The Vice President of customer relations for Dominion Voting Systems admitted in 2012 that the company’s software is susceptible to “incorrect reporting of vote totals.” Waldeep Singh made the confession after a persistent audit uncovered systemic shortcomings in the software that allowed large swaths of votes to be assigned to the wrong candidate in two council races in Palm Beach County, Florida. The vote switch resulted in the fraudulent certification of votes for the wrong candidates. The elections were ultimately overturned thanks to an audit by a persistent election supervisor.
Election supervisor’s persistent audit uncovers two stolen races
County Elections supervisor Susan Bucher found that the winner of two Wellington council races was wrongly attributed, skewed by votes that were reassigned by voting system software. This fraud was uncovered after the votes were certified and after the winners of the council races were announced. The fraud was uncovered six days after the vote total was certified. The fraud would have gone unnoticed if it weren’t for an election audit and a keen, persistent woman named Susan Bucher. She pleaded with election officials that the anomaly was more than a human error, that the fraud was being carried out by the software.
In this instance of election fraud, the Wellington Seat 1 candidate, Shauna Hostetler, and Seat 4 candidate Al Paglia, were originally certified to the state as winners, but after the audit was conducted, it was determined that John Greene and incumbent Matt Willhite got more votes. Singh said the software created a mismatch between the paper ballots and tally system, contorting vote totals between the candidates. Singh said the glitch is a “synchronicity difficulty” that is a “shortcoming” of the software.
Dominion faced no repercussions as they promised Bucher and Palm Beach County a new, upgraded version of the software. That software was not even available for their March 13th election the following year. It’s unfathomable that any state Division of Elections would accept software after it almost got away with flipping an election in two races.
Despite track record of fraud, susceptible software was used throughout 2020 Presidential election
Eight years after this software was caught flipping two races, it has been revealed that the same software was used in multiple states in the Presidential election, even after being rejected in Philadelphia and throughout the state of Texas. However, software spokesperson Michael Steel recently lashed out at the Trump campaign and told Fox News that it’s “physically impossible” to switch votes. The election software provider is currently enlisting lawyers to counter the evidence of election fraud brought forth by Texas Attorney Sidney Powell.
Sidney Powell said she has a witness (in protection) who has testified under oath that the software has been used as a weapon to switch votes in Venezuela to steal elections there. She also pointed out that foreign interference was in play from the start of the 2020 Presidential election and clarified that the results were counted in countries such as Spain and Germany.
How hard would it be to use a simple algorithm or subroutine within the software program itself to switch votes? How easy would it be to gain remote access to the servers, that are conveniently located outside US jurisdiction? Does Powell have the source code from the voting machines, and the chain of custody proving it was installed on those machines? Why was vote counting stopped on election night in key states that Trump was leading? Why did the vote tally percentages switch overnight, to match the precise percentage needed to overtake Trump’s commanding lead? Much remains unanswered until all the precise evidence and witness testimony is brought forth in court.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.