Monday, November 30, 2020

Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020


Conclusion

This report studies 8,954 individual updates to the vote totals in all 50 states and finds that four individual updates — two of which were widely noticed on the internet, including by the President — are profoundly anomalous; they deviate from a pattern which is otherwise found in the vast majority of the remaining 8,950 vote updates. The findings presented by this report [28]suggest that four vote count updates — which collectively were decisive in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, and thus decisive of a critical forty-two electoral votes — are especially anomalous and merit further investigation.

In particular, the finding that the broader data follows general patterns and our ability to measure just how much any individual vote update does — or doesn’t — follow this pattern allows us to make concrete claims about both how extreme any given vote update is and about what any particular vote update might have looked like, had it been less extreme one one axis or another.

We further find that if these updates were only more extreme than 99% of all updates nationally in terms of their deviation from this generally-observed pattern, that, holding all else equal, Joe Biden may very well have lost the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, and that he would have 42 fewer Electoral votes — putting Biden below the number required to win the Presidency.  Either way, it is indisputable that his margin of victory in these three states relies on four most anomalous vote updates identified by the metric developed in this report.

We once again note that this analysis is largely restricted to four individual vote updates out of a sample of nearly 9,000. This report by no means suggests stopping investigations in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, or elsewhere; it is merely that these four key ballot updates are both profoundly anomalous with respect to a metric which removes any component of different states having different partisan leanings or a different number of voters. Furthermore, this analysis does not require that we regard the final vote totals in any of these states (or counties thereof) as suspicious, nor, critically, does it require that we accept that the observed data should follow any particular distribution a priori.  We merely show that the data, adjusted appropriately to remove differences in size and political leaning between states, does follow a certain pattern, and that four key vote updates deviate profoundly from that pattern.

It is our belief that the extraordinarily anomalous nature of the studied vote updates here, combined with the staggering political implications, demands immediate and thorough investigation.

More @ Voter Integrity

2 comments:

  1. Good Information Brock. I saw this bit of Good News this Morning at Mike's 90 Miles site. It's a short clip from the Arizona Election Hearing that was held yesterday in Phoenix. Expert witness lays it out in the simplest of terms:

    https://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/2020/12/arizona-expert-witness-bobby-piton.html

    This is probably the same case in all 50 States, but definitely in the six or seven swing states currently in the news. IMHAO, Sir. Cheers!

    Methinks, that we got this. It's a L,000,000,000.00NG way from being over. But, I think President TRUMP WINS, or more precisely COVFEFE.

    Doesn't the Losing Party in a Lawsuit have to pay the Court, and the Lawyer Fees? Is that still the Norm?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I know, it is and thanks!
      https://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2020/12/arizona-expert-witness-bobby-piton.html

      Delete