Results Consistent With Vote Switching Seen In Eaton County, Michigan -- Guest Post by Stan Young, Tom Davis & Eric Quinnell

Briggs

Do not let Biden, who sold the office of Vice Presidency, frighten you. The fight continues.

https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/1337653024349687808

I'm part of this; for example, Georgia. Click through to the main link for the other states. SCOTUS, too.

If you are inclined to paint as foolish those who advance evidence of electoral cheating, recall that Democrats this year were swearing Russians---again!---were going to steal the election. These sources, like NPR, were saying this right up to the election.

Big Tech is now censoring this, arguing that speech that disagrees with "official" government sources should be forbidden. After all, America was founded on the idea that disagreeing with government should be illegal. Right?

Droz

When Will the Fat Lady Sing?

Let's say that on December 14, 2020, that the majority of Electoral College votes are for Joe Biden to be President. Does that mean it's over? I'm not an attorney, but it seems that the answer is Yes and No.

Yes: in that that would be another check-off part of the normal election process.

No: in that the current election situation is anything but normal. For example: [a long list of improprieties and curiosities]. Read the rest here.

Young, Davis & Quinnell

Suspicions are out that the 2020 Presidential Election was not fair and there might be massive fraud. There is a need to forensically examine public data to either support or put to rest these suspicions. Many agree that the 1960 election was stolen from Nixon for Kennedy by good old fashion ballot stuffing in Chicago. Modern computers and the internet bring new and powerful technology to the voting process so there is a need to apply modern computational and statistical methods to help the citizen judge the reliability of voting in the computer and internet age.

Voting for the president of the United States is a massive operation. In 2016, approximately 122 million votes were cast. Hillary Clinton alleged that the presidency was stolen from her and the overthrow of purported usurper (Donald Trump) was planned even before he was sworn in. In 2020, there were 158 million votes recorded. Trump is now alleging fraud.

The first thought of many citizens is that common ballot stuffing cannot produce massive fraud so accept the results and move on. Still, the pandemic, changed voting rules, and massive absentee voting should give anyone pause.

Most of the voting process is now electronic, so moving votes within precincts, etc. is also electronic. Voting machines can be and often are connected to the internet, so hacking is a relatively simple task. A machine can be reprogrammed with a thumb drive, which can be used to add, subtract, or switch votes. Hypothetical? Wiki-leaks indicated software enabled fraud was not only possible but done.

The reader is alerted right now: Evidence is presented that is consistent with electronic absentee vote switching from Trump to Biden.

We examine public data associated with a small county in Michigan, Eaton County. We choose this county as an exemplar of what is possible. Keep constantly in mind that the world of voting is now in the computer and internet age. Also keep in mind the words of W. C. Fields, “A thing worth having is a thing worth cheating for.” Human nature needs supervision.

We use public data, vote totals down to the precinct level and the time flow of votes moving from the counting process to final tallies. All this data is public and can be examined, which we have done.

We display the results of our analysis using simple graphs and figures. The reader need not trust us, as anyone that is familiar with electronic spreadsheets can replicate our work.

Voting in person is familiar to everyone. Wait in line, be identified, take a ballot, and mark it. The ballot is then fed into a machine to be tallied. At that instant, the voter and the ballot are untethered. An absentee ballot is in an envelope with a signature and address. Again, once the ballot is out of the envelope, the voter and the ballot are untethered.

Here is the first figure to examine, the time course of votes being accumulated after the close of in-person voting.

Trump, red, starts with a substantial lead over Biden, blue, and increases that lead until 2:41 in the night of 4Nov2020. A massive influx of votes arrives at 3:54 substantially closing the between Trump and Biden. Before this time, the percent of Democratic absentee votes was 72% and after this time increased to 79%. The vote additions are instructive.

In either case, in person or absentee, we are now in the world of computers, the internet, and a server master data base. Critical to our analysis is that the ballots are still tied to the precinct. For each precinct we know the number of registered voters. If voting is done honestly, each person voting is expressing their own views. We know that each person voting is their own self. We know that how people vote at one precinct should not be linked to how people vote at another precinct. Voters and precincts should not be in lockstep. As the voter and the ballot are untethered, the process for handling absentee votes must have a trustworthy chain of custody. The absentee ballots are now in electronic, internet and computer land.

We look at the percent of total votes for each candidate that are absentee within each precinct of Eaton County, Michigan. Suppose that Biden gets 81 in-person votes and 164 absentee in Precinct 1 of Brookfield Township, which adds up to 245 Biden votes. Biden’s absentee percent is 164/245 or 66.9%. Trump voters go the same precinct, and they vote without colluding with the Biden voters. 31.6% of their votes were absentee. Voters in other precincts, in-person and absentee, vote their independent ways. Percent absentee, Biden and Trump, should vary from precinct to precinct. We are ready to look at two figures. The first figure we call “parallel snakes”.

The y-axis in the percent absentee, blue for Biden and red for Trump. Along the x-axis we have the precincts in alphabetical order. The order is arbitrary; it does not matter. Note the synchronous up and down pattern – the parallel snakes! The percent-absentee go up and down together. We look at the numbers in a different way. We plot percent absentee Biden against percent absentee Trump (a standard bivariate correlation graph) below.

The number of absentee ballots for each candidate should be uncorrelated. We see that as the percent Trump increase in a precinct, that the percent Biden also increase. Is the association due to chance? Are the differences between the parallel snakes too similar? We hold the Trump values within their precinct and reassign the Biden values into new precincts at random. Look at the resulting correlation graphs.

One of the nine correlation graphs is the observed data and the other eight are the figures with Biden values shifted randomly to different precincts. One graph is different; can you find it? Statistical analysis puts the odds of an association this large, as seen in the central graph, at about 1 in many millions by chance.

Note that the absentee ballots are processed at a central facility, not the counties and precincts. They are stored on a central computer and allocated out to the counties and precincts. There should be no relationship between %AbsenteeD and %AbsenteeR across precincts. See the parallel snake figure.

The parallel snake figure is consistent with vote switching, i.e. absentee votes for Trump are switched to Biden. Looking at the time series figure, the Biden/Trump ratio appears to have been “fixed” at 3:54 4Nov. Vote counts shift to Biden. A county that delivered 2,671 more votes for Trump than Clinton in 2016 delivers only 499 more votes for Trump than Biden in 2020. This shift and the unusual linking of Biden and Trump absentee votes in a fixed ratio went unnoticed. This is consistent with software manipulation, and it can scale to massive fraud.

Implications for Decision Makers: Considerations for Further Action

Simply recounting current registered votes is not nearly good enough. Forensic audits of random samples are needed. Chain of custody should be examined. Time series and precinct analysis should be done on randomly selected counties within problematic states.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here