Ballot Recounts and Audits Do Not Reverse Voter Fraud – What are Possible Solutions?

I commend the many county clerks and other election officials who lawfully and competently conducted this year’s very complicated General Election. I do not believe fraud occurred in my county.

Unfortunately, however, fraudulent activities at the county precinct or “voting station” level were perpetrated or sanctioned by other counties’ (and states’) voters and election officials. These acts of voter and election fraud diluted and disenfranchised legal votes for the Presidential race, and very likely also affected select House and Senate races. This election fraud affects EVERY citizen of this Republic and the future integrity of the Presidency, Cabinet, and Congress.

Although the voter and election fraud occurred at the precinct or voting station (county) level, election interference was obviously orchestrated at state, federal, and international levels and implemented through the cooperation of state officials and local counties.

This voter and election fraud cannot be “reversed” by hand counting ballots. All a hand count does is re-tabulate all the ballots, including illegal ones. Neither can an audit reverse all categories of fraudulent election results. An audit will identify instances of fraud, but there is no way to identify and retrieve the fraudulent ballot out of the stack being recounted in order to void its results! A hand tally or audit can also not produce results for legitimate ballots that were voted but were discarded and destroyed.

Numerous categories of voter and election fraud have been attested to by sworn affidavit and/or statistical research. See, for example: An MIT engineer and two IT specialists also graphed data for three Michigan precincts that strongly suggest an algorithm was used to “flip votes” from Trump to Biden:

NONE of the following categories of fraud can be resolved through a hand recount or audit, because the actual ballot cannot be identified and voided: Dead people voting; more ballots than registered voters; back-dated ballots; machine-generated stacks of ballots for one candidate (submitted without signatures); hand written ballots without signature match; voters who submitted ballots in more than one state; and more ballots voted in a precinct than were issued to that precinct. Voted but discarded ballots that were physically thrown in the trash can obviously not be re-counted and added.

One category of corrupted ballots can possibly be corrected: Ballots that were completed with Sharpie markers should be identifiable and can be re-copied to clean ballots and re-tabulated.

Computer-facilitated vote switching and vote “losses” may also be reversible. If the servers that were seized in Frankfurt, Germany contain real-time evidence of when votes were switched by computer operators from one candidate to another candidate or “lost” (those were not computer “glitches”!), the true tally of original “pre-switch” votes may be known. This video at the 5:43 mark lists the votes switched and “lost” in nine states, including the contested states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia: “Switched from Trump to Biden” votes total 413,120 and “lost” Trump votes total over 2.4 MILLION, for net election software interference (fraud) of over 2.8 million votes. The dubious honor of Fraud First Place goes to Pennsylvania, with 220,883 “switched” votes and 941,248 “lost” Trump votes for a net anti-Trump election software interference of 1.16 million votes (nearly half of the nine-state total). (Second place fraud award goes to Virginia for 789,023 “lost” Trump votes and third place is awarded New York for 623,213 “lost” Trump votes.)

So what are the solutions to yield a fair and lawful outcome for the 2020 federal elections?

A swift solution can be implemented by the Supreme Court (or any lower court) to invalidate the results of every federal race (President, House, Senate) affected by fraud, and award the outcome to the “second place” candidate (who may have been the legitimate winner had fraud not occurred). The courts can apply the arguments of the 1878 Supreme Court case United States versus Throckmorton (98 US 61) which state,

“There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates [annuls, negates, invalidates, revokes] the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments” and “Fraud vitiates … a judgment obtained directly by fraud” (

In other words, any election outcome (a candidate’s alleged “victory”) that was achieved by fraud is invalid. This court case should be applied to revoke every city, county, state, and federal race that was won through fraudulent activity and award the election outcome to the candidate with the next highest vote tally.

If the courts fail to apply this very clear argument, the states can still intervene to counter the federal (House, Senate, President) election fraud that occurred.

Fraudulent federal election results can be voided by the State Election Commission//Secretary of State at the lowest level(s) where fraud was detected (precinct, voting district, or county level). After fraudulent results are voided for all affected precincts, voting centers, and counties, the House and Senate race outcomes can be based on the state’s popular vote winner of the remaining counties that had legal voting. No “winning” House or Senate candidate whose vote tallies were “helped” by fraudulent activities should be seated in Congress until results for fraudulent counties are voided and an uncorrupted state popular vote is tallied. [Note: It is possible Georgia’s GOP Senate candidates won a majority after fraudulent county votes are nullified, and a run-off election is not necessary.]

For counties and states where the Presidential race was tainted by fraud, the state-wide popular vote is not trustworthy and neither is a “winner-takes-all” elector apportionment. The only valid and fair elector apportionment is by Congressional district, as is already done in Maine and Nebraska. The process would be as follows:

(a) After the results of precincts, voting stations and counties that committed fraud are voided, the affected state’s legislature would apportion its electors according to the valid results for the state’s remaining individual counties whose votes were not corrupted by fraud, based on the popular vote “winner” for each Congressional district. Two electors would be apportioned based on the state-wide popular vote (after fraudulent county results are removed from consideration) and the remaining electors would be one for each Congressional district, again based on the popular vote after corrupted counties’ votes are removed. For example, if (hypothetically) a state has nine electors, seven Congressional districts, and 45 counties, and four counties had election fraud, the remaining 41 counties would have their results reflected in the adjusted state-wide and Congressional district popular votes.

(b) If a state had corrupt results in a majority of its counties, and the fraud consistently favored a particular candidate, the entire slate of the state’s electors would be awarded to the candidate with the second highest number of votes.

The Constitution clearly assigns the role of apportionment to the state legislatures (Article II, Section 1, paragraph two). State legislatures that had counties with fraudulent elections must, for this election, abandon their current “winner takes all” apportionment and act to apportion the state’s electors under the Maine-Nebraska system, based on the election results for only those counties that conducted clean elections.

I believe this strategy is fair and will provide an orderly and Constitution-based outcome. It will also send a message to the fraud-perpetrating counties not to interfere with future elections, while preserving the voting results for honest county elections.

But determining the just outcome of the President, House, and Senate races is not enough. What more needs to be done?

Individuals, businesses, organizations, and government officials who planned and implemented any aspect of this intentional, organized voter and election fraud must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

And the sovereign states must take actions such as the following to secure the integrity of future elections:

  • use of paper ballots that are printed on “secure” paper, to prevent production and use of counterfeit ballots
  • a system for reconciling the number of ballots issued to precincts with the number of ballots that are distributed, voted, and unused
  • hand counting of ballots (until trustworthy machine tabulators that are NOT connected to the Internet can be secured)
  • stringent voter registration and voter ID standards that require proof that the voter is a U.S. citizen
  • a signature when registering to vote and a signature match to receive an in-person ballot or have an absentee/mail ballot counted
  • written application for an absentee or mail ballot, with limited specific reasons for the use of an absentee or mail ballot (e.g., military stationed away from their home precinct)
  • safeguards for provisional ballots to only be counted after the voter’s voter registration and identity have been verified

Finally, all state legislatures should change their method of elector apportionment from the “winner-takes-all” method to the Maine-Nebraska system of apportionment by Congressional district. This aligns more closely with what the Founding Fathers envisioned and provides an equitable “voice” for the voters of every district, whether small or large geographically, urban or rural, rich or poor, Democrat or Republican (because districts have approximately the same population). Urban centers within a state may still be a dominant voice (because they contain several districts), but they will have less influence on the state-wide and national outcomes of the Presidential race, compared to the state-wide popular vote “winner takes all” method.

Let me use California as an example, since it has the greatest number of Electoral College electors and is the country’s most populous state (at just under 40 million). California currently has 55 electoral votes, 53 congressional districts, and 58 counties. One county, Los Angeles, with a population of 10 million, substantially influences the popular vote for the state and the consistent apportionment of the state’s entire slate of electors to a Democratic Party candidate. This 55-vote slate is 20% of the 270-vote threshold needed to win the Electoral College! Should one county have one-fifth of the influence in the nation’s Presidential election outcome???

If Congressional district-based apportionment was implemented in California, the number of represented “units” would remain constant at 55, but Los Angeles County voters would influence the outcome of only (part or all) of 18 Congressional districts (plus the state-wide popular vote), rather than all 55 electors (based on current district boundaries; see [Note: The number of electors and district boundaries may change after the 2020 census.] This change nation-wide would reduce the influence all major cities have over the states’ electoral outcome AND the national outcome.

Circling back to the current dilemma of fraud, ideally any county that committed fraud would have its election results uncertified (voided), but the rest of the state’s counties would have a popular vote influence in the slate of electors. Citizens who are worried about disenfranchisement through fraud should also be concerned about disenfranchisement through the ever-increasing dominance of the urban voice over rural Americans. Congressional district-based apportionment provides equitable representation for all areas of the country.

May God grant us wisdom to re-balance the representative governance of our nation (James 1:5), lead us on His path of integrity (Proverbs 14:34), and establish God-fearing leaders at all levels of government (Romans 13:1; Daniel 4). And may our elected and appointed officials govern justly, wisely, and in fear of the Lord.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Gem State Patriot News