When I was preparing to move to Alaska from Los Angeles in
1995, a friend of mine joked that he’d heard all of Alaska was run by the mob.
I laughed it off at the time, but after 26 years I’m beginning to believe
there’s some truth in that assessment.
That opinion was reinforced by a recent phone call to my representative in
Juneau, a dejected and tired-sounding man with all of the fighting spirit of Eeyore.
After a little more than a year in office, the Alaskan mob has put him in his
place and there is nothing he can do.
The mob running Alaska isn’t the Sicilian “Godfather” variety characterized by overweight men eating king crab legs at a seedy downtown eatery, occasionally waxing some guy for getting out of line. Nobody is putting dead halibut carcasses in the beds of rival leaders. Rather, the Alaskan mob consists of a collection of entrenched politicians and judges in Juneau and Anchorage, hell-bent on maintaining the status quo – namely, their positions in power and the graft that comes with it.
Yet for all their power, the Alaskan mob is supposedly limited by their need to win elections.
Winning elections in Alaska ought to involve campaigning – media appearances, debates, uncomfortable town-halls – all with the goal of winning votes. Those days may be over.
If you believe Joe Biden won the presidency fair and square, then it proves campaigning doesn’t matter (because he didn’t), and if you believe he lost it means the same thing (because somehow he was still declared the winner).
The movement for full forensic audits is growing across the nation and Alaska is no exception. In fact, if you follow the statistical analysis of men like Seth Keshel or Dr. Douglas Frank, you might already know that Alaska is, in their assessment, one of most egregious examples of election fraud of any of the states they’ve examined. Several Alaskan legislators in Juneau agree. The main issue – and hardly anyone seems to disagree on this – is mail-in ballots and inaccurate voter rolls. And in Alaska, that most directly affected how we can elect our representatives.
Unless corrected, the 2020 election may signify the nail in the coffin of the age-old principle of one person = one vote in Alaska. Why? In a word: fraud. In a phrase: ranked-choice voting.
Ranked Choice Voting
You may recall that on election night in Alaska, the early returns for Ballot Measure 2 indicated it was losing handily. Ballot Measure 2 establishes a ranked-choice voting scheme for primary elections, a scheme that’s proven disastrous wherever it’s been implemented. This system relies on complex algebraic equations that are ripe for electronic manipulation. It’s a design feature that the billionaire backers of Ballot Measure 2 didn’t want Alaskans to know about, one that will ensure that an unpopular candidate – say Lisa Murkowski, for instance – could survive by vote manipulation.
Most Alaskans recognized this was a bad bill and voted no on the measure and yet, as the hours and days passed, the mail-in votes slowly but surely inflated the total. Finally, poof! It passed by the slimmest of margins, just like Biden’s vote totals in places like Pennsylvania and Georgia.
Many Alaskans were stunned. Others were mildly surprised. Some of us knew it was bunk.
Signature Envelopes and the Law
Just prior to the election, the Alaska Supreme Court tossed out the signature verification for mail-in ballots. For state elections only, those envelopes can be destroyed as soon as the election is certified. For national elections, however, they can only be destroyed in accordance with Title 52 Section 20701 of the US Code:
Retention and preservation of records and papers by officers of elections; deposit with custodian; penalty for violation:
52 USC 20701:
Every officer of election shall retain and preserve, for a period of twenty-two months from the date of any general, special, or primary election of which candidates for the office of President, Vice President…Any officer of election or custodian who willfully fails to comply with this section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
The signature envelopes were destroyed.
There is now no way to verify that the 174,032 pieces of paper sitting in Juneau with a “yes” vote for Ballot Measure 2 actually belong to an Alaskan. Never mind the fact that 199,667 voters filled in the “no” on Ballot Measure 1 right above it, or the fact that 189,951 people voted for Donald Trump. We’re expected to believe that 25,635 Alaskans who didn’t want anything to do with Ballot Measure 1 (a tax on North Slope oil production), and who also voted for Donald Trump, were all-in on progressive voting schemes? Does that pass the smell test? Okay, maybe, but how about we verify that. Oops, we can’t. Sorry about that.
That’s not good enough. Someone broke the law. It’s time we find out who and start asking them some questions.
Your Data Was Stolen
In late October, just days before the 2020 election, between 100,000 and 133,000 Alaskans had their voter registration information stolen. You may remember getting the email from the Division of Elections informing you about it. My question then was the same as it is now: Did someone submit a request for a mail-in ballot in my name? How would we know?
Based on what’s been reported and the lack of follow up, one can only conclude that the Division of Elections couldn’t care less. Almost a year later we still have no idea who stole the data or what it was used for. The timing would indicate that someone wanted access to the database to create new voters – perhaps, say, 100,000 – enough to provide the cushion they thought they’d need from mail-in votes to pass their bill, or get their candidate over the hump.
So they did a recount, just to be sure, and the hand-counted tally was correct. The votes on the ballots matched the number of the original count. Case closed. No fraud. But wait, you may ask. How do we know the ballots are for actual people? Isn’t it strange that the mail-in ballots were just enough needed for the bill to pass? It’s almost as though someone knew exactly how many votes would be needed in advance. How could that be? Answer: Math, and paper.
Paper and Electronic Fraud
Dr. Douglas Frank, a physicist and math teacher, while comparing census data against the 2016 election, found an algorithm that could be used to correctly identify the 2020 vote totals in every precinct he checked. This should be impossible. A mathematical equation should not be able to generate a random number, such as a vote total. And yet it does.
If you want to understand how the math works, read below. If not, skip to the next subheading.
Here’s a simple math question. See if you can answer it:
10 +Y = X
So, what is X?
You can’t answer it. That’s because you need to know the value of at least one other variable, X or Y.
For the 2020 election, let’s make the equation look like this:
in-person vote total + mail-in vote total = final vote total
Dr. Frank took the in-person vote total and ran the algorithm he found to come up with one of the integers:
in-person vote total + number generated by the algorithm = X
The answer should generate a random number. But it didn’t.
With each precinct Dr. Frank checked, he came up with the exact vote total recorded
in the 2020 election. The X value matched the election results everywhere
he ran the algorithm, 100% of the time.
in-person vote total + “random” number generated by the algorithm = the
certified 2020 election results
Draza Smith writes a blog called Just A Mom who also happens to know a lot more about math than most of us. On her blog and Telegram channel she explains how Dr. Frank’s algorithm works to manipulate the in-person vote total using the example of two cars on cruise control:
They can take the in-person vote count as it comes in and let the algorithm determine the mail-in votes they’ll need later to surpass the other candidate. Since they know how many mail-in ballots they’ve got to work with (say 100,000), they can let the machine slowly adjust the in-person votes up or down (or both) to keep it close while ensuring their candidate or ballot measure stays just a little bit ahead.
So long as their machines can keep that in-person count within the margin of their banked mail-in ballots, they can win. The problem they ran into in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and elsewhere was that they never imagined Trump’s in-person vote total would far exceed the margin of banked, bogus mail-in votes.
Why Florida Matters
Thanks to the Gore/Bush election debacle in 2000, Florida counts its mail-in ballots prior to election day. When Florida called its election for Trump it was clear to whoever was monitoring the algorithm that there were not enough mail-in votes banked in the swing states to compensate for the overwhelming volume of Trump votes. The algorithmic adjustments – which anyone could see occurring in real-time during election coverage videos – couldn’t change the votes fast enough.
They needed more votes. The solution was to stop the counting and figure out other ways to make up that ground – such as repeatedly passing ballots through machines, or using the adjudication process to alter or even create votes out of thin air. Amazing things, those Dominion machines.
Once the presidential election was secured for Biden in Pennsylvania, Alaska no longer mattered to the electoral vote count. But for several days it may have.
The Alaskan Field Goal Option
On December 18th in 1994, Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers were faced with a common NFL game scenario. Down by three points with 28 seconds on the game clock, Packers coach Mike Holmgren gave his quarterback strict instructions:
“If there’s nothing open, throw the ball out of bounds. We can always kick a field goal and go to overtime.”
Of course, Favre being Favre, he scrambled and threw an endzone strike to win the game. No field goal necessary.
NFL games are won, lost, or tied by last-minute field goals all the time. Maybe it’s the same with elections. Why did it take so long to call the election in Alaska? It’s possible that this field goal option may have been the reason. Had things gone differently in some of the swing states, Alaska and her paltry three electoral votes may have been necessary to put Joe Biden over the top in the electoral college count.
There’s one cheap and easy way to find out: Examine the machines.
Audit Alaska
The machine routers will have a record of remote access and vote manipulation, if it occurred. New information by cyber security experts revealed that Dominion voting machines had logs deleted after November 3rd, 2020. This upsets the public trust in the Dominion machines’ ability to secure Alaskans’ votes. Given the level of demonstrated fraud in other states using the exact same equipment, as well as the fact that some individuals have claimed they were given felt pens to use on ballots instead of the ballpoint pens they had with them (see Sharpiegate), why not audit the machines? When a computer system proves faulty in one factory, shouldn’t every factory using the same system check it for quality control?
The Alaskan field goal option is merely a theory, but it’s also another reason why we need a forensic audit in the state of Alaska. Here are a few more:
- Alaska led the entire nation in over-votes, with a statewide average of 107% during the 2020 election.
- Alaska’s population declined by approximately 50,000 over the last ten years, but somehow managed to gain over 100,000 voters in the 2020 election.
- Dominion machines allow for remote digital access, contain adjudication software that can change votes based on “voter intent,” and allow for fractional vote tabulation.
- Trump’s margin of victory in Alaska was 36,173. Did they have 100,000 votes banked just in case Biden needed Alaska for a last second field goal? An audit will tell us if the machines were compromised.
Do the 174,032 ballots cast for Ballot Measure 2 pass the smell test on inspection? Do they have perfectly filled in ovals? Do they have fold creases indicating they were once in an envelope? Do they have the correct batch identifiers? Do they contain down-ballot (or even up-ballot) votes?
Is anyone planning on digging into what data was stolen from the Division of Elections database? Where did the attack originate from, where was the data sent to, what kind of electronic activity occurred in conjunction with the breech that seems unusual? Is anyone going to be prosecuted for destroying the signature envelopes in violation of state law?
Does anyone care?
The Island Hideout
When I asked my representative those questions, his response was less than satisfactory.
“They hold all the power,” he said. “There’s nothing I can do.”
Maybe he’s right, but who possesses the power to issue subpoenas and FOIA requests? What can we do?
Contact your legislators. Call them if you can, but at the very least email them.
I’ve included a form letter that you can download to use as a template for the conversation, or amend into your own words as an email or snail mail. I’ve posted a number of questions here, none of which I’ve found an answer for. Ask your legislators those questions, and see if they have an answer. Mine didn’t.
We need to demand those answers. The other option is to throw up our hands, slink back into our chairs, and take a defeatist posture. My representative (and perhaps yours) is doing that right now. Be nice, but firm. They need to know that they have an army of agitated Alaskans behind them wondering if anyone in Juneau cares about the rule of law. Many of them haven’t felt that pressure in years. It’s time for them to feel it again. For those who’ve given up, maybe your phone call will give them the necessary motivation to try one more thing, one more time, because the lost causes are the ones most worth fighting for.
I didn’t move to Alaska because I wanted an easy life; I wanted an adventure. I wanted to meet rugged people who track 1000-pound bears across remote islands for fun. I have yet to meet an Alaskan intimidated by a few sweaty-palmed mobsters in a seaside tourist town. And I’m willing to bet those mobsters have never experienced the thrill of being bombarded by thousands of Alaskans who demand answers overwhelming their remote island hideout. Mob bosses like to hide on their islands, but the facts are finding them out.
Here are Word and PDF versions of a letter that you can amend for contacting your representatives:
Here is an article by Alaskan attorney Donn Liston regarding inflated voter rolls .
For more information on the ranked voting system and why Dominion machines should never have been certified in Alaska you might want to check out the Antrim County Forensic Report published in Dec, 2020. An except:
“This pattern strongly suggests that the additive algorithm (a feature enhancement referred to as “ranked choice voting algorithm” or “RCV”) was activated in the code as shown in the Democracy Suite EMS Results Tally and Reporting User Guide, Chapter 11, Settings 11.2.2. It reads in part, “RCV METHOD: This will select the specific method of tabulating RCV votes to elect a winner,” For instance, blank ballots can be entered into the system and treated as “write-ins.” Then the operator can enter an allocation of the write-ins among candidates as he wishes. The final result then awards the winner based on “points” the algorithm in the compute, not actual votes.”
Russell Ramsland, Cyber security expert, Allied Security Operations Group: Antrim Michigan Forensic Report Dec, 13. 2020
Subscribe to receive new posts on Wednesdays.
Follow me on Facebook, Telegram, and Gab