Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., has discovered a never-before-seen algorithm in the Wisconsin Election Commission’s (WEC) voter registration database, leaving no doubt someone has penetrated the WEC’s computer system to impose a criminal reordering on the voter files. This finding alone should draw the attention of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and FBI Director Kash Patel. Yet, to date, we see no action whatsoever from the DOJ or the FBI investigating criminal election fraud.
Paquette first observed that the WEC voter role had an unusually high number of voter records that ended in zero. Assuming that the WEC voter roll assigned voter ID numbers sequentially, without breaks or outside manipulation, records ending in 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 should appear with equal distribution. As seen in Table 1, voter records ending in zero occurred in 30.6 percent of the voter records, while those ending in numbers 1 through 9 ended with each number appearing equally at 7.7 percent of the time.
Paquette was at a loss to explain this irregularity until he realized that every voter ID record ending in zero had two different Wisconsin voters assigned the same voter ID number. In searching the database, Paquette confirmed that in every case where the same voter ID number was assigned to two different voters, the voter record ended in zero.
We have labeled the two voter IDs tied to WEC voter records ending in zero as “doubles,” a term devised to distinguish this phenomenon from the “modified duplicates” that Paquette previously found in the WEC voter database. “Modified duplicates” involve making multiple voter records for the same voter, which can be done, for instance, by assigning a different birthdate or address to each duplicated record. Because duplicated voters each have different dates of birth or other addresses, the “modified duplicates” appear to be different people.
The point of the “modified duplicate” scheme is to create false voters, all of whom nevertheless get legitimate state voter ID numbers. The non-existent “multiple duplicate” voters can then be hidden back in the voter role, identifiable to the criminals by “algorithm locator numbers,” so they are available for use in fraudulent mail-in ballot schemes.
Why the “doubles” scheme assigns the same voter ID number to two different voters is more difficult to figure out. What is also not clear is whether one or both of the “doubles” are real voters or if both of the “doubles” voters could be fictitious.
A scheme this complicated must operate through a computer algorithm that creates “doubles” for every voter ID record ending in zero in a WEC database of over 7 million voters. That is, whatever rule is applied to pick the two voters who constitute the “doubles” in a database with over 7 million voters needs an algorithm if the scheme is to be applied, monitored, and updated on an ongoing basis.
You must be logged in to post a comment.