The computer doesn’t lie.

Election fraud is big business, as we’ve seen, or probably will if the Steal is stopped. To pull it off convincingly on a large scale necessarily involves a large number of people and therein lies the problem because to put it quite simply, the more people who were in on it, the smaller your chances of keeping it quiet. The people actively involved are potentially facing federal felony charges, so if they know what’s good for them, they’ll keep quiet. The innocent people used by the criminals are a whole other kettle of fish, and there’s a lot of them judging by the number of sworn affidavits by people like postal and ballot workers who witnessed the Steal in action.

To minimise that risk, you’d try and reduce the number of people directly or indirectly culpable in the Steal. One obvious method of doing this is to leave the votes flooding in alone, and simply program the tallying computers to change the final totals up in favour of whoever is paying for your services. This method has been used extensively in the recent general election, but it has one massive flaw. Any one electoral district only has a certain number of people eligible to vote, so that’s the constraint you have to work within. There’s no point in simply adding a zillion votes to your man, because a simple comparison between those eligible to vote and the total of votes cast will show the discrepancy of the zillion you added in.

The slicker way around the comparison problem is to subtract votes from the opposition candidate and then add them to your man’s count, and hey Preso! It suddenly looks a lot more plausible. The downside of all these moves is when the realtime progress of the counting in the ballot is charted. You get these statistically impossible spikes and troughs at easily identifiable points in the curves where your fix was put in. At the click of a button, the big switch has been made or the zillion votes added, but it becomes obvious at one glance at a graph that the vote has been fixed.

How else could you explain things like in one district Biden suddenly getting 600,000 votes out of the blue while in the same short period of time, Trump only managed to garner 2,300 votes?

There’s a lot of to be said for using a computer to commit election fraud at the tallying stage, but the primitive programs currently being used all suffer from this all at once problem, but don’t worry, they’ll get better by simply being reprogrammed to space out over the course of the election evening the reallocation of votes into a spike-free natural looking curve.

But, leaving aside the massive manpower and cost savings of cheating by computer, the biggest advantage it has is the mentality people have when looking at a sheet of figures produced by a computer. If it came from a computer, it has to be right, because after all, computers don’t lie.


Related articles by Pointman:

Click here for a list of all articles in the Stop the Steal series.

Click for a list of other articles.

4 Responses to “The computer doesn’t lie.”
  1. eweturn8 says:

    Imagine you are in line to vote, There are 178 people in front of you. All 178 people in front of you vote for Joe Biden. You vote for Trump. Now imagine, the ridiculousness of this happening 3,200 times. That is the reality of this math.
    This election was so important, it is possible that every progressive group in America, did their small or large part to cheat, thus exposing the means and methods.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. PaleoSapiens says:

    Anyone remember “Garbage In – Garbage Out (GIGO)?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: