Election Justice

RECENT HISTORY

Nothing in elections that has happened since Nov 2020 is new. There is a long historical record of election anomalies and attempted resolutions. The move to electronic voting has been a 5- decade march, with numerous credible actors revealing vulnerabilities to replace the machines. All efforts to remove the machines have failed.

Now, we have a new collection of “election experts” since Nov 2020. Sadly, very have watched a US election from behind the scenes, worked as an election official, nor even spoken at length with election officials. But they are quick to sell public media celebrity in place of subject matter expertise and are all too willing to viciously critique the system and the people behind it despite the lack of real understanding. Is it surprising that we now have entrenched encampments shooting proverbial arrows at each other, with no tangible solutions anywhere on the horizon? How many are Precinct Committee women and/or men?

Donors were first sold expensive efforts to audit elections, with no understanding of what an audit entailed, nor the resources required, and without appreciating the limited clarity that findings would reveal. Others were convinced to invest in massive canvassing efforts that were completed without proper consultation with sampling statisticians, rendering findings inconclusive. Notwithstanding these issues, all suggested paths were designed to render results long after certification and inauguration, with some misplaced hope that election results could be reversed.

Further, those with subject matter expertise and long histories of election oversight were, one wonders, not consulted.

As a result, we are about to enter the 2024 primary season with still no cogent plan - nor a team with sufficient track record to provide a strategy and tactics to achieve meaningful election transparency.

This is not a new phenomenon. The monied interests of the Globalists (“Uni-Party”) suffered these same difficulties in the early 2000s. But they learned from their mistakes and invested the last 20 years to build a system and network for election influence.

CURRENT FAD

Now, presumptive experts are proposing the following:

■ Saturate the election landscape with [qualitative] “observers;”

■ Collect affidavits;

■ Mimic the tactics of the “Uni-Party” (a trap);

■ Install lawyers to enforce affidavits.

We witnessed this same approach by People for the American Way (PFAW) in the 2004 Presidential election. It proved ineffective despite consuming over $20M in contributions.

DONOR DISARRAY

Political donors continue to operate in an captured world, trusting 2024 will be different than 2020, 2022 or the past several decades. As a result, donors generally:

■ Donate to the political campaigns of populist candidates, believing their donations alone to these political candidates will influence election results;

■ Have become so cynical that they have completely detached from funding political campaigns, believing the system is beyond repair;

■ View donations for the development of election integrity as an effort that is not their responsibility, simply not sexy, or can be delayed until we are on the heels of another election.

This imprecise thinking will likely perpetuate the status quo, where populist candidates inexplicably lose elections to Establishments ones, increasing the risk that vastly more voters will become disillusioned with the political process and abandon it prior to 2024.

DILEMMA: MALFEASANCE IS NOT VISIBLE

We are witnessing the effects of 5th Generational Warfare, where acts of Man are disguised as acts of God. In simpler terms, this means that malfeasance is executed by extremely subtle means, within the election system’s margin of error, such that patterns of malfeasance cannot be viewed through simple human observation. Instead, hidden patterns of malfeasance (or misfeasance) can ONLY be revealed through well designed data collection and analysis methodologies, prepared far in advance of election day and engaged both during elections and during election off-seasons.

STRATEGIC RESPONSE

The approach therefore must integrate BOTH:

■ Near Real Time Objective Observation: a publicly operated data collection system that reveals (within hours/days of poll closing) patterns of malfeasance (or misfeasance);

■ Redress with Irrefutable Evidence: an integral response system that can redress the government with this objective quantitative data (this response system must also be created and organized, with participants trained, equipped and given the appropriate tools).

Rather than merely filling media airways with more and better content, this will create actionable, credible and legal pathways to verification prior to certification using existing government channels, most likely at local levels.

PROVEN PATH

Achieve “Election Transparency & Fundamental Fairness” via:

■ Full Spectrum Objective Public Oversight - in compliance with all laws, rules and regulations: Publish an overwhelming quantity of irrefutable election data that testifies as to the certifiability of the election results. Analysis of this data must be:

- published in a form that makes findings clear, with the output simple for the public, media, and government to consume and understand;

- completed in near real time, within hours and days after the polls close, and well before certification of election results. Hence, analytical systems must be created in advance of election;

■ An Actionable Network: Consumers of this data must be part of an integrated system who are well trained in how to interpret data and have the necessary tools and know-how to affect further scrutiny prior to election certification;

■ Reorganize Election Human-Networks: Dis-intermediate relationships between election vendors, election officials (where there is an over-reliance on vendors to execute elections), and unelected election administrators by developing public-gov’t partnerships at county level (including election officials, clerks, sheriffs);

■ Small County Conversion: Continue to meet with county clerks, supervisors and commissioners with the goal of migrating to manual ballot recording and counting systems (e.g., hand count).

GOALS FOR 2024 ELECTION CYCLE

2024 must serve as a learning tool. It is far too late to create and deploy systems that will achieve any meaningful curtailment of malfeasance. So, while 2024 will be imperfect, it is an essential Beta test, enabling the development of a more comprehensive and effective approach. Hence, 2024 will serve as a marker where actors and systems will be developed and deployed with the goal of learning how to:

■ Objectively observe an election using public volunteers to collect quantitative data;

■ Analyze data in a relevant way;

■ Publish analysis to key “consumers” within the “Actionable Network;”

■ Redress data revealed anomalies in a meaningful way.

Further, 2022 must be leveraged to:

■ Create initial version of public oversight instruction manuals that can be distributed to key state leaders, which they can use to build and deploy their own oversight;

■ Develop meaningful relationships at county level and develop action plans in the face of anomalous data or bad behavior;

■ Own the “Positive, Extending Olive Branch to Election Officials” narrative (ref: Trump’s Central Park ice rink example: under budget and ahead of schedule);

■ Assign unique “brands” to each political, “UnAuthorized” campaign (whether grassroots Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc.) running under election integrity and solidify narratives that reduce the counterattack surface.

PROGNOSIS: 2024 MAY BE WORSE THAN 2020 and 2022

If serious efforts are not initiated presently, expect bad actors to:

■ accelerate their effort to consolidate power in the face of rising public awareness, and therefore anomalous behavior will be more widespread geographically and further down ticket;

■ use this election to further demean the public’s spirit and hope for fundamental fairness in our election system by psychologically crushing any semblance of confidence in a different result from 2020 or 2022.

Hence, it is imperative that expectations are realistically set. The public must understand not enough has been done to significantly retard this anomalous behavior. Otherwise, we risk public disenchantment that will delay preparation for beyond 2024, elevating the risk that we will also not be ready for 2026, 2028 and so on.

SUMMATION

■ Those with access to resources are operating far outside their domain of experience, and are understandably misdirecting critical resources toward efforts that have previously proven ineffective;

■ Vanishingly few in the populist political camp have a grasp of the battlespace they are operating in, nor the sophistication of bad actors;

■ Actors willing to manipulate elections will continue to do so, and will become more aggressive;

■ Currently, there are no credible plans that will, with high confidence, inhibit malfeasance in 2024.

RECOMMENDATION: WHAT CAN BE DONE?

■ Set egos aside.

■ Enable those who have previously designed and deployed serious mitigation systems. Political, legal, and traditional business skills are of limited value in this domain. Donors will NOT obtain solutions from the existing political-nonprofit establishment (e.g., RNC’s election integrity fund raising that has yielded no tangible results).

■ Serious people with integral understanding of complicated systems should be immediately and adequately funded to design proper oversight systems that will reveal hidden patterns of misfeasance and malfeasance, restoring public agency to their elections.

■ Those seeking to win elections at all costs have committed $80M (minimum) over the next 2 years. Abatement efforts will require at least 10% of this funding level to have a reasonable chance of success.

■ Act now. Although it may be too late to fully protect the integrity of the 2024 election, it must be used as foundational training for beyond 2024.