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. 

5 thoughts on “Michigan Vote Fraud

  1. Jeff, I spent too much time last night digging into those authors’ Anomaly 1 (that’s the second triangle from the left, with the huge jump in Biden votes recorded). My comments are over there, with links, same handle, but it seems hard to locate them in Substack’s system.

    I’m pretty sure that Anomaly 1 is the City of Detroit’s reporting most of its Absentee ballots to the state board of elections. (Detroit counted its own ballots and reported them directly, not as a part of Wayne County.)

    Anomaly 1 is 141,258 Biden / 5,968 Trump / 2,546 Other, thus 94.3% / 4.0% / 1.7%.

    Detroit City reports its Absentee totals as 166,203 Biden / 6,153 Trump / 1,081 Other, thus 95.8% / 3.5% / 0.6%

    For the Edison Research data, there is significant imprecision for smaller numbers, as ratios rather than votes were reported.

    At first, it seems preposterous that one large batch could contain so many votes for Biden and so few for Trump. It really is anomalous for an overall Michigan electorate that is about 50/50 Biden/Trump.

    But it’s an extremely non-homogenous state. For the past few Presidential elections, Detroit has gone >>95% D. Trump did better in 2020 than he did in 2016, Romney in 2012, etc. Trump didn’t lose Michigan by doing worse in Detroit than he did in 2016, he underperformed in the outlying counties.

    And Democrats favored vote-by-mail while Republicans favored in-person, further skewing the absentee batch.

    So I am claiming that Anomaly 1 is not evidence of fraud, based on what I’ve seen.

    1. Amac78, I hope I can convince you differently. Your statement that Michigan is non-homogenous as an explanation, creates an implied assumption that 2016’s or 2012’s vote ratio weren’t also full of fraud.

      The first thing is that Detroit has been cheating for quite some time now. This is an ongoing theme in Detroit and Philly. That is why comparing past years ratio’s does not indicate a lack of fraud or much regarding homogeneity, although there is plenty of demographic difference across any state. The problem in Detroit, was the problem I expected to see when Ballots are not being checked for identification. A LOT more voters suddenly appear and are accepted unquestioned in hard-left areas. This is the fraud. What I’m saying is that you are focusing on the percentage in the area but not seeing the ridiculous increase in numbers of voters caused by these rule changes.

      I voted in Michigan in person. They checked my registration, photo ID, address and signature. Then I was allowed to cast a ballot. If I had applied for the five ballot applications sent to my home without request, I could easily vote multiple times without performing any of those checks. I have a friend who lives by himself in an apartment on the East side and he received seven applications for past residents of the apartment. The ballot counters are imagined by many to unscramble that mess but in populous areas with lots of renters, they simply don’t try, as numerous witnesses have attested under oath. Anecdotally, I’ve also had multiple people tell me that they voted both ways, in-person and absentee. So far, no prosecutions.

      We know from affidavits and videos that Left wing areas were caught doing zero verification of signatures, addresses, checks for multiple votes or anything else. I’ve heard that instead of the highest ballot rejection rate, this election was one of the lowest – I have no data yet on that, just other folks words. Either way, the result is a huge number of over-counting of votes primarily in leftist areas of battleground states. This was especially true in states who had massive rule changes like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

      In addition to the explanation above, while you may find it believable that a areas of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia voted harder left than areas within California, San Francisco, DC, NewYork or the Bronx, I don’t for a minute buy that. What you have uncovered instead is the game they play every election cycle. Also, if you were trying to drop fake ballots for one candidate, can you imagine a better place to do it? That also likely happened in my opinion as a lot of additional votes were needed in Michigan after 3am to swing the election.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s