The app for independent voices
From the team at The Common Coalition:
So far, two explanations have been offered for the five “ghost counties” we discovered in Florida and the swing states. We believe the evidence points to a combination of explanations, rather than either one standing alone.
1. DDHQ data-processing / FIPS-related failures
A mis-join or transposition involving FIPS codes could plausibly explain why certain counties appeared mislabeled in some datasets originating from Decision Desk HQ. That would indicate a failure in aggregation, validation, or reporting — not at the tabulator level.
However, this explanation does not account for:
* why these misidentified or “ghost” counties briefly appeared carrying hundreds of thousands to millions of votes,
* why the issue did not appear uniformly across all outlets using DDHQ data,
* why some cases (e.g., Stafford) do not map cleanly under FIPS logic at all, or
* why these anomalies coincided with major real-time vote shifts.
A routine FIPS error should be consistent, global, and static. What we observed was none of those.
2. EMS / reporting-layer threat models (ETA)
The second explanation aligns with the threat levels outlined by the Election Truth Alliance, which focus on vulnerabilities at the Election Management System / aggregation / reporting layer — where results are compiled, transformed, and transmitted after votes are cast.
This framework plausibly explains:
* intermittent or state-specific anomalies,
* transient errors that appear and then disappear,
* corrections made without a public audit trail,
* and irregular behavior during live reporting rather than in final certified data.
Why neither — nor both — explain the central anomaly
Even taken together, neither explanation accounts for the most serious and unresolved issue:
The real-time disappearance of more than 1.5 million votes attributed to Kamala Harris in Michigan and Wisconsin during live reporting.
Labeling errors can rename a county. Aggregation failures can misplace a total.
They do not explain where those votes went, why they were removed, or under what validation rules that occurred.
Until data providers — particularly Decision Desk HQ — provide a documented, auditable explanation addressing:
* when those votes were altered,
* how the change propagated through reporting systems, and
* why no contemporaneous explanation was issued, the core discrepancy remains.
This isn’t about promoting a single theory. It’s about acknowledging that the combined explanations still fail to explain the full set of observed facts — and that transparency and auditability aka “election hygiene” are not optional in what is supposedly a “democratic system.”
Our original article from November that Mr. Carney is now reporting on:
