Stanley Ming showed what happened, Lowenfield showed how it happened. Using simple analysis he claimed 5th graders could understand, Stanley Ming established there are tens of thousands extra ballots in the boxes. Keith Lowenfield revealed how it happened.
As per Lowenfield, the recount revealed an extraordinary number of anomalies, irregularities and voter impersonations. He said the discrepancies were sufficient enough to undermine the credibility of the elections. As expected, the PPP responded with a fusillade of attacks on Lowenfield and his report.
Their immediate response was to say the report shows Lowenfield is incompetent to have allowed all this to happen under his watch. This is what the supposed guardians of democracy have descended to. It is as if they think elections is a 3-card trick, in which the card sharp with the best sleight of hand wins. They conveniently forgot that Lowenfield attempted to clean the bloated list, but the PPP went to court and obtained an order preventing him from doing so. They forgot Lowenfield tried to publish the names of persons he could not account for but he was blocked by the PPP. They ignore the fact that Lowenfield tried to highlight these names on the OLE to be use on election day. This was to ensure polling day staff and party agents could be alerted when someone attempts to vote using one of the names. Again he was blocked by the PPP.
Lowenfield was forced to conduct elections with a list that is 33% bloated, when international standard stipulates defects in the list should not exceed 15%. ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, a UN created repository of electoral knowledge, advises that the credibility of an elections is compromised when discrepancies are over 15%. So when Keith Lowenfield reports that the elections are not credible, he is not admitting to incompetence, he is saying I TOLD YOU SO. In fact, this development bolsters Lowenfield creds as an election manager.
Those who are counting the discrepancies, and comparing it with the supposed PPP 15,000 margin should check on Stanley Ming’s simple analysis. Then the magnitude of the fraud would be understood. To put it simply, uncovering 10 dead voters is evidence that a voter impersonation operation existed at the polling station. However, the amount of fraudulent votes placed in the box is anyone’s guess.
![](https://continuedpovertyisnotanoption.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/20160109Stanley-Ming-985x1024.jpg)
Let us look at an example. Polling Station A has a list with 450 electors, 120 of whom are overseas and 20 of whom are dead. This gives 310 persons who are present and available to vote. On election day 265 persons turned up to vote, and the voter impersonation exercise puts in an additional 59, bringing the total to 324, or an apparent 72% turnout. During the recount we uncover 10 migrated voters and 4 dead voters, which is a total of 14. But they put 59 fraudulent ballots in the box, where did the other 45 come from? This is what is explained so simply by Stanley Ming.
No election has 100% turnout. Like in the example above, 265 out of 310 persons, or 85%, turned out to vote. The PPP voter impersonation operation, under the cover of the bloated list, targeted the names of the 45 disenchanted or angry voters who did not turn up to vote. However, negligence or enthusiasm resulted in 10 migrant and 4 dead voters being included, and this is what the recount would have revealed.
When Keith Lowenfield looks at the recount data he must consider several things. Firstly, he knows since the list is about 33% bloated, an apparent 72% turnout is really an improbable real turnout of 105%. He has evidence of dead voters and migrated voters, which establishes a fraudulent voting operation. He knows real turnout ranges between 72% and 85% and therefore concludes bogus votes could be between 60 and 100. He cannot be sure of the exact number, but he can be sure the numbers in the box are now credible. It would be a dereliction of duty for him to report otherwise.
![](https://continuedpovertyisnotanoption.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/IMG-20200614-WA0001.jpg)
Given Mr. Lowenfield findings, GECOM has a few options. They could now a declaration based on the unaffected ballots. They could declare the elections null and void. In the event the PPP challenges GECOM right to take discrepencies into consideration, then GECOM must declare based on the current official Regional Declarations.