An Open Letter to State Legislatures from LCPR: You Must Act on Election Problems

  • by London Center
  • 12-22-2020

State Legislatures Must Act on Election Problems

*photo credit: Element5 on Pixabay

           Free and fair elections are the foundation of our society. Where elections are not fairly conducted, the electorate can have no faith in their outcomes, in the legitimacy of those holding office, or in the legitimacy of the government itself. Government “Of the People” becomes a sad deceit.

            Today, the question we face isn’t whether the recent election was riddled with fraud; we know it was, as we discuss below and in the attached. The courts have shown themselves to be afraid to act, taking cover behind the law. But, it is the State legislatures who have the real authority, the real power, to address the problem and provide a solution - while remaining firmly inside the law. Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” State legislatures can and should assert their real authority and correct the mistakes of state executives.

            To date, only one forensic examination of actual voting machines has been conducted. The investigation concludes that the systems fail to meet standards for certification and the results are accordingly unacceptably unreliable. The full report is attached at Annex A, but in summary the examination showed conclusively that the voting system was fatally compromised, despite certification to the contrary by numerous election officials and contrary to the expert” testimony of various company representatives.

            Federal Election Commission guidelines were aggressively disregarded and there is clear, indisputable evidence of multiple tampering efforts, all rendering an accurate audit impossible. This may, in part, have been due to poor understanding of the mechanisms, both electronic and physical, involved but it was also vastly complicated by the inherent vulnerabilities of the system, some of which may have been due to outmoded technology, but again, there appears to have been functional system designs deliberately inserted for malign purposes.

            We have two distinct, reliable sources covering Levels 1 & 2 of the voting machine systems as shown at Annex A. Annexes B, C & E indicate with certainty that the conduct of the 2020 national election has been egregiously flawed, possibly in every State. What is certain is that, irrespective of the outcome, the actual vote count in every single state may have been manipulated; in some cases, successfully changing the winner and loser, and in others not able to do so. In 45 out of 50 States the data appears to have been manipulated surreptitiously. Annex E describes this mathematical certainty in detail.

            Computer hacking is sadly a commonplace event and the recent SolarWinds Orion hack (Annex D) is a prime example, to which key government agencies and major private sector actors (such as banks and hospitals) have fallen victim, as has Dominion! It is essential that legislators, particularly at the State level, take the time to become familiar enough with voting machine systems to understand their substantial vulnerabilities.

            It is worth remembering that the only calculation necessary for the tabulation of votes is addition, and any other form of calculation is both unnecessary and manipulable. Yet other calculations were taking place in virtually every vote tally across America last month. The results as they stand thus have no integrity.

Legislators have a duty to protect the oath which they took to follow both the Constitution of the United States and your State Constitution by recognizing that your election results are almost certainly inaccurate and not reflective of the true Will of the People you represent.

You should debate on, and re-vote, your selection of electors, to establish that they accurately represent the intentions of the citizens of your state, free from electronic interference, or the fear of violence. You should also immediately enact Laws to properly audit your voting systems and processes, pursue those responsible for acts of election fraud, and institute a voting system far less vulnerable to manipulation of any sort.

            Accordingly, we make the following recommendations:

·         All votes should be cast on paper ballots

·         Certified observers (poll watchers) from each party must be allowed to see sufficient detail to confirm the veracity and accuracy of vote counts, including verification processes, with a system to log and show solutions to any and all objections raised

·         All electronic records and equipment must be treated as federal records

·         Cameras should record the entire process and recordings be held as federal records


            Our nation demands clearly legitimate elections. That is your charter.


A picture containing text, tool, scissors

Description automatically generated                                                                                    Tony Shaffer


                                                                                    London Center for Policy Research


 Annex A

Voting Machine Levels :

Annex B

Link to source document - Antrim Michigan Forensics Report 121320:


Annex C

Summary Press Account of ASOG Report Findings:


Annex D

A current example of computer hacking (voting machines also utilize this software):


Annex E

Report on Edison data showing how data anomalies confirm unreliability of voting machine reports:

An Analysis - Edison Data

London Center for Policy Research
By Bennett McPhatter


Here is some additional information and analysis for your consideration in hopes that we can share a common, non-technical, understanding about what was found in the Edison data.
[Note: Edison data refers to the state-level aggregated data downloaded from the New York Times data servers, and reported to the American people through the media]

The primary focus here is the difference between the implausible [statistically unlikely data] and the impossible [false data]. Our analysis of the Edison data reveals contradictions in the data that can prove [in a court of law] that data integrity has been compromised [meaning that the data contains demonstrably false information]. The question is: If the data lacks integrity then how can we rely upon that same data as a representation of the true number of votes in our election?

To orient you to the Edison data, study the image below. It has a few rows of Edison data displayed in a grid. We have the State, Source, Ordinal [sequential numbering], votes total, vote share for each candidate, and the timestamp. [Note: the image shows GA, but we have all 50 states, plus DC]


Take the following example:


Line # [ordinal]


Total Votes

John’s Vote Share

Mary’s Vote Share


11/4/2020 1:51AM


50% [400 votes]

50% [400 votes]


11/4/2020 1:52AM


70% [700 votes]

30% [300 votes]


Line numbers 44 and 45 cannot both be correct. The difference between 800 votes and 1,000 votes is 200 votes. So, even if we gave all 200 votes to John, that would only be 600 votes, or 60%. Yet, only 1 minute later, John is reported to have 70% vote share, or 700 votes. So, how can a difference of 200 votes total give John 300 votes more? The answer is that one, or both, of the data in lines 44 and 45 are false. We can debate about why that happened, but there is no argument about the facts, as reported.

To mark these occurrences, we mark that one, or both, of these data points [lines 44 and 45] with “Failed Integrity Check”.

We need to separate the fact that they exist in the data from the speculation about why they exist in the data. Please understand that it’s not acceptable for even 1 conflicting value to exist in the data, yet we have identified at least 649 nationwide, covering every state except the following: AK, DC, DE, FL, and HI. There exist at least 32 false values in GA alone.

Also, it’s important to understand that saying this is “vote switching” from Trump to Biden is too simplistic and calls for a conclusion. When looking at only two lines of data, as in the above example, it’s easy to make that conclusion but that’s not the whole story. The fact is that it only proves that there is false data, which invalidates the whole data set. That is not an overreaching statement and should provide enough evidence for a court to order more discovery.

Each line item represents a point in time where ostensibly accurate information was reported to the American people. In legal terms, each line item might be evaluated as a True or False claim. By that logic, we have at least 649 demonstrably false claims in the Edison results data, as reported to the American people.

Mr. McPhatter is an experienced professional with over 20 years of domestic and international government, military and private sector experience with a focus on the creation and delivery of value-based technology systems that provide results. Mr. McPhatter is a proven innovator and technology-centric entrepreneur having co-founded two successful software companies since 1997. He has extensive experience in commercial software development, systems engineering, large scale systems integration and data analytics