Sweeping the Change—An Elegant Way to Cheat

There is an old philosophy among spies and career criminals—hide in plain sight.

In essence, don’t stand out—blend into the crowd if you want your crime/presence to go undetected.

This appears to be exactly what the Smartmatic software did in three Republican counties in Michigan.

Analysis by a MIT trained scientist and others revealed an odd trend in the voting taking place in three largely Republican counties in Michigan. (Read: Statistical Aberrations Can Only Be Explained by Cheating)

In Oakland, Macomb, and Kent counties, as precincts within these counties became more Republican, Donald Trump’s percentage of the Republican vote went down.

Instead of receiving more votes, data analysis revealed a downward trend—but only as the precincts became more Republican.

There was a hard correlation between the percentage of Republicans in a precinct and the lower percentage of the Republican vote received by Donald Trump—a statistical improbability.

Remember the analysis done in Oakland, Macomb and Kent counties only reviewed the vote by Republicans—it was Party centric.

The speculation by liberals: There was a fleeing from Donald Trump by Republicans.

Donald Trump’s performance nationwide, where he outperformed his 2016 results, serves as anecdotal evidence refuting that liberal claim.

Beyond Mr. Trump’s performance nationally—the hard correlation between the percentage of Republican voters and the percentage Donald Trump receive from this affinity group flies in the face homogeneous distribution.

In large populations, unless there is a clear differentiating factor, one should expect a homogeneous distribution across the entire populace.

The percentage of Republicans in a precinct should have had no impact as to how the group voted as a whole.

But in Oakland, Macomb, and Kent counties they did not follow the expected outcome.

What is the most plausible explanation?

There was a guiding hand.

The philosophy of hiding in plain sight is nothing new.

In the 80’s and 90’s as software became a part of everyday life—there were multiple schemes involving software that “Swept the Change.”

Sweeping the change” schemes involved high volume, large financial transactions in the banking and stock market industries, where hackers, even employees of companies, designed software that would skim just a few cents from each transaction.

The thinking—pennies wouldn’t be missed.

These criminals of the new world order were largely correct. No one would miss pennies.

Their downfall—their schemes worked so well; most didn’t get out while the getting was good. But the strategy of skimming just a little from otherwise large transactions was sound.

When we review what took place in Oakland, Macomb, and Kent counties in Michigan it makes prefect sense.

Skim votes where they would least likely be detected.

Therefore, the theft does not take place in counties with lower numbers of Republicans—where the theft may stand out—the theft takes place where it is least likely to draw attention.

The issue: How to steal votes without being noticed by election officials?

Use embedded software in the vote tallying machines that is opaque to the end user.

In effect, the transaction is hidden from everyone—only the software programmer, or company, who created the embedded algorithm knows of its presence.

It should be pointed out: We have an odd relationship with software/computers.

No where is this more apparent than auto-repair.

Our paranoia about being ripped-off by auto-repair shops leads us to believe in computer diagnostics over an analysis made by a mechanic with 30 years of experience—because it’s a computer—and computers don’t lie.  

The truth of the matter, software is designed by humans and can and will be flawed—either by mistake or purposely.

More troubling, we are blind to what takes place inside a computer and its operating software.

We simply don’t know what goes on internally.

This presents a perfect opportunity for malfeasance.

A software program could easily avoid detection by election officials by having certain thresholds installed, such as % of voters, or size of vote count, before it activates its larceny.

Furthermore, code could remain dormant until activated.

This is the major issue with new age voting systems—the further we move toward a paperless world the more opportunities there are for deceptive practices.

One thing is certain—”sweeping the change” is an elegant way to cheat.

Leave a Reply