have otherwise been made17.

16 The documentary 2000 Mules has been subject to extreme censorship since it was released, including corporate lawfare which in June of 2024 was successful in compelling the distributor to withdraw distribution. It is available on-line at the time of this publication at https://rumble.com/v3zb0fr-documentary-2000-mules.html

The documentary is extremely damaging to the Left (and to a lesser extent to the Right). The Left has taken great pains to smear True the Vote, particularly by making misrepresentations about the nature of the investigative techniques employed by TTV. These misrepresentations are designed to confuse and mislead the technically challenged. Search engines, particularly Google, will present pages of links to biased hit pieces to try to negatively influence the unwary.

17 In another example, GBI Strategies LLC was paid $11 million to canvas for the 2020 Joe Biden presidential campaign. There are receipts for the transaction, a trusted source reported in early 2024. GBI Strategies LLC, a Democrat left-wing campaign consulting company run by Gary Bell, has a mailing address in Alexandria, Virginia. Mr. Ball exited the media spotlight shortly after several articles appeared after a GBI employee turned whistleblower, exclaiming its “impossible to detect” the fraudulent mail-in ballots in larger cities. This includes Norther Virginia. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/muskegon-voter-fraud-scandal-gbi-strategies-director-gary/

50


APPENDIX B

Section A

Election Fairness Institute’s political statistician Captain Seth Keshel has found evidence of ballot trafficking rings in the Northern Virginia, in the Richmond area, and in the Newport News area. Below is reprinted an article on this topic appearing in his Substack channel (itallics added)18.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------74 Harvesting and Mule Rings: Where They Were, How They Did It, And the Impact - Our

Work is Now Corroborated

CAPT. SETH KESHEL

MAY 14, 2022

The best way to understand the dysfunctional 2020 election is to see that California’s election processes, shortcuts, tricks, tactics, techniques, and procedures were exported to the entire nation, against the laws of most states. One of the major election tricks championed by California’s renegade government is the practice of ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting is the collection and return of ballots by someone other than the voter and can be innocently applied to one spouse dropping off a ballot for another.

Ballot harvesting is abused when it is used to seek out illegally mailed ballots in places such as nursing homes, apartments, and dormitories. 2000 Mules documented the trafficking of mail ballots to drop boxes, typically in the dark of night by those commissioned to deliver hundreds, if not thousands, of

ballots each over weeks of the period allotted for returning mail ballots. The system was sophisticated and clearly engineered to overcome what was expected to be monstrous turnout for Donald Trump. Every trend, indicator, bellwether, and predictor, some valid for more than a century, showed a Trump victory was inevitable.

Ballots were picked up at pre-designated headquarters and sent by “mules” throughout the surrounding counties. If we are to view the “mule” operation as we would a military operation, each major ring had

18 Seth Keshel is a nationally recognized elections expert, fraud investigator, and statistician. He served in the US Army as an intelligence officer. His Substack postings are found at https://substack.com/@realskeshel

51

an assigned area for dropping off ballots, often crossing state lines, and designed for the purpose of either tipping a state for Biden or giving the illusion of Democrat control of counties destined to flip to Trump.

The use of drop boxes across the nation is prevalent, though the magnitude to which they were used is up for debate. The map below shows that the major contested states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia) all used ballot drop boxes, and many others may have had limitations on them by statute but used emergency declarations related to the pandemic to turn a blind eye to their use. Other states that may have had fewer drop boxes still experienced substantial harvesting of mail-in ballots, as is made clear by simple statistical analysis.

I have identified 74 major mule or harvesting rings from the 2020 “election.” I am defining “major” as a ring that generally impacts one major county (such as Maricopa County, Arizona), or bleeds over into surrounding counties or states, and appears to contribute at least 20,000 excess Biden votes over what standard registration trends, population change, and voter behavior would allow for; therefore, stand-


alone “red” counties on my 2020 County Map (red denoting high statistical evidence of election fraud) may indeed have trafficking rings operating within them, but fall into a category of minor “mule” rings.

I will now list the 74 mule or harvesting rings and denote their geography and severity. Severity will be rated as follows:

  • Class A: Over 60,000 excess Biden votes contributed.

  • Class B: 50-60,000 excess Biden votes contributed.

  • Class C: 40-50,000 excess Biden votes contributed.

  • Class D: 20-40,000 excess Biden votes contributed.




Starting in the west, and moving east, here are the rings:

Ed. Note: Items 2 through 61 skipped for brevity. Virginia rings are numbered 62 through 64.

62) Tidewater Ring

Likely Headquarters: Virginia Beach, Virginia Assigned Area: Southeastern Virginia

Severity: Class B

63) Jefferson Davis Ring

Likely Headquarters: Richmond, VirginiaAssigned Area: Richmond metro and Central Virginia Severity: Class B64) Capital Ring

Likely Headquarters: Arlington, VirginiaAssigned Area: Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland Severity: Class A

The work of 2000 Mules corroborates the findings of many in the election integrity movement, notably mine. I have long counted “excess Biden votes” as if there was an extra foot on the scale of the national election. This new “mule map” may prove critical in helping sheriffs identify the key players who undermined the integrity of the federal election, particularly as more information comes to light.

The reader must understand that these organized crime cells, under cover of mask and darkness of night, harvested and trafficked ballots across the county (and even country) and state lines with impunity, warping the electoral landscape to an unrecognizable state and permanently damaging the national attitude toward the electoral process. This article and its maps demonstrate the level of planned depravity that was undertaken to those ends.


Section B

As of the date of this report, EFI has evaluated well over 500 counties. Included in this body of work is an analysis of all precinct and counties in Arizona, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Maryland and Hawaii, providing a complete statewide picture of those states. As an example, New Jersey is presented below:

The takeaway from this is that election fraud, primarily executed through absentee mail-in ballot stuffing19, was a national phenomenon. The analysis of Virginia’s 11 counties reported in this paper displays striking similarities to the New Jersey picture.

19 Note: Ballot trafficking at scale must be supported by an infrastructure including but not limited to drop boxes, inflated voter rolls, monitoring through e-pollbooks and absentee ballot tracking, and computer algorithms.



APPENDIX C

It is widely reported that many, if not most states, have seriously inflated registration lists, and law suits against those states for noncompliance with HAVA list maintenance requirements are increasingly common. On August 8, 2023, the law firm of Holtzman-Vogel filed a pre-litigation letter against Virginia’s Department of Elections for HAVA violations, observing the following:

Estimating the number of false registrations from the above ratios is possible by applying the US Census historical registrations to CVAPs ratios to the eligible populations and subtracting those products from the reported numbers of registrations on the list. There are technicalities regarding insuring that the registration and population numbers are of the same date, and deciding whether inactive registrations should be included in the registration total. However, the conclusion that the registration list is materially inflated is not affected.

The Table below calculates the estimated excess number of registrations two ways:

  1. 1)  Using the raw US Census data from which the Holtzman-Vogel ratios were calculated.

  2. 2)  Adjusting the population number for presumed growth to the date of the registration list date, and removing the inactive registration list total from the total registrations total. This adds significant conservatism.






A reasonable percentage for this exercise is believed to be 75% based on the US Census Bureau surveys. The estimated false registration totals prior to adjustment are 1.4 million, and after adjustment is 995 thousand.

The methodology for the adjustments is documented on the EPEC Digital Poll Watchers internet site below.


APPENDIX D

The Existential Nation-State Threat and Mail-In Balloting

Below is a partial transcript of a talk by national security expert Brian Kennidy before the American Freedom Alliance on the risk of nation-state election interference vectored through mail-in balloting20.


Now I fear that this election year you will see Chinese intelligence operating at the highest level ever...They want to win. They will do whatever they can to win.



Now commensurate with this is the whole issue of voter fraud, and whether we can have a free and fair election. Now the whole issue of 2020 was the use of mail-in ballots which we had never done before. It used to be that both Republicans and Democrats both believed that with mail-in ballots you could have voter fraud. With Covid, all that went away. Because of that

there was widespread use if mail-in balloting in the seven “swing states.” There have been some changes but in those seven swing states that will decide the 2024 national election there will still be mail-in balloting. In my view there is near certainty that Chinese intelligence will play a decisive role in the 2024 election by dealing with mail-in balloting.


The thinking goes something like this, and I've presented this to variety of congressmen we know. Communist China can counterfeit $100 bills. So too North Korea. The reason of course is - there's money to be involved – right, counterfeit money. You can use it in all sorts of active measures here in the United States. Now if we apply this to mail-in balloting, then in American elections, we simply have to ask whether the Communist Chinese would, with their vast intelligence and influence operations budget, use a small fraction of that budget to counterfeit say 500,000 to 1,000,000 ballots in the seven swing states that decide the presidential election. If they are intent on controlling the most powerful nation on earth, would they do that?


We know that the ability to counterfeit ballots is radically easier than currency. They'll have access to the same paper stock that's used in the ballots. They'll have easy access to the actual PDF's of the ballots themselves, and they'll have ready access to US voter rolls. They use artificial intelligence. They'll be able to replicate any signature they want even though signatures, by the way in the seven swing states, are not continually used or used effectively. Given that they have the capacity financially, the interest strategically, and the desire politically to see a soft-on-China president, whether it's this election or any future election, it would be a small investment on their part to engage in such measures.


For all the discussion of TikTok and its corruption of the American voter (and I think that's all quite real) why would the Communist Chinese not go the extra mile and guarantee victory the way I've just described? And to frame it differently, what would we do as a country if we knew with absolute certitude that Communist China was going to print up my theoretical 500,000 to 1,000,000 ballots per swing state? They print up the ballots of low propensity voters, people who don't vote anyway, so when the active voter goes to the ballot box they're not going to be affected. You get the person who never votes and you vote them. It should be a great concern that nowhere in the calculations of how to secure the US national election has the subject of Communist China and their ability to interfere in the election in this way. Communist China has every interest in deciding this election in their favor. If we had an adequate counter-intelligence capability in this country or if we eliminated mail-in balloting, it would not be an issue. Unfortunately, it is. If there is a single take away from what I have to say it is that we have not secured our upcoming election.

Our election system is built for honest people. It was not built to stop the Communist Chinese, or any nation-state with the capacity and interest in deciding an American presidential election. This must be fixed immediately. I can think of no issue that is of a higher priority right now.


APPENDIX E

Irregularities in the Reporting of Virginia’s 2020 Presidential election by Edison

Below is a report by professional auditor and researcher Joe Hoft on the irregularities observed in the 2020 Presidential election Edison data feed for Virginia as reported by the New York Times. The takeaway is that unexplained outcome-determinative “adjustments” of a highly suspicious nature were found which impacted the final Virginia vote tallies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Multiple Reversals and Proportional Vote Entries in Virginia on Election Night after 11 PM Indicate Election Fraud Occurred in This State Too21

By Joe Hoft, Nov. 15, 2020

The Virginia results in the 2020 Election for President gave Joe Biden a 2.4 million vote lead over President Trump’s 2.0 million votes. What’s odd and needs investigating is how the election ended up this way. No one seems to be questioning the votes in Virginia, but they should be. There are multiple reasons why the Virginia results in the 2020 Presidential election should be investigated.

Virginia’s election results started coming in shortly after the polls closed on Election Day. There were 378 separate entries or feeds in Virginia found in the file obtained and shared around the web from the New York Times since the election. The NYT data feed shows all the entries from the NYT for the Presidential election at a state-by-state level. This data does not include county or precinct level data feeds.

One oddity in the file noted immediately is that the results for votes are not in whole integers (e.g. 1, 2, 3...). All of the entries have fractional amounts. This makes no sense since ballots do not come in fractions in the US. Each vote equals one vote.

The first 125 entries reported in the NYT data feed were basically reasonable. The results varied in percentage of votes between Presidential candidates and appeared to be random with most votes going to President Trump. Up through this time (11:03 Eastern), President Trump was leading 52% to Biden’s 46%. At this time 3.3 million of the eventual 4.4 million votes had already been cast or about 75% of the

vote was in. This is when things went off the rails.

Eight entries totaling nearly (800,000) votes were removed from the database during this time. This makes no sense. Each vote should be added to the vote totals not taken away22.

21 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-exclusive-multiple-reversals-proportional-vote- entries- virginia-election-night-11-pm-indicate-election-fraud-occurred-state/#comments

22 These additions and deletions are visible in real time on live television. https://rumble.com/vbf56n-video-evidence-of- voter-software-fraud-virginia-va.html


Overall, three entries of over 300,000 votes were posted in the database to Biden’s vote total. Two entries of over 300,000 votes were taken away. The same happened to President Trump’s totals but in much smaller amounts. Overall, 851,000 votes were added to Biden’s totals and only 318,000 were awarded to President Trump between 11:14pm (Eastern) on November 3rd and 5:00am November 4th. This resulted in over half a million more votes net and 73% of the votes going to Biden during this timeframe.



What’s really odd about these entries are the huge negative entries. One entry taking away 330,153.54 votes from Biden and 37,510.39 from Trump appears to have reversed an entry a few minutes that at around midnight. Then at 12:26 and 12:30am an entry in the amount of 308,341.59 from Biden and 80,357.05 from Trump was posted and reversed. The exact same amounts. A few hours later another 230,000 votes net were added to Biden’s lead.

These reversing entries look like adjusting entries. Anyone in the accounting profession is aware of entries posted in error that are reversed and replaced with the proper entries and amounts. Why the hell would Virginia need to make these types of entries in their voting system? There really is no logical reason except for fraud.

After these entries noted above were recorded, nearly every entry made into the system for the Presidential election had the same proportion of votes of Biden to Trump.




This too is not reasonable and impossible. There is nothing random about this. It is highly, highly unlikely that the results of all these entries would be at the same proportion. This too indicates fraud.


APPENDIX F

How Non-Disclosure of Absentee Ballot Totals at the Precinct-Level Hid Absentee Ballot Fraud

What follows is a discussion by Election Fairness Institute’s Captain Seth Keshel of how the policy to not report absentee ballot totals by precinct for the 2020 Presidential election led to the cover up of impossible and/or extremely high real precinct turnout rates which would have otherwise disclosed a material amount of absentee ballot fraud. The focus is on Henrico County, which is one of the counties sponsored for analysis presented in this white paper.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------

The Hidden Element of Electile Dysfunction: Record Keeping

CAPT. SETH KESHEL, NOV 25, 2023

Yesterday, I put a statistical artillery shell downrange that sparked an inferno on X, thanks in part to our friend George Behizy. In my initial posts on this subject on my three major social media channels, I said the following:

Some gold unearthed by the Precinct Mapping Project and local leader Ken V. for Henrico County, VA, 2020 election results:


My estimate for Henrico was 15,572 fraudulent votes for one particular candidate. George shared that initial post, and then we received major hate (surprise) from the tolerant American left, who claimed they debunked my supposedly false claims with basic Internet search techniques.



Why force my opinion down your throat when I can simply provide the material for you to make an informed decision?

2020 183,670 Biden 116,572 (63.7%), Trump 63,440 (34.6%), Other 3,140 (1.7%)

Here are the total votes certified for Henrico County, Virginia, in the presidential quasi-election of 2020 Now, for 2016:

2016 164,691 Clinton 93,935 (57.4%), Trump 59,857 (36.6%), Other 9,744 (6.0%)



Use these links for reference for the following exercise.2020 Henrico Certified Results and 2016 Henrico Certified Results

It is a matter of indisputable fact, using Henrico County’s own numbers, that the county reports 18,979 more ballots cast in 2020 than in 2016. That is not the issue here, nor is the gripe centered on the supposed results.

Using your links, let’s have a look at a few precincts with the assumption that 18,979 more votes cast four years later will contribute to higher vote totals reported in the precinct columns.




Wow, that “Captain K” guy is a real nut. Can’t he even see, look here’s the link, that not only did those precincts not go over 100%, but they also didn’t even hit 50% turnout? What a loser!

66

Look, folks. I’m not sure the left is intelligent at all, and that probably explains why they vote for the rancid garbage that they willingly inflict upon themselves and others. Let me get this straight – the county has 18,979 more votes reported for 2020 than they did for 2016, but turnout is down roughly 30% in the sample precincts, which is consistent throughout all of Henrico’s precincts?

What changed?

The 2020 absentee scam, that’s what. Tucked deep into the Henrico totals in both links there is a final absentee column – 17,144 in 2016 (10,863 for Clinton, 5,350 for Trump) – and 110,479 in 2020 – an increase of more than sixfold that went 81,563 for Biden and 27,296 for Trump – three to one.



My lone concession is that Henrico removed absentee ballots from the 2016 precinct counts, as well; however, the drastic increase in absentee ballots, combined with a scan initiated by the Precinct Mapping Project, two databases operated by a 17-year old genius who has been assisting me with my research, and the scratch paper research of a local patriot named Ken V. got to the truth.

If the screeching left wants to take issue with me, then they should actually take issue with two subscription based research databases – Redistricter and Dave’s Redistricting Atlas. These two databases have been the workaround for counties that conceal absentee data by removing the counts from the precincts in which the supposed voters who cast these ballots are registered to vote (notably, these registrations are recorded in the precinct and used in the county’s own calculation to artificially drive turnout down, when in fact it is sky- high considering all means of balloting).

Derbyshire



The county’s voting records from 2016 align with the reflected 2016 totals from Redistricter shown above, with 90.1% of the total presidential vote accounted for in the precinct data, and total turnout at 86.6% (1633 votes/1886 registered - high, but with precinct demographics, believable).

In 2020, the county reports 884 votes for Derbyshire precinct. Redistricter and Dave’s Redistricting Atlas, with slightly different total numbers thanks to the lack of transparency afforded by the county and/or state, give us a total of 2,081 (1,005 to 1,008 for Trump, 1,040 to 1,043 for Biden, and roughly 33 other votes). 2,081 votes compared to 2,004 registrations (per the county) comes out to 103.8% turnout. Note – the Redistricter app shows turnout of 110.7% - for this exercise, I am using the county’s own statistics for voter registration and the working assumption that they are concealing absentee votes from precinct counts for a purpose. Redistricter’s turnout number of more than 110% matches almost perfectly with Derbyshire’s registered voter count from 2016 if divided into the 2,081 certified votes from 2020.

The other three precincts in this sample, Rollingwood, Monument Hills, and Hunton, give the same feedback:








Conclusion

It seems I did make one mistake. I understated the turnout in Monument Hills in my initial post on this subject and in the outrage over truth being revealed, have apparently unearthed a monstrosity I have long suspected was lurking around out there. Counties are concealing precinct data by removing the supposed absentee ballots, one of the main methods of defrauding election returns, from the precinct counts. This is not the case in every state or county, but it is prevalent on the East Coast, and in some red states like North Carolina.


The same impact occurs when a county, usually urban, redraws its district lines and makes it impossible to pick up the trend trail and spot discrepancies like this, because tens of thousands of voters, and their tens of thousands of real and fake votes, are scrambled together in unrecognizable and untraceable fashion. El Paso County, Colorado, is a prime example here.

We spend a lot of time talking about obvious things that have serious merit – voter rolls, machines, tabulation equipment, mail balloting, and ballot harvesting. Record keeping is yet another dimension by which voters are being deceived and deprived of due transparency. Imagine an audit of a Fortune 500 company using similar methods to cover up corporate expense abuse, such as the CEO buying vacation homes with company money, or salesmen abusing the expense budget by putting in thousands of dollars in untraceable expenses. There would be hell to pay. These four precincts are not alone in Henrico County – thoroughly disproven, the left will seek to dispute the two databases used to consolidate the missing data that was lodged into an overall bucket for absentee votes for the past two presidential elections, but the truth remains that every vote belongs to a supposed registration – and these registrations are accounted for at the precincts according to Henrico’s own data. Someone has the data of where those ballots came from, and to which voter they belong – and my estimation is that Redistricter and Dave’s Election Atlas have the scent of the trail.




32 views0 comments

Comentarios


bottom of page