Quote (Budgeting @ 9 Nov 2020 15:51)
i am asking your opinion. do you believe trump's conspiracy about rampant country wide voter fraud??
Yes, there is a lot of fishy things, including several sworn affidavits that have been submitted today by election officials that somehow people are supposed to just ignore. I'll go over some weird outliers.
This is the New York Times direct dataset of the election and it is based off the proprietary "Edison" data source.
The moment when Michigan counted 149,772 votes in 5 seconds and less than 6,000 of them were for Trump, a statistical improbability.https://i.ibb.co/60rDbxN/Em-WR-o6-WEAA7-FQZ-format-jpg-name-4096x4096.jpgSoftware glitch going on here in Virginia.
4.42am - "We've counted 3,368,181 votes!"
5.12am - "Wait, no, we've only counted 3,199,165 votes"
This is where things get interesting. Look at line line 1553 you can see 3,368,181 votes at 4:43AM everything looks normal and votes are routinely going up until we get to line 1542 which shows at 5:12AM 169.016 votes disapeared.https://i.ibb.co/nfLN4Dc/Em-Wcq8-VWEAEby-SC-format-jpg-name-4096x4096.jpgEven the unsuspecting states managed to lose (and find) 12K votes somehow (looking at you Arkansas, AR). I'm not sure if this is 'just to be expected' or whether it's down to more glitches. Whatever, the numbers for make no sense to me (and I see a lot of numbers)https://i.ibb.co/mhP4vYv/Em-Wm-W3b-XIAAgu-Uu-format-png-name-large.pngOne of the first thing noticed while exploring that dataset is that there seems to be an obvious pattern in the ratio of new Biden ballots to the new Trump ballots. As we can see on this log-log plot, for many of the counting progress updates, we see an almost constant ratio of Biden to Trump. It's such a regular pattern that we can actually fit a linear regression model to it with near-perfect accuracy, barring some outliers. How could this be possible? Is this a telltale sign of fraud? Surprisingly, as it will be shown, the answer is no! This is actually expected behavior. Also, we can use this weird pattern in the ballot counting to spot fraud! Here is the same pattern for Florida.
We see this linear pattern again here:
https://i.ibb.co/k1jBMwW/Em-V1-Cw-GXUAE7-FLL-format-png-name-900x900.pngHere:
https://i.ibb.co/jyZ5w1d/Em-V1-MXKWEAEFW0-V-format-png-name-900x900.pngHere:
https://i.ibb.co/jyZ5w1d/Em-V1-MXKWEAEFW0-V-format-png-name-900x900.pngHere:
https://i.ibb.co/dW5yHYx/Em-V1-Tv3-WEAINu-NY-format-png-name-900x900.pngand really just all over the country:
https://i.ibb.co/6Ddh4FF/Em-V1b-NJWEAEUg-VQ-format-png-name-900x900.pngLike a deck of cards. Since the ballots are randomly mixed together during transport, spanning areas occupied by multiple voting demographics, we can expect the ratio of mail-in Biden ballots to mail-in Trump ballots will remain relatively constant over time and across different reporting updates.
Lets dig a little deeper into this:
Here is a plot of the same Florida voting data, but this time it's the ratio of Biden to Trump ballots, versus time. What we see is that the initial ballot reportings are very noisy and "random".
Floridia (Biden/Trump vs time ratio):
https://i.ibb.co/G97kn6n/Em-V2-Gt-UXMAASR45-format-png-name-900x900.pngThe initial reporting represents in-person voting. These vote reports have such large variation bc in-person voting happens across different geographic areas that have different political alignments. We can see this same pattern of noisy in-person voting, followed by homogeneous mail-in reporting in almost all cases. What we see in almost all examples across the country is that the ratio of mail-in Dem to Rep ballots is very consistent across time, but with the notable drift from Dem to slightly more Rep. This slight drift from D to R mail-ins occurs again and again, and is likely due to outlying rural areas having more R votes. These outlying areas take longer to ship their ballots to the polling centers. Now we're getting into the really good stuff. When we see mail-in ballot counting where there isn't relatively stable ratios of D and R ballots that slightly drift R, we have an anomaly! Anomalies themselves are not necessarily fraud, but they can help us spot fraud more easily.
Now let's look at some anomalies:
Around 4am there, there is a marked shift in the ratio of D to R mail-in ballots. Based on other posts in this thread, this should not happen. This is an anomaly, and while anomalies are not always fraud, often they may point to fraud.
Here:
https://i.ibb.co/L8Sdn9S/Em-V32k-W8-AAC6a-O-format-png-name-900x900.pngAround 3am Wisconsin time, a fresh batch of 169k new absentee ballots arrived (reported by CNN). They were supposed to stop accepting new ballots, but eh, whatever I guess. By 4am the D to R ratio was all thrown out of whack. That is because these ballots were not sampled from the real Wisconsin voter population, and they were not randomized in the mail sorting system with the other ballots. They inherently have a different D to R signature than the rest of the ballots quite possibly bc additional ballots were added to the batch, either through backdating or ballot manufacturing or software tampering. This of this being kind of analogous to carbon-14 dating, but for ballot batch authenticity.
Let's look at another anomoly
Here is Pennsylvania's vote counting history. For the first part of the vote counting process, we see the same pattern for mail-in ballots that we've seen in every other state in the country, which is relatively stable D to R ratio that gradually drifts R as more ballots come in from rural outlying areas.
But then as counting continues, the D to R ratio in mail-in ballots inexplicably begin "increasing". Again, this should not happen, and it is observed almost nowhere else in the country, because all of the ballots are randomly shuffled in the mail system and should be homogeneous during counting. The only exceptions to this are other suspect states that also have anomalies.
Again, this is evidence of ballot backdating, manufacturing of software tampering.
Here:
https://i.ibb.co/19ZVQ8z/Em-V5d56-XEAUHQe-W-format-png-name-900x900.pngPair this with all the election officials that have signed sworn statements today and are prepared to testify. This post is getting big so I'll just include this one example below.
Quote
My name is Zachary Larsen, I am over the age of eighteen, have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Affidavit and, if sworn as a witness, I am competent to testify to these facts. I am an attorney in private practice and licensed in the State of Michigan. Prior to my entry into private practice, I served as an Assistant Attorney General for eight years from January 2012 through January 2020, where I was recognized with an award for the quality of my work and served the state on several high-priority litigation matters. In September 2020, I volunteered to serve as a poll challenger for the Michigan Republic Party’s election day operations to ensure the integrity of the vote and conformity of the election process to the election laws of Michigan.
What I observed immediately was that the secrecy of the ballot was not being respected. Instead, the second official at the table where I was observing was repeatedly placing her fingers into the secrecy sleeve to separate the envelope and visually peek into the envelopes in a way that would allow her to visually observe the ballot and identify some of the votes cast by the voter.
I conferred regarding this issue with another challenger at a nearby table, and he indicated he had observed similar irregularities regarding the use of the secrecy sleeves. When that challenger raised the issue with a supervisor, and he was immediately asked “why does it matter?” and “what difference does it make?.
I stepped behind the table and walked over to a spot behind where the first official was conducting her work. Understanding health concerns due to COVID-19, I attempted to stand as far away from this official as I reasonably could while also being able to visually observe the names on the supplemental poll book and on the envelopes. Partly inhibiting my ability to keep a distance, the tables were situated so that two counting tables were likely a maximum of eight feet apart. In other words, you could not stand more than four feet behind one without being less than four feet from another. As soon as I moved to a location where I could observe the process by which the first official at this table was confirming the eligibility of the voters to vote, the first official immediately stopped working and glared at me. I stood still until she began to loudly and aggressively tell me that I could not stand where I was standing. She indicated that I needed to remain in front of the computer screen. I responded, “Ma’am, I am allowed by statute to observe the process.” As I did, a Democratic challenger ran towards me and approached within two feet of me, saying “You cannot speak to her! You are not allowed to talk to her.” I responded, “Sir, she spoke to me. I was just answering her.” The first official again told me that the only place I was allowed to observe from was at the computer screen. A second official at the table reiterated this. I said that was not true. Both officials then began to tell me that because of COVID, I needed to be six feet away from the table. I responded that I could not see and read the supplemental poll book from six feet away, but I was attempting to keep my distance to the extent possible. Just minutes before at another table, a supervisor had explained that the rules allowed me to visually observe what I needed to see and then step back away. Likewise, on Election Day, I had been allowed to stand at equivalent distance from poll books in Lansing and East Lansing precincts without any problem. With this understanding, I remained in a position where I would be able to observe the supplemental poll book until I could do so for the voter whose ballots had just been scanned and did not register in the poll book. Both officials indicated that I could not remain in a position that would allow me to observe their activities and they were going to get their supervisor. This seemed particularly concerning because the Democratic challenger who raised concerns over my verbal response to the official had been positioned behind the second official no further away than I was from the first official at that time and had not been stationed at the computer screen as the officials repeatedly told me was the only place that I could stay. When the supervisor arrived, she reiterated that I was not allowed to stand behind the official with the supplemental poll book, and I needed to stand in front of the computer screen. I told her that was not true, and that I was statutorily allowed to observe the process, including the poll book. The supervisor then pivoted to arguing that I was not six feet away from the first official. I told her I was attempting to remain as far away as I could while still being able to read the names on the poll book. In an attempt to address her concerns, I took a further step away from the table and indicated I would try to keep my distance, and that I thought I was about six feet away from the first official. The supervisor then stood next to the chair immediately to the left of the first official and indicated that I was “not six feet away from” the supervisor and that she intended to sit in the chair next to the official with the poll book, so I would need to leave. This supervisor had not been at the table at any time during the process, and she had responsibility for numerous ACVBs. Further, the supervisor’s choice of chairs was approximately three feet to the left of the first official and therefore in violation of the six-foot distance rule.Accordingly, I understood that this was a ruse to keep me away from a place where I could observe the confirmation of names in the supplemental poll book. The supervisor began to repeatedly tell me that I “needed to leave” so I responded that I would go speak with someone else or fill out a challenge form.I went to find another attorney serving as a challenger and returned to discuss the matter further with the supervisor. When I returned, she reiterated her assertions and insisted that there was nowhere where I could stand in conformity with the six-foot rule that would allow me to observe the supplemental poll book. Ultimately, to avoid further conflict with the supervisor, I agreed that I would leave that counting table and move to another table.
This post was edited by Jere on Nov 9 2020 04:30pm