Image 01 Image 03

Michigan Recount Shows Too Many Votes in Detroit

Michigan Recount Shows Too Many Votes in Detroit

I thought voter fraud didn’t exist.

So the Michigan vote recount revealed corruption and fraud..just not what Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton hoped for. Instead, the recount showed that too many people voted in the Detroit precincts, areas that Hillary won by a large majority. The Detroit News reported:

Voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit precincts registered more votes than they should have during last month’s presidential election, according to Wayne County records prepared at the request of The Detroit News.

Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday.

Those who counted votes found that they could not recount votes in 10.6% of the 22 counties “because of state state law that bars recounts for unbalanced precincts or ones with broken seals.” In Detroit, they could not count “392 precincts or nearly 60 percent” and at least “two-thirds of those precincts had too many votes.”

Krista Haroutunian, chairwoman of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, said they “didn’t expect the degree of problem” in Detroit:

“It’s not good,” conceded Daniel Baxter, elections director for the city of Detroit.

He blamed the discrepancies on the city’s decade-old voting machines, saying 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. Many jammed when voters fed ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if ballots are inserted multiple times. Poll workers are supposed to adjust counters to reflect a single vote but in many cases failed to do so, causing the discrepancies, Baxter said.

Even so, Baxter said it’s unlikely all 392 of the city’s precincts with mismatched numbers will be disqualified from a recount. The city is in contact with elections officials at the state of Michigan and Baxter predicted the numbers will match when the ballot boxes are re-opened for the recount, which starts Tuesday in Wayne County at Cobo Center.

In Detroit, 158 of the 392 precincts with ballot discrepancies had just one extra ballot accounted for either in the poll book or in the ballot box, according to the Wayne County’s canvassing report.

For suburban Wayne County, 72 percent of the 218 precincts boxes with discrepancies in the number of ballots were off by one ballot.

The other ballot discrepancies in Detroit and Wayne County precincts ranged between two and five ballots, according to the report.

Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano told Stuart Varney the evidence points to government involvement:

“That is a different kind of fraud,” Napolitano said. “Because that is the government defrauding itself. “The poll worker is an employee of, or a volunteer in behalf of the government. You’re talking about a crime now. … The law guarantees fair elections — not perfect ones. If this had changed the outcome, it would be unfair and it would warrant a serious inquiry.”

“But it happened in 248 precincts!” Varney exclaimed. “More votes were cast than voters!”

Varney and Napolitano also said audits in other Democrat controlled cities like Baltimore and Chicago could yield the same results. I agree with Debra Heine at PJ Media. Hillary probably only won the popular vote “with the help of systemic voter- and election-fraud strategies in major cities.”

Elections Director Chris Thomas announced Thursday that Detroit will receive brand new voting machines in 2017. But the plan remains a little too late for some. Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey said “the city should have already had new machines to to replace the 10-year-old models.” If Thomas did not announce this plan she would have found “a way to purchase them herself.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


UnCivilServant | December 15, 2016 at 2:38 pm

He blamed the discrepancies on the city’s decade-old voting machines, saying 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day.

I think the lack of durability of electronic systems is in the line of “feature not bug” for the people who pushed these abominable things on the country.

    Joe-dallas in reply to UnCivilServant. | December 15, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Optical scanners have been around since the lates sixties. We used them in the elementary school for tests in the 60’s. They are not new and the original ballots remain on paper so there is excellent paper trail.

    The second point made by Albigensian is that these machines are only being use 2-3 times per year so there is not a lot of wear and tear, though there may some deteriation in storage, and excess damage moving back and forth from voting site to storage and back.

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

“I thought voter fraud didn’t exist.”

C’mon…it is only fraud when votes – ANY votes – are cast for candidates that aren’t Fascist-Progressives!

“Extra” votes cast for a Fascist-Progressive candidate merely reflect the way people WOULD vote if given the chance.

You know…”Fake, but Accurate!”

I see that the DOJ is not rushing in to investigate!

Marvels truly marvelous. Stuffing ballot boxes, without actually having to stuff the ballot boxes. What won’t they think of next?

“…the city’s decade-old voting machines ” BUT if there are two elections per year, then a decade-old voting machine will have been used all of twenty times. Unless they deteriorate in storage, or can’t handle the rough-and-tumble of being moved.

    MattMusson in reply to Albigensian. | December 16, 2016 at 9:25 am

    They do not want to replace these machines because they have figured out how to make them register one vote multiple times. My understanding is there is a way to configure and ‘cast’ the vote so it doubles or triples.

We use the optical scan machines in my county. Most of the count variances cited in the article were one ballot per precinct, with others in the 2-5 ballot range. This is probably a procedural issue rather than ballot-stuffing. We have clear directions on what to do when the ballots jam, which they tend to do more often when the paper ballot is long, as it is in a general election. If Detroit poll workers didn’t carefully follow procedures these small differences can happen.

We had 1850 voters in our precinct in this election, and our ballot count was perfect. I am proud of that.

    Joe-dallas in reply to tarheelkate. | December 15, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    Tarkeelkate. one or two vote discrepancy seems rather reasonable given the likely expertise/dexterity/ capicity to not make procedural error for the typical volunteer poll worker in the inner city.

    Compare and contrast where there is ballot stuffing where those precincts report their totals in the wee hours of the night. As I recall, the vote totals were reported fairly quickly (within 2 hours of the polls closing). My take is there were most likely procedural errors/ mechanical errors with the poll volunteers trying to operate the machines.

    Further compare and contrast the time of reporting the detroit precinct results in 2016 with the time of reporting the poll results from the miami area precincts in the 2000 bush gore race. Note virtually impossible to get hanging chads and dimpled ballots when punching one voting card at a time. While extremely easy to get dimpled ballots and hanging chads when punching multiple ballots at one time.

What we were hearing recently was that there were gross discrepancies between ballots registered and those in the box. One ballot to four or five registered. If what they are now saying is accurate, then the real numbers were between 1 and 5 ballots difference, which, while concerning, isn’t a red flag for fraud.

Now we know what the Russians were doing.

There has been reports of two precincts having enormous differences in the number of votes recorded and the actual number of paper ballots found in the box. In one case the difference was said to be approximately 300 more recorded votes than ballots and in the other it was something like ~100 more votes than ballots. Now, it appears that actual vote fraud was kept to a minimum, though some apparently did occur. However, no one has said anything about fraudulent voters. This is where the real fraud occurs. Illegal aliens, the dead, convicted felons, people casting votes in more than one state, etc. is where the true problem lies. And, recounts will not turn up this problem.

My personal belief is that most of Hillary Clinton’s lead, in the popular vote, will be explained when the number of ineligible voters is known. I would like to see how many undocumented aliens voted in California, for instance.

I’m a Detroit native, now in NC, but I have family living from Detroit to Hancock. Please understand that Detroit and its surrounding suburbs have been deep deep blue for decades, half a century, due to demographics and union membership/influence/coercion. You’d have to be a Democrat operative idiot to risk getting caught for vote fraud in an area where it simply isn’t needn’t to win, not even close, and hasn’t been for decades. Unfortunately for Dems, idiocy abounds.

More votes than ballots is a very low bar for vote fraud. It would be more interesting to compare the number of ballots cast to the number of registered voters, which information we are not given. A very high number is certain evidence of fraud. If for example 75% of registered voters are alleged to have cast ballots that’s totally suspicious, doubly so in black districts because low percentages of black voters actually vote. We saw this during Obama’s elections, but of course nobody bothered to investigate, and it would not surprise me if it’s happening again this election (but again nobody is looking at it).

Sorry, but ditto Henry. Having grown up on the north side of town, I can tell you that ballot-stuffing, etc., is an age-old Wayne County technique. Good Lord, people, what do you think kept Coleman Young and his cronies in the drivers’ seats for so long?

We all remember on Election night how Trump was up 100k with 99% reporting, and this narrowed with the last precincts reporting.

Clearly, precincts in Detroit (and only Detroit) had election officials running ballots though the scanner multiple times at the last minute.

Smells like Fraud.

Maybe Jill Stein (who got Hillary donors to pay for this recount) really hates Hillary and knows what’s she’s doing.

How odd is it otherwise that the 2 Democrat appointed judges voted to kill the recount, but the Republican judge wanted the recount to continue.

It really helps to have both parties represented when the votes are scanned.

This sounds like a relatively crude method of upping the count, by running a ballot more than once, and it could be eliminated by a scanner that records an image of the ballot. Then, software could be used to isolate duplicates/poorly scanned images.

    randian in reply to Valerie. | December 16, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    If that’s why they’re doing, why don’t ballots have unique bar codes to prevent it? Such scanning tech is rock-solid these days.