Board of numbers
© Unknown'By the Numbers' What looks random is not!
Last April, I discovered an algorithm hidden in New York's voter rolls. The algorithm linked county voter identification (CID) and State Board of Elections identification (SBOEID) numbers in such a way that it could be used as a third ID number. This could be used to clandestinely tag and track records of interest, such as phantom voters.

Since that day in April, I have done little else for seven days a week as I studied the original algorithm and three others discovered subsequently. Last week, the peer-reviewed Journal of Information Warfare published my article about New York's voter roll algorithms. The article was written several months ago. It represents my understanding of the algorithm at that time. Since then, my understanding of how it works and what it does has deepened. Current updates on voter roll algorithm research can be read on my substack, the Zark Files.

I have identified four algorithms in New York's voter rolls to date. I have named them "Spiral," "Metronome," "Tartan," and "Shingle" based on their characteristics.

The Spiral algorithm has been solved in the sense that it can be completely reversed and its effects predicted.
The Metronome is unsolved but appears to be based on a random seed for the purpose of randomizing numbers.
The Tartan accomplishes a similar purpose as the Metronome but in a different way.
The Shingle algorithm is closely associated with suspicious records.

The algorithms are well-hidden via the use of multiple obfuscation techniques. The first method partitions the number space in a way that cannot be reproduced using any of the fields normally available from within the database. The partitions segregate SBOEID and CID numbers based on which algorithm was used to generate the numbers. Without knowledge of the algorithms or partitions, the numbers would be mixed so that they cannot be differentiated.

After partitioning the numbers, CID numbers are segregated by county, any alphabetical characters are stripped out, and then a decimal point is added to the left of the number. These are then sorted in ascending order. By adding a decimal point to the left, the numbers are effectively changed into different numbers so that they sort differently. For instance, the following numbers are in ascending order: 1, 23, 111, 1081, and 15,000. After decimalization, they sort like so: .10000, .10810, .11100, .15000, and .23000. After this is done, the decimal points are removed, thus hiding their previous existence.

After this, the algorithm performs a series of calculations to determine how many times the number of voters in each partition can be divided by the following repunit numbers: 1,111,111, 111,111, 11,111, 1,111, 111, 11, and 1. From this, it calculates SBOEID numbers based on the repunits and the number of SBOEID numbers that will fit in each group.

The algorithm then cuts each group of numbers, just like a deck of cards, putting the top half of the deck (lower numbers) below the bottom of the deck (higher numbers). Last, it interlaces the numbers belonging to each repunit to achieve the equivalent of a stacked deck.

After all these transformations have been performed, the scrambled list of CID numbers is attached to the scrambled list of SBOEID numbers. At this point, the casual observer will see what looks like randomly assigned numbers. They are not random. They are deterministic and fully reversible.

If the algorithms did nothing else, they represent a serious security breach of the voter rolls. The reason is that by creating a reversible method of rearranging voter ID numbers, those records can be clandestinely tagged with attribute information accessible only to those with knowledge of the algorithms. The Spiral algorithm could be used to do that.

Although the presence of the algorithms in the voter roll database is unambiguous, the purpose remains unknown. However, it is known what the Spiral does. It is also known that records with numbers assigned by the Shingle algorithm are nearly one hundred percent purged, and of those, a significant number are clones and are distributed in a distinctive pattern among purged records. It is also true that the Spiral algorithm can be used to identify cloned SBOEID numbers that were assigned and then later deleted, both of which are dubious activities. In addition, the algorithm can be used to identify which voters were originally attached to now-deleted SBOEID numbers. None of this should be possible but it is.

Although there is a question why the algorithms exist in the voter rolls, it is hard to find a legitimate explanation for their presence. They perform no clear security function, largely because the voter rolls are public and none of the data is masked. Likewise, the algorithms likely were not designed to optimize database performance. This is because, if anything, they seriously retard database performance. Every county official I've spoken with about this subject (they wish to remain anonymous) has stated they had no idea the algorithms existed. None had seen any sign of their existence.

This raises an important point. The algorithm relies on CID and SBOEID numbers. County officials do not have direct access to SBOEID numbers. They can access them on an as-needed basis. Therefore, using the data that is normally available to them in their offices, it is literally impossible for any county official to discover the presence of the algorithms.

This is important because there is evidence, some derived from the Spiral algorithm, some from comparisons of different date-stamped versions of the voter rolls, that SBOEID numbers belonging to clones have been deleted in large numbers. In my quick check of these, I found over 498,000 deleted SBOEID numbers, most or all of which were clones. A colleague found another 11,000 by comparing two recent copies of the state voter roll database. This is pertinent to county officials because, as one such official said to me, "this would be totally invisible to us. We don't keep track of SBOEID numbers."

We know fictitious records exist in the rolls. We also know those records have been used to vote. On top of that, we know that records like those belonging to fictitious voters have been deleted. None of this is visible at the county board of elections level. This means an easily exploited opportunity exists to inject any number of illegally generated SBOEID numbers (which we know has been done), assign votes to them (which we know has been done), and then delete the evidence by deleting the SBOEID numbers associated with excess votes (also, this has been done).

Were all three of these things done for a coordinated purpose? Or are they independent actions carried out for unrelated reasons? Regardless, fictitious records, cloned records, fictitious votes, and deletion of records all violate the law. This, ultimately is the issue. We know election fraud occurred. There is too much evidence to deny it with any credibility. When will someone in an appropriate position start following the law? If only that happened, none of the things described in this article could have occurred. The state of New York's voter rolls argues strongly that whoever is responsible for them is deliberately or negligently violating the law on a systemic and regular basis.