Explanation of “no significant abnormalities” in VT election audit

by Guy Page

On April 29, Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos announced the completion of the 2020 Vermont General Election Audit, which was conducted on April 28 at the Pavilion Auditorium located in Montpelier. Seven towns or cities were selected at random for the 2020 General Election Audit: Brandon, Pownal, Randolph, South Burlington (Chittenden 7-4), Topsham, Warren and Worcester. In a press release, SOS spokesperson Eric Covey said, “no significant abnormalities or discrepancies were found between the audit results and the Official Returns of Vote.”

Vermont Daily wanted to know what Covey meant by “significant.” So we sent him this email:

“The headline and story says no significant abnormalities or discrepancies. I understand the full report will be out soon and will tell all – but can you please provide more detail on any abnormalities or discrepancies that were found?” 

Covey responded April 30:

“In order to best understand, our advice to you is to watch the video recording of the audit, which was done publicly and transparently.

“Minor deviations of 1-2 votes are common. These are typically the result of voters who do not follow the instructions for marking the ballot. For instance if an oval was circled rather than filled in, the tabulator won’t register that vote, but it may be found by the election officials when reviewing the ballots for write-in names and the totals from the tabulator tape are adjusted. The audit won’t pick up that vote either, so the audit would show one less vote counted for the candidate. Conversely, if the voter marks the ballot too lightly, it may not be picked up by the tabulator and may not be adjusted by the election officials on review, but it may be picked up by the audit software, resulting in one additional vote for that candidate.

“These are just a few examples of what can lead to these minor deviations. The point, however, is that this audit, like those before it, shows clearly that there is no underlying manipulation of the programming or systemic inaccuracy in the tabulators. They were, again, shown to be extremely accurate when the ballot is properly marked by the voters. The results again give us strong confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the official results. 

“These are a normal part of any audit, and occur in very small numbers.

“The purpose of the audit is to verify the accuracy of the tabulators used on election night, and ensure that there are no systematic or significant deviations between the audit results and the Official Return of Vote.”

In the April 29 press release, Covey promised “the results of the audit will be posted on the Secretary of State’s website once the data has been formatted.”

When the specific results are posted, Vermont Daily will report them.

Categories: Elections

9 replies »

  1. Condos claimed all machine tabulators used in VT predate the Dominion machines under question in nearly the rest of the nation but, is the Smartmatic software installed within VT machines, and was it updated last minute as happened nearly, if not everywhere else it’s used?

    • True. The software is what is in question as well as the adjudication process for the ballots and the paper ballots themselves. A true Audit did not occur in the Vermont re-count of the ballots in the video. The same ballots were only recounted, that’s all. There was no forensic examination of the ballot paper, ink, folds, etc. There was no forensic examination of the machines or the software. It was a dog and pony show. Time to get Vermont under control and start a forensic audit in all counties. We need a Petition started now. Anyone keeping track on what is happening in New Hampshire? Look at the hurdles they have to overcome. We have our own hurdles. We have to try or Vermont will continue down the deep dark hole of no return. Voting will be meaningless, it will be forever rigged.

  2. Simply recounting ballots does NOT constitute a meaningful audit. Keep in mind that once mailed ballots are separated from their “Certification” envelopes, there is no way to know who actually marked the ballot nor who cast the vote! Making matters even worse, SOS instructs Clerks and BCA officials – like myself – that such envelopes don’t have to be sealed, don’t have to include the municipality where the voter lives, don’t have to include the voter’s printed name, don’t have to be dated, and – most disturbing of all – the signature does not have to be legible; a mere “mark” of any kind will suffice! Moreover, even persons claiming to be registered voters who show up to vote at the polling place do not have to produce any form of identification! They are simply asked, verbally, to identify themselves, and to state their residence address. If that unchallenged name appears on the voter checklist, that person is handed a ballot! Just imagine the inherent risks of such a system, especially in our larger Towns and Cities where it is impossible for election officials to know everyone. And now, S15 – if it becomes law – will solidify Vermont’s dubious distinction of having the least secure elections in the nation! Wake up Vermonters! Tell your legislators to vote NO on S15!!!

  3. The Audit was SIMPLY a DOG and PONY show. We will; end up with the WEAKEST Election system in the COUNTRY.

  4. The entire election system is rigged. The more the left & rinos scurry and collude to cover up the criminal corruption only proves they have more to hide than rigging elections – they have an agenda that goes along with the criminal conduct. The power of the people is stolen and held hostage as citizens are allowing it to happen without protest. It will remain out of our hands as long as this criminal conduct continues. I pray every day that citizens will demand justice and demand the rule of law be adhered to by those who swore to uphold and protect it. Otherwise, this state is doomed and will be a failed state in short order.

  5. Dog and pony all right! Not going to work – their time is coming. The mission of these machines can be followed back to Diebold and for anyone curious to track that – you will see how that mission never changed only the name of ownership to protect the guilty! Windham New Hampshire has got the right actions going on – so close they are – same everything – so keep your eyes not only on AZ, but Windham as well.

  6. My name is Brian Judd. I ran for the Ward 2 Seat for City Council for the City of Barre. I lost by 38 votes, 247-209. For a 12 hour period, over 30 people who voted for me had their ballots rejected 1-3 times. There were two voting machines; one for in person voting and the other for mail in voting. Before the polls closed I thought that there were only problems with one machine. After I entered the auditorium after the polls closed I was informed that Both machines rejected multiple ballots, multiple times. A friend who was working the polls and who has over 15 years experience running for office, holding office and working polling stations says this happens all the time. The person said this has been happening since they got the machines 12-13 years ago. Think about that, voting machines rejecting multiple ballots, multiple times for 12-13 years. There is something wrong hear. I asked for a hand recount and I was denied. I lost by 8%.If I’d lost by 5% or less I would have gotten a hand count, but guess what It would have been counted by the machines again. Why would I want another machine count by machines that rejected multiple ballots, multiple times for a 12 hour period and that this same scenario had repeated itself for 12-13 years. I asked for a hand count and I was denied. I asked to pay for a hand count out of my own pocket and I was denied again. The City Clerk said, ” No, that’s not an option. The only way a recount could be considered is if you took up a legal challenge of the election results in court…” So that’s what I did. On March 17th I filed a complaint. On March 26th Barre City was served that Complaint. On April 9th Barre City answered my Complaint and asked the Court to dismiss that case. On April 20th I responded to Barre City’s answer and asked the Court to Deny Barre City’s request that the case be dismissed. Tomorrow, Saturday of Monday I and Barre City should receive the result. If the Court dismisses the case I will appeal the case and file an Injunction so Barre City doesn’t throw out the Paper Ballots. If the Court Does Not dismiss the case I continue to do the Right thing and file an Injunction so Barre City doesn’t throw out the Paper Ballots. Stay Tuned. If you have any questions or suggestions please email me at brianjuddward2@gmail.com or call me at 839-9985 Thank you for your support.

Leave a Reply