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

Please, Nevadans need help to secure genuine elected representation!

SKU: Election fraud

Seller: Make America Great Again

Description
Product tags

There is a significant concern regarding what appear to be statistical anomalies in the vote counts for Clark County's Assembly Districts 12 and 21. I hope to be directed to someone who is both willing and capable of advocating for election integrity. Specifically, the races involving candidates Nancy Roecker vs. Max Carter and April Arndt vs. Elaine Marzola show patterns that seem unnatural. Given the substantial focus on voter integrity during ballot counting, I would like to bring the following irregularities to your attention:

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, with each successive batch of ballots, Roecker’s lead dwindled, with large batch margins of 3.1%, 14.6%, and 25.6%, respectively. This behavior indicates a significant inflection point which only favors Carter, gaining just enough votes to overtake Roecker and maintain a lead of less than 1%.

See 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%, at which point she took the lead with a similar significant inflection point as in Assembly District 12. The next batches had vote margins of 24.5%, 17.6%, and 34.7%, continuously favoring Marzola while maintaining her margin consistently above Arndt.

See 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, different 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. The leader becomes the follower in all these cases 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 your 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 not only crucial for addressing these races but also for 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 have a profound impact on ensuring the proper representation of Nevadans and the trustworthiness of our electoral process. I look forward to personally discussing this with you.

Sincerely,

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 was leading with 11,325 votes to Carter's 10,655, a margin of 643 votes or 2.93%.
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 votes or 0.97%.

After the initial 75% of ballots, Roecker had a significant lead of 2.93%. With every successive batch, Roecker’s lead dwindled, with large 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% thereafter.

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 a 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, which was 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% then to 34.89%, at which point she took the lead. The next batches had vote margins with 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.