All right, welcome back in Our guest is ken Block, and the book is Disproven, my unbiased search for voter fraud and the Trump campaign the data that shows why he lost and how we can improve our elections. And we're going to spend a lot of time on election reform, not so much about litigating twenty twenty. He's got a
lot to say. How did he get involved in this, Well, he is president of a software systems company, Simpatico, software engineer and entrepreneur specializes in database technologies and groundbreaking projects, such as the country's first statewide debit card benefits system in Texas. He saved them billion dollars off of the fraud and waste and their snap programs. But as he said,
he wasn't really interested in getting involved in politics. But you know, sometimes we find that politics is interested in us. In the past decade, he's analyzed voter data from more than forty states. The few that he has yet to analyze do not provide their data to the public. He has served as an expert and legal challenges that involve
voting data, voter fraud, and election integrity. So we'll talk to him about all of these things and about what he has learned as he investigates us, what can we do to make sure that we have honest elections that are not going to be contested. Thank you for joining us.
Sir, Thanks for having me.
It's very important because we've got a lot of people are very concerned about this, and rightfully so, a lot of people are ready to have a revolution if the candidate that they think should win does not win, and in a equally divided country like this, half the people are pretty much feeling that way. I saw that your forward was written by Brad Raffensberger, the Georgia Secretary of State. That again over the weekend. I talked about this. At
the beginning of the program. Trump was furious at Governor Kemp. He talk about Raffensberger, but they have in the past, and so you know he is and I said this about him. I said, it's unfortunate that he is so focused on revenge that he can't be focused on even winning, let alone on reform. And so I want to talk about that. But before we get into what we can do for reform, tell us a little bit about your take on what happened in Georgia where you investigated.
Yeah, it's the idea that in states that are whisker close, and we have a bunch of them, we have Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan is not really whisker close, but close enough Nevada.
The idea that if the election goes one way as opposed to another, that the only explanation for it must have been fraud is not an accurate way to depict what happened in these elections, And in Georgia in twenty twenty, there are there's a ready explanation for what happened, and Georgia is maybe in a lot of ways the closest state that we have in terms of being evenly divided
between Democrats and Republicans. The results of the twenty twenty election have been gone up and down and backwards and votes and sideways, and there really hasn't surfaced any credible claim of voter fraud that could be proven.
And in my work for the.
Trump campaign, I was hired very specifically to do data analytics that would stand up in a court of law. My job was to find enough voter fraud to matter in one of the swing states documented and have it be so rock solid that when it got taken to court, the other side's experts wouldn't be able to tear it apart.
That's sort of the gold.
Standard when you're dealing with legal challenges to elections. You have to have have a foundation of fact in which to be successful in court. And the simple fact of the matter is whether it was Georgia or any of the other swing states. While we found some voter fraud, we didn't find nearly enough to cover the margin of victory.
And the margin of victory in Georgia.
Was roughly twelve thousand votes, It was roughly eleven thousand votes in Arizona, roughly ninety thousand votes in Pennsylvania. And in none of those states did we find enough voter fraud to cover what those margins were. And that's just a plain statement of fact. And there were so many election challenges that failed in the court system because the nature of their proof wasn't acceptable proof in courts.
Of law, right, And that's just sort of a talk
about them taking their findings. I know that you were there to prepare the findings that they would use argue the case, but did they ever talk about taking the case instead of to a court to the legislature, because I know for these razor thin margin victory for a Biden for these states had Republican legislatures were they were talking about presenting a case to the legislature to get them to acknowledge a Republican slate of electors officially, and
then you would have had, as Thomas Massey talked about, as Pence talked about, as JD. Vance recently talked about, to have then a court case as to who gets to decide who the electors are. Is it going to be the governor and the executive branch? Is it going to be the legislative branch. Was there every any talk about taking the case to the legislatures?
So I wasn't part of any strategy meetings inside the campaign. My job was incredibly focused and I had thirty days to do what amounted to about a year's.
Worth of work.
So I was highly occupied and segmented away from everything else that was swirling around the campaign at the time. What I would say in general is that legislatures probably are not the best body to try to ascertain a very technical determination, which was did fraud occur and how
did it occur? You know, many members of legislators don't have that in their background, So it would be my preference that if it's going to be contested, that it gets contested in a venue where they can handle highly technical presentations and digest the facts.
And our court system does that all the time.
Legislatures typically don't. So that's just from a process perspective. That's kind of where I'm at in Georgia. There are three different data points that really helped document what really happened in Georgia, and I know that in a lot of conservative circles, Secretary of Raethlisberger is not well liked. But the data that he brought forward and can document, has documented and it's hard proof. He showed that about thirty thousand GOP presidential primary voters in Georgia in twenty
twenty took a pass on the general election. Those are lost presidential votes for President Trump, and he lost by fewer than twelve thousand votes. Now, those thirty thousand votes were probably moderate Republicans call um Rhinos whatever you want to call him, who probably voted against Trump in the primary and then decided they couldn't they couldn't bear to
vote in the general election. And there was another thirty thousand votes that Raefensberger brought forward and has the proof for that showed that the presidential selection was left blank, but all the down ticket Republicans received votes, and again that's a sort of symbolic protest votes by very likely middle of the road Republicans who liked down ticket but didn't like what was at the top of the ticket.
And that's hard evidence to overcome. And there's really no credible fraud that you can look at that comes close to having the solidity of the numbers that Raffensberger brought forward that matches with my nationwide findings are and those are basically that Trump lost about two and a half percent support across the board everywhere in twenty twenty relative to twenty sixteen. And those are the rhinos. I'm pretty sure those are the rhinos who took a hike and left.
It's not a lot of voters, but in a whisker close election, it was enough.
Well, it's probably people who were not too happy with what had happened the first part of twenty twenty. Let me ask you, you know, with the lockdowns and things like that, that kind of soured a lot of us on what was going on. But let me ask you about the vote by mail thing, because that was a function of the lockdown as well, and we'd never do that before. How did you audit or how did you view the vote by mail stuff?
So we looked at the mail ballots, not so much from the process of mail ballots, were their changes to rules made to allow mail ballots to be changed, how mail ballots were used. My role in looking at them was did we're dead votes cast by mail? Did people who voted by mail vote twice in two different places? It was the nature of what I was looking at was those sorts of things.
You know.
It was really a remarkable period of time in a lot of different ways. And and honestly, I think maybe had the had we not had COVID, I actually believe there was a better than even money chance that President Trump would still be President Trump right now. I think COVID cost him dearly in this election action. Did mail ballot use tip the balance? I don't think so, because I think anybody who was motivated to vote would have figured out how to vote one way or the other.
The presumption is, were mail ballots used for in some nefarious way to were's massive mail ballot fraud happening and I didn't see evidence of that. I mean, to commit mail ballot fraud, you're either going to steal someone's identity and vote as somebody else, or you're going to steal a deceased person's identity and do that.
And we found a couple a dozen dead votes in most of the swing states.
We found a couple one hundred duplicate votes across the swing states, and the campaign spared no expense on this. We exhaustively looked at every single mail ballot to ensure that the person in whose name that mail ballot was cast was among the living.
So what did they do to cast about? Do they have to request it and is it mailed to them at an address or something? They just pick it up and then mail it in themselves.
How did that So.
What's really frustrating is it's different from state to state to state, and we're going to get into that down the line.
In many states, you have to fill out a mail ballot application, mail it in, they verify your signature, and then when the time is right, they'll mail you a ballot that you then return.
That's like the absentee ballot process that we've had for a very long time.
Right right, Yeah, a few states and this goes this happened before. COVID states like California and Oregon and Colorado interestingly, have moved to.
Entirely conducting their elections by mail.
They send out mail ballots to everybody, and if you don't want to vote by mail, you have to take extraordinary actions to opt out of voting by mail and instead to vote in a different way.
So we had a mix of those different things.
Many states made voting by mail easy year in twenty twenty. The hardest state in the country to vote by mail is I believe it's Louisiana.
That has a very strict usage in terms of who can use it and under what circumstances.
So it's all over the map. I didn't see any artisan slant to the mail ballot fraud that we did find. It was pretty evenly divided by Democrats, Republicans, independents, and that's been the case of all the voter fraud I've documented over the years. I have yet to find a form of voter fraud where when it happens, it's just sort of a bipartisan activity.
How would you audit a situation to find out if somebody was voting for dead person? And I asked, because a friend of my brother in laws in twenty twelve in North Carolina, they have at least at that time, they had the longest voting period of any state, and there was no picture ID, so you could just walk in and give them. You could vote early, and when you went to vote, you just give them a name and address. And there was no validation of that with
even a driver's license. And so on election day, this friend of my brothers brother in law goes in and to regually gives them his name and address. And he said, you've already voted, and so is this other person that you're address And he said, well, that's my mom. She's been dead for several years. So how do you audit that to know if that is happening in Georgia for example.
Well, so in twenty twenty, the Trump campaign had us process every single mail ballot voter in the Swing States.
There was about thirty one million of them.
Wow.
We process them through a data vendor who matches up the voter with their social Security number, and then using the social security number, you can look at something called the Social Security Death Master File, which is the Social Security Administration tracks everybody who dies. So we used that mechanism thirty one million times for every mail ballot that was cast.
What did you find?
Election?
Like, I said, you know, we found a coup at most a couple a dozen in each swing state, not nearly enough to matter. I did predict, as I had done an analysis in Pennsylvania about a month before the election. I found a couple of recently registered dead voters, and I predicted that those would become mail ballot fraud and they did.
Yeah.
Yeah, Now, you you did your research, You presented your findings to the Trump campaign and who had hired you, to their attorneys, and you also reported to Mark Meadows all of your results. Is that correct?
Yeah?
So I didn't speak directly to Mark Meadow, was the lawyer who hired me and who basically was my point person throughout this whole thing. Alex Cannon. The basic premise of what I did with two different things. I looked for duplicate votes, I looked for dead voters, and then the campaign used my company to help vet every claim
of voter fraud that came their way. And there were a lot of them from outside of the campaign asking He asked us to vet them determine whether they were true or not before they would consider taking those claims into court. So they were operating in a very careful, methodical way. They asked us to review about twenty different claims of fraud. Some of them came in through folks
like Sidney Powell and John Eastman. Others came through academics, just random people out there who did their own research. And every one of the twenty different claims that we looked at, we were able to show why it was wrong. When we wrapped things up towards the end of November, Canon took the summation of everything that we had done and went to Mark Meadows and told Meadows that when it came to voter fraud, we looked pretty exhaustively at it.
All the claims we looked at were false and we couldn't find enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome in any election.
And when did when was that presented? What was the date that roughly that you presented that stuff?
Well, so I didn't do a presentation to anybody.
Every one of the claims I looked at had its own email and documentation, and all that landed on Cannon's desk. Canon took that all together and went and talked to Meadows, I believe, right at the end of November, and gave him the summation of everything.
Okay, all right, And so it was December the fourteenth that the electoral colleges, you know, the people that were selected the elector the site of electors from each party that had won, submitted their votes on December fourteenth. January the sixth was a formal acceptance of all that stuff. But everybody presented that stuff on December fourteenth, so they
knew the end of November. They knew a couple of weeks before the electoral college voted, and then again about another about I guess six weeks or so before the January the sixth thing they had those results in. What did you think about the stop the Steel stuff. You mentioned that that you debunked fraud claims while I was advancing to stop the Steel initiative. Tell us a little bit about that.
Yeah, I mean, so.
As I looked at everything, I wasn't aware usually of where the claims came from.
I was able to piece a lot of it together afterwards.
So you know, from the Sydney Pwell John Eastman perspective, I didn't know that the claims that I found were false, that they brought came from them until about a year ago.
Really, so.
It's you know, the whole problem would stop the steal and with a lot of So many people believe firmly that the election was stolen, but that belief is based upon a set of facts that's at best.
Really really squishy, right. What I mean by that is.
The facts on which the claims are being made that everybody is grabbing onto it says it was stolen can't possibly ever stand up in court, usually for a really basic reason, because that reason is it's more usually it's hearsay evidence. What I mean by that, hearsay is often defined as he said, she said type stuff, right, And our courts don't allow that kind of evidence on which to convict somebody because someone can easily be lying about
that right. The court systems want to see fact based evidence that can be double and triple checked, you know, hard facts. Sure, and most of most of the evidence that people are being presented as evidence that the election was stolen is squishy evidence.
It's not the kind of evidence that you could take to court and win.
And that, to me is really something that I have a problem with because you.
Know, I'm a data guy.
I take data to court, and my data survives legal scrutiny, right, So if you can't find data that survives legal scrutiny, I think it's sketchy to start bringing forward data that can't and then using that information to really get people amped up about what happened in our election.
I do not believe that.
The election was stolen. I believe that the election in twenty twenty was lost.
I was very skeptical of it from the very beginning. Actually, you know, when I worked at info Wars, I had a show there and two days after the election, Steve Chennick came on and said that there had that it was a sting, that they had blockchain watermark ballots that had somehow come out of the federal government at some central location. But the key thing that was obviously disprovable was he said, two days after the election, so we got twenty thousand National Guard that are out there resting
these people who rig the election. Now, that obviously was true, and that wasn't going to go down that path. So we had all kinds of stuff, but it was so many people. Even weeks after that, when there was absolutely no evidence of any National Guard troops or any arrests or whatever, they were still pushing that. So I can imagine that somebody saying, yeah, we got pictures of or I know personally about somebody's stuff in a ballot box.
That's going to be much more believable than the other stuff that people were fighting about and willing to go to the mat to say, yes, there is some secret war that is going on, maybe in Germany, maybe some places in the United States where people are actually, you know, fighting and going to war over this. It really was.
It's a strange situation. One more thing I'd like to talk about before we start talking about how to reform this stuff, and that is the exit polls, which have kind of come in to play again with this Venezuelan election.
The State Department has always used Edison Research, which is the exit polling organization here in the United States, and they say that and they use them in other countries as well, and they say that if the difference between Edison researches exit polls and the official results are more than five points away from each other. That looks like it's a rigged election. Now it's just one particular company, and of course that company can be rigged as well.
We don't know about their integrity, but it is the company that is used for the exit polls by all of the media organizations in the United States. They typically don't give us. I've never seen them give us a total and say, well, here's what they say the total is, and compare that to what the reported votes were. They'll give you demographic cross tabulations, how many men or how many women, or this or that voted for this candidate.
But was there ever any talk about looking at the exit polls anything about that.
So I didn't know it at the time, but I learned of this about a year and a half ago. The Trump campaign commissioned their top polster to conduct exit polls in the twenty twenty election in the Swing States.
That pollster's name is Tony Fabrizio. And just to be fully transparent, I'm a two time candidate for governor here in Rhode Island, and in my run in twenty fourteen as a Republican, Fabrizio was my pollster as well, so I just like to put that out there because I'm talking about him, and I just didn't want to.
Do that without disclosing that.
Fabrizio conducted a thirty thousand interview exit poll across all the swing states, and he created an internal campaign document that leaked, and that document made its way to politico dot com, so anyone can find it there. But what he determined was that one out of six votes voters that they spoke with were disaffected Republicans who chose to vote against Trump in that twenty twenty race. Another one out of six voters were brand new voters motivated to
vote against Trump because of COVID. So that's a full third of the voters that they had identified were strongly against Trump for different sets of reasons.
So exit polls are typically take it to the.
Bank type things, right, They're usually considered to be pretty accurate, and I've not ever heard of somebody manipulating the results of an exit pole. I don't know much, hardly anything at all about what's going on down invent In, Venezuela right now, other than it's a mess.
So it's another one of these things, right, So that kind of gives us a lead into some of the things that we do about how to how to fix this based on your insights. But I think that's very important. I think that's very interesting that the Trump campaign did its own exit polls and they didn't present that data, so presumably that data was not favorable to them, didn't Didn't you? Am I mistaken? Did you debate Lindell on this, Mike Lindell?
I did?
He and I appeared on a YouTube channel about a month ago and with a host named David Pacman, and yeah, we had about a forty five minute conversation about voter fraud and what is there, what's not there, and even we got into a little bit the things that we need to do to fix things.
And I know that he held a press conference at one point in time and Steve Bannon was there, a whole bunch of people, and Steve Bannon was just fed up. He said, well, we were told that he had receipts, and he goes, he didn't have any receipts truly, etcetera. Does he have any receipts yet?
No?
This evidence free, right, That's very interesting. It really is sad to see. But let's talk about what we can do to fix the election system based on what you have seen and your opinions about it.
Yeah, so I think this is the most important thing to talk about. I mean, twenty twenty is long gone and it's in the rear mirror. There's nothing that we can do at this point to alter the course of what's going to happen in twenty twenty four. It's going to be very very similar, I believe, to what we experienced in twenty twenty.
It may be almost virtually identical.
I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome is exactly the same, because the basic same.
Setup is there that we had four years ago.
The way we conduct our elections in this country is the way we've done it for hundreds of years, and it no longer makes any sense, and it causes us some real problems. And the biggest set of problems that we have is that different states, and many times different counties in the same state, conduct the same election differently. They have different rules, they have different regulations, they have
different hardware. And I'll give you just a simple example of how these differences can actually affect the outcome of a specific vote. What do you think happens if you vote early but then die before election day? Does your vote count or does your vote not count?
I would think that it would count.
Depends on where you live.
Depends.
Yeah. Yeah, So in Michigan it does not count.
And in twenty twenty, the state of Michigan invalidated about thirty five hundred votes by voters who voted early and then passed away before election day.
In Pennsylvania, if you.
Vote early then pass away before the election, your vote does count. So some of the votes that people identified as to seized votes actually counted because in Pennsylvania that's not an illegal situation as long as.
You cast the vote while you're alive.
If you happen to then pass away before election day, in Pennsylvania, the vote still counts. So it becomes you can see how just that one scenario causes a voter that we imagine is in this situation to have a very different experience as a dead voter in Michigan as it does opposed to Pennsylvania.
We want me ask you this question before we move on, because when you get these ballots in, I mean, what kind of records do you have to look at a vote an early vote by mail ballot to know that this person voted that ballot and voted it at that date. You know, if they're going to count it if the person is now dead, but they you know, to know that the person and made this a vote before they died. How do you do you have How do you audit that?
What kind of information do they have in terms of auditability? Do they know the postmark date and the person's name on the ballot.
So they had postmark dates?
They have names and addresses on the ballot application, which also goes on to the envelope that your mail ballot gets put into as you mail it back. In The trick is getting that information and being able to determine with certainty whether or not that voter is dead and live or live. And most people who do these analysis aren't able to arrive at an answer that is rock solid for sure.
Yeah, a big problem Pennsylvania. You know where it's that it's okay if they did it and then died. How do you determine that? That's tough? Right?
Right? Well?
I pointed out to the state of Pennsylvania through lawyers I was doing some work for in October of twenty twenty two registered voters who were dead, clearly deceased, identified them and because they had registered in the last month back in September of twenty twenty, I said, these will become very likely fraudulent votes. The state didn't do anything
about those voters. They did, in fact vote by mail as deceased voters, and it was only after the election that the people behind those votes were contacted, arrested, and they pled guilty to election crimes for casting fraudual votes. It's really hard, in fact, it's so hard to identify whether or not someone is living or dead. I think that the only reasonable thing to do is to probably allow the votes as long as you're alive when you
cast the vote. I think that the vote should count because it's just so hard for state to determine otherwise inside a crazy window of time where they're trying to do a lot of other things, you know. And again, we only were able to do what we did in terms of identifying deceased registered voters because the Trump campaign basically provided an unlimited pile of money that we were able to spend to do so accurately.
I guess that's really the issue, you know, in terms of how do you validate that and I guess the key issue is that people have to have trust in the election, and so it seems to me like there needs to be different ways that they can have either transparency and have the ballots retained. I know that in Texas it was kind of a standard procedure, even though it was in the constitution that a fact simile image
of the ballot had to be retained. You had the guy who was in charge of the Board of Elections would send out a statement to all of the counties saying you don't have to retain it, and they would not retain it in a lot of these counties, and so that made the auditing process really difficult. But I think maybe you know a lot of people who are looking at let's just go simple, let's go to hand
counted ballots. We know that people can always stuff stuff, but if you've got handcounted balancy and you got observers from both sides, it seems to me like you need to have something like that where people can have some confidence that you know, the fraud has been kept to a minimum, that there's been eyes on this, that they have have done that. What do you think about that?
What are your recommendations in terms of paper ballots. I know that's a big paper chase, But what would you say about that?
Well, I think, for sure, when you vote, the vote should be on a paper ballot so that you have a physical representation of what happened, so that you can go back and analyze.
Any machine that allows you to vote electronically without paper ballot backup, I think is a terrible idea and we shouldn't be there for sure.
Let's use Maricopa County, Arizona is.
Sort of approving ground for whether or not it's reasonable to count by hand all the ballots.
So Maricopa has.
Roughly one and a half million voters that vote in its elections. On your typical Maricopa County ballot, there's anywhere between twenty and thirty different races on that ballot.
It just depends on.
The year and where you are in the cycle of different things, which means that in your typical election year Americopa, you have to if you're going to count by hand, you have to tally up twenty to thirty million different distinct votes across all the different races that are there. That is a phenomenally large amount of votes, and no human counting effort will ever be anywhere near as accurate
as a machine count can be. The problem and the worry about the machines is that they can be act, that they can be programmed maliciously before the election, that kind of thing. And I look at what the casino industry.
Does and brought them in my background. I've done a lot of work in the gaming industry over the years.
Many many, many casino management systems have defensive software built into every one of those slot machines so that they know if the software deviates from what it should be. And I won't get into the technical details of it, but it's something that you can absolutely do, and it's something that you can absolutely bring forward into the election machine software. We have the ability to know with confidence what software is running on those machines, and we should
be using it. And as I said to Mike Lindell, is one of the big, big pushers of we.
Need to be counting by hand. We need to be counting by hand.
And what I'll say is, first of all, there's just no way that you can count thirty million votes accurately by hand. First of all, it would take forever to do that, right you would need an army of people conducting the count, and then you know, human beings make mistakes in that whole thing.
It's just it is.
It is too big a job I think to do it, to do it manually. And as I said to Mike, I said, Mike, the problem is you're talking about squishy reasons to count the mallets by hand, but you actually haven't pointed out something that is an actual risk that's happened that justifies making.
Such a big change. So should we harden our machines one hundred percent?
And we should have federal guidelines that all the machines have to adhere to so that we can have some confidence that they have not been hacked, and that the software that they're running has been vetted and is working the way it needs to, and all that kind of thing.
That's technology. It's already in place. I just don't see how.
I mean, if you or I were to sit down and start tallying votes on a ballot, maybe we could tally if we were working really fast, five hundred votes an hour, right, maybe? I mean, you know, and now think about thirty getting to thirty million votes five hundred votes an hour at a time this kid tells you how big the number is, the number is probably sixty thousand hours of work to get that done in Maricopa. And I don't think going back to the Stone age for how we count.
Votes is going to be a workable answer for us in this modern age.
Yeah, it's again. You know, when we look at the electronics stuff, and I always talk about, and I've shown several times the an example, going back to the late nineteen nineties early two thousands, we have local college professors bring some kids in. They say, well, let's take over this machine here, and they put a virus on there that tilts everything according to their predetermined ratios and then
erases itself. And so you know, the vulnerability there, I guess, is whether or not it's connected to the Internet and whether or not somebody can reprogram it with you know, by putting a thumb drive on there and installing some software. How do you guard against that type of thing, that kind of custody of the machine, for example, so you.
Know, the physical in the same way that slot machines have tremendous physical security around them in terms of surveillance, both electronic and people watching.
The same thing with voting machines.
The sensitive areas of the voting machine should be in on the back of the machine where.
Nobody is allowed, right. So I mean if you're putting a USB key in the front of the machine and someone could close.
The the you know, they can close the curtains and then plug something in. I mean, that's that's that's a violated rule one on one.
Of physical security. Uh. You know, it's it's there are for those who understand machine security and how to make sure that the software that should be in there is in there.
It's all that's all a solvable problem.
Uh, it really is, and.
It's part of your auditing. Did you have videotapes of the physical security situation?
No, No, we were strictly focused on the data the uh they wanted me on the hard data that was going uh that they were hoping was going to be able to go to court. I didn't get involved in any one specific local issue.
Uh.
And for sure I didn't get into any hearsay claims of any kind there there was there wasn't the time to get into that.
You know, look, there there are.
You hear a lot of people talk about election integrity, and I am a huge proponent of election integrity and making sure that the data for our elections is as clean as it can be.
And one of the problems with having the states.
Do their own voter registration maintaining their voter roles differently from each other is you end up with some states that do a really good job at it, and you do you have some states that do an absolutely terrible job at it, and the terrible side of things, I'm going to offer up two states, New Jersey and New York.
In New Jersey in twenty twenty, there were roughly twenty five thousand voters registered who had a year of birth of eighteen hundred, which, if you do the math, you realize that there's just no way that any human being in twenty twenty had a birth date of eighteen hundred, and of those twenty five thousand registered voters with a birth date of eighteen hundred cast votes in twenty twenty. Now, some of your listeners are going to be like, holy moly,
that's voter fraud. It's probably not what happens in a lot of different computer systems, and this is happening in New Jersey system if they don't have a data birth for a voter, they stick eighteen hundred in there as a placeholder.
They didn't have anything else.
So eight thousand voters in New Jersey cast votes in twenty twenty. That state election officials don't know when those.
Voters were born.
Okay, now that's a problem all by itself, and it's one that election officials in New Jersey still haven't fixed. They have really really dirty data, right, and you see all kinds of different ways that dirty data can impact registered voters and ultimately can even impact whether.
People should be voting or not. Right.
I think in New Jersey you might find maybe some of those eight thousand voters shouldn't have been voting for some reason.
But this state can't identify who those voters are.
You have to know someone's date of birth to be able to identify them using data, and New Jersey can't do that.
New York has a very.
Similar problem and some worse ones. And I don't want to get too far into it, but there are millions of votes that happen in New York State in twenty twenty by voters that they cannot identify because those voters don't have a social security number, of driver's license on file with election That's an extraordinary thing, and it's a huge problem for New York election officials because they can't possibly maintain the data in their system without having that information.
That's just two examples. When you move from one state to another, some states are able to track down the movement and cancel the registration for when somebody moves from state to state. A lot of other states cannot, and so we end up with people with duplicate registrations. We end up sometimes with people with four or five duplicated registrations. There's all a manner of stuff like that that's happening.
And for me, as a technology professional, I can't stand the fact that our elections depend on data that at times can be extraordinarily dirty. And we have the technology and the means to fix this, and I think it's criminal that we don't.
And of course we've got a lot of jurisdictions where they want to give the vote to even non citizens. So I mean, it's like there's this whole spectrum of what is out there. So, in your opinion, how do we what's the best way to fix this? I mean, do you have to have some kind of a national standard and some kind of inspectors. I mean, I think one of the reasons we have the kind of system that we've got is because there was an aversion to
centralizing things. Because if you centralize things, now you've got one point that you can corrupt or you can infiltrate, and now you've got the entire system. So there's a danger in centralization as well. How would this work out?
So, leaving any ideology out of my answer as a technologist, the only sane way to conduct our federal elections is with a federal voter registration database. If we got rid of the fifty different implementations of the voter registration.
That we have right now.
In fact, it's way more than fifty. Most large states make the responsibility of elections at the county level, and so in many ways we have as many as four thousand or five thousand different election systems that all do things a bit differently from each other. Technologically speaking, the right answer, and we would eliminate most of the voter integrity issues that we suffer from if we had a
federalized voter registry. I understand, with states rights and a whole bunch of either ideological arguments or even the uh security argument of well, you know, if you have just one, you know what happens. I don't believe that the voting should happen on a federal level with just one system, but I do believe that the voter registration should be done that way.
So if somebody hacks a voter registration system.
And by the way, how many counties do you know that have high quality data employees working for them, technologists right the lower down we pushed the conduct of our elections, I believe the more likely it is that those the county level is where it's most likely that you can see successful hacking because they just don't have the technological expertise that you need.
As you would as you move your you move your.
Way up the chain to state level technologists and ultimately federal level technologists.
Uh.
Of course we've also seen I've also seen the CIA and the NSA and the FBI and US well from the top of the bottom is vulnerable. So you know, it's a real quiet it's a real quandary.
So you know, voter registration in a lot of ways is less.
Uh, the danger of a hack there is lower than the danger of a hack to an actual election system that conducts the process of our election, right right, So, Uh, I don't believe I believe it would be wrong to have federalized voting. I only talk about the voter registration with an eye towards the cleanest data that we can have.
Uh. You know, we live, we live in it.
We live in a in a society, in an age where there probably isn't a computer system anywhere that's hardened well enough.
To prevent someone who's really determined to get at it. To get at it.
Uh, you have to watch it really carefully, and you have to see what. You have to have the surveillance systems employees to know when it's happening and to stop it before it goes. You can put that sort of stuff in front of a system like the If we were to do a federalized voter registration system, I think that that system should also have biometrics on it. You know, we use social security numbers as the most sensitive identifier
we have. Right If you're working at a job, you have to supply your social Security number.
It's how you file your taxes, all this stuff.
You have to give a social Security number to any banks that you want to open up bank accounts with And the problem is hackers have every one of our social security numbers, all of them, right, They've been hacked so many times it's no longer secure. I think we should replace social security numbers with a new identifier. We're the only first world country that doesn't have a national identifier.
Well, what happens if you do a biometric and somebody steals your your data base. Now they're stolen your face, what do you do? I mean, if they steal your pass code or something, you get a new one, uh, to go get plastic surgery or to vote again? What do you do with that? To me, that's that's a
big issue. And of course, you know, when we look at creating, you know, a lot of us have very very strong concerns about you know, creating a centralized state where we have to have some kind of a centralized ID. You know, that kind of flows into U a CBDC type of scenario and other other concerns about a global ID.
Uh.
And so that that gets a lot a lot of people to take the safety off their gun when you start talking about that type of thing.
No, I get it, I get it.
But if your concern is election integrity. The biggest threat to integrity is the way we currently conduct the election. I mean, that's that's just a simple statement of fact.
Well, I mean, and you know, as unwieldy as it is, you know, when they ran elections in Iraq, what they did was they did on one day, and you know, they couldn't tell these people are legitimate if they'd walked across the border, but they could keep them from voting multiple times. And so you would go in and you'd vote on paper, and then you would get this indelible stain on your thumb that's going to be there for the rest of the day, so you couldn't vote again.
If we go ultra crude like that, I know it's a big hassle to count this stuff, but I mean, if people really wanted a system, they would invest the time in terms of maybe volunteering or something like that. I know that's idealistic, but I mean, why not go ultra low tech one day and the purple thumb?
I mean, how many elections that way? Do you hear stories about a whole bunch of ballots being stuffed anyway? Right, even people have inkstained hands. That doesn't handle the physical security of the actual ballot box sitting there. You know, Look, I live in a state where it wasn't all that long ago where some elected officials were arrested driving around with a bunch of absentee ballots in the trunks of their cars.
Yeah, right, and we saw that going back to the nineteen sixties, or reports of people driving around with the voting machines in the back of their car and that
type of thing. You're always going to have that, I guess the thing for me personally, and I've talked about this, I said, because what scares me about the computerized voting is that if you're able to hack the actual voting system, you know, different from the from the ID stuff, but if you're able to hack the actual voting system that gives you access from a remote area to be able to manipulate things across the country, or you can manipulate from the top of the ballot to the bottom of
the ballot. I mean once you get if you get in there, the payoff is so incredibly large that it really is a big honeypot, you know for people in terms of the allure, I.
Think, no, no differently than casino systems, right, and in a lot of ways. The you know, rigging a casino machine to walk out the door of a million dollars in cash in a lot of ways is probably a bigger prize and then most other things, and the industry has dealt with that threat. We can deal with the threat of the hacking and the cyber attacks on election systems. We really can. It really comes down to a question
of will and money. But I don't know how we don't insist that the same protections that go into slot machines aren't already in most of the machines.
That conduct our elections. I know some of the machines that conduct our elections do have this in there. They all should have it, and if we have that, I think we can all rest a bit easier about it.
Well, that is a good analogy. I guess we'll end on that. I think that there's many analogies that could be drawn between the electoral system and the casino. The house always wins, I think, in both cases. But that is very interesting, And I'm sure I haven't had a chance to read your book. I didn't get a copy of it yet because I wanted to get you on quickly. But I'm sure, it is very interesting. I think people be interested to see what you found in twenty twenty
that people are still talking about. And more importantly, what does that portend for the election that's coming up now and I guess maybe about ninety days or something like that, and what can we do. Certainly there's not going to be a thing that we can do to fix it between now and then, but it gives us some idea
of what we can still expect. But then we really do need to take I think one thing everybody agrees that we need to do something to make the electoral system more trustworthy, that people have a confidence that their vote is counted and counted accurately. I think that is a paramount importance and so it's very I'm glad to see that you wrote a book about your experience with that.
And again, the book is disproven my unbiased search for voter fraud for the Trump campaign and the data that shows why he lost and how we can improve our elections. And by the way, you can find this at kenblock dot com. There's a link there to buy the book and you can get information about it there. Anything else you'd like to tell us about the book before we run out of time.
Yeah, I mean, look, the back of the book is the most important part of the book. Fixing our elections is patriotic, it's mission critical, it's the most important thing. Michael Lindell and I disagreed about the outcome of the elections, but we were in sync on the need to make changes to make things happen better. I've spoken to Republican secretaries of state. I've spoken to Democratic secretaries of state.
There is a lot of over agreement, overlap in agreement on some of the things that we should be doing to make our elections better. And we need to move beyond where we're at in terms of our discussions of elections and looking backwards and dealing with whatever happens here in November.
To move forward.
We need to have an adult conversation about making our elections better and get in to it and taking this moment in time to really improve things.
Yeah. I agree.
And it's not just that we would like to get the right answers, but I mean, in this time of polarization, if we don't have trustworthy elections, I'm very concerned that the the Civil War over it or something like that. A lot of talk about that on both sides. And so it's having something that you trust that you can audit that is really key. So again you've got the second half of your book is about your recommendations for how to do that from somebody who is an expert
on auditing it. And you've seen the tricks that can be pulled, and so that is no system is going to be perfect. Any system can be infiltrated and has its own flaws, and so the question is what do we do to try to minimize that and mitigate those risks. So thank you so much for the work that you do, and again you can find us at kenblock dot com. And the book is disproven. Thank you so much, sir, appreciate it.
Thanks. Wearing of bias and false neooze has become all too common on social first unfortunately exactly. And this is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Break free from the usual script with a David Knight show a fresh perspective bringing you genuine insights on current events. But if the show is going to stay on the air, we'll need your cantinued support. Sharing the show, subscribing and
even just hitting the like button all help. And if you found our show helpful, please consider donating and becoming a part of a community that values the truth because independent, listener funded news untouched by corporate globalist agendas, is extremely important to our liberties.