the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Archive for December, 2020

Georgia Hearings on Vote Fraud

Posted by Jeff Id on December 31, 2020

The link below is to a YouTube video of the fiery Georgia hearings yesterday on vote fraud. It confirms the results of my previous post on Georgia very strongly. Dead voters, fake addresses, fake names. etc.. I must be naive because these came in with very much higher percentages of bad votes than I had ever suspected. The data presented in this blog not only supports all of the claims but the voting data couldn’t have the patterns shown here without wide-spread ballot manufacture.

In addition Arizona held an event where citizens have been canvassing the neighborhoods for addresses with cast votes, looking for irregularities. They’ve found very high percentages of fraudulent votes (ten to thirty percent). Some folks have single letter names “A.Q.” and people who voted numerous times from the same address, under slightly tweaked names and birth dates. Also, some were even registered at state parks and offices as home address.

These fraudulent votes are NO accident. These are the result of a wide-spread plot to manufacture and distribute ballots by one party and only one party. They are caught red-handed and Rudy Giuliani made the point that this is only going to get bigger with time.

I wonder why YouTube hasn’t blocked it yet.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Regional Georgia Vote Analysis

Posted by Jeff Id on December 26, 2020


Georgia election law in 2020 was changed to allow mail in ballots in a manner which circumvented the need for presentation of voter identification.  The reasons for this requirement are something reasonable people disagree on, but lack of voter identification presents a situation where voter fraud is of real concern. How would one determine whether a ballot was valid or whether someone had voted for another?  It is clear from witness testimony that in this 2020 election a large number of issues were identified during the vote count related to ballot identification.  Reports of these issues are widespread and included; same signature hundreds of times, consecutive addresses, vans full of ballots showing up late at night, individuals feeding ballots repeatedly into the counters, mismatched signatures, improper adjudication.  These issues persisted mostly across contested battleground states where election laws were changed in a similar manner to Georgia.

This study was directed at Georgia alone and was directed toward identifying and highlighting voting anomalies which would be expected if wide-spread vote manufacturing had occurred by either party.   The results are very clear and indicate that wide-spread vote fraud was initiated by some mechanism and was limited specifically to the Democrat party in Georgia.

Discussion and data:

The Presidential vote in Georgia county level voting tells an as yet unreported and significant story.  There are a group of just over a dozen Democrat leaning counties across Georgia which had very large increases in active Democrat voters in 2020 and particularly since 2012.  The problem occurs in that these counties increases were inexplicably missing the corresponding increases in Republican votes.  Other Georgia counties behaved as expected where both Democrat and Republican votes changed at or near historically anticipated ratios. The detail for all counties is reported in this article, however there are 4 very large counties in the Atlanta region can highlight the significance of the problem outlined here.  The four counties in particular are: De Kalb, Fulton, Cobb and Gwinett.  These were identified entirely by their change in Democrat votes from 2016 to 2020 (Figure 3).  In 2012, these four counties were split with two voting Republican and two voting Democrat and they voted in total 59% Democrat.   What is shown below is that these split-voting counties produced approximately 400,000 NEW Democrat votes in 2020 as compared to the 2012 election,  with an approximate net change of ZERO for Republicans.  The anomalies in these four counties are not the limit of the problem.   In the anomalous counties identified below, 98% of the votes went entirely to the Democrats whereas when the same methods are used on Republican votes, no anomalies exist.

In the plots below, pay attention to the scale at the right side on these plots as it does change.  Figures 1 and 2 are Democrat ONLY votes, Republican votes are not considered here and the change in votes represents the gains or losses from the previous election year.

Figure 1 shows 2016 and highlights the increases in the Atlanta region of Democrat votes during the 2016 election vs the 2012 election.

Figure 1

Figure 2 shows large scale increases in 2020, again in the Atlanta area of Democrat votes, this time from the Trump/Clinton 2016 election.  So we have two elections in a row where large scale vote additions were made in the Atlanta region.   Figure 3 shows the total for the two elections.

Figure 2

Figure 3 shows the 4 counties in Georgia identified in the summary.  They have added 393,000 votes for Democrats since 2012.  There were only 3.8 Million votes in Georgia in 2012 so this is an addition of 10% more total votes across the state of Georgia just in these 4 counties which is very significant in relationship to the margin of victory for Democrats in the 2020 election.  Below the 4 counties highlighted in the summary above, they are the only counties which plotted in red.

Figure 3

Figure 4 highlights three counties in the Atlanta area showing more than 2x the number of Democrat votes (greater than 100%), with the bright red county showing an increase in Democrat voters of nearly 3 times. These over 100% counties are different counties than the four referred to in the summary which is again why this problem is not localized to the four discussed above.   Most of the counties in the Atlanta area showed large increases in solely Democrat vote totals.  Some other counties below did show a large percentage increase but didn’t have a significant number of voters.  I sorted by that effect towards the end of the post.

Figure 4

As stated above, Georgia implemented new voting laws in 2020 which circumvented voter identification for mail-in ballots.  If all groups were treated equally, we would expect to see an equal (or at least similar) change in Republican votes in those same regions.  These following plots of Republican votes didn’t support that reasonable expectation, and our four counties found themselves highlighted yet again in 2016 for Republican vote losses, this time in green.

Figure 5


In Figure 5 above, from 2012 to 2016 the Republicans saw moderate gains in each county except for the Atlanta region where they lost large numbers of votes.

Figure 6 shows these votes as a percentage of the total votes.  These percentage graphs are only of Republican votes.  Republican votes went down dramatically in 2016 near Atlanta only, with increases almost everywhere else in the state.

Figure 6 – percentage change in Republican only votes.

Oddly, Figure 7 shows that from 2016 to 2020, the largest increase in vote for Republicans was in those same Atlanta counties. Again, Figure 7 represents Republican vote changes only.  At first glance, this seems consistent with the 2020 increase in total Democrat voters in this area but careful checking reveals that they were received at a much smaller ratio than the split voter base.

Figure 7

Keen observers might note that the Atlanta region Republican increases between 2016 and 2020 were very similar in magnitude and location to the losses from 2012-2016.   It’s like those same voters moved out in 2016 and came back for 2020.

Figure 8 shows the differences in Republican vote totals from 2012 to today.    The Atlanta region is again interesting because several of the counties which saw huge improvements in Democrat votes have NO significant increase in Republican votes.  Also, our favorite 4 counties show almost zero change for the Republicans.

Figure 8

Figure 9 shows the percentage change in Republican votes is added simply for comparison to the percentage change in Democrat votes Figure 4.  Our 4 counties show a change in votes of 4%, -9%, 0% and -4% for Republicans, whereas they showed state-wide record losses of Republican voters in 2016.  A summation shows that the Republicans had an approximate net zero change in votes between 2012-2020 despite the massive pro-Democrat addition of votes in this area during the same timeframe.

Figure 9


Below is the percentage share of total vote increase that went to Democrats. Values near 100% are particularly concerning.   Percentage values in Figure 10 often represent minimal changes in the total number of votes which makes the next figure (Figure 10) difficult to read, but it is added for completeness. I’ve sorted this problem out out for us in Figures 11 – 13.

Figure 10 –  Percentage increase in Democrat votes vs increase in Total votes in each county from 2012 –  2020


In figure 11, I’ve sorted by large changes in total vote >60,000 and our favorite 4 counties showed up again and are 94%, 109%, 100% and 108%.   This indicates that ALL of the new votes in these four counties went exclusively to the Democrat party. 


Figure 11

The shocking bit of data from these 4 counties is the total vote change since 2012.

Democrat vote change -> 393,717 Votes

Republican vote change -> -5608 Votes

Percent of Democrat votes of the total vote increase in these 4 (Figure 11) counties is 101%

These four counties voted 41% Republican in 2012 and showed zero gain in Republican votes since that time.

Below is another sorting of Figure 10 which shows the problem is not fully isolated to these 4 counties.  This plot is all counties where the additional votes went over 75% to Democrats and having a net change in total votes of greater than 5000 votes.

Figure 12


The total vote changes for these counties were:

Democrat vote change -> 529,118 Votes

Republican vote change -> 7825 Votes

Percent of Democrat votes of the total vote increase in these (Figure 12) counties is 98.5% (Again, functionally ALL new votes went to the Democrats in these counties.)

These counties voted 41% Republican in 2012 and 33% in 2020.

Figure 13 is the same plot as Figure 12. It is offered simply for comparison and uses the same filters as Figure 12 but is reverse by party.

Figure 13

The data for these improvements in Republican shifting counties was:

Democrat vote change -> 25451 Votes
Republican vote change -> 86470 Votes
Percent of Republican votes of the total vote increase in these counties is 81%
Percent of total Republican vote in these counties in 2012 was 81%

Democrat vote change 25451
Republican vote change 86470

Percent of the vote change that went to Republicans – 77.3%
Percent of the vote which went Republican in 2012 – 74%
Percent of the vote which went Republican in 2020 – 75%

Minimal change in vote ratio is exactly what you would expect in a typical election.


Counties which showed large percentage improvements for Republican votes, were in almost exactly the historic and present day county ratio for Republicans and Democrats.  This means that in those counties, voting proceeded as expected in 2020.   In the counties of Figure 12, widespread voting increases went EXCLUSIVELY for a the Democrat party.  By identifying problematic counties and looking at the differences in vote count above, it is unavoidable to conclude that a wide-spread vote-manufacturing process was initiated to take advantage of the changes in voter law.  The regional distribution means these votes are unlikely to have been created by a computer software, but rather by manufactured votes. These votes appeared to have been distributed around the state to democrat leaning counties and are in the magnitude of >500,000 votes.   A forensic sampling of the ballots counted and applications should reveal similarities in large fractions of these new votes regarding ink type, signatures and other expected flaws.   The sheer magnitude of the half million one-sided votes means that Georgia’s presidential election was flipped by these votes to the Democrat party.


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Odd Michigan Law

Posted by Jeff Id on December 16, 2020

So my Wife discovered that Michigan doesn’t do recounts if the poll book (book recording who voted) doesn’t match the number of votes. They claim it is illegal to do so. We found the law on the matter and while it seems clear to me, it doesn’t match what we’re being told is standard practice.

Sec. 871. (1) The board of canvassers conducting a recount pursuant to this chapter shall recount all ballots of a precinct using an electronic voting system unless 1 or more of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The seal on the transfer case or other ballot container is broken or bears a different number than that recorded on the poll book, the breaking or discrepancy is not explained to the satisfaction of the board of canvassers, and security of the ballots has not been otherwise preserved.

(b) The number of ballots to be recounted and the number of ballots issued on election day as shown on the poll list or the computer printout do not match and the difference is not explained to the satisfaction of the board of canvassers.

(c) The seal used to seal the ballot label assembly to a voting device in the precinct is broken or bears a different number than that recorded in poll records and the ballot labels or rotation of candidates’ names is different than that shown by other voting devices in the precinct and records of the board of election commissioners.

(2) This section does not prohibit the recounting of absent voter ballots tallied in a precinct using an absent voter counting board or in a precinct in which 1 or more voting machines are recountable, if the absent voter ballots are securely packaged and sealed.

(3) If a board of canvassers conducting a recount pursuant to this chapter determines that the ballots of a precinct are not eligible for recount under this section, the original return of the votes for that precinct shall be taken as correct.

(4) A board of canvassers conducting a recount pursuant to this chapter may conduct a recount by the following means:(a) A manual tally of the ballots.

(b) A tabulation of the ballots on a computer using a software application designed to specifically count only the office or ballot question subject to the recount.

(c) A tabulation of the ballots on a computer using the same software application used in the precinct on election day.

(d) Any combination of methods in subdivision (a), (b), or (c), as determined appropriate by the board of canvassers.

(5) If a board of canvassers conducting a recount pursuant to this chapter intends to conduct a recount on a computer, the board of canvassers shall first test the software application by use of a test deck to determine if the program accurately counts the votes for the office or ballot question subject to the recount. If the test under this subsection fails to show that the software application accurately counts the votes for the office or ballot question subject to the recount, the board of canvassers shall use another means prescribed in subsection (4) to conduct the recount.

History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955


My confusion is that this law section 1 states the reasons you cannot use electronics to recount the vote if any of the below conditions are met. One of which is when poll books don’t match vote count. The rule does not explicitly say that you cannot count the vote manually.

Numerous papers have made the claim through others that it is illegal to recount the vote of any precinct which is out of balance.

Washtenaw County Clerk Larry Kestenbaum told The Michigan Daily that while some precincts are out of balance due to human error during elections, it does not influence the outcome. 

“Out-of-balance problems are extremely minor and don’t affect vote counts,” Kestenbaim said. “What they do affect is whether a precinct is considered ‘recountable’ under Michigan’s peculiar law, (and) if a recount were to be held, the out-of-balance precincts could not be recounted, and the original vote totals from election night would be used.”

Not sure if this is just a mode of practice or I’m misreading the law.  

Why this matters!

This matters because if you were a nefarious person, I know you are not, but if you were you were you would simply put the votes in that you want, and then make sure that the precinct is out of balance so your activities will not be checked.

Any thoughts or help would be appreciated.

Edit: When I say – put in the votes, this is a process which can be manually entered or the votes can simply be re-fed into the machine.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Bombshell!! Michigan County Breaks Law in Attempted Coverup of Problematic Vote Data.

Posted by Jeff Id on December 14, 2020

This forensic report of Dominion voting machines in Antrim county Michigan, was released today. The investigators report that there was an intentional deletion of the adjudication records of this server as well as the security logs. The deletion of the adjudication records was only done for this election, and all other older election records were untouched. In addition an unauthorized user attempted to delete all of the voting data. Each of these deletions and attempted deletions were illegal per State law.

Antrim county Michigan was the site of a several thousand vote reversal which was very poorly handled both in count and in the press. It was so bad that Allied Security Operations Group was hired per a court order to do a forensic analysis of the machinery in the vote.   

During the counting process, Antrim reported and corrected votes multiple times as shown below:

Figure 1 – Antrim county vote reporting 2020 presidential election

Of course you can’t read that string of vote numbers and walk away any smarter.   Something stupid happened.  

It may be of interest to the reader to note that I do NOT think machine error contributed significantly to the fraud in this election.  I think the majority of the fraud occurred at ballot level, and was caused directly by intentional removal of proper voter identification and validation in battleground states.  That certainly doesn’t preclude significant computer related issues.

Below are a few quotes from the linked document, but if you want to understand how shockingly bad this was, you will need to read the whole thing yourself.

Ballots which do not scan correctly are sent to adjudication. The analysts state that the rate of adjudication was unprecedented as compared to past elections and as high as 82 percent in one township. The adjudication process happens without meaningful observation and therefore is a key spot for fraud investigators.

All prior years left alone but 2020 is removed manually.

And there went the security logs. Odd how those things happen. All the old logs remained intact yet those pesky 2020 logs up and vanished.

I’ve used computers for over thirty years. I can program in a lot of languages, and have interfaced computers with cameras, robots, random production equipment, testing equipment, hacked software even, so many things that it’s difficult to remember all of them.

I can NOT tell you how to delete a windows security log file.

That is because I don’t know how. It doesn’t sound hard to figure out but if I don’t know something about a computer, then the county guy or lady running the voting operation doesn’t know either. Certainly not well enough to trick an investigator. IT guys love this kind of thing so I believe that the deletion of these records was almost certainly performed by an IT person at some level.

All of these deletions were illegal and seem a bit haphazard. The investigation is ongoing but perhaps we will see a little crack in the media wall of misinformation on vote fraud.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Deep State End Game

Posted by Jeff Id on December 11, 2020

Today the Supreme Court of the United States refused to even hear a case by Texas regarding the blatantly fraudulent 2020 election on the basis that:

Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

Texas, a state in America, joined by 17 other states, didn’t demonstrate an interest in a presidential election. A massively, blatantly, obviously fraudulent presidential election has been allowed to pass, but Texas (a state in our union) had no demonstration of interest in unconstitutional changes made to election rules by other states. Rules which were obviously meant to bias the vote toward the authoritarians who are being declared the victors. Worse than that, this acceptance of the fraud means that the cheating has been normalized. It’s federally allowed.

I’m a business owner and I have participated in a number of legal cases. In all of them, won or lost, I have as yet NEVER seen a judge make an intellectually accurate ruling. Every single one is nonsense, win or lose. In my experience, Judges seem to live in their own imaginary world where their opinion trumps any version of law. This behavior is the hallmark of authoritarians the world over which I imagine is a prerequisite for being a judge in the first place. This court ruling however, has a special place in the legal world as it has no basis in reality whatsoever. Not even a smidgen of actual law supporting this decision is available. Plenty of fear and plenty of unwillingness to do their jobs is evident, because there is no constitutional, legal or logical reasoning which drove this decision.

“Justices” Alito and Thomas state my point themselves:

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona  v. California , 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

The court has no discretion to deny this case, which they are ALL fully aware of, yet they did it anyway.

What it means is that by the gutless withholding of proper review of obviously unconstitutional acts, there will be no corrections to our voting system in the future. States no longer need legislatures to change law. Without that required legal pushback, the court has abdicated it’s authority. There is no realistic possibility that the authoritarian left will restore the citizen’s right to an equally weighted vote in future elections. Why would they? If you don’t believe me, watch Georgia’s runoff in the coming weeks for example.

It is an interesting fact that I attempted to personally sue Michigan for the changes to voting law this summer. Despite my experiences with law, this was my first attempt at initiating a lawsuit of any kind. My push was shot down by my own lawyers as no voting damage had yet occurred. After the election, and now that the damage was done, a Pennsylvania judge refused to hear the case on the basis that the challenge came too late. Another statement which has no basis in law. Despite the leftist slant of the article, it also mentions the same difficulty I faced when trying to sue Michigan before any damage was done. Without proper support from the court system, there was no opportunity in law for citizens to prevent this fraud. Now without supreme court support of the constitution, we can expect no recourse or future correction of law.

The cheaters have nothing to fear legally so our right to vote and have our vote count has been stolen permanently. Along with that loss, we also lost any chances for the United States of America ever having a constitutional republic under this legal structure ever again. The vote, the constitution, and all subsequent law has lost all meaning. The paper that the beautiful constitution was written on has been reduced to just that, a piece of worthless paper.

A useless, colorless piece of paper.

The left celebrates.

There is talk of war, but that’s all it is, talk. War without a common unified cause is nothing but violence and our society is far too brainwashed by government forces to act with a common understanding. Will war come? It will come eventually, but it may be generations of oppression and starvation before it happens. Make no mistake though, our children’s right to pursue happiness has been taken away without a constitutionally conservative shot fired.

It is easy to predict the economic doom and starvation which these authoritarian economic neophytes will cause. Worse than that though is the unpredictable application of laws. When laws only apply as a judges emotions wish them to, how will anyone accurately follow any of them? When prosecutors decide that some kinds of cases will be tried simply because that particular prosecutor doesn’t like the law, what is the job of the legislature? In China, they have had the problem of mutable law at least for decades. Irregularly applied laws cause citizens to pay off officials and officials to regularly shake down citizens. If you don’t pay, then no business license, no job, no school, no house, no college for children or relatives, no food etc….

I no longer can support America. Not because its concept wasn’t completely right, but rather because I have no say in its governance and that makes this a dictatorship. The left also lost their vote by the way, but they are too busy in the emotional thrall of their stolen election to figure it out. Perhaps when they are hungry and they change affiliation, they will realize that their own vote doesn’t count anymore either.

Much of our citizenry is so thoroughly brainwashed by the state media and schools, that they will not even admit that the evidence of fraud exists, let alone that it is shockingly blatant. Only those who count votes, make laws, and have the support of the state media will matter from this point forward. Votes are officially meaningless, so like Venezuela and North Korea, those who dissent will stop participating eventually leading whomever is in charge to then make voting mandatory – likely in the next decade. In other words, everything is as it should be in a newborn communist haven.

If there is any democratic country which will take me and my family, I’m interested in becoming a productive, law-abiding and wealthy member of your land. I’ll let others here figure out how to work in an economically, intellectually and legally bankrupt dictatorship. They can figure out how to employ the human drones which remain enslaved to the system. The newborn American dictatorship will come sooner than you expect for your guns, property, bank accounts, speech, and will continue to segregate and divide all individuals into groups to be gifted with fractions of the money taken from others. Chaos is their political shelter, so like COVID, expect quite a bit of that as well. The process has already begun.

We already see so many failures of socialism in this country. You can’t get healthcare in a reasonable time since Obamacare and it is unaffordable. We have empty shelves in stores for the first time in my half century. Public schools push leftist propaganda as hard as the main stream news and universities. As this new uni-party dictatorship takes hold over the next decade, watch how significant these constant discomforts become.

The whole of humanity lost so much in 2020 due to the fraud and cheating in America. With the loss of any ability to bring this problem to light in court, the situation is irreversible. There are a few legal chances which remain, however after 50 legal cases have been denied without any discussion, their chances of correcting any of this is almost as unlikely as the absentee vote in Wayne county naturally going that completely to a single candidate.

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments »

Michigan – Linear X axis

Posted by Jeff Id on December 7, 2020

Do not tell us that this is about restoring trust in the voting system


this is about restoring a voting system we can trust.

You have better odds of winning the lotto AND being killed by lightening this month than naturally producing the vote ratios on the far right of the above graph.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Michigan vs Ohio

Posted by Jeff Id on December 2, 2020

I have a huge advantage over most in understanding this NYT dataset because I’ve spent a lot of time with it. It is easy to not realize that others haven’t seen other aspects of this data and the comparison can be enlightening. A couple of comments recently make the point that some of these insane pro-Biden ratios are believable to them. Basically, they make the conclusion that the cause could be just demographics.

Despite how it pains me, Ohio is a similar state to my home state of Michigan. Shared border, same size population, very similar industries, combinations of rural and city life. In Michigan, the secretary of state unilaterally sent applications for ballots to every registered voter. The one lawsuit against this practice failed because the fake judge claimed that these weren’t ballots but applications for ballots, so constitutional election law doesn’t apply and the state didn’t need to follow the law as written by the legislature. Anyone in Michigan in 2020, was able to fill any one of them out and mail them back in and an unobserved government employee would then choose whether to mail out the ballot. Conversely, those who voted in-person in Michigan were required to have identification presented, registration matched, signatures matched and addresses matched. This is done in detail by the poll workers at the time of in-person voting before you are allowed to even touch a ballot.

There are so many ways to cheat this mail in system, but the biggest one is right in front of us. Vote twice as numerous people have openly claimed to do. Send one mail-in ballot and then vote yourself in person. It’s up to the poll workers to decide if they will take the time to compare the addresses and voter names and reject one or the other. However, my wife and I personally received five applications with three of them, sent to people who have moved out of state — in other words, no way to check that we are them other than too many votes at a single address. Something no poll worker is EVER trained to look for as it is not part of election law.

I have a friend who received seven ballots for different people in Michigan. The seven had all moved out of the apartment and are very likely in different areas of the state or country. There is no harm done to nefarious folks who simply sign them sloppily and send them in because there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of who did it. The result is that if certain areas wish to be heavily over-represented in Michigan, the poll workers simply needed to accept the paper. These aren’t bad folks because they had no legal mechanism or data by which to reject those ballots.

That’s it — the big Michigan fraud. Not a computer glitch, not some dude hacking in, not some big pre-planned conspiracy outside of changing the rules, just accept the ballots. Very simple. Not that the other issues didn’t also happen because they also did but the big one, the giant no-conspiracy vote bias in Michigan, is right there in your face because there is no observation mechanism to counteract it.

Unfortunately, this bias in voting heavily favors apartment living city voters. Cities have a lot of people moving in and out of rentals, each time they re-register to vote (have a drivers license update), the old voter registration is not automatically updated. That is why in this and future elections but none prior to 2020, seven different ballot applications can show up at a single person’s apartment in Michigan — without any request from a voter.

It is very important to understand that in Michigan, before the Secretary of State unconstitutionally changed the voting absentee rules to automatically mail every registered person an application. Michigan already had unconditional absentee voting by voter request. We simply filled out a request form and a ballot was mailed to us. The only requirement was that we had to previously have registered to vote at some claimed address. Our previous addresses would still be registered and had been confirmed by ID as a valid Michigan voter at least one time in the past. This system could also be cheated without consequence, but not en-masse. This is important to understand because it means that there was no COVID safety NEED for an absentee voting rule change in Michigan.

Not a single prosecution or accusation has been made against a voter for multiple votes to date. Odd eh? I must be wrong……. Nobody voted twice.

Ohio, unlike Michigan, didn’t intentionally bias the ballots. They changed nothing significant in their absentee process as no changes were required for safety.

Enough yacking Id! Show me data!

Figure 1 – Ohio vote totals over ballot counting period. Data from Edison Research per NYT

Note that in the above figure, there are no blue triangles indicating ANY unusual vote percentages in Ohio. All cities and rural areas reported normally with nothing unusual showing up.

Figure 2 – Ohio vote distrbution. Log scale on x

You can see that we have a decent bell curve, probably a log type distribution but I haven’t done any distribution type testing. This point is more relevant when compared to Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 – vote distribution for Michigan.

Now in Ohio, the green and red bars are combined so the way to compare these graph is to imagine all the red bars in Figure 3 are also green. The reason for this difference is that had I split Michigan into two separate voting times per a recent previous post such that we could generally see some of the absentee count separately from the regular count.

Remember the x axis is a natural log scale so vote ratios of Biden/Trump of 3 on the x axis are 7 times more extreme than x values of 1. The likelihood of experiencing those red votes on the far right is extremely low.

Comparing Ohio’s distribution and Michigan’s, there is a distinct second smaller peak in the Michigan vote data. The Michigan graph has a distinct visual bi-modal distribution. You can visually see two separate normal distributions (mountain peaks) on top of each other. The large peak is centered perfectly on Ohio, and a second smaller peak centered to the right.

Interestingly, I did plot a fit to this smaller distribution previously, I just didn’t put it in the previous post. I have added it to Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 – Michigan data again with red distribution fit to after hours votes.

In Figure 4, the red normal distribution is a regressed (and y scaled only) fit to the red bars (votes after 3am EST). Note how well centered the red curve is over the smaller second normal distribution peak in the green bars. The red curve isn’t created using the data from the green bars, only the red but the center of the peak is very close. As most of the red bars (after 3am) represent absentee related vote counting, it is reasonable to assume that the green bars creating the second mountain peak of the smaller distribution are likely absentee vote counting done earlier in the evening. Now if we had access to the raw data, and could show absentee ballots make up this second peak, this would be statistically damning evidence in the state as these two voting groups were treated very differently as a matter of law. This is the type of distribution you would expect to see in a voting distribution if a biased group was allowed to vote multiple times.

So, all that being said. Ohio has large cities. Ohio has vote fraud too which is very slightly visible IMHO in the reporting data. That Ohio distribution (Figure 2) isn’t perfectly symmetric and normal, it has a bias in shape toward the right side of the graph. Ohio did NOT have unconstitutional rule changes to create the situation where voters are disproportionately counted multiple times based on city vs country lifestyle. Ohio also didn’t have any dramatically large unusual voting this time. This state has demographic distributions similar to Michigan but a very different election result.

Michigan’s state bird is the Robyn. A fine upstanding bird that. Perhaps we should change the bird to the dodo, as we are now the fraud capital of the United States.

Michigan does have a little competition in the multiple voting category though:

Figure 5 – Pennsylvania – same X axis scale as Ohio and Michigan above

See any similarities to Ohio or Michigan?

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »


Posted by Jeff Id on December 1, 2020

Does anyone anywhere think Biden actually won Georgia? I don’t think so.

Similar to the last post, this one shows the biggest outliers in Georgia. They mostly came after about 4 am GMT or 11pm Georgia time. Each of them had election swinging magnitude, like all battleground states, Trump had no anomalously off center events. Blue markers in the first figure point to unusual entries.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »