The Hammer and Scorecard Part 4: Glitches or Fraud?

Due to irregularities in various states, allegations of fraud, observers not being allowed to witness vote counting, allegations of mystery ballots arriving in the middle of the night which all favored one candidate; it only makes sense to audit these different locations. In the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada such allegations have been made and vote majorities between the two candidates are very small. Georgia will be performing a recount of votes by hand. Arizona recount will only happen if margin of victory is less than or equal to 0.1%. Michigan could see a recount if it is requested by the Trump camp. Nevada might see a recount if requested by Team Trump. Among requesting recounts, there are various legal suits filed in some states questioning the legality of votes cast, which makes sense for the allegations mentioned earlier.

In Michigan a software “glitch” was to blame for 6,000 votes being cast for Biden, when they should have gone to Trump. The official excuse was that a software update wasn’t performed and once it was completed the machines worked as they should. In my experience delaying a software update does not keep the software from working as designed. I believe blaming a software update for vote switching sounds like a lie. It was programmed to switch votes and they were caught. My question then becomes this, how many other “glitches” occurred that were not identified or caught? When we take into consideration Dominion has approximately 80% of the voting machine market in the US. For some context, 6,000 votes is 3% of 200,000 votes. In a previous write up we learned that The Hammer and Scorecard were designed to change 3% of votes to go undetected. 

There is an estimated 42% of the population that voted in the 2020 election. This total will be used to estimate the following examples.

There are 67 counties in Pennsylvania, of them 26 are located in the 5 major areas in Pennsylvania that make up the majority of the electorate for the state. These five areas are referred to as CSA (Combined Statistical Area) or MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area).

These five areas total a whopping 70.63% of the population in the State of Pennsylvania this is 9,042,044 people. The number of probable voters equals 3,797,658. 50% of this number for one candidate equals 1,898,829 and 3% of these votes that could changes without detection equals 56,965 total votes given to one candidate with 56,965 taken from the other. A total change of 113,930 change.

The Philadelphia CSA which includes the following counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in 2018 made up 37.29% of Pennsylvania’s population equaling 4,773,861 people and 2,005,022 voters . If there were a 3% glitch it would equal a 60,150 vote swing.

The Pittsburgh CSA includes Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Indiana, Lawrence, Washington, and Westmoreland counties. This CSA makes up 18.03% of the population equaling 2,308,198 people with 969,443 voters, a 3% “glitch” equals 29,083 vote swing. 

The Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton MSA consists of Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton counties and accounts for 6.54% of the population totaling 837,250 individuals and 351,645 voters. Injecting a 3% “glitch” equals a 10,549 vote swing.

The Harrisburg CSA is made of Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, Perry, and York counties. This CSA makes up 4.46% of PA population, for a total of 570,968 people with 239,806 voters, insert the 3% “glitch” total vote swing is 7,194.

The Scranto-Wiles-Barre MSA includes Lackawanna, Luzerne, and Wyoming counties. The MSA has 4.31% of the PA population equalling 551,765 people and 231,741 voters, amounting for a 3% “glitch” 6,952 vote swing.

The current US population is 331,679,824 with approximately 42% voting this election cycle. Then voters number in at 139,305,526. If a voting hack was possible to implement in every precinct a 3% vote swing would equal an amazing 4,179,165 votes. It would take far less than this if applied in the right areas to completely change the outcome of an election.

While these are hypothetical scenarios it is easy to see how a small number of irregularities in the right precincts could have a big effect on who wins and who loses. Many have claimed the Hammer and Scorecard have been used to sway foreign elections, there is no reason to believe that this technology would not be used in our own elections to determine the outcome. We all know power corrupts people, the more power they gain, the more corrupt they become. Stay vigilant, our rights come from our creator and cannot be determined by a government created by man. Government gets its power from the people and from time to time those in government need to be reminded who they serve.