What to Look For – Ballot vs Votes Iteration 4.0

Sundance | October 31, 2024

It is not my intention to provide black pills. However, we discuss events through the prism of what exists, what we can see and track, rather than what we pretend might be in place.  Thus, today CTH fires a signal flare drawing attention away from precinct voting polling places, and toward tabulation centers.

There is some alarming evidence beginning to surface pointing toward a shift in the USA election process, specifically the fundamentally changed process that now exists behind absentee balloting.

The events in California for the 2018 midterm election appeared to be the original BETA test of mass mail-in ballot collection. Every person in the state mailed a ballot for completion in the 2018 election cycle. The outcome was evident for two weeks after election day when ballots continuing to arrive changed the vote outcome.

The 2020 general election then saw, thanks to COVID-19, a nationwide rollout of the BETA test: balloting 2.0. Millions of households receiving ballots from state election officials, so the socially distant electorate did not need to assemble and vote on election day. The process created a widespread opportunity for fraud.

In the 2022 midterm election, this absentee balloting system was still in place; affirmed into a new structural process within each state. An awakening electorate pondered the absence of the predicted “red wave” and recognized there was a distinct difference between voters and ballots. In general, the republicans were still focused on voters, but the democrats were focused on ballot submission processes. 2022 was essentially the third iteration from the originating California BETA test: balloting 3.0.

After 2022, playing catchup, nationwide attention shifted away from votes and election day, and people started talking about the importance of ballot distribution, collection and submission. This has been the messaging system going into election day 2024. However, there are strong, evidence-based reasons to believe ‘Balloting 4.0’ is something else entirely. Election integrity officials could very well be focusing their efforts on polling and balloting processes that have moved far beyond where they were even just two short years ago.

In 2024’s Balloting 4.0, the “Tabulation Centers” are now far more important than Polling Precincts, yet we still see the majority of election integrity and validation effort, mostly by republicans, focusing on polling precincts.   Let me explain what Balloting 4.0 actually looks like.

Those who created fraud within absentee ballots as a tool to change election outcomes, have dropped the pretense of “registered voters.”   Registered, authorized and eligible voters are no longer an aspect of ballot fraud in this 2024 iteration.  As an outcome, voter rolls no longer appear to be part of the equation, and the correct or incorrect status of voter rolls is a moot point.

There are very strong indications that Balloting 4.0, the fourth iteration of a fraudulent process to control election outcomes, has now moved well beyond the concern with registered voters and voting rolls.  Balloting 4.0 is now about ballot submission REGARDLESS of registered status.

In order to receive a mail-in or absentee ballot from a state election office, in most cases the person making the request would need to be a registered voter.  Some form of eligibility filter would be required (varies by state) to gain a ballot.  Additionally, in many states’ ballots are sent out in mass mail format based on election rolls.  This has been identified as an issue, because again the voter rolls are not up to date or accurate; ergo, multiple ballots sent out to invalid names and/or addresses.  This problem still exists, but Balloting 4.0 has moved one step farther.

What happens when it is not the state or county sending the ballot or approving the request. If the state or county is doing it, voter rolls are still part of the equation.  However, what happens if ballots are printed locally, distributed and completed with names addresses and customary identification material, and then returned to the county recorders’ office regardless of and irrespective of voter registration.

Balloting 4.0 appears to be a system where ballots can be generated outside govt, by any party in the private sector.  What we would call, “localized ballot printing.”

In this instance, the distribution of the ballots can be made to people regardless of their registered voter status.  In Balloting 4.0 the completion of the ballots has nothing to do with voter rolls or pre-filtered voter authenticity.  Balloting 4.0 is simply the mass printing of paper ballots that can be scanned at tabulation centers just like any other ballot.

In the Balloting 4.0 process, the eligibility status of the person completing the ballot becomes irrelevant.  A name is printed or written, address, identification particulars recorded on the ballot, and then the private-sector-printed ballot is then submitted en mass into a population of other ballots that come from state and county government systems.

Locally printed ballots can be mailed, put in drop boxes, dropped off at election offices, or dropped off by entities who “assist” in ballot submission, just like every other ballot.

If thousands of locally printed, perhaps fraudulent ballots, arrive at a recorders’ office what is to stop them from being bulk mixed into the population of ballots from registered voters.  Yes, there are some formal filtration processes that are expected to be utilized to ensure all ballots received are from registered voters.  However, if the receiving official or tabulation worker is motivated by ideology to participate (or willfully ignore) the potential issue, then all the fraudulent ballots just disburse into a population of authentic ballots.

While some very diligent election supervisors, workers and election officials take precautions to stop such localized (ie fraudulent and non-registered) ballot submissions, unfortunately those officials and workers do not work in/around urban voting centers like Atlanta, Austin, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Milwaukee, Detroit etc.  You can see the issue.

Pushing the issue and question up the chain as an outcome of boots on the ground research, I have yet to hear a response from any election official or career election integrity professional who has an answer for this problem.  This concerns me because we are clearly seeing the tell-tale signs of localized ballot printing starting to surface.

We are seeing reports of multiple state, county and municipal tabulation centers who are having trouble scanning a significant percentage the population of the ballots they are receiving.  Significant enough to change an election outcome.  I would strongly urge readers to pay close attention to reports of some ballots “not scanning” correctly or having formatting issues when compared to the overall population of ballots.

This is NOT an issue that encompasses double scanning of ballots.  This is an issue of the authenticity of the ballots themselves.  The authenticity of the ballot stems from the authorized authenticity of the voter, and voter identification is protected by a myriad of laws, rules and regulations making that part of the system check almost impossible after the ballot is scanned, accepted and/or adjudicated.

I suspect “Balloting iteration 4.0,” the system in place for 2024, is no longer a ballot issue connected to registered voters and voter rolls.  I suspect ballot fraud in 2024 is now directly and simply the raw generation of physical ballots that have no connection whatsoever to registration processes.

Remember, because the way we value voting rights as a fundamental right for Americans, in every case of ballot review the election system comes from a predisposition that every arriving ballot is valid and authentic.  Issues of doubt are weighted heavily in favor of the submission.  It is rare to have a voting ballot disqualified by a system designed to protect voting ballots.  Those who intentionally support fraud, count on this predisposition of validity [See Marc Elias].

If this perspective is accurate, and there’s no reason to think it is not, then election integrity focus on polling places is wasted energy.  The real venues that should be getting the majority of attention are ballot tabulation centers.  That is where incoming ballots need to be authenticated before they enter any scanning system to record the vote.

Once the ballot is scanned and tabulated, it’s over.  There will never be a process to reverse or remove a legally recorded vote, even if that ballot is fraudulent.

November 1, 2024 | Comments »

Leave a Reply