All posts by admin

In this video, team leader Laura Scharr talks about the recent polling conducted by Rasmussen that shows 60% of US likely voters want to vote using hand-marked paper ballots, and 56% of them are willing to volunteer to count on election night. This is a slam dunk, so why are legislators unwilling to codify these measures? Even India and other European countries have more secure elections where they hand-count, hand-marked paper ballots (not the barcoded ballots we currently have) and can finish counting by midnight.

Are foreign actors influencing source code for our elections?

Guest post by Application Security/Cybersecurity Expert Julie Baker

Open-source software has been the foundation of software development for decades now. I doubt there is an application or an operating system in use today that does not have some open-source libraries or components. I know many utilize a high percentage of open-source components.   There are many benefits to open source software – https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-to-open-source-and-its-benefits/.   These are very utopian ideals, but then there is human nature, which leads to the fact that there are also significant security risks that go along with its use – https://owasp.org/www-project-open-source-software-top-10/.   These are both well-known to those of us in application security, and I will not spend time on those very real issues here.   Instead, I want to focus on specific concerns regarding the open-source project Yocto[i].

Late last year, the State of South Carolina upgraded its election systems to EVS 6.3.0.0. As part of this update, DS300 tabulators were purchased, and these run a Yocto image.   The ESS EVS 6300 Certificate and Scope of Conformance.pdf[ii] only mentioned Yocto once in the document. I expected more information about the image, especially regarding updates, versions, and anti-virus protection. But there is nothing in the conformance document about this. I became curious and decided to do some research into Yocto. 

What I discovered about Yocto is concerning. Yocto is an open-source project. Open source projects emphasize openness and collaboration amongst their members, and they have historically followed a decentralized model. Members often share code, ask and answer questions, and help and support each other as part of the community. Security is usually a collaborative effort, but Yocto now has a security team, a new and welcome development.

Additionally, “Without fanfare, Yocto Project touches most people’s lives without their knowledge,” notes Richard Purdie, lead Architect at Yocto Project. “At least half the world’s internet traffic passes through routers built using Yocto. Add in mobile phone masts, software in cars, and software inside core server components. Billions of devices around us are relied upon daily, making it a key piece of easily overlooked critical infrastructure software.”[iii]   Even if Yocto was not being used to generate software for ES&S election infrastructure, it is critical because it is ubiquitous.

How open-source communities work sounds quite idyllic, and it can be. However, it is not so idyllic when there is a direct push from the U.N. and globalist governments like Germany and China to centralize, govern, and monitor these open-source communities and projects. This is done through direct funding grants, membership fees, participation in leadership, and everyday community collaboration, all under the guise of sustainability and the public good. It sounds like USAID; only this funding is to subvert critical open-source communities and software. There has been an increase in momentum for this centralization and governance in the past three years because the critical nature of these communities and what they produce has come to the attention of the “powers that be.” The fact that ES&S is generating software for critical election infrastructure using tools from an open-source project with these issues increases the likelihood that the software has been compromised.

The Evidence

1. Yocto is a project under the umbrella of the Linux Foundation, a non-profit group established in 2000 to support Linux development and open-source software projects.[iv]  Umbrella projects are allocated resources from the Linux Foundation parent and receive funding from membership dues. Yocto is also in partnership with other open-source projects like OpenEmbedded and provides financing for those open-source projects as well.[v]
2. Some of the Yocto participating organizations (ones that were willing to make their participation public) include Meta, Huawei (a Chinese company), Dell, AWS, KCE Group Services (a Venezuelan company), Linaro (a Chinese CEO, non-profit), and others.[vi] I am assuming that ES&S, since they use Yocto, is also a participating organization. However, they have decided not to publicize this.
3. Yocto received an infusion of funding in 2023 from the Sovereign Tech Fund[vii], now known as the Sovereign Tech Agency – this “is a funding program initiated by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, aimed at supporting the development and maintenance of open-source software and digital infrastructure. Established in May 2022, it focuses on enhancing technological diversity and resilience in the open-source ecosystem.”[viii]   This is fully supported by the U.N. as well – they appear to be hand in glove to centralize and manage open source.
4. The Linux Foundation probably provides much funding for Yocto since Yocto is under its umbrella. However, it is hard to tell, given the lack of transparency in the finances of these non-profits. There are some areas of concern about the Linux Foundation:

•  The Linux Foundation has aligned its goals to the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals[ix]

• The Linux Foundation believes open-source communities need assistance becoming “sustainable” (ensuring appropriate funding). Therefore, they “suggest that open source work is consolidated under a single banner, such as an Open Source Program Office (OSPO) at companies.   Finally, we suggest incorporating contribution monitoring into the organization’s pipeline. We developed a toolkit to help improve data capture and monitoring.”[x] 

• The U.N. is pushing for establishing OSPOs – Open Source Program Offices – OSPOs for Good to “champion OSPOs as a global network for good” and  ‘enablers of global cooperation.’[xi]

• The Sovereign Tech Agency, mentioned above as a source of Yocto funding, is very tightly associated with the United Nations and its goals. The United Nations hosted the 2nd annual OSPOs for Good conference at its headquarters. The Linux Foundation and Sovereign Tech Agency were participants/speakers.

• There is a definite push to centralize/govern open source communities under the auspices of the U.N. and an effort to get governments, like Germany, more involved to make sure this happens for the sustainability of critical open source technologies. Also, centralization and monitoring are needed for security – to prevent another xz utils incident, which was stopped from going global by sheer “luck.” Never let a crisis go to waste.

• Jim Zemlin – executive director of the Linux Foundation and Board member: “Jim has been recognized for his insights on the changing economics of the technology industry, and he is a regular keynote speaker at industry events. He advises various startups, including Splashtop, and sits on the boards of the Global Economic Symposium, Open Source For America, and Chinese Open Source Promotion Union.”[xii]  Based on this description, the executive director has strong ties to Chinese and globalist endeavors.

• China has been increasing its influence in open source – “Today, China’s open source community has become a driving force behind some of the most influential projects in the cloud-native ecosystem.”[xiii]  The article mentioned Kubernetes, but as you will see below, it also includes the Linux Foundation. 

• Two board members are Chinese – Peixin Hou (Huawai) and Xin Liu (Tencent), representing Chinese-owned companies. Other board members include people from large multinational companies, including Microsoft, Ericsson, Oracle, Intel, Sony, and others.

• Platinum member companies (which provide a large part of the funding through annual membership fees) include Ericsson, Huawei, and other large multinational companies. Given the large membership fees (500k per year), platinum member companies will likely have a lot of influence over how things are run.

• Gold member companies ($100k per year) – Ali Baba Cloud (Chinese), Blackrock, Webank (Chinese)’ and others.

This very interesting article that I found while doing research on this – is worth a read.

Shared post – Linux Foundation decreased Linux spending to 3.2% in 2022.

---

[i] “The Yocto Project is an open-source collaboration project that provides templates, tools, and methods to help you create custom Linux-based systems for embedded system deployments in connected edge devices, servers, or virtual environments, regardless of the hardware architecture.”[i]  An embedded system is a small computer that’s built into a larger device or machine to control it and allow the user to interact with it.  ES&S uses a Yocto project image on its DS200 and DS300 tabulators – the computers that count the votes. 

[ii]https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system/files/ESS%20EVS%206300%20Certificate%20and%20Scope%20of%20Conformance.pdf

[iii] https://www.yoctoproject.org/blog/2023/10/10/sovereign-tech-fund-boosts-yocto-project/

[iv] Linux Foundation – Wikipedia

[v] https://www.yoctoproject.org/blog/2023/10/10/sovereign-tech-fund-boosts-yocto-project/

[vi] https://www.yoctoproject.org/about/participants/

[vii] https://www.sovereign.tech/tech/yocto

[viii] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/sovereign-tech-fund-boosts-yocto-project

[ix] Sustainability | Linux Foundation

[x] Understanding the State of Open Source Funding in 2024

[xi] OSPOs for Good 2024 | Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies

[xii] Leadership | Linux Foundation

[xiii] https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366608127/The-rise-and-rise-of-open-source-in-China

My name is Laura Scharr, and I am the founder of SC Safe Elections. We are a nonpartisan group aiming to restore confidence in our elections. I am also the co-author of a whitepaper on how to re-engineer our election ecosystem, called Gold Standard Elections. I have grave concerns about Bills S36 and S37. These bills do not set the gold standard for elections. We must remember that the foundation of our Republic is the confidence of our voters and candidates in the electoral process. If passed, these bills will only serve to erode that confidence.

Bill S36

Bill S 36 increases the precinct size from 1500 to 3000 and allows the county board of registrations total flexibility in moving/changing polling locations or precincts. While this may be convenient for the election commission as it may reduce vote locations, it is far less convenient for voters as it reduces accessibility and increases confusion, travel times, and wait times.

The entire purpose of this bill is to make it extremely difficult to hand-count hand-marked ballots. We MUST NOT lose the flexibility and ability to do so. This is especially important given that the new presidential administration is eager to go to one day of voting with hand-counted hand-marked paper ballots and this bill hamstrings our ability to do so.

Instead, our state should be an innovator—one of the first to step up and prove this model viable. We have done pilot tests on this and are able to count 100 ballots with 11 races in 1 hour with a 4-person team. 1,000 ballots could be counted with 3 teams of 4 before midnight if we keep these precincts to a manageable size.

Now is not the time to be making significant changes in the wrong direction, given that:

1. The mandate of the new administration is for one day of voting with hand-counted, hand-marked paper ballots
2. As you may be aware, the SC election director is under active investigation by SLED for misconduct.  

Currently, precincts are granted waivers to maintain their size, with many already exceeding the recommended limit. Instead of moving in this direction, we should plan for precincts to be small and manageable and establish accountability measures to create new ones if they exceed the size limit.

Just as a company responds to growing demand by opening more stores, we should adapt to the needs of our constituents, not the administrative convenience of the agency serving them.

Bill S 37

Early and continuous vote uploading and reporting is counterproductive to the goal of safe and secure elections. Too many potential attack vectors and bad actors could obtain that information, and the risk-reward ratio doesn’t make sense.

The only reason for that is to cheat and potentially call-in last-minute voters. This undermines the trust of the voters and must be addressed. There must be no vote totaling until the polls close. County employees would know the local results and would be reporting these to the Election Commission via the ENR Election Night Reporting computer (which is connected to the internet). There is no reason why the election director or board of elections should have that information early. That is a severe risk and one that could be easily compromised.

Securing our vote must always trump convenience.  Early uploading of results is unnecessary as it doesn’t save much time. Computers at the county are programmed to speed the process. It is not the number of flash drives that determines time, it is the amount of data. The time it takes to upload data will be the same it will just be spread across different flash drives.

Our election data is heavily loaded toward early voting, which is roughly 50% of the vote total. This is why early voting data is problematic from a fraud perspective. Early uploading (and reporting) of data essentially gives a select few the election results early. It allows “bad actors” more data and time to act. Given the issues of the last several years regarding elections, we must show voters we are working to mitigate risk, not increase it.

While uploading results early and continuously is convenient for election workers, it only adds risk to the process. Given the lack of trust in election systems, our legislators should be looking for ways to mitigate risk and enhance transparency of the election process. We urge the committee to vote NO to these bills, as it is our collective responsibility to ensure the integrity of our elections.

ACTION NEEDED:

Contact the following subcommittee members today! Tell them to vote no on S36 and No to sections 9 and 10 of S37.

We need to ensure that elections are by the people for the people. Let’s reduce risk, not increase it by commingling precincts and uploading results early.

Here are the emails and contact numbers for the judiciary subcommittee:

georgecampsen@scsenate.gov, michaeljohnson@scsenate.gov, joshkimbrell@scsenate.gov, tameikadevine@scsenate.gov, allenblackmon@scsenate.gov, edsutton@scsenate.gov, jeffzell@scsenate.gov

Campsen, George E. “Chip”, III

District 43 – Beaufort, Charleston & Colleton Counties 

Business phone: (803) 212-6340

Johnson, Michael

District 16 – Lancaster & York Counties – Map

Columbia Address

510 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia 29201

Business Phone 803-212-6172

Kimbrell, Josh

District 11 – Spartanburg County – Map

Columbia Address

502 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia 29201

Business Phone 803-212-6108

Devine, Tameika Isaac

District 19 – Richland County – Map

Columbia Address

612 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia, 29201

Business Phone (803) 212-6172

Blackmon, Allen

District 27 – Chesterfield, Kershaw & Lancaster Counties – Map

Columbia Address

510 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia 29201

Business Phone 803-212-6048

Sutton, Ed

District 20 – Charleston County – Map

Columbia Address

613 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia 29201

Business Phone (803) 212-6056

Zell, Jeff

District 36 – Calhoun, Clarendon, Orangeburg & Sumter Counties – Map

Columbia Address

610 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia 29201

Business Phone (803) 212-6040

Americans don’t trust our election system. This distrust has been growing since the HAVA Act was instituted in 2002. The HAVA Act subsidized the purchase of computerized electronic voting systems, with many components manufactured overseas. Today’s system is highly complex and vulnerable, making it hard for election workers and voters to understand. We must simplify by returning to a system of people, paper, and pens with some modern twists. The best way forward is to remove electronics from all four phases of the system—Voter Registration, Voter Validation, Marking and Counting of the ballots, and Reporting of the Results. While technology such as video recording of the counting is preferred, it is not necessary. The Gold Standard achieves this by enhancing accessibility to qualified voters, security of the physical ballots, vote transparency, and results verifiability. The Gold Standard is a system “for the people by the people.”

We provide recommendations to improve all four areas of the election system in our whitepaper.

Each state must try to incorporate these into its election laws. We recommend that Congress abolish all federal election laws like HAVA (the Help Amerca Vote Act), NVRA (National Voter Registration Act), and UOCAVA (Uniformed Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act)

Here is the QR code for more details.

Here is a summary of the recommendations

Phase 1: Voter Registration: controls who and how many ballots are issued

• In-person registration with valid ID and proof of citizenship at least every 4 years (affidavit and confirmation of legitimate domicile)
• Paper “library card” system of voter rolls sorted by precinct at the county with redundant read-only computer copy
• Separate database for active and inactive/archived
• Voter rolls free of charge, downloadable online-Active, inactive, archived

Phase 2: Voter Validation: controls the legitimacy of ballots eligible for tabulation

• Ongoing validation of rolls; if the voter is activated after inactive status, they must re-register.
• Paper Poll Books- confirm accuracy against paper card system and freeze 30 days before an election-no new registrations beyond this point
• Voter must have a valid current ID at the time of voting
• Periodic checks of voter qualifications and status to ensure accuracy

Phase 3: Marking and Counting of Ballots: controls when/where/how the votes are counted

• One day of voting, a state/federal holiday (early voting is discouraged)
• Hand-marked, Hand-counted Paper Ballots
• Ballots must employ security features and procedures
• Secure transfer of ballots by LEO with detailed logs
• Increase poll workers to ensure timely counting (before midnight)
• Count where cast at the precincts which should be small, <1,500 electors; penalties for violations
• Sequentially numbered but random (pick a card)
• Observable by the public and live-streamed and/or recorded if possible
• Strong chain of custody measures
• Public access to chain of custody docs
• Procedures for COC must be published and election workers trained
• Absentee balloting-minimal and also sorted and counted at their precinct (secure transfer from county)
  • Do not open absentee ballots until counting commences
  • Sequential numbering used to track and reconcile prior to count
• Disability provisions – ADA and curbside

Phase 4: Election Night Results Reporting: controls what results are  ultimately reported and certified in a timely manner

• Tally results are provided on summary totals sheets, which are then sealed and reported to the county and state and posted on the precinct door.
• Ballot counting is open to the public and can be recorded with a cellphone camera mounted over the tally sheets, ballots, and total sheets
• Vote results shall be provided to all citizens within 24 hours of the count, preferably posted on county websites.
• All election records should be free of charge to citizens

Here is a video that discusses the above.

But we must participate in the process

“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right… and a desire to know.” John Adams

Trump may have won the election, but the battle for election reform continues. States are in charge of their elections and must make the necessary changes, but will they have the integrity and fortitude to do the right thing and support election laws that give control of elections back to the people? Now is not the time to be complacent. We shall take a break for the holidays. However, we cannot give up the fight for transparent, accessible, secure, and verifiable elections.

The people have lost faith in our elections. We must urgently overhaul the entire election process to restore public confidence. Our fellow team member and House Representative Rob Harris pre-filed bill H3628. This bill would redesign the state’s current electronic voting process. Electronic voting systems have failed the American public. Computer “glitches,” weak logic and accuracy testing, counting that goes on for a month, ballots with no chain of custody, and ballot harvesting are just a few of the concerns. The only way to ensure every vote is counted accurately and transparently is to implement an actual paper ballot system with secure, hand-marked ballots that are publicly counted.

The solution is the “Gold Standard” – a comprehensive, nationwide blueprint for revamping elections with one day of voting, hand-marked paper ballots, and public observation of the counting process. This solution, outlined in this policy paper, Gold Standard Elections, was constructed with feedback from multiple states and rigorous testing. Watch this video here for a summary of our recommendations.

To make South Carolina a trailblazer, we ask all South Carolinians to CALL or meet with their representatives and ask them to support and sponsor bill H 3628, which codifies these reforms. This bill would mandate a paper ballot system with secure, auditable vote counting. It would also make Election Day a national holiday and keep precincts small to ensure local control.

Here is a sample letter/script to encourage your Representative to sponsor and support H 3628, the Gold Standard Election bill. Note that you can find your Representative by searching on scstatehouse.gov.

Dear Representative ________:

For many years, voters have not had confidence that their votes count. I do not trust the current electronic voting system. I am not alone, as people in the new administration, such as Elon Musk and President Trump, believe Americans should vote one day with paper, people, and pens.

Please support this bill H 3628 as it will increase trust in our election outcomes, save us money, and simplify the process.

Thanks for your consideration

CALL TO ACTION

To preserve our constitutional republic, we must all participate on an ongoing basis to make our local city, county, and state great again. We can only do that through the strength of many voices calling out for improved institutions, rules, laws, and governing bodies that reflect our will. We purportedly have a conservative legislature. They must act like one by passing laws that respect individual rights regarding families, health, finances, and freedom of speech. The bitter fighting in the State House needs to be mitigated to ensure meaningful reforms that benefit the people of SC, not corporations or special interest groups. All of these issues flow from elections. If our elected officials are not doing the job we want, they must be replaced by someone who will. They must be elected, not “selected.” We must believe that our vote counts and that the entire process is trustworthy. Bad actors nationwide must be brought to justice, and all illegal or malicious actions must be disclosed with consequences. Hopefully, the year 2025 will be the year of disclosure and justice. Improvement requires commitment. The more actively involved citizens are, the more impactful reforms we can make. There is strength in numbers, so let your voice be heard. Add these action steps to your New Year’s resolution:

• Call your Representative and senator and ask them to support policies and bills important to you- especially Bill H3628. Use the script provided above.
• Sign up to participate in your precinct reorganization. Next year, we have the opportunity to re-elect all party officers in your precinct, county, and state. Start attending meetings for your local county political party. For more information on whom to contact, you can email us at scsafeelections@zohomail.com
• Stay abreast of the proposed bills by downloading the SC Legislature app.
• Invite our group to speak at one of your meetings or churches about election integrity and how to get involved.
• Stay connected to breaking news about elections by joining our Telegram channel. Here is the link- https://t.me/+sRfrsM-iuvoxODAx

We continue to serve the citizens of South Carolina faithfully by advocating for elections you can trust.

Wishing you a prosperous New Year.

“One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

Guest post by Michael Delaney, a concerned Berkeley County voter

We received this letter from a concerned citizen that appears to have worked as a poll clerk or manager. (He also sent this to his representative). We agree that Chain of Custody is a huge issue and that proper procedures and training must be put into place to ensure compliance. Thorough documentation must be also put in place to be reviewed prior to certification and should be available for free to all qualified electors of SC. The issue of chain of custody is addressed in the election bills we are championing this legislative session. Thank you, Mike, for taking the time to address this very ciritcal issue and provide your perspective on how it can be handled.

South Carolina is committed to free and fair elections. At the poll on election day there are two essential elements:

1. One-person one-vote – the South Carolina legislature has recognized the
   criticality of this concept and established law in SC to manage this issue.
   
2. Election equipment and voting material security – election day chain-of-custody
   processes are administratively controlled by the State and County Election
   Offices

The election day chain-of-custody for election equipment and voting materials should be no less rigorous than that which is required for evidence in criminal and civil judiciary processes. The judiciary processes are overseen by the court system. Police effectively manage evidence because chain-of-evidence failure results in acquittal. Election equipment and voting material chain-of-custody is administered by the South
Carolina Election Commission and individual county Voter Registration and Election offices. Every piece of equipment and material should be treated as if it will end up in court, because some day it may. The amount of testimonial evidence obtained the last two years indicates a significant problem with the chain-of-custody of election equipment and voting materials.

• The Berkeley County Republican Party poll watchers reported numerous chain-of-custody violation in the 2022 general election.
• The State audit of the Berkekely County Election reported numerous significant chain-of-custody violations.
• The Berkeley County Republican Party poll watchers reported numerous chain-of-custody violation in the 2024 primary election.

Many chain of custody issues were also identified in the Legislative Audit Council report issued in January of 24. See this related post here: https://www.scsafeelections.org/updates/epic-fail-the-sc-election-commission-audit-by-the-lac/

It is apparent that administrative controls are not sufficient to maintain chain-of-custody of election equipment and voting materials casting shadow on elections in the state of South Carolina. Prior to the electronic voting process, election day chain-of-custody was simple, ballots and a box. Since South Carolina has committed to electronic voting processes, the chain-of-custody processes must be reviewed and codified. Election equipment includes the Electronic Poll Book (EPB), mobile internet hotspot
device (MiFI), Ballot Marking Device (BMD), and Ballot Scanner (DS200) machines. Voting materials are the blank ballots, emergency/provisional ballots and failsafe ballots. These items are described on page 11 and 12 of the Poll Manager’s Handbook (September 2022).

The state legislature should create black letter law to demonstrate the criticality of this issue. It must be maintained from the county eleciton storage through the shipment to the polling place, receipt inspection, initiation, vote canvassing, shut down and preparation for return shipping by poll managers,etc. Meaningful legislation would include the following elements:

Preparation for Election Day

• Positive control of voting equipment during the transport from storage to the polling place
• Positive control of voting equipment stored in a secure space at the polling place including a seal on the door
• Opening the polling place by Poll Clerks and Managers
• Two-person control with verifying signatures on the inventory sheet
• Cutting and recording the seal on the polling place storage
• EPS and MiFi – Cut the shipping seal and inventory
• BMD – Cut the shipping seal, inventory and validation of the
• internal seal
• DS200 – Cut the shipping seal, inventory, start up, validation of the
• internal seal
• DS200 – Opening, validation of empty bins, and attaching bin seals
• Counting of all ballots

Closing the polling place by Poll Clerks and Managers

• Two-person control with verifying signatures on the inventory sheet
• EPS and MiFi – Inventory, pack and apply the shipping seal
• BMD – validation of the internal seal, inventory, pack and apply the shipping sea
• DS200 – Cut the bin seals, inspect bins, reseal bins for transport
• DS200 – Cut the Thumb Drive seal, Print vote counts
• Account for all voting materials
• Complete the Ballot Reconciliation Worksheet

Secure equipment post-election

• Package for transport to the county all cast ballots, lanyard with DS200 thumb drive, two copies each of zero and totals tapes, sealed and locked in blue ballot bin. Blank ballot cards, keys, in sealed/locked ballot bag and the ballot reconciliation worksheet.
• Return equipment to secure storage and apply seal to the door

The above scenario should be codified in South Carolina law because the county
organizations cannot manage this process in the electronic voting era.

We must insist on accessible, secure, verifiable, transparent elections!

President Donald Trump’s win was epic and decisive. The people voted based on their view of the last 4 years. The apparent result of this historic win is a Republican-controlled Presidency, Senate, and, as of today, most likely the House. This clear majority will make it easier for Trump to enact his ‘Make America Great Again’ agenda.

Curiously, the Democrats are united in their messaging that the election process “worked.” Thus far, they are not making claims that there was cheating. However, multiple sources we have spoken to argue that there was cheating, but it was thwarted. Trump likely had additional votes nationwide and won some of the blue states. The allegations are that electronic cheating was mitigated. They stopped the ‘steal’ this time, and the cheating on the ground via ballot dumps was moderated by legal action and increased monitoring by teams of observers.

Reports indicate that the election was not clean and certainly not without issues. There were concerns across the nation and our state of SC:

• Inaccurate voter registration lists resulted in either disenfranchised voters or people voting who were not lawfully allowed
• There were signs of ballot harvesting
• Voter IDs were not required nor uniformly requested
• Electronic poll books crashed and needed to be replaced or “updated” via the internet
• (BMD) Ballot Marking Device “glitches” and miscalibrations “flipped” candidates both on screen and post-printing of the ballot
• Sticky BMDs made it challenging to select a choice and resulted in voters having to take longer to type in selections
• Poll Observers and Poll watchers were not allowed adequate observation of the election process, audits, or testing and, in some cases, were thrown out of polling places and election offices
• There were long lines in early voting, and lines were being shut down early
• Counting was delayed for days in crucial battleground states
• Too many absentee and write-in ballots were issued, thus delaying the processing of the count
• Poor procedures were the norm for the hand count audits
• Most states have unreliable and inadequate logic and accuracy testing
• Ballot programming errors resulted in candidates missing from ballots or missing votes
• Poll workers harassed poll watchers and voters
• Poll workers advised voters how to vote and who to vote for—that is a felony in SC
• There were reports of abuse of curbside voting and the voters who were voting curbside

The above list is not exhaustive, but you get the point. Regardless of who won the elections, our system is in dire need of a redesign. As a nonpartisan group, we welcome anyone who has concerns about elections to come join the fight.

Complexity is the enemy of security. Simplifying our election system should be mandatory. HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, failed. It was a system designed to help the global elites “cheat at scale” for over 20 years. This federal law, along with the National Voter Registration Act, has to be dismantled, and our elections should return to the people. Elections are for the people by the people, and our governmental entities now in charge of elections must realize that they serve us, not the other way around.

Implementation of the Gold Standard for Elections will ensure that elections are secure, verifiable, accessible, and transparent.

Here is what the ideal Gold Standard Election system looks like:

• Voters register in person with a valid ID and citizenship status at least every 4 years; counties are in charge of keeping these records, which are paper
• 1 day of voting and minimal absentee and mail-in voting
• Each precinct must be maintained at  1,500 registrants or less
  •  Currently, there are too many exceptions given by our legislators
• There are no third parties or electronics involved in our elections
• Voting and counting takes place at the precinct and is completely transparent
  • Absentee ballots for the precincts are also counted there. No CENTRAL COUNT
  • All ballots are hand-marked on paper that has anti-theft measures
  • The counting is entirely done by hand
• The counting is recorded in real-time and observed by the public
• All ballots are allowed to be viewed and captured on camera for replay to validate results

For all those who are concerned about this election, let’s audit the vote. We need to determine what happened in 2020, 2022 and 2024. Only massive transparency, viability, security, and accessibility will enable us to trust our elections again.

Next year, we will need your help to implore your legislators to enact these changes. Please stay connected to us and get involved in your local community. We can put you in touch with groups in your area.

Let’s do this!

The SC Safe Election Team

A look behind the curtain at the great and powerful Electronic Voting System

In this video, the gold standard elections team laments that nothing has been fixed since 2020 and, in fact, the situation may be worse. Voter rolls are not up to date. Machines aren’t certified or updated nor are they robustly and thoroughly tested for accuracy. Too many ballots are sent via USPS creating the potential for fraud. Signature verification is non existent or inadequate, voter IDs are not always provided and many of the components in the process are not secure nor followed with proper chain of custody. Laws are often unheeded and there is a rush to certify the results regardless. Listen in for more detail. Just as in the Wizard of OZ, when we cannot see behind the curtain we believe all is well. This is by design. There is a reason election officials and machine manufacturers don’t want us to have access to key audit data and reports. But when we take time to peek behind the curtain we can see that this “safe and secure” system, is a ruse–the whole process is complicated, complex and in need of an entire redesign.

This is not just a Dominion problem and this is not just a few states. These issues are systemic and must be addressed.

We discuss some issues that are troubling, but here is a more comprehensive list.

Step 1 Registration-Voter rolls

Voter rolls not cleaned up in timely fashion

Non-citizens on rolls

Expensive to purchase in order for citizens’ or others to audit

Third parties and partisan groups/orgs responsible rather than employees of the state

Step 2 Validation

No photo ID required

No citizen verification required; non-citizens allowed to vote and/or do vote

Poll workers allow inactive/ineligible voters despite rolls being “frozen”

Same day registration

Partisan poll workers or “adopt a poll” groups

Photo voter registration cards created at polls in real time

Electronic Poll books connected to internet

Electronic Poll books don’t require certification

Electronic Poll books don’t reconcile with tabulators

Electronic Poll books could experience outages

Step 3 Marking and counting

Drop boxes, ballot harvesting

Mail-in balloting

Machine glitches that flip votes

QR codes or bar codes don’t reflect voter intent and there is no way to verify

Programming errors- candidates missing from ballot

Logic and accuracy testing not done in accordance with the law and not robust enough—often not conducted on each machine, each ballot style, or each candidate/question; if no unique number of ballots used can’t confirm vote flipping

Extra “folder/file” on machines that collected “blank ballots”

Lack of/loose security- machines left unattended, security seals missing or voided; access by multiple people, easily accessed with flash drive, passwords unencrypted or non-unique and left in plain text in the system providing easy access to hacker.

First net/Albert sensors potential access-CIS CISA EI-ISAC

Poor chain of custody

Machine malfunction

Poor records/chain of custody on flash drives

Evidence of potential algorithmic presence

More votes than voters in certain areas

Poll tapes don’t match final numbers from the polling location

Too many provisional ballots- high adjudication rates

Early voting risks

Vote centers mix multiple precincts making audits more complicated

Count is not transparent

No audit reports provided for detailed count

Cannot verify vote count

Observers not allowed to view process or count

Ballots coming in late and not supervised; no chain of custody

Double scanned ballots; unsupervised central count areas- fraudulent ballots

Ineligible voters injected into system

UOCAVA not secure or verified

No signature verification

Step 4 Reporting

Reporting –counts changed

Third parties involved- foreign

Late ballots allowed

Mailed ballots taking too long to count—overall risk of absentee ballots

ENR (Election Night Reporting) computer is connected to the internet

Here are some MUST WATCH related videos!

As we approach the 2024 election, many of you will wonder what we can do to improve the process.  The people need trustworthy elections.  For this election, we need to overwhelm the polls so our voices are heard and votes accurately counted.  Ultimately, our country must return to the basics—voting (and counting the ballots) on one day at the local precinct utilizing pen, paper, and people.

Each voter should vote by marking paper ballots hand-counted by volunteers at the precinct with bipartisan participation.  The count should be completely transparent, as our South Carolina state constitution calls for the votes to be “counted in public.”

The Gold Standard team was assembled with people from multiple states (South Carolina, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, and South Dakota) to re-engineer the process.  The result of all their hard work is the Gold Standard Elections Whitepaper.  The team occasionally will meet to discuss various election topics.  Here are some recent videos you may find interesting.

Lack of Trust is the fundamental issue, and ensuring transparent voting is the solution

Too many third-party organizations are involved in our election process, which adds to public mistrust of election results.  “The people” have lost control over the process.  Transparency of the process is vital.  When technology replaces oversight of the people, it becomes a problem. 

 Hava from Ohio explains.  

Machines don’t always catch errors and are not as good as humans at determining voter intent.  Rick explains.  Was your vote counted correctly?  How would you know?

The technology is highly complex.  Why is it so difficult to count circles on a paper?  Why do we need a few million lines of code to count your vote?  There are many layers in the process.  Do our election officials and workers even understand these systems?

There are some reports and methods to enhance transparency, but many election officials refuse to use them.  Why don’t they value transparency?

The best way to count votes is a hand-tally method:

For more on this method, see this video: https://rumble.com/embed/v59a6o3/?pub=3gxmck

The Gold Standard tally method is a great way to count ballots in an emergency and an efficient way to conduct hand-count audits.