Who are we to say they haven't? In the instance of Nevada, the fight was over the timing and procedures in which the data was presented, not the data itself, which was also presented under seal due to confidential information (assuming this info truly was confidential voter identification information). It's not really a stretch when you read the court decisions to believe no honest look is being done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. So I wanted to do my own "surface" level look into this and not just be talking off what others are saying. The GOP of Nevada released a witness affidavit that claims the following:
“Last night Biden-Harris representatives knocked on my door looking for a “B. Good” and saying that there is a problem with his ballot. Mr. Good is the former resident at my rental house and moved to Sacramento in May. My Vote, per Ballottrax, was counted and my information and address was updated when I moved in to this residence after him. I am the only resident that has lived here since May.”
Source: https://nevadagop.org/out-of-state-voters/
They then say Mr. B. Good voted. They go as far to say as you can check for yourself:
https://www.washoecounty.us/voters/elec ... eports.php
As someone who things digging through data is fun, I decided to waste an hour of my life and prove this false. I figured with an isolated county, with a gender, first initial, and last name, it would be rather easy to find this person. I was right, it was.
In fact I found 3 other people at the same address as Mr. B Good, and I found some interesting things. Allow me to walk you through my process:
Step 1) I went through and took a look at the subject Mr. B.Good:
Fact: B. Good did vote by mail, and as stated by the witness, he voted from Sacramento California.
Challenge Attempt 1: I looked to see any challenges to his vote. There were none. His registration last changed in October 2018. Washoe county reports sending the ballot on 9/14 and receiving it into the system on 10/21. I tracked this ballot through BallotTrax and it says the received date was 10/26. Weird that this data does not match up, but I will chalk this up to the overly complex mail in ballot system.
Challenge Attempt 2: Maybe he is a college student? The rules are generally laxed for us. He is currently 30 years old (which means nothing), but I find it hard to believe the case that a 30 year old would have his family home in CA and either moved back for the summer or just graduated (for reference CA is listed as birth state). I could find no information that supports he is a college student, but that certainly does not prove he is not.
Step 2) Next I went to the likely person (J. Bates age 32) who gave this statement that B. Good had moved out of state... I say likely person because this person updated their registration on 4/26/2020... they allege they moved in May. This person was an in-person early voter, for some reason they are listed as an unverified voter in the data. Maybe this means signature match so it would be a no if you vote in person?
Step 3) I moved on to the next person. Now again, this is a duplex. Looking this up in the Washoe county assessor database, its a 2 unit duplex so two different persons or family's can be living there at once. I should note all 4 of these people that voted from this address do not share the same last name, nor do they share the same last name as the duplex owner (as per the assessor database). This next person (E. Morrison age 35 also unverified) is recorded as voting twice. Now whether or not the vote counted both times I am not sure, but it is in the the voter turnout data for Washoe County....
All I know from this data is:
- E. Morrison was sent a mail in ballot (like all voters in NV). This ballot was challenged as "undeliverable mail" per Washoe county records. However, this ballot was recorded as being sent on 9/14 and recorded as received on 10/16. Why this would have been recorded would be a question for Washoe. I am guessing that this received data was a bounce back from the USPS but was recorded as a challenged vote. Doesn't mean this is a fraudulent vote or that it was counted at all.
- E. Morrison went to an early voting location on 10/27 and voted from this very address that was recorded as undeliverable. Now to vote in person this year (https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=8842) you had to bring your mailed ballot in to surrender it or sign that you would not mail your ballot. I suppose it is reasonable to assume the county knew of the issue since the ballot would have been received a week prior, thus allowed E. Morrison to vote.
Another reasonable explanation to this would be the E. Morrison figured out they did not get their mail in ballot, thus went and voted in person at a EV location. The question remains why this is recorded and what is meant by "received". The reason I question this will make more sense below.
Step 4) The last person on at this address voted by mail, was recorded as verified, but their mail address was to a PO box roughly 50 miles away. This person is 41 years old, has no recorded birth place in the voter turnout data, and no recorded phone number.
Again, it is not outside the norm for college "kids" not related to one another to share a rental unit and vote from the same address. I would be in this category. What is odd is the separate PO box mailing address and that the ages for all these individuals are 30 and above. Another odd factoid is of the ones I suspect to NOT be the witness, their voter registration was last updated right before the midterm elections in 2018. However, proof of fraud cannot not rely on oddities. From this little exercise it seems to me the GOP of NV is closer to the truth than they are a lie here. It leads me to believe they have names, but there is no guarantee to that, and I guess there is no guarantee those names would check out to be factually fraudulent votes. Further investigation seems to be needed.... The data shows that he did vote by mail, he did vote from a different state, and there is good indication that the witness who gave this statement did at least update their voter registration around the same time this guy supposedly moved out and they moved in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I want to address the questions I raised about what counts and what does not count, and the reasoning behind that. I was not expecting to go down this whole rabbit hole when I started... but as questions began to pop up from the exercise above, I couldn't resist.
Per November 16th, the certified and canvassed vote results are here: https://www.washoecounty.us/voters/elec ... esults.php. To be fair it does state that these results are based on the best data available.. which would bring me to believe there is alternative data to what I went through as you will see (or so I hope). Anyway, It states:
- 252,142 is the total vote count.
- 252,563 is the total turn out report. (for a whopping number of 80%+ turnout)
- 304,224 is the number of registered voters.
Now that seems innocent enough. They record the correct number of under votes to if you go into the dashboard.
Now their turnout report page: https://www.washoecounty.us/voters/elec ... eports.php. They report:
- If you take the cumulative early voting & mail in/absentee cumulative total (213,670) and add that to the cumulative election day totals (16,758,); the result is 230,428 total votes.
-13,281 ballots were recorded as challenges
Comparing their published turnout data to the election results, there is a 22,135 vote difference between the results (higher end) and the published turn out. If we conclude the challenges are not included... well the number get's higher. We can chalk this up to latency in updating as this was last updated on Nov. 11th and the allowable ballot curing deadline was Nov. 12th. So all the challenges could possibly have been cured but the numbers still don't even come close. So either there is a missing turnout category here or I failed to add the right numbers, please feel free to double check.
Now from the spreadsheet last updated on Nov. 11th that you can download (as I did) I found this:
- There were 303,679 rows of data
- There were 3,838 duplicate voter I.D.'s.
- There were 13,203 challenges (11,759 with duplicate voter ID's removed). This gives me the idea this list is an account of every ballot regardless it were counted as a vote.
- 67,028 ballots were not returned.
Now, if you remove the total number of challenges, duplicate voter IDs, and unreturned ballots you yield 221,056. Hey that's not bad, pretty close to the published numbers in the tables. I mean it's almost 10,000 votes short but we can factor in some uncertainty and maybe it's from this best data available source Still really shy of that final vote count. Even if you take a conservative approach and assume all challenges were cured and there were no rejections you would not meet that 250,000. I think we should all agree that ballots that are not recorded as being received or have duplicate voter ID's should be counted... so what's wrong? This would be less head scratching if the number was OVER the vote count... it's reasonable to assume rejections, challenges, people being caught double voting, etc. and you coulda assume the number to twiddle down to the count they published. However, how would it go up?!
So what happened between November 11th and November 16th? The only logical explanation outside of the data being totally wrong, is that Washoe is missing a category of votes in the data, or half of those "unreturned" ballots were recorded but never reported as such. This leads to very similar issue in GA. Again, as "proof of fraud" this ain't it, but "proof of no fraud", this ain't it either chief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you want names and not numbers. Numbers are not full indications nor prosecutable terms for fraud, but they can be used them as indicators something is not right here. None of these numbers are matching. It's absurd those numbers can be looked at and deemed as normal election errors, abnormalities, etc. and be certified. We are not talking a vote here or a vote there. The margin of victory was ~34,000 votes, yet here we have one county with massively mismatched numbers that are approaching that margin. Why is it so hard to agree that both extremes (fraud/no fraud) are wrong "truths" and that we actually don't know with out further investigation.
Really there are only a few arguments to be made here. Either the data is wrong on either the published results, the published turnout, or the provided spreadsheet data (or combination of all). Which, if true, the defense that Trump simply turned out tons of angry libs from his trolling seems even weaker as it is based on flawed data. We are supposed to believe the turnouts are proof that this election was as free, fair, and beautiful as ever? I mean if the data is flawed, then in turn, that argument is flawed.
Another argument I suppose is that I am lying and manipulating these numbers, to that I assure you I am not. A valid perspective though would be my methodology is flawed, which could be fair. I feel I took a pretty logical and simple approach to this. I don't think the analysis would have to be very detailed if the election is so transparent and obviously free/fair. I see no reason why the numbers should be that far off from what they provide to what they report as canvassed results.
I would enjoy some feedback or alternative perspective as to what is missing here with this analysis. My point is the courts already want to stay out of election matters, many are fought on procedural and statutory reasons (which I am not arguing against) but to use their decisions as proof that the merit is simply a lie/weak is flat out wrong.