Michigan Vote Fraud

The NYT published live data from Edison Research on their website.   Each entry withing this data is county or precinct based reporting of vote totals from the counted batches as they were completed.  There are very significant anomalies in these reported votes which can indicate nothing other than wide-scale vote fraud.

The below step plot is the total votes in Michigan as they came in.   The most unusual values are indicated with blue Triangles underneath them.   All 5 of these happened after 3 am, and all 5 represent large pro-Biden votes with minimal to no, pro-Trump component.

Figure 1

The steps were picked out as having a 0.5% or less chance of being part of the rest of the vote reports collected in Michigan.   There were 5 entries and all 5 went to Biden and all 5 happened after 3am.

The below graph shows how extreme these points really were.

In recent work, I’ve used straight ratio’s of Trump votes vs total votes to determine significance.  This gives symmetrical values between 0 and 1 with 0.5 being the situation where Trump has half of the votes.   In this article, I’ve used the natural log of Biden/Trump ratio.  This requires that all negative votes be eliminated but it mathematically clean as well.  The 50/50 vote occurs at log(B/T) = 1. 

The green bars show the distribution of the large vote entries prior to 3am Michigan local time.  These large entries are used to avoid rounding issues in the NYT dataset caused by their reporting methods. The time was chosen arbitrarily except that this was when many of the absentee ballots were counted, and these ballots were subject to different rules than regular votes.  No validation of voter information was made whatsoever.  Note the general right direction shift in the red bars which represent ballot count after 3 am, because this represents some of the expected shift toward Democrats in absentee voting.  Most of these votes still stay within the green bars and 6 of these large reports even went to trump.     

The print overplotted itself on the graph, this is what it says in order from left to right.

Percent likelihood 0.25208 Row 4545 Time 2020-11-04 20:55:38 Vote Difference B-T  27100

Percent likelihood 0.20651 Row 4550 Time 2020-11-05 00:29:28 Vote Difference B-T  16800

Percent likelihood 0.19212 Row 4500 Time 2020-11-04 12:14:51 Vote Difference B-T  23900

Percent likelihood 0.00173 Row 4449 Time 2020-11-04 08:50:10 Vote Difference B-T  49800

Percent likelihood 1e-05 Row 4495 Time 2020-11-04 11:31:53 Vote Difference B-T  135300

The far right bar representing 135000 votes entered has a likelihood of being part of the standard vote of .00001 percent.  One in ten million.  This is the single largest vote entry reported in the state of Michigan and it is the single most extreme. 

The story is even stronger than that though.  It is critical to note that this analysis would have shown extreme Trump votes as well, yet the five most extreme one-sided votes in Michigan were all in favor of Biden, all during the time when absentee ballots were being counted.  

The ballots in these five extreme entries were more than sufficient to change the outcome in Michigan.  They are statistically impossible without a bias toward one candidate.  This is evidence bordering on actual proof of significant fraud in the presidential election. 

To reach the level of a statistical proof, validation of this information requires a deep look at actual reporting events from each county.  The data Edison Research collected would be sufficient to verify this data and from the general appearance, would likely pinpoint the areas of interest.   While the election cycle is likely lost, vote integrity is the foundation of the United States of America.   Investigation of the counties and people involved needs to be pursued to the maximum extent of law. 

More ‘no evidence’ to Ponder #2

While every single media outlet prefaces any claim of vote fraud, they use the words unsubstantiated or without evidence or any other strongly worded claim trying to TRICK you into believing there is, in fact, no evidence of wide scale vote fraud. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my last post, I was able to identify battleground states, not by the huge number of votes cast but by being the states with the hardest pro-Biden votes in the entire country.

Michigan beat out California and Washington DC, as did Wisconsin and Georgia. These votes as registered are so far out of whack that they are a statistical impossibility.

Reader Amac78 left a link to a brand new website conceived of apparently over this exact same issue. This article has come to the same conclusions as I have and they have done a much better job communicating it than I have. If you even remotely care about fair elections, you will be shocked.

Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

In particular, we are able to quantify the extent of compliance with this property and discover that, of the 8,954 vote updates used in the analysis, these four decisive updates were the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th most anomalous updates in the entire data set. Not only does each of these vote updates not follow the generally observed pattern, but the anomalous behavior of these updates is particularly extreme. That is, these vote updates are outliers of the outliers.

The four vote updates in question are: 

  1. An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump
  2. An update in Wisconsin listed as 3:42AM Central Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 143,379 votes for Joe Biden and 25,163 votes for Donald Trump
  3. A vote update in Georgia listed at 1:34AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 136,155 votes for Joe Biden and 29,115 votes for Donald Trump
  4. An update in Michigan listed as of 3:50AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 54,497 votes for Joe Biden and 4,718 votes for Donald Trump

Extreme States

I find the previous post today more interesting but I wanted to put this up. The following entries in the voting record during the election count were all 4X the rounding error and comprised of at least 85% Biden votes. Basically, I consider the battleground states on this list, to be regions where potential evidence of extreme intentional vote bias exists.

It is an interesting list of hard left voting regions and battleground states and nothing really in between. The DC stuff all came in at the same crazy 95% range so that is normal. Potentially the same situation for areas which border DC.


Louisiana through one very large entry which happened right at the end. Look to local races for some of these leftist regions in my opinion. New York and Connecticut are good examples.

More ‘no-evidence’ to Ponder

I’ve been continuing to work with this New York Times voting data and have found a number of bits of data which are a bit interesting.

From my previous post, this data is presented as live information to the news outlets. It contains rounding errors which are a bit frustrating but we can still use this data.

In order to avoid critique of this rounding issue, below is Wisconsin data using only data greater than 4x the resolution limit of the rounded data. Most states counted the majority of mail in ballots after the primary count was completed. I used an arbitrary time of 3am local time on the 4th as a divider for the votes.

Green bars below are the number of vote reporting events before 3am on the 4th of larger than 4x the rounding limit in size that fell into the calculated ratio. For example there were 25 entries of votes that landed between .5 and .55 ratio of the Trump/Total Votes. So X axis numbers less than 0.5 are movements toward Biden.

The red bars are the number of votes having larger than 4x the rounding limit after 3am. All three were heavily weighted toward Biden but the one on the farthest left edge was a massive single reporting event which was of a magnitude of 118,000 votes which is 6 times more than enough to flip the vote in Biden’s favor. It is also of a size that is 53 times the rounding error in the Wisconsin vote so you can trust this entry for its rounded accuracy.

Focusing on this single extreme event, the odds that this event would occur at any size level of entry greater than 4x the rounding error were 0.41% based on a normal curve probability distribution.

The story gets even more interesting though. Below is the a histogram of the count size of significant vote reporting events (some of these are small because in early voting there were few votes yet tallied).

Can you guess which event we are talking about?

I didn’t think you would have much trouble. The single largest number of votes reported in Wisconsin is also by percentage, the single most extreme pro-Biden voting event reported in Wisconsin. It is also one of the last events, posted well after the magnitude of Biden’s vote deficit was well known.

Odd’s anyone?

Wisconsin doesn’t allow counting to stop once it is started by state law. This is interesting because many of the mail in ballots would be counted earlier in the day for smaller areas.

Anyway, the magnitude of this event is so large that there are only two possible counties it could have come from in Wisconsin, Milwaukee has 451,000 votes and Dane had about 338,000

Despite Milwaukee having 1.33 times more votes, Dane gained almost 50% more Biden votes than Milwaukee so I am suspicious that this entry came from Dane county. From the linked article:

In Dane and Milwaukee counties, more than 68,000 voters said they were indefinitely confined in 2020, compared to about 17,000 in 2016.

Just to re-explain the details of the mail in vote concerns of normal thinking folks. In Wisconsin, ballots can be submitted by folks to polling places across the entire state. It is up to election workers to validated addresses and signatures. If they don’t match, they are supposed to be rejected. Ballot rejections are a critical part of the voting process and if the rejections don’t happen at all, the vote count can be cheated. If the rejections happen differently from county to county, this can also skew the record. Critically, once the ballots are separated from the envelopes, the forensic history is lost because the names and addresses on the envelopes are no longer associated with the unidentifiable ballots. If fraud were occurring, you could surreptitiously separate the ballots from the envelopes, or perhaps not even use envelopes and create completely untraceable votes. Recounts are useless.

What we have in Wisconsin, is a single, highly skewed, reporting event which was large enough to flip the election. It was the most democrat vote and simultaneously the largest vote batch reported and it was done when the magnitude of the votes needed to flip the election were a known quantity. Also, this report doesn’t meet reasonable criteria at 0.41% probability, to be anywhere near the rest of the votes.

Not quite done yet. In addition, I looked at the direction of votes based on time. We do know that mail-in votes likely came in later but what does the vote magnitude look like over time.

The next graph is total vote ratio Biden/Trump. Above the blue line is Biden winning the total vote count. You can see that in our huge single vote reporting event flipped the election.

After most of the ballots were counted, 5 separate pro-Biden vote entries of significant magnitude were made. This is visible in the graph below:

From about 6am GMT onward, the graph above shows 5 large size voting events for Biden and none strongly for Trump. The last 3 large events were all very strongly for Biden. The dot’s close to the 0 line are large batches of likely absentee votes which went about 50/50 to the candidates.

With my days of time spent in this dataset, I have found a large number of crazy anomalies. Combined with the reports from witnesses and the endless video’s of fraud happening, I’m completely certain that massive election fraud not only existed but did flip this election to Biden. Feel free to draw your own conclusions though.

There is so much more you can find in this single state’s data. If we could get access to the time based reporting of each county with full resolution, a lot of the shenanigans could be quickly and more importantly, accurately identified.

Vote Anomalies in Pennsylvania

So we have accusations flying, reports of late night votes being dumped off in Michigan and Pennsylvania that were 100% Biden. Until the affidavits are presented in court, we will see little of what happened.

I did find one site though that had data from the NYT sent by Edison Research group which collects voting data and provides to news agencies as real time as they can. The NYT paid for their service and put all of their data on line. We have individual reporting events for every state as sent to the news media, starting as the polls closed to when the counting stopped.

This post only relates to Pennsylvania but I did do all states. The Pennsylvania data is here. I expected to find some interesting and questionable things, which I did, but this time I was truly surprised and have sent this off to several folks investigating vote fraud.

Pennsylvania Anomaly  —  Edison Research Open Source Data as published by the NYT

Summary: Analysis of the voting night data as reported by Edison Research for various live news and print services revealed significant voting anomalies in Pennsylvania.   Of just over 500 lines of county data reported for the Pennsylvania presidential vote count over the days of vote counting, twenty-five lines of significant one-sided vote movement were identified. The threshold used for locating the significant vote events required an individual reporting event to have greater than 75% of the vote to one candidate or the other.  All lines are shown in the linked spreadsheet.

The 25 Lines were made up of:

  • Ten lines before vote halt at 3:13am EST (8:13am GMT).  Two of which were reversals of each other, and one was a modification to switch approximately 18,000 votes from Trump to Biden. Only seven significant moves were recorded prior to vote halt. 
  • Eighteen lines after reopening of reporting at 5:54am EST (10:54 GMT).  All votes in these 18 entries went 100% to Biden. Eighteen of Eighteen consecutive “anomalously” Biden-only votes.

Total votes recorded for the 18 significant entries:  Trump:-3,733  Biden:    334,086

The negative value for Trump is due to rounding error in Edison Research data. 

  • It is statistically unrealistic to have 18 significant Biden vote entries with no added votes for Trump. 
  • The differential is enough to flip the 81,000 votes in the state election.
  • All 18 of the county reports with zero Trump vote came after 5:54 am EST when absentee ballots were being counted.  No zero Trump votes occurred before the count delay.
  • The last anomalous entry found (line 6967), is the FIRST reported moment when Biden took the lead from Trump.  No additional anomalous votes were detected after that point by this method.

Spreadsheet with data is below. All spreadsheet times are GMT so subtract 5 hours for Eastern Standard.

I have contacted the Trump campaign with this as well as local representatives and True the Vote. Prior to this analysis, I did believe there was massive fraud in this election, I didn’t expect it to be so shockingly obvious in the data.

Now, if Trump has witnesses and affidavits stating that Biden votes were dumped off in large quantities after hours, this is powerful data to back up the claims. This is the factual information not present in the lawsuits to support the witnesses claims that something did happen. This is the best supporting data available of widespread fraud that I have found anywhere simply because this dataset brings more than enough votes to call the election outcome into immediate question in Pennsylvania. I also have supporting data with the same kinds of one sided voting with state flipping magnitude for both Michigan and Georgia.

UPDATE: I need help contacting someone in the Trump campaign. I’ve been in contact with the volunteer vote fraud group and True the vote as well as several lawyers, one employee with a daughter in the White House, local state representatives, and several news sites but I have not successfully reached the campaign legal team as yet. If you can help, it would be greatly appreciated.