Notes:

• The data used in the Precinct Selection Tool was downloaded on 11/21/2022.
• The data used here for comparison was downloaded on 1/10/2024.
• This difference in download dates could account for the small differences in the data. However, the concept applies.

Precinct Selection Spreadsheet as provided by SOS – Sorted by Precinct but not the Cumulative Totals

The data in the precinct selection tool is sorted by precinct in ascending order. However, the cumulative totals are NOT in ascending order. These should both be in ascending order.

The cumulative totals are calculated by adding the number of ballots cast in the current precinct to the total of all ballots cast in the preceding precincts so far. These numbers are used to generate brackets which then determine the selected precinct for any single dice roll.

The first discrepancy appears at Precinct 100 where the cumulative total is not in ascending order relative to the surrounding precinct cumulative totals.

Scrolling further you will find a similar discrepancy at precinct 126.

Bernco Election Results Data Downloaded from SOS – Not Sorted by Precinct

In an earlier analysis, election results data, which is the source that was used for the Precinct Selection Tool, was downloaded from the SOS election results page.

Scrolling through the data, it appears to be sorted correctly by precinct until you reach precinct 100 which is missing between 99 and 101. See below.

Precinct 100 can be found later on in the spreadsheet AFTER 203.

Scrolling further, it can be seen that precinct 126 is not located between 125 and 127.

Precinct 126 can be found later in the spreadsheet AFTER precinct 219. You will also note that in this section of the spreadsheet the precincts are not properly sorted.

Facts:

1. The cumulative total for precinct 100 should have been calculated between precincts 99 and 101 but it was not.
2. The cumulative total for precinct 126 should have been calculated between precincts 125 and 127 but it was not.
3. Many other precincts were also out of order and have invalid cumulative totals for the order in which they should have been sorted.
4. The order of the cumulative totals determines the brackets which are then used to select the precincts from the normalized dice roll.

A Hypothesis as to what happened

It is possible to explain the observed anomalies as follows:

1. Cumulative totals were calculated in the Precinct Selection Tool with the precincts out of order as downloaded from the SOS results page.
2. Somebody noticed that the precincts were not sorted properly in the Precinct Selection Tool as required and re-sorted the data by precincts ascending.
3. In the process of resorting, they copied all of the data associated with each row including the calculated cumulative totals.
4. This resulted in the cumulative totals not being properly sorted from the minimum value to the maximum value.
5. Out of order cumulative totals threw off the precinct selection process resulting in non-random precinct selections.

Predictions from Hypothesis

If the hypothesis is true, we would expect to see the following:

1. Cumulative totals are out of sequence by ascending values.
2. If we resort the data used in the Precinct Selection Tool by the cumulative totals, we should find that the precincts are returned to their original non-sorted order as downloaded from the SOS Results Page AND the cumulative totals will be in ascending order as expected. This would indicate that the calculated totals were generated by out of sequence precincts as downloaded from the SOS data results page.

Test Results

As noted below, our predictions are verified in our test results.

1. Prediction 1 confirmed by observation. See screen captures above.
2. After resorting the data in the Precinct Selection Tool by cumulative total ascending, we see the results match our predictions.

Note that precinct 100 is missing between 99 and 101 as in the SOS election Results Data.

Note that precinct 100 is found AFTER precinct 203 and the cumulative total is correct for that location.

Note that precinct 126 is not found between precinct 125 and 127.

Note that precinct 125 is found AFTER precinct 219 and the cumulative total is correct for that location.

Conclusion

The discrepency appears to be due to human error not intentional manipulation to shield some precincts from selection for audit.