Friday, November 20, 2020

A Mathematician's Evaluation Of Absentee Ballots In PA

Commenter Yancey Ward has, on another thread, been advocating for Matt Braynard's analyses of absentee voting in the 2020 election. John Solomon has an article out today that offers support for Braynard, coming from a well respected academic mathematician:

In sworn statement, prominent mathematician flags up to 100,000 Pennsylvania ballots

Federal Elections Commission Chairman Trey Trainor says new analysis by professor Steven Miller "adds to the conclusions that some level of voter fraud took place in this year's election."

All of the ballots in question are absentee ballots, and Miller used PA data gathered by Braynard. Matt Braynard believes Professor Miller's study supports his own conclusions and is sending Miller the data that Braynard has gathered from other states as well. 

You can read Miller's sworn statement here. Bearing in mind that the current margin is about 82,000 votes and that Miller's study pertains solely to absentee ballots and no other category of ballots, here are two key statements drawn from Miller's declaration:

"I estimate that the number of ballots that were either requested by someone other than the registered Republican or requested and returned but not counted range from 89,397 to 98,801," Miller said in the sworn statement provided to Just the News.


In addition to his two base estimates, Miller also offered two estimates with broader ranges and higher confidence intervals. "Almost surely, the number of ballots requested by someone other than the registered Republican is between 37,001 and 58,914," Miller writes. "Almost surely the number of ballots requested by registered Republicans and returned but not counted is in the range from 38,910 to 56,483." 

Studies like these--both Braynard's as well as Miller's, plus others--are reasons why I think conservative carpers demanding EVIDENCE NOW need to chill. There are numerous anomalies and indicia of various types of fraud across multiple states. The public, as the Rasmussen survey shows, is manifestly distrustful of what happened in the election--and some of the dodgy recounts and other maneuverings are not increasing trust. Conservatives need to let this challenge go forward. It's simply unreasonable to expect hard results in a short time period.


  1. The Globalists, Marxists, Democrats and Never Trumpers appear to be immune to statistics, logic, common sense and are bot bound by the rule of Law. Forgive my frustration, but bringing a statistician to this battle seems to be like bringing a plastic knife to a gun battle.

    We are losing the information war, and the POTUS race is in reality now a long shot.

    We are staring squarely at effectively a loss in Senate as well, and it doesn't seem to make any difference if it was legal or not.

    I am a hopeful person, but we are facing the end of the Republic...and somehow believing math will somehow turn it around?

    The time for talking is just about done.

    1. Just what do you propose to change it? What, in your view, would be the winning play then? There are 2 options to prevent and reverse this coup attempt: 1) through the Courts, most likely all the way to SCT; 2) through the legislatures who can deny certification and, so, deprive BiteMe of the electoral votes thereby kicking it to the House for contingent election. Likely both will happen. Under Path 1, courts will want to see and be quite persuaded by the statistical evidence you lightly dismiss. Expert testimony is relied upon routinely by these judges in the most serious capital criminal cases where a man's life is at stake. Path 2 may give great weight to statistical analysis as it gives these cowards the "follow the science" trope they love to hide behind. But, to be fair, your doom and gloom defeatism is the Conservative Cool that seems so trendy now, so enjoy it while you can.

  2. Mark, since such statistical and mathematical evidence is what seems to be getting most ignored by left and NOW right , at the same time these deniers are screaming "where's your evidence?!", could you speak to that phenomenon? Why do we few find teh anomalies and the math compelling whilst the Tucker Carlsons of the world treat them as a third rail? I understand the need for hard evidence, but shouldn't Tucker of all people be going over the anomalies and the statistics and looking into the server story for himself? Seems to me the public debate is dancing around the issue of whether are judiciary is hopelessly compromised and political or could limit themselves to ruling on the law. All these criticisms and jabs at Rudy and Sidney feel to me like lawyers trying to foreclose on this thing getting into the courts ("they don't have a case") where we might all find out just how impartial our courts can be or not be.

    1. Mark, my take or impression is that most lawyers are not really math people--they're used to dealing in words. I realize that's a very broad statement, but my impression is that they're not comfortable with presenting statistical evidence and arguing it, so they tend to be skeptical. I can understand that feeling, but here I do find the statistical data to be compelling. As for pundits, for sure they're not math types.

    2. I don't think a significant number of people, perhaps even a majority, understand math or statistics one bit. So they don't understand the numbers at all.
      I also believe a majority has poor reading comprehension. Many people can't read and comprehend simple instructions.
      But if some witness, under oath, is testifying and broadcast on TV they'd understand. But MSM squashes that. Plus, on the communist side they have witnesses lie all the time and everyone knows it. ie SCOTUS confirmations. So the dems really don't consider a witness as reliable.
      But I think collectively Trump will pervail.
      I think so many different types of fraud went on that collectively Biden got way more votes than possible and once one peg falls they all eventually will.
      I also think anyone caught in election fraud should do hard time for 5 plus years or one year per vote if over 5 votes were stolen.

  3. Has anyone done this kind of analysis on Georgia? That count was certified today. While the “plan” proceeds on its own pace I suppose the attorneys involved know what dates are absolutely critical to their ability to present the evidence and affect the outcome. I readily admit the Durham timing and now this unfolding situation are very hard on my psyche as I try to stay positive. The other side will not accept a negative result no matter how strong the evidence so
    hopefully the good guys are ready for everything.

  4. It is important analysis because the process for obtaining an absentee ballot in these states, except for Nevada, is this- the voter has to make a formal request- an action must be take by the voter before the state can legally mail out a ballot. Braynard's work is already showing that the states were following their own laws- there is no way 1/3 of the sample in Pa, for example, is lying about applying for an absentee ballot. This is first part of the Democrats fraud- making sure there was a surfeit of ballots floating around.

    It will be interesting to see how where these respondants live in the various states. I bet most of them live in Democrat controlled counties almost exclusively.