Preliminary results of the ‘Windham Incident’ forensic audit are not good

Editor’s note: The town of Windham, New Hampshire, is presently conducting an audit of its Nov. 3, 2020 election, in which a hand recount one week later revealed that four Republican candidates each gained about 300 votes not counted on Election Night. Vermont uses the same Diebold AccuVote-OS vote tabulators owned by Dominion and managed by LHS Associates, of Salem, N.H. The following article by Ken Eyring has been republished with permission from GraniteGrok.

By Ken Eyring

I believe the preliminary results of the forensic audit of the Windham, N.H., voting machines as configured on Nov. 3, 2020, show the aging Diebold ES2000 Model A voting machines cannot be trusted.

And by extension, potentially the elections across the state of New Hampshire as well.

And based on the actions and demeanor of high-ranking government officials from the AG’s office over the first few days of the audit — I have a long list of concerns that I’ll share in another post.

But for now, let’s focus on the preliminary results of the vote totals that were produced by running all of the ballots from Windham’s Nov. 3, 2020 general election, through all of Windham’s four voting machines as configured on Nov. 3.

The first table and graph show some disturbing results of the Rockingham District 7 State Rep race. This is the race that triggered the recount that produced the largest unexplained numerical discrepancy in the state of NH.

The audit results of each machine are significantly different from the results produced on 11/3/20.  Why? The audit results are closer to the results of the hand recount that was overseen by the Secretary of State’s office that took place on 11/12/20, but those results are also significantly different for five of the candidates. This could be due to the fact that some of the counted votes during the 11/12/20 recount were tallied based on clear voter intent that was acknowledged by everyone observing.

Another disturbing observation is the variation of between 2-44 votes when the results of each candidate are compared across each machine’s audit results. There’s a miniscule difference of 2 votes for Ioana Singureanu between all four machines, and a massive number of 44 votes for Bob Lynn between AccuVote #2 and AccuVote #4. A potential error of 44 votes is unacceptable in any election — because it could cause the wrong person to be declared the winner and subsequently sworn into office.

Regardless of what the hand recount shows, it looks like it is time to get rid of the aging Diebold machines. I believe consideration should be given to hand-counting every vote on election night.  This is not as monumental a task as it may first appear. I have been told that Canada, the U.K., and Australia each hand count their votes. If entire countries can do it, then each of our towns and cities can as well.

There are only a few cities in NH where their large number of voters would dictate a need to add additional polling places to reduce the number of ballots that would need to be counted at any one location.  That’s a simple logistical process that could be put into place in order to ensure the accuracy and integrity of our elections.

For those interested in the other races, the tables below contain the machine results from the 11/3/20 general election and the machine results from the audit on Friday. The table on the left shows the breakdown of machine vote totals for each of the machines on election day + the 80 UOCAVA ballot votes in the Totals column.  UOCAVA (Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) ballots cannot be processed through the machines so they need to be hand counted.

The table on the right shows the audit results of all the ballots for each machine number.  The TOTAL columns for each machine includes the UOCAVA votes that were counted on election day.  Keep in mind, this is a preliminary results – and the audit team has not yet counted the UOCAVA ballots yet – so in order to compare “apples to apples” results with the general election, the small number of UOCAVA votes from November are being temporarily used.  These numbers will be updated using the UOCAVA votes after the audit team has hand-counted those ballots.

One more thing that you need to be aware of when you look at the charts below — the forensic audit team assigned different numbers to each of the machines when compared to how Windham election officials number the machines. In order to accurately compare the machine results from election day to the same machine in the audit, the machines numbers in the audit table below match the election day machine numbers.

You can open up and magnify the table below by clinking on this link, or you can zoom in on your screen and view the table below to look at the results of each race.


Spread the love

4 thoughts on “Preliminary results of the ‘Windham Incident’ forensic audit are not good

  1. New Hampshire ” Live Free or Die ” but without a free and fair election, then all you
    have left is ” Die ” and that’ll be under Democratic Communism.

    Live Free, ” The Truth Will Set You Free ” have an audit, a real audit you’ll be truly
    amazed at what you’ll find !!

    Fair & Free not so much in 2020

  2. Thanks for jumping on this TNR! And many thanks for the Granite Grok gang and faithful reportage, Ken Eyring’s tireless patience in keeping up the pressure by bringing a large amount of info in a concise format – “signal” not “noise” 😀

Comments are closed.