The Dominion Algorithm Used to Steal the Election by Larry C Johnson

Computer algorithms

Sorry for using the word, “algorithm.” I suspect most of you reading this struggled thru basic algebra in high school and did not deign to venture into the world of calculus and other advanced mathematics. The explanation is simple. A calculation built into the computer software was executed to produce numbers that, if unexamined, appear to secure a victory for Biden. The numbers do not lie. Votes were manufactured for Joe Biden. The citizens of Pennsylvania voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. Joe Biden’s folks tried to steal it.

A fellow by the name of Edward Solomon has done yeoman’s work in digging into the Pennsylvania voting data and showing conclusively, in my view, how the Democrats, with the help of Dominion, rigged the vote. What was done in Pennsylvania, specifically Philadelphia, reveals how the Dominion software magically created votes for Joe Biden to swamp the actual number of votes Donald Trump was ringing up.

I will embed the video below. It last about 40 minutes. It is worth your time. But let me give you the Reader’s Digest version. When the early vote numbers rolled in, it was clear that Donald Trump was on his way to a major win. The task for Dominion was to manufacture votes for Biden without making it obvious. They tried, but failed.

Mr. Solomon takes the raw vote data that was being streamed by the NY Times and downloaded it into a spreadsheet. That data allows him to look at vote totals by precinct and how they changed over time. He found that a variety of ratios were used in different sets of precincts. For example, his Exhibit 1 shows a group of precincts where the votes were being recorded at the following ratio–1 vote for Trump and 48 for Biden.


The diabolical system employed by Dominion started with needing to generate a total vote total for Joe Biden. Rather than employ a single computer calculation, Dominion used a number of algorithm’s. Mr. Solomon identifies at least 9 different calculations used to create these votes.

Exhibit 1 Ratio of 1 to 48

Exhibit 2 Ratio of 1 to 18

Exhibit 3 Ratio of 4 to 65

Exhibit 4 Ratio of 3 to 48

Exhibit 5 Ratio 4 to 63

Exhibit 6 Ratio of 5 to 31

Exhibit 7 Ratio of 1 to 5

Exhibit 8 Ratio of 1 to 4

Exhibit 9 Ration of 1 to 6

The data examined by Mr. Solomon is only one part of the proof of the voter fraud. Data from other parts of Pennsylvania will need to be examined to determine if there is a similar pattern or if the data from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are outliers.

The next evidentiary question to be asked, and answered, is whether there are actually ballots that back up the numbers reported on the computer. If there are ballots for Biden but no ballots for Trump, that is conclusive evidence of the fraud.

There are multiple sworn affidavits from witnesses of truck loads of ballots being off-loaded at the center in Philadelphia. Those ballots must be examined. If the ballots only show Joe Biden’s name and there are no ballots matching the numbers reported for Trump, that means one thing. Fraud.

 

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Dominion Algorithm Used to Steal the Election by Larry C Johnson

  1. Bill H says:

    This post is very confusing. You say in the first paragraph that, “Votes were manufactured for Joe Biden.” Then in paragraph three that, “The task for Dominion was to manufacture votes for Trump without making it obvious.”
    Than, after citing ratios indicative of manufactured votes for Biden, in the penultimate paragraph you say that, “If there are ballots for Biden but no ballots for Trump, that is conclusive evidence of the fraud,” which would be fraudulent votes manufactured for Trump.

  2. blue peacock says:

    Larry,
    The question is does this analysis hold water in a court that can actually issue a ruling on the certification of the electoral count? How do you believe a Pennsylvania court and SCOTUS would view this analysis? What else would they need as evidence before they can issue a stay on the certification and require an audit of the ballots?
    At this juncture it appears the Trump campaigns filings with the courts don’t seem to be going anywhere. Maybe they’ll file more this week.

  3. scott s. says:

    AFAIK Pennsylvania uses paper ballot with optical scan though in some areas also use electronic ballot marking devices (ExpressVote and ExpressVote XL). Regardless of what Dominion tabulators do or don’t do, the paper marked ballots are there and can be recounted.

  4. walrus says:

    Larry, with respect, I think Americans have too short an attention span and not enough education to understand what has been done to them. “Biden beat aTrump……meh, whatever”, is the response.
    I fail to see how any will care until they are starving.

  5. Grenier says:

    sorry,
    I think you meant to write:
    The task for Dominion was to manufacture votes for BIDEN without making it obvious.
    Great article,
    Thanks

  6. Pj20 says:

    Philadelphia does not use the Dominion system.
    https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9798361760
    Do you have any source verifying who Edward Solomon is? His credentials?

  7. BillWade says:

    BP, “At this juncture it appears the Trump campaigns filings with the courts don’t seem to be going anywhere. Maybe they’ll file more this week.”
    I believe this works in Trump’s favor, he needs the lower courts to reject so he can get his case to the Supreme Court. No?

  8. Fred says:

    Scott S.
    If the paper envelope the paper ballots mailed in with were not verified then those would be added to those filled out on in person. That would include all the ones that were supposed to be segregated by court order.
    (Alito’s order to PA) https://nypost.com/2020/11/06/justice-alito-orders-pennsylvania-officials-divide-late-ballots/
    Neither would the counting address who was given superior rights via extra time by the PA supreme court, while other voters were required to vote by 8pm Nov. 3rd.

  9. Deap says:

    Cloward-Pivens won the election.
    Make voting so complicated and easily overwhelemed by processes and short timelines, it loses all ability to be fair and accurate. Then beat up anyone who protests these new layers of complexity as wanting to undermine the right to vote.
    Voting is a right and a duty. People do have to sacrifice this one day out of 365 days and show up in person, ID in hand, and exercise their duty to be an informed voter, filling out a trackable paper ballot. Exceptions based on need are the exception; not common place.
    Europe prohibits “electronic voting” for good reason. Democrats have slowly and systematically undermined out entire election process.
    Just take a look at California. Networks did not wait even one second after the polls closed to “declare” Biden won in California, before a single vote was counted. They knew the obvious outcome of a state now long corrupted by a Democrat super-majority guaranteed election system. No other outcome was possible in this state.
    Term limits was the final coffin nail in this state. Never think term limits will solve anything. Voters must dislodge the bums; not some arbitrary election rule. Nature abhors a vacuum. Term limits created a power vacuum.
    The highly organized and disciplined public sector union swooped into this power vacuum and now cannot be dislodged. The spent the past 20 years rigging the system entirely in their favor. A big piece of this take-over was passed always as “election reform”.

  10. Deap says:

    Micael Levin weighs in on the proof of fraud, the quantity of fraud and the quality of fraud, Democrats have moved their argument away from no fraud, to not enough fraud to matter. Sure.
    https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/lucy-collins/levin-quantity-fraud-not-test

  11. Barbara Ann says:

    Well there are turgid presentations and then there’s watching someone manipulate a spreadsheet.. Nevertheless, I’d be happy to have a stab at analyzing the merits of this hypothesis if I can find the source of the data. I’m damned if I’m going to download a random spreadsheet off the internet and in any case only the original source data will prove this guy didn’t just invent his own data set to support his theory.
    If anyone can identify the source (from the NYT website I presume) please post it here. Closest I could get was the page below. When you look at the page requests a “president.json” file is loaded which contains a whole bunch of election result data, including a reference (under keys; [“races”][“precinct_metadata”]) to another file: https://static01.nyt.com/elections-assets/2020/data/api/2020-11-03/precincts/PAGeneralConcatenator-latest.json. This file has PA’s precinct level results. However, as far as I can tell it does not include timestamped results of the kind Mr Solomon’s analysis uses. Of course it is possible a live source NYT used to show live results during the election is simply no longer linked on the relevant page on their website.
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-president.html

  12. exiled off mainstreet says:

    It is convincing. The fact the ratios were repeatedly exact copies is proof of the fix. This never happens in real life and it shows that this was probably a last minute fix to account for a bigger Trump lead than they expected, since with more time, they could probably develop an algorithm that varied the numbers more. Since these are civil actions, this should be enough right there if it were a fair system, but overwhelming political pressure from the permanent regime is, unfortunately, another factor to be considered.

  13. LondonBob says:

    I believe the argument of machine fraud goes beyond just Dominion to others, so we can discount that Philadelphia used another system.
    He has done a good job highlighting anomalies, I just think it lacks the context to judge, you can’t look at it in isolation, you need to compare more to what looks clean.
    I actually much prefer the analysis of Montgomery County, this is much better.
    https://www.revolver.news/2020/11/explosive-new-data-from-rigorous-statistical-analysis-points-to-voter-fraud-in-montgomery-county-pa/

  14. lux says:

    Posted by: Patrick Armstrong | 23 November 2020 at 10:46 AM
    I agree interesting as to the overall scenario, may not help in this case though. Different system.
    https://www.phila.gov/2020-10-19-how-to-guide-using-philadelphias-voting-machines/
    Not that they had troubles of their own too. Not quite so colorful ones, maybe?
    Interesting that all these machines work with Windows systems. There he seems to missing a technical term. Interface, API?

  15. akaPatience says:

    Pj20: The system used in Philadelphia, ExpressVote XL from Election Systems & Software, whether or not it does in fact rely on any Dominion software, has also been the topic in recent years of election fraud vulnerability. There are several articles reporting this, too many to post here.
    As well, this AP news item may be germane to the topic, as USB drives used to program the city’s voting machines were stolen from the Philadelphia election staging site not long before Nov.3:
    https://apnews.com/article/voting-machines-voting-custodio-elections-philadelphia-f8a6453dc9e211ef20e9412d003511b1

  16. mySQLmark says:

    Yes, as Barbara Ann says, we really need linkage to original source data. In this case, it’s precinct level, timeseries data and seems to have actual tabulated votes for candidates (not that goofy percentage to 3 decimal places in the other NYT “Edison” data that was subject to some serious errors on part of “pede” from thedonald.win who claimed YUGE vote switching from biden to orangeman. That conclusion was based, at least in significant part, on artifacts of rounding of having to calculate votes for biden and orangeman from the data which only included total “votes”, and respective cumulative vote fractions only to 3 decimal places in the JSON data file). Yes, we really need links to original data, not original data-transformed-into-opensource-spreadsheet-files. Some of us would be happy to look at that data, but not at some random person’s massaged spreadsheet data.

  17. Barbara Ann says:

    Larry, All
    I managed to get in touch with “Edward Solomon” (the email address he is using, which he shared in the comments under the rumble.com video is edwardkingsolomon@gmail.com) and requested the original source for his data, in order that I could verify it was genuine. He ignored my question and instead offered a second, forthcoming video in which he will demonstrate how people should manipulate his data to discover more evidence of fraud. I have asked again, but I am not hopeful I’ll get a reply.
    I smell a rat, especially as I had an almost identical obfuscatory response from Dr Shiva when I asked to verify the provenance of his data.
    Perhaps Mr Solomon is genuine, but we will never know unless he reveals his data source.
    Sadly, the widespread expectation of fraud is bound to bring out all kinds of people with all kinds of motivations. I hope Sidney and team Kraken have a good triage process to sort the wheat from the chaff. We’ll see soon enough in the courts.

  18. Buckeyelad says:

    Lin Wood says that Sidney Powell will be filing suit in GA tomorrow. Let’s see what it reveals.

  19. TeakWoodKite says:

    Larry, I can imagine that with your prior experience in southern part of this hemisphere, you have seen such dictators as Chavez cook the books on elections?
    Occam’s Razor….
    I think the current body of lawsuits and the attached evidence that is documented does have the potential to change the outcome and keep President Trump in office.
    That outcome is predicated on the SCOTUS acting out of self preservation with the understanding that if they do not decide for the president, they themselves will be made an instrument of the DemoCommunist jazz band.
    I had watched the video and Edward stated he was only able to download 1/3 of the NYT file that he used in his demonstration before he was cut off. The irony being it was the NYT database that proved the fraud.
    That said, algorithms are generally consistent through an entire dataset.
    What is highly suspect are the fractal results. As a voter we deal in whole numbers not prime numbers which a computer does.
    It is beyond question, IMHO, that the election was manipulated on a national level just based on the pattern analysis in democratic run cites where this fraud most obviously occurred. The history of election stats and outcomes are tossed on their head like Alice at a Mad Hatter Tea party.
    What I have not seen explained very well is when Sidney Powell made reference to some 36 thousand votes per precinct being added to the democrat candidates…which calls into question ALL down ballot races and if the pattern of republicans adding more seats in Congress who’s to say they actually didn’t obtain a majority in the house?
    Will the state houses who have the sole constitutional authority to select electors have the fortitude to do so?
    Will the SCOTUS act out of self preservation for the 3rd branch of our governance and the constitution as to not become another weaponized club of the demoCommunists?
    Will congressional delegations with one vote a per state correct this injustice if it winds up in the house?
    Perhaps after watching the Pennsylvania Senate hearing this week and understanding that major intentional fraud occurred in multiple states these other state houses will act as they must.
    As you have been fond of saying “keep your powder dry”
    Does President Trump have the legal authority to remove the 230 protections as a national security matter? Is that allowed under the election EO he signed?

  20. TeakWoodKite says:

    Here is a remarkable interview with Patrick Byrne.
    Of Overstock dot com and who has a PHD in political philosophy regarding exactly what your talking about Larry.
    https://youtu.be/cz99yC6mv24
    Truly worth 30 minutes of your time

  21. Deap says:

    There is no proof this was an honest election. Proof abounds. Election offices now have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it was an honest election. Election offices no longer enjoy a presumption of innocence.
    Rule One- Every election shall be fair and honest.
    Rule Two – when adequately demonstrated election law was breached, the burden of proof now falls on the election office to prove errors committed were immaterial to the outcome.
    Rule Three- when proof of illegal voting law violation is combined with the inability rebut or remedy those charges, the only alternative shall be a do-over election with strict federal accountability, transparency and neutral oversight.
    Democrats and the media continue to insist the burden of proof resides in the complaining party, and only they decide if that burden has been met. Courts are applying the wrong standards of justice.
    An honest election was denied the American people – that is what cannot stand. Courts, get your priorities straight because now they are protecting the guilty; not the innocent.
    One illegal vote strips way a the rights of a legal vote; or one illegal vote doubles the value of another’s vote. One illegal vote or 1 million illegal votes – the same outcome.
    The election district must prove beyond a shadow of doubt illegal voting was immaterial to the final outcome, if even one single illegal vote is found. They must prove it was the only one. Otherwise the presumption illegal voting happened in a material degree so as to over-turn the election.

  22. lux says:

    That’s a perfect circle.
    There is no proof this was an honest election. Proof abounds. Election offices now have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it was an honest election. Election offices no longer enjoy a presumption of innocence.
    No need to prove the election wasn’t honest, but the election offices have to prove that it was? How should they do it? Annul it, hand all elector to the President? Vs Mr Biden, following speech code here.
    The election district must prove beyond a shadow of doubt illegal voting was immaterial to the final outcome, if even one single illegal vote is found. must prove it was the only one. Otherwise the presumption illegal voting happened in a material degree so as to over-turn the election.
    Sounds like they have to prove a negative, if all those dead voters and fake ballots don’t exist.
    But yes, the we-the-people-chorus sounds strong enough.
    ____________________________________
    Ah, well, yes. War gamed long ago?
    Four years ago … Edward B. Foley, professor of law, director of Election Law at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law and author of Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States, had outlined a scenario in 2016 in which Trump rejected the validity of the vote count in a swing state like Pennsylvania – exactly as is happening right now.
    “So who will resolve the conflict if Trump loses Pennsylvania and insists on seeing proof, and the state can’t provide it?” asked Foley, exploring the then hypothetical possibility that Trump would refuse to concede. He warned that there is a risk of “a serious breakdown in the constitutional order… if Trump loses, and he and his followers genuinely dispute the election, there’s no guarantee we would have a path out.”

  23. Fred says:

    Lux,
    Poor professor Foley of Ohio State should actually read the Constitution as it lays out precisely what the Constitutional order in elections is. Professors and Media pundits aren’t there. Refuse to concede to theft? Absolutely.

Comments are closed.