Nevadans in Clark County are not being represented by their truly elected officials

Nevadans need help to secure genuine elected representation!

争取评论头条

商品库存单位（SKU）: Election Fraud

数量: Our Free & Fair Elections

电话报价

描述信息
商品标签

Election integrity in Clark County, NV, appears compromised, particularly in tight local races, consistently favoring Democrats. Nevada lacks voter ID laws and continues to permit ballot harvesting—practices introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Despite 73% of voters supporting voter ID measures, the Democrat-controlled legislature has blocked reforms that would enhance election security.

We urgently need support to restore trust in our electoral process and return control to voters. I am seeking guidance or a connection to an organization capable of effectively advocating for election integrity. Now is the time to reclaim the integrity of Nevada’s voting system.

Specific concerns include statistical anomalies in the vote counts for Clark County’s Assembly Districts 12 and 21. The races between Nancy Roecker and Max Carter, as well as April Arndt and Elaine Marzola, exhibit patterns that seem inconsistent with natural voting behavior:

Nevada State Assembly District 12 - Nancy Roecker (R) vs. Max Carter (D)

On November 6 at 2:00 AM, with 75% of the ballots counted, as reported by NBC News 3LV, Roecker was leading with 11,325 votes to Carter’s 10,655, a margin of 643 votes or 2.93%.

After the initial batch, Roecker had a significant lead of 2.93%. However, Roecker’s lead dwindled with each successive batch of ballots, with large batch margins of 3.1%, 14.6%, and 25.6%, respectively. This behavior indicates a significant inflection point that only favors Carter, who gained just enough votes to overtake Roecker and maintain a lead of less than 1%.

See the graph below and Addendum 1 for more detailed results and graph annotations:

Total Votes for Each Candidate (left axis) and Percentage of Ballots Favoring Either Nancy Roecker or Max Carter (right axis) Over Time in Nevada Assembly District 12 Election Indicating a Significant Inflection Point.

Nevada State Assembly District 21 - April Arndt (R) vs. Elaine Marzola (D)

On November 6 at 2:00 AM, with 86% of the votes counted, Marzola was slightly ahead with 13,823 votes to Arndt’s 13,717, a margin of only 106 votes or 0.38%. By 5:00 AM, Arndt took the lead with 16,468 votes to Marzola’s 16,273, with a margin of 195 votes.

Each successive batch of ballots after the second showed Marzola increasing her margins from 6.9% to 34.89%. She took the lead with a similar significant inflection point as in Assembly District 12. The subsequent batches had vote margins of 24.5%, 17.6%, and 34.7%, continuously favoring Marzola while maintaining her margin consistently above Arndt.

See the graph below and Addendum 2 for more detailed results and graph annotations:

Total Votes for Each Candidate (left axis) and Percentage of Ballots Favoring Either April Arndt or Elaine Marzola (right axis) Over Time in Nevada Assembly District 21 Election Indicating a Significant Inflection Point.

These patterns suggest a “Significant Inflection Point” irregularity, potentially influenced by algorithms rather than organic voting data.

This pattern has also occurred in several close races across different parts of the country, counties, and various voting demographics, including a contested Senate race in Wisconsin with a similar pattern.

Total Votes for Each Candidate Over Time in Wisconsin Senate Election Indicating a Significant Inflection Point.

Moreover, this often happens when the count is delayed, around the same time across independent data sets and when no voter ID is required. In all these cases, the leader becomes the follower in a similar manner. Once the flip occurs, the new leader continues to expand the margin, never returning to a normal “organic”-looking curve, and secures victory by a close but acceptable margin.

These irregularities threaten the credibility of our elections and could distort results, impacting Nevada’s political direction for years to come.

Considering these observations, I respectfully urge any capable individual or organization to assist with or help us locate anyone who can help with any of the following efforts:

Support for Independent Recounts and Audits: Financial contributions are necessary to initiate recounts or forensic audits in these key districts.
Legal Recourse: Pursue legal avenues should any discrepancies be identified in the election results.
Advocacy for Legislative Reform: Advocate for changes in legislation that would promote greater transparency and accountability in vote tabulation and verification processes.

Your engagement in these efforts is crucial for addressing these races and preserving the integrity of future elections in Nevada. Transparent and fair elections are fundamental to maintaining public trust in our democracy.

Thank you for your unwavering commitment to election integrity. Your actions in this matter could profoundly impact ensuring the proper representation of Nevadans and the trustworthiness of our electoral process. I look forward to personally discussing this with you.

Contact:

Sam Rabinowitz, M.D.

drsammd@me.com (mailto:drsammd@me.com)

714-724-9140

Addendum 1

Nevada State Assembly District 12 - Nancy Roecker (R) vs. Max Carter (D)

On November 6 at 2:00 AM, with 75% of the precincts reporting as per NBC News3LV, Roecker led with 11,325 votes to Carter’s 10,655, a 643 votes or 2.93% margin.
By 5:00 AM, Roecker’s lead had narrowed to 480 votes (13,829 to 13,349), or 1.78%.
At 7:00 AM, her lead decreased to 310 votes, or 1.10%.
By 10:00 PM, Roecker’s lead shrank to 260 votes or 0.91%.
At 10:00 AM on November 7, Carter took the lead with 15,079 votes against Roecker’s 14,962, a margin of 117 votes or 0.39%.
By 5:30 PM on November 8, Carter extended his lead to 223 votes (15,300 to 15,077), representing a 0.74% margin.
On November 11 at 10:00 PM, Carter continues with a narrow lead of 15,464 votes to Roecker’s 15,169, a current margin of 295 or 0.97%.

After the initial 75% of ballots, Roecker had a significant lead of 2.93%. Roecker’s lead dwindled with every successive batch, with ample margins only favoring Carter. Before Carter took the lead, batch margins were 3.1%, 14.6%, and 25.6%, indicating a significant inflection point, with 31.5% after that.

Total Votes for Each Candidate (left axis) and Percentage of Ballots Favoring Either Nancy Roecker or Max Carter (right axis) Over Time in Nevada Assembly District 12 Election.

Addendum 2

Nevada State Assembly District 21 - April Arndt (R) vs. Elaine Marzola (D)

On November 6 at 2:00 AM, with 86% of the votes counted, Marzola was slightly ahead with 13,823 votes to Arndt’s 13,717, a margin of only 106 votes or 0.38%. By 5:00 AM, Arndt took the lead with 16,468 votes to Marzola’s 16,273, with a margin of 195 votes or 0.60%.
By 6:00 AM, Arndt’s lead decreased to 181 votes, 16,562 to 16,381, now a margin of 0.55%.
At 10:00 PM, Arndt’s lead was down to 77 votes, 16,659 to 16,582, a margin of 0.23%.
On November 7 at 11:00 PM, Marzola gained a significant lead with 17,926 votes to Arndt’s 17,474, a margin of 452 votes or 1.28%.
By November 11 at 10:00 PM, Marzola had 18,134 votes to Arndt’s 17,606, leading by 528 votes or 1.48%.

Each successive batch of ballots after the second showed Marzola increasing her margins from each batch to 6.9% and then to 34.89%, at which point she took the lead. The subsequent batches had vote margins of 24.5%, 17.6% and 34.7%, always in favor of Marzola.

Total Votes for Each Candidate (left axis) and Percentage of Ballots Favoring Either April Arndt or Elaine Marzola (right axis) Over Time in Nevada Assembly District 21 Election.