Anomalies in the Vote Counts and Their Effects

Here is the video giving a rundown of the article below.

I recommend reading the article, too-

[…] This is one such case: Our analysis finds that a few key vote updates in competitive states were unusually large in size and had an unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratio. We demonstrate the results differ enough from expected results to be cause for concern.

votepatternanalysis.substack.com

Executive Summary

In the early hours of November 4th, 2020, Democratic candidate Joe Biden received several major “vote spikes” that substantially — and decisively — improved his electoral position in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Much skepticism and uncertainty surrounds these “vote spikes.” Critics point to suspicious vote counting practices, extreme differences between the two major candidates’ vote counts, and the timing of the vote updates, among other factors, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of these spikes. While data analysis cannot on its own demonstrate fraud or systemic issues, it can point us to statistically anomalous cases that invite further scrutiny. 

This is one such case: Our analysis finds that a few key vote updates in competitive states were unusually large in size and had an unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratio. We demonstrate the results differ enough from expected results to be cause for concern.

With this report, we rely only on publicly available data from the New York Times to identify and analyze statistical anomalies in key states. Looking at 8,954 individual vote updates (differences in vote totals for each candidate between successive changes to the running vote totals, colloquially also referred to as “dumps” or “batches”), we discover a remarkably consistent mathematical property: there is a clear inverse relationship between difference in candidates’ vote counts and and the ratio of the vote counts. (In other words, it’s not surprising to see vote updates with large margins, and it’s not surprising to see vote updates with very large ratios of support between the candidates, but it is surprising to see vote updates which are both). 

The significance of this property will be further explained in later sections of this report. Nearly every vote update, across states of all sizes and political leanings follow this statistical pattern. A very small number, however, are especially aberrant. Of the seven vote updates which follow the pattern the least, four individual vote updates — two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, and one in Georgia — were particularly anomalous and influential  with respect to this property and all occurred within the same five hour window.

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:  more

11 Comments on Anomalies in the Vote Counts and Their Effects

  1. Off subject but it’s worth watching Lou Dobbs tonight. Pay special attention to near the end of the interview with Sidney Powell and also one of his last remarks at the end of the program.

    I think Lou might know something!!!!
    You understand what I mean if you watch.

    3
  2. Jan 5 Georgia runoff election: President Trump needs to call out the TROOPS to ensure a free democratic election and to secure all polling machines and ballots after the polls close. Better late than never!!!

    3
  3. When mr ten percent claims he is president elect, why doesn’t twitter have a ‘this is disputed’ tag on those tweets?

    4
  4. This was a fascinating deep dive into the statistical anomalies present in the voting data. There were some fairly high-level statistical techniques used, but the language made the analysis accessible with a close reading.

    Tl;dr – four precincts reported voting results that, while possible, are HIGHLY improbable. The level of improbability is increased by the fact that a) all of these events happened in the same election, b) all increases occurred in suspicious, middle of the night timing, and c) all of the anomalies benefitted Biden just enough for him to “win” a state’s electoral votes.

    Bastards still think they’re getting away with it, but the patterns of fraud are evident to those with eyes to see.

    2
  5. On the other hand, while the odds of winning Powerball are infinitesimal, somebody actually wins every now and then.

    Joe Bidet: Powerball of Presidents

    1

Comments are closed.