To determine the accurate results from the 2020 election, states must forensically audit all ballots in an area and not samples. This can easily be done as Arizona is showing us.
Yesterday we reported on some action in Michigan to get to the bottom of the election results in that state. Representative Steve Carra proposed House Bill 5091, requesting $2.5 million to perform a forensic audit of the November 2020 presidential and US Senate election in the hotly contested state of Michigan.
Much like Arizona’s forensic audit, which lawmakers and observers across the nation have praised, Carra’s bill would require a bipartisan board to hire an outside group to conduct the forensic audit. The board would include one poll challenger from each political party from the November election. Michigan’s proposed audit would use Arizona’s audit as a model and cover 10% of the precincts in Michigan’s 83 counties, and audit a random sampling of 20% of the precincts in Detroit, where election results are frequently called into question.
This is a great step forward in a state where President Trump was way ahead on Election night only to see the Democrats push through hundreds of thousands of votes to give the election to Joe Biden.
However, to identify and confirm all valid ballots, the state will need to select 100% of the ballots. Jovan Pulitzer describes why in the video below:
In the video above, Jovan Pulitzer begins by sharing that you can’t do a partial audit using sampling. He explained this is a tweet to Rep. Carra who he clarified this with before his video.
Drop the word FULL from FORENSIC AUDIT and say “fractional audit” all you get is the same old rigged systems and games. #FractionsDontFindFraud FULL FORENSIC AUDITS DO! #ScanTheBallots #KinematicArtifacts #NoBallotLeftBehind #JovanHuttonPulitzer WORDS MATTER! #Michigan Lost Again
— JovanHuttonPulitzer™ #JovanHuttonPulitzer (@JovanHPulitzer) June 22, 2021
Jovan makes a couple of really key statements in this video.
1. You have to include 100% of all ballots in your forensic audit. This is because the fraud may be hidden in only one area out of a hundred. You will miss identifying the total amount of fraudulent ballots if you sample. He provided a picture to show what he means. If only one out of a hundred or 6 out of six hundred cases are fraudulent, you will likely not capture the full amount of fraud when sampling. Here is a figure showing the fraudulent cases in red.
If you audit using sampling or fractions, the fraudulent cases may never be captured, especially if your sampling approach is biased (i.e. the selector knows which cases not to audit).
2. The reason the above is so important also is because the law states that you have no standing if you don’t provide more fraudulent cases of fraud than is the difference between candidates in a race, and the courts may shut you down. You need to show that there are enough cases identified to overturn an election. This is why you have to look at all ballots to identify the fraudulent ones.
Arizona is forensically auditing 100% of the ballots in Maricopa County.
Jovan is right and here’s why –
1. Ballots are valuable, as valuable as money.
2. When you audit a bank you don’t go to one teller’s cash drawer and audit only the number of $10 bills. You audit every drawer and the safe and agree that to what is reported.
3. Ballots are like money and should be audited in the same manner you audit money.