I’ve only seen your American Thinker article about “Information Warfare in New York.” In that article the link to your detailed article was stale. It would not be surprising to find differences among counties and other election authorities for a variety of reasons. So, four differences are believable, but how does that automatically mean fraud of some kind?
Without evidence I find it difficult to believe any state would try to hide information inside a voter ID when there are so many easier ways to identify voters to “use” for fraud. How is a complicated algorithm implemented and maintained over time statewide as staff changes at local and state election offices?
Wisconsin earlier this year had 54% inactive voters. At random in Wisconsin, you had a greater than a 50% chance of picking a voter that is not likely to show up to vote. Voter history in voter files (sometimes a “last voted year”) shows voters not likely to show up. In Kansas earlier this year there were over 200,000 suspect “unlikely” voters many of which should have been removed years ago.
With so much “bloat” already in most (all?) voter files, why add something “complicated” when there are easier existing ways? Occam’s razor.
In that case, you don't know much about my research. You read an article that stayed away from detail to make it an easy read. You needed the detail to be convinced. The link didn't get you anywhere, so you never saw the detail you needed to be persuaded. Here is a link to the NY research. Hint: there is no question someone designed and implemented complex algorithms for the purpose of manipulating ID numbers in a way that allowed tracking and segregation of records. There is no reasonable alternative to this. If you look around ResearchGate, you'll see some of my other papers.
Disagree about what? The Spiral in NY? or Kansas, which I haven't looked at?
I’ve only seen your American Thinker article about “Information Warfare in New York.” In that article the link to your detailed article was stale. It would not be surprising to find differences among counties and other election authorities for a variety of reasons. So, four differences are believable, but how does that automatically mean fraud of some kind?
Without evidence I find it difficult to believe any state would try to hide information inside a voter ID when there are so many easier ways to identify voters to “use” for fraud. How is a complicated algorithm implemented and maintained over time statewide as staff changes at local and state election offices?
Wisconsin earlier this year had 54% inactive voters. At random in Wisconsin, you had a greater than a 50% chance of picking a voter that is not likely to show up to vote. Voter history in voter files (sometimes a “last voted year”) shows voters not likely to show up. In Kansas earlier this year there were over 200,000 suspect “unlikely” voters many of which should have been removed years ago.
With so much “bloat” already in most (all?) voter files, why add something “complicated” when there are easier existing ways? Occam’s razor.
In that case, you don't know much about my research. You read an article that stayed away from detail to make it an easy read. You needed the detail to be convinced. The link didn't get you anywhere, so you never saw the detail you needed to be persuaded. Here is a link to the NY research. Hint: there is no question someone designed and implemented complex algorithms for the purpose of manipulating ID numbers in a way that allowed tracking and segregation of records. There is no reasonable alternative to this. If you look around ResearchGate, you'll see some of my other papers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370835885_The_Caesar_cipher_and_stacking_the_deck_in_New_York_State_voter_rolls