host: we want to welcome to our

table this morning can block, the author of this book, "disproven: my unbiased search for voter fraud for the trump campaign." his name may sound familiar. he's the president of simpatico software systems. mr. bloch, why did the former president campaign hire you and what did they hire you to do? guest: it was sort of a two-part project. the original request was for me to look evidence of voter fraud in the swing states in the 2020 election. i was looking for evidence of deceased voters and for voters who voted twice, once in a swing state and once in another state. very quickly in a matter of a day or two after my contract was signed, the campaign attorneys were doing their due diligence asked me to begin evaluating names of voter fraud ever coming into the campaign from everywhere, from all over the

country, from amateurs looking at data to lawyers whose names we don't recognize making claims of fraud. in the campaign asked me to evaluate them and tell them if they were correct or not, and in every circumstance they were false. host: you right in the book the contract was signed on november 5, 2020. i had no idea then have finding so little would lead to so much. you sign a contract with the trump campaign on that day, november 5, 2020. how long did you work for them? guest: about 35 days, some of the craziest days i've had. host: 35 days. in 35 days, did you have access to all the data that you needed access to to determine whether or not there is fraud? guest: it's a very nuanced

answer that i'm going to give you. the answer is i had access to all of the data that was available at that time. so i had full access to the data that the rnc had available. what is very interesting about voter data is that no state makes available to anybody who voted in person inside that 30, 35 day window. you get all the information that you can process, but for some reason, the interest -- in person both are not there. that is a large chunk of the votes that wasn't available, however all of that information is made available usually by january or february after the election, and just because the data wasn't available to me at that time, because nobody has gone through it since and determined now, there was actually a bunch of fraud, that is not an impactful, meaningful problem that i had and i was working in november of 2020. host: well then explain how you could go back to the trump campaign and say there is no

voter fraud in those 35 days. guest: so i didn't say there was no voter fraud. i told him there wasn't enough voter fraud to matter, and that is an important distinction. we did find some dead voters. but the numbers were far less than the thousands, many thousands that were necessary in the swing states. and i was very transparent as we discussed the challenges with having access to some data and not having access to other data. i can pretty confidently say that the trump attorneys that i reported to specifically alex cannon who was my main contact had a lot of confidence in the work that i was doing and the fact that i was being as thorough as i was and i was probably numbing his brain with how much information i was educating him about voter data practices that i was going through. i know he trusted my result and he communicated very thoroughly to mark meadows at the end of the day that the campaign looked

extraordinarily hard at not only looking for fraud but evaluating everyone out t fraud and we found nothing that rose to the level of changing the election results that would survive legal scrutiny in court. host: you then write this book. did you go back after 35 days and do a more thorough look at the data after moore became available? guest: i didn't personally go back and take a look at it. all the data is available at this point now. for all of the people who had such a strong interest, there were many eyes that looked at the state after-the-fact and nobody has gone through the data and make any determination that contradicts what i have done within 30 days. another important thing to remember here, you can't file a claim in court based on data that doesn't exist. you can only work with what is out there right now.

having gone through all of those, my job was to find it. if there were massive voter fraud, i would be the guy to do it. it is a pretty extraordinary thing to have a finding like that. it would ruin my personal and professional reputation if i delivered results i would be humiliated within court. so i put a sentence in the contract that said i'm going to live are findings that will stand up in court. and unfortunately there was just nothing that rose to that. host: how did he find you? guest: i don't know. in those 35 days there was no time to talk about that sort of thing. they were action-packed from the morning to sometimes late night. host: what is a data specialist? guest: i own a software engineering company that

specializes in large applications. i participated in an architect of the first online debit card system for food stamps for the state of texas. we do a lot of work in the gaming industry. lots of transactions and lots of data, that is where i do a lot of my work. investigating fraud is something i've always enjoyed doing and i think it is important to do. we look at foodstamp fraud and medicare fraud. host: who did you talk to from the trump campaign and who did you not talk to? guest: the simple answer to that is almost all of my communications were with alex cannon. as we set up the framework for how i was going to do this work, he told me that he was going to keep my identity and my company's identity closely held. he didn't want the white house to know who is doing the work because he wanted us to be unbiased, and he wanted us to be shielded from political pressure. he wanted us to be shielded from

people insisting on a certain set of results because that is not what works for a successful court case. from anyone in the campaign, it was him. host:host: where did that communication go from alex? who did you talk to? guest: at the time, i had no idea. with the january 6 transcripts, i learned that obviously he was talking to other upper-level campaign attorneys and most notably, the fact that he deliver the news to mark meadows that the campaign was unable to find any fraud that mattered, they could have changed the election result. host:, that information went to the former president, correct? guest: after everything in these reports that mark meadows told investigators that he took that information into the oval office. host: who did you not talk to? guest: really just about everybody else. alex cannon, before i would go

to my wife in the morning i was talking to alex cannon and pretty much the last conversation i had during the day. host: what about rudy giuliani and other lawyers? guest: i saw claims that i can confidently say came through sidney powell. she was hoping to push a mathematical theory to prove voter fraud, and that was wrong. i saw a claim that life and able to piece together and pretty sure came from john eastman with 16,002 pickett votes in nevada. this is a pattern. all the numbers were hyperinflated because the people who did the analysis didn't understand what they were looking at and they didn't understand how to make

>> your book, "disproven." it is your turn to ask questions and have ken block respond. he is our guest this morning. before we get to calls, which states did you focus on in this book? guest: georgia, arizona, nevada, wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania. host: in point pleasant beach, good morning to you. caller: i have seen you on tv. there is nothing you can say about the seven states you are talking about, they changed their laws unconstitutionally. you cannot tell me that is not

right. rudy giuliani had affidavits from poll workers and the judges didn't take them up, they said they lacked standing. you keep cutting the same foods, to get the same number. they were questioning the validity of the votes. that is what happened. host: please hang on the line and listen to the response. guest: this is an important point. my work was all tasked specifically to creating finding the fraud that would survive legal scrutiny. when you bring it to court and the defense attorneys are going to come at you with everything they have two show you messed up, that you were wrong, it is a very high bar. a light of what you're talking about is not data evidence,

especially the rudy giuliani thing. it is hearsay evidence and hearsay evidence is almost never evidence you can bring to court successfully, especially when you want to overturn an election result. as far as the cost is not treating the laws, there have been court cases where that was not determined to be a problem. i get it and understand it is upsetting and many people wanted the results to be different. my role was very narrow and very specific to deliver to the campaign evidence that could work that could overturn the election and it wasn't there. host: gordon in wyoming. go ahead. caller: good morning. "washington journal" has to be required viewing for all three branches of government.

when they take their oath, they have swear to watch washington journal every morning. i am 78 years old. trump and biden are geezers, they need to step aside. i would like to see vice president harris go against liz cheney. younger people, please. something off of the subject, building a peer in gaza -- host: can you stick to the topic here? do you have a question or comment about ken block's book? caller: i am sure trump lost the election for goodness's sake. that is all i have got. host: we will move on to randy in west virginia. hi, randy. caller: how are you doing?

can you ask how many democrats [indiscernible] host: we will take that. guest: i am going to expand a little bit because we, -- we found a couple hundred fraudulent votes. we found some diseased votes, a couple hundred get votes. if i expand it a little bit and include information from 2016 where he identified a crush -- across 24 states how much data we looked at, we found 8000 confirmed duplicate votes with the most number in florida. not enough to change any result here. when you look at the registrations and fault and it is 50-50. it is not all democrats, not all republicans.

people are voting twice, it is usually a crime of privilege. someone who owns two homes figures there is not a lot of harm in them exercising their franchise twice even though it is highly illegal. it is only recently with the advent of computers which have only involved -- only been involved since 2008 it is serious way we have been able to identify this activity and hopefully eliminate it. host: explain highly illegal. if you get caught and convicted -- guest: is a felony with up to five years in jail and is $75,000 -- a $75,000 fine. caller: my concern is not who won and who lost but undermining the integrity of the election by introducing mail-in ballot without validation. i spent my career as a scientist in process validation mostly

with over-the-counter drugs. we should have separated the mass mail ballots. it was clearly outside of the state's constitutional guidelines and that is serious. the amicus brief that was rude and was not taken up by the supreme court -- that was written was not taken up by the supreme court. in alameda county, there were 113,000 ballots that were not accurate to the addresses. there were all kinds of other things. what should have -- we should have taken the mass mail ballots and said the system won't be robust and therefore we are going to count them separately. you have to have a copy of your id attached. we will separately id, attached to the envelope and then we can do any audit. this last election was not a

robust validation for an election. host: hang on the line and listen to the results. guest: i think you are right when it comes to rehabilitation we currently have in place for mail ballots in many places in the country. we talked about election integrity. one of the changes we have is every state does it differently and many times many counties within the same state do the same thing with the differently. that -- inconsistency and integrity are two different things. i have a lot of things in my book that we should do to improve. in other a lot of congressmen and commerce women that watch this show and i'm begging you to consider a nonpartisan effort to evaluate how we operate our elections and make some necessary changes.

i don't demonize mail ballots, but using signatures to validate if you are who you say you are when you cast a vote by mail, that is a real challenge. it is century old technology. you can do better than what we are doing right now and i have many suggestions. i agree with you, we need to do better than we are doing right now. host: you look at pennsylvania and the claim of dead footers. what did you find? -- dead voters, what did you find? guest: i predicted a couple of dead folks and it pennsylvania before they occurred. what is interesting about this is a was involved in looking at all of the registered voters in pennsylvania to see who is deceased. i found a couple who had died years before september 2020 when they had brand-new restrictions.

i said you watch this will be fraud. that warning made its way to a lawsuit making its way to pennsylvania's court and sure enough on election day, some of those deceased voters cast votes. the votes counted but after the fact, the person who created -- and there were different people for each foot involved -- they arrested those people who made those fraudulent votes and they prosecuted and got convictions for those apartment votes. what is interesting and indicates of pennsylvania, the cases were both republicans who cast votes on behalf of film members. host: do we know who they voted for? guest: yes. the person who committed the fraud admitted they were republicans and their cast the fraudulent votes for president trump.

what is important about this whole concept of contesting an election based on identifying fraudulent votes is what i hope most of your viewers understand is when you cast a vote, who you vote for is not disclosed. they cannot tie your particular ballot back to you once you cast your vote. let's imagine i found 15,000 fraudulent votes in georgia. had i found those votes, and confident no court of law would have looked at those and made a determination that the election should have been overturned. what nobody could claim his document would be that those apartment votes worked against president trump's interests. those can't be shown to have harmed the campaign because you don't know who they were cast for. that is an important point. for all these issues that people around fraud, without being able

to show harm in those foods -- those votes, you are not going to get an election overturned. host: speaking of pennsylvania and the claim by some trump lawyers that there were dead voters there, you found what? guest: i cannot tell you exactly, we found 10 may be on the high end? i don't think a lot of them were prosecuted. there were only a handful i'm aware of, two or three, that resulted in convictions. the trump campaign for the fraud i did find as best as i know, they did not expose those results to enforcement. host: dan, sioux falls, south dakota. your turn. caller: my question is trump lost the popular vote by like 8

million and the electoral college by like 50 literal votes. we have to go to gore versus george w. bush where we had the hanging chads. you try to uncover the fraud and that it didn't come out where it would affect the election. you also have to go back in that timeframe, that was during covid. there were a lot more mail in ballots at that time. i think this election coming up in 2024 will be a lot less mail in ballots and more in person voting. i had a guy from mississippi come where i work and is out the are you going to make sure these elections are valid? i said where i vote in my little elementary school, you have to have your id, they checked it and double check it with the role -- check it and double

check it with the role. my question is, why won't trump and the republicans accept the fact that they lost? al gore had to do it when george w. bush won even though he got screwed in that election. host: let's take your question. caller: why don't think -- why don't you think trump will accept this? guest: it is a good question. i don't have any answer whatsoever. there is probably a political answer to it. my role is focused in on the data so i want to dive into the political peace. i have run for governor twice in rhode island, i lost a statewide primary by 3000 votes and it hurt to concede that, i did not want to concede that. it was an ugly race, it was personal, but i did. that is what democracy looks like. i hope as we move forward out of

2020 that we can get our elections back to a more civil and responsible way of conducting ourselves and dealing with the impact of losing. host: argue a democrat or republican? guest: i am a registered republican. host: did you run as a republican? guest: i started a centrist party in rhode island in 2009 and after needing to challenge the state ballot access laws, letting the party, we needed somebody to run for governor who got at least 5% of the votes and i got 6.5%. i realized i was pretty good at campaigning and i had a lot of ideas i wanted to implement. i also realized in 2010 and 2014 that working the fourth part -- the third party was not going to work. it was too hard to get traction.

people cannot put their heads around what he means to be anything but democrat or republican. i like to see change. rhode island is a heavily democratic state. you cannot affect change from inside the democratic machinery, you have to do it from outside of the machinery and that is why i am a republican. host: you did look at the counties and how the former president won small counties across the country. tell us what the data showed you. guest: this is crucially important for people to understand because this gets right to the point of helping to inform everybody why trump lost. when you look at the swing states, this is a pattern that existed across the country, whether a red state or blue state, a red county way blue county, and what i mean by red or blue is trump won them in 2016 and 2020.

that is read in my opinion. if a democrat won in 2020, that is blue. when you divide things up that way, what you end up with is across the board trump in 2020 relative to 2016 did less well across the board even in the reddest of red states. he did about 2.5 percent less well in 2020 that he did in 2016. the narrative of voter fraud, how could it be in the reddest county in the reddest state that you see this particular thing happened? that is not voter fraud. i am going to tell you what it is. trump has made no secret he has no love for centrist republicans. he told them to get lost and they did.

that is worth that to .5% is. -- that 2.5% is. trump's -- authored a campaign, they interviewed 3000 people, he documented this exact same problem. he is losing republican support. those republicans he is losing were the ones in the middle. the other piece of this in the middle, in the forward to my book, secretary raffensperger, bid to fight almost 30,000 republican primary voters in 2020 who voted in the primary but did not vote in the general election. that is two to three times trump's margin of loss. another 30,000 votes in georgia were cast in 2020 by voters who

voted for a to get republicans, congressional races and other races, but they left the presidential pick blank or they voted for biden. this is loss of moderate republican support. it remains a problem today. i think trump's messaging is not opening up the ability for moderate republicans to come back into the fold. i wonder if he can change his messaging because without that support, i don't think maga is enough to win a national election. host: are you saying the president's pollster knew the outcome before the election was called? guest: i think he could read the tea leaves which is different from knowing with certainty the election result is working against trump. what is important with the exit

poll is headed by the loss of support. it is such a dramatic consistent loss of support nationwide which i don't think his pollster could determine at that point in time. i was able to determine looking -- determine it looking at data in 2023. i think the reason polls miss this, with others in 2016, pulling talks to likely voters but in 2016 trump won that election because of unlikely voters. in 2020, what trump's pollster identified is one in six of the voters of the 30,000 he spoke with were first-time voters and coming to the polls to vote against president trump. host: in des moines, democratic:. caller.

caller: thank you for calling out the crook. the creek is still here, but the worst part is gossip is king. host: we are listening to you, you have to listen to us through your phone. commute your television -- mute your television. caller: yes ma'am. we will take your question or comment -- host: we will take your question or comment. caller: my comment is god bless you. host: why are you writing this book? how are you able to write this book? guest: as i was negotiating my contract, i asked i assume you need me to sign an nda. everybody was under fire at that point in time. we were two or three days post election. alex's life was crazy, the

campaign apparatus was spinning up an effort to try to figure out if they can make a legal case about voter fraud. what many people don't understand and what i find incredible about all this talk about voter fraud is if you don't find it successfullycontel magness and after the votes are certified to be successful with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the election. you cannot overturn it once the birds are certified. that is why those 30 days are so crucial and so much effort was put in. all these losses filed after his vacation were destined to lose. host: if the person data wasn't available, how do you know people did folk twice in person and by mail? guest: to finish my thought, i

offered alex to sign the nda and he said don't bother. that is how i am speaking to you about it. i addressed your question earlier. the person data was not available inside the 30 day window. what is important here is the work i did was try to find successful arguments in that moment to take to court to matter and impact the election result. because the person data was not available at that time, you cannot go to court with data that is not available. you cannot make a claim of voter fraud about a dated you do not have access to. in this circumstance, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of voter fraud, not on the people whose job it is to disprove voter fraud.

host: can trump's claim of massive mail ballot fraud be disproved? guest: it cannot. this is where congress needs to step in and bring regulation into how we handle mail ballots. i cannot sit here and tell you accurately that i could describe how bell ballots work everywhere because it is dramatically different everywhere. not only is it different in terms of process, data that is correct regarding mail ballots and how they are used is all over the map. it is difficult to put your hand and your head around what is working well. there is much variability and information that is collected. because of the inability to collect meaningful data about how bell ballots were used.

to process every mail about cast in the 2020 election requires looking at more than 500 different files of mail ballots from across the country. most states don't run their elections on his databases. states like new york and other large estates run their elections based on the counties and what a lot of your viewers may not understand is there are more than 5000 different election jurisdictions that have their own ability to run their elections as they deem fit using systems that they implement. there is not a lot of central control in many states about how counties do things and you end up with some crazy problems because of this lack of continuity. to answer the question, could i prove mail ballots were not a problem, nobody can.

nobody can prove they were. that is the burden of proof problem. to go to court with a bunch of questions, and legitimate questions about how mail ballots work is not a successful argument in the court of law. host: in fort lauderdale, florida, democratic caller. caller: i would like to thank you for taking my call. host: we are listing. go ahead. caller: i have a question for ken block. and i have something i would like to tell him. host: go for it. caller: i respect you for having the guts, even though it did hurt you, you had the guts to say it was a very election -- a fair election. i have great admiration for ken block and i would like to know where i can buy ken block's

book. guest: anywhere you can buy a book, is online at amazon, barnes & noble, simon & schuster's website, anywhere you can buy books. host: would be paid by the trump campaign for the work you did? guest: i was. i was highly compensated for the work i did inside those 30 days just north of $750,000. a lot of that was of temporary in my company's bank account because we had to pay outside vendors to do sensitive data work necessary to confirm individual identities. when you're working with voter data to figure out if someone is dead, deceased, passed away. there are a lot of ways to say what i just said. but to determine when someone is deceased, you need more than a mentor birthday -- or than a name and birthday. this is a problem across all of

the analyses i had done and brought to me by others. people were looking at names and did a bird, nizar john smith born in 1972 in different states, they assumed it was the same person but 90% of the times it is not the same person. many of us share the exact same name and it is not impossible to have the same birthdate. is very likely with two different people with different information. i have to go use vendors who have access to highly sensitive data like social security numbers to confirm the identity of individuals so we can know with certainty whether they are deceased or not, know if we matched this for different people, if they are the same or different people. a big chunk of that money went out the door to pay for those

vendors. i would have loved to pay for my kids' college education with that, but that is not the way it works. host: did noncitizens vote in arizona? guest: that is a question that came to me as well and the interesting claim there is i think it was 1500 names delivered to me, names and addresses and dates of birth. the question was are these illegals were not? that is an impossible question to answer for anybody because there is no database anywhere where you can look this up and be able to say citizen or noncitizen. there is on the one database i am familiar with that even might have an ability to answer that question and that is at the department of homeland security. by federal law, that cannot be used for this purpose. we took a shot at it. i gave every caveat and more to

alex before we did this. we can do our best but if we don't find social security numbers for these people, that does not mean they are noncitizens because young people don't show up in these databases. when we ran the list, most of the individuals could not find social security numbers for were young. you cannot prove it, you cannot disprove it. the trend, which is important, is for those individuals we could not find social security numbers for, they were under the age of 30. they are very likely legitimate citizens. please don't show up in the credit bureaus. host: here's another viewer texting is, ron in rockford, illinois. drop boxes and mail in ballots, how secure? we should do what france does. tell us how secure drop boxes are. guest: the real problem with drop boxes is not the security

of ballots whence they are in there, it is about who is putting them in and how many. the adjutant comes down to a question instead about ballot harvesting. i want to talk about ballot harvesting. i had first-hand expense with it because in rhode island ballot harvesting is legal and is understood if you do not engage operatives who work in ballot harvesting, it is difficult to win your election. i hired a guy who calls himself the mail ballot king. what happens is they go out, they were two nursing homes and other places and they literally help individuals cast their ballots and deliver those to election workers there it a dropbox or another thing. i think ballot harvesting is a terrible practice. why are we electing someone on the basis of which campaign can

most effectively collect and deliver ballots? that is not a great indicator of the capabilities of a candidate. i believe you should win based on the merits and not some collection scheme. i believe our democracy suffers because of mail ballot harvesting and i would love to see congress deliver a law that outlaws ballot harvesting. this is one of my reforms i think we need to have because it is a terrible way to elect anybody, whether it is a mayor where the president. -- or the president. host: we will go to robbie. republican. caller: first time caller. i was going to hit the thing about georgia, they did not do signature verification. i am a huge trump supporter. i was shocked. there is video of -- video showing fraud.

my next thing a wanted to ask you, 330 million people in the u.s. can you give me a number of how many 18 and older could have voted and did vote and to get to 81 million for biden and 75 million for trump? that is high numbers. how do you get to that? my main one is about georgia think. i watched all the video and head -- all the video going on. the ballot harvesting and the drop boxes. all the people testified. host: did you listen to ken block's answer about who voted in georgia and who did not, the numbers? caller: i got bits and pieces of that. host: let's have them repeat that -- have him repeat that.

guest: there a simple answer to the georgia results and why president trump lost. it is because president trump's message not only excluded moderate republicans, exploited moderate republicans. president trump told moderate republicans to get out and they did. you don't need a lot of loss of support in georgia, you needed 12,000 more votes that were gotten. president trump in the reddest counties in georgia lost more than 100,000 votes because of his underperformance in 2020 relative to 2016. 100,000 votes in the reddest counties in the state. that is what he lost. all of the other focus on trying to conjure up other reasons that could have fraud explained that

loss ignores the most obvious explanation out there. in my line of work, you keep it simple and when there is such an obvious answer, it is almost always the right one. host:'s comment about the overall numbers -- his comment about the overall numbers. guest: there are roughly 330 million people. as you get older, you see people die. i am going to estimate here. if you call anybody young who is under the age of 20 and anybody over the age of 20 old, you find out about one quarter of the country would qualify as young. 330 million people, you are talking about maybe 70 million to 80 million people under 20. everybody else is over the age of 20. you are talking about more than 200 million adults in the

country -- much more than 200 million adults in the country. is it possible that 150 million votes were cast? based on demographics, absolutely. it is legitimate and nowhere near the number of adults who would be age qualified to cast their votes. host: ed in columbia station, ohio. republican. caller: the two biggest crocs of butter fraud -- voter fraud that approvals were illegal. massive voter fraud, voter harvesting, the biggest problem in this country, they don't verify -- zuckerberg coumadin t doug over $100 million before the last presidential election

just in those states that were the key states? he stepped -- he overloaded them. they are supposed to be so many miles apart. that was illegal. host: can we talk about that? guest: i don't know the specifics of what those dollars were spent on. what i do know is in our election, the ability for outsiders to purpose money into elections is pretty much a wide-open thing at this point. i would prefer to see less as money in politics than what we have right now in general because money is such a powerful factor in determining who wins an election. you cannot walk into a tv studio anymore and know you're are

talking to majority of voters. your message has to be scattered across different forms of media. it is going to be expensive. those who have the money are going to have any advantage. i would love to see outside influence dollars reduced so candidates can be more on an even playing field. again, if you want to determine on the merit of a candidate, it should not be who has more money. host: you encourage people to follow the money when it comes to these losses as well, lawsuits -- these losses as well , lawsuits as well -- these lawsuits as well. talk about sidney powell and the nonprofit they have set up to collect money. guest: there is a voter fraud industry that has arisen even before the 2020 election, certainly since sidney powell,

the poster child for this. she is a lawyer and the author of terrible losses that she even admitted nobody should have taken seriously but she felt them which is a real problem for a lawyer to put a lawsuit out into the court system. she has paid a professional press for having done that. monetarily, she has made a lot of money. she has raised north of $16 because of the work she has done in bringing forward these losses on behalf of president trump that based on her own admission have no real validity to them. there are others. one of my periods is a data guy named matt who is bad analytics trip in georgia. they were everywhere. they were in pennsylvania.

they made the mistake of looking at the euro of birth and name and saying that is the same person in two different places. in georgia, a legislature -- legislature challenged him and took of his claimed matches in georgia and he reached up and contact the people at those addresses, they were two different people who happened to share the same name and year of birth. matt brainard raised $500,000 to support his efforts and as i wrote my opinion piece january this year that had national scope, he came onto to my twitter feed and basically was making the pitch to raise money and my response was i know who you are. here is the video where your data was torn apart and then i never heard from him again. even today, there is still any effort to monetize bad analytics

in the hunt for voter fraud. i caution everybody to be careful because there are very few people doing the work seriously. host: you right in chapter 26, the master level, single party voting. guest: one of my proudest moments in rhode island, 50 years reform advocates have tried to eliminate single party voting from the rhode island ballot, a mechanism where you just go in vote republican or democrat. on merits, that is a terrible way to do it, rhode island had no interest in changing that. i got involved, we got social media involved, the newspaper got involved. we brought hundreds of people to the statehouse and over the course of eight years, brooke county legislative willingness to continue the -- broke down the legislature willingness to continue the fight and we got it removed. it should not be that hard to

get change. let's not make it so hard to bring reform to how we do elections. host: have you looked at the date of this primary season? anything that sticks out to you? guest: i have not had a chance to look at any data, have been busy i have been busy -- i have been busy. host: four should be able to look at the data? guest: that is a challenge because you can request data from many states. some give it for free. alabama charges $33,000. if you go to the massachusetts secretary of state they will tell you we cannot give you the data but you can go to every city and ask for it. this is another area where we need congressional oversight to put boundaries on transparency and the availability of data. host: you can get the book

"disproven" and look at the claims ken block investigated he was hired by the trnow i am so e

tonight's speakers jonathan metzl is frederick b rentschler, the second profeor