Monday, November 9, 2020

Another Look At Biden-Only Ballots

This morning I posted Cultural Husbandry's thread on the election--going forward, as we say these days. Included was a short section that addressed the inherent improbability of all those Biden-only ballots that turned up after counting shutdowns. I just came across an enlightening passage at a previously commenter-recommended blog (Ray SoCal, I believe) that sheds additional light--and, as a bonus, also addresses the Benford Curve. So I'll just juxtapose the two passages below--they're that self explanatory.

Together or separately, what these quite passages do is show us the type of statistical evidence that any court should find compelling. It says--without any political argumentation: These identified events in the voting record are beyond anomalous. They are so wildly improbable that the systemic integrity of our electoral process is called into question. Unless this issue is addressed our elections will have no credibility. That's a hard argument to ignore, but--as Andy S. has noted--its very impersonality makes it a much easier road for a judge to go down when dealing with an election problem.

This is a major reason for optimism.

First, Cultural Husbandry:

Essentially most of the found votes turned up with a weird conundrum.

>They voted for Biden but did not vote for [anyone else]

>Essentially they only voted on a single thing per ballot.

>Statistically in the past this has happened at a rate of 3%.

>This year it ran at a rate of 18+%

>6x higher rate of ballots, but only a "26%" increase in voter turn out - statistical anomaly.

Next, MonsterHunterNation:

From physicist and author Travis Shane Taylor –

“In a sample space of 1 million marbles, 800,000 blue and 200,000 red the probability of drawing a blue marble is 80% the first time. To draw about 30 blue in a row is 0.124%. To draw 100 in a row is 0.0000000235%. To draw 250 in a row is more zeros to right of decimal point than stars in the universe!!!! To draw 138,000 blue marbles in a row is mathematically impossible within the age of the universe without human intent and interaction. In other words, cheating.”


Of course, when he wrote that it was before the 138k “typo” got retracted. So of course all the liberals who can’t balance their own checkbook immediately dismissed the whole thing… Problem is his math is almost as damning for 1k, 2k, 4k, 14k, or 23k marbles. You could even change it so that a bucket is 95% blue marbles, and the odds of you getting a thousand blue marbles in a row are functionally impossible. He used MathCad to calculate this. Excel doesn’t have enough zeros.  

You’ve probably also seen a lot of mention of Benford’s Law over the last few days. Posts talking about it have been getting vanished off of Facebook (that I can confirm firsthand).

Basically, when numbers are aggregated normally, they follow a distribution curve. When numbers are fabricated, they don’t. When human beings create what they think of as “random” numbers, they’re not. This is an auditing tool for things like looking for fabricated invoices. It also applies to elections. A normal election follows the expected curve. If you look at a 3rd world dictatorship’s election numbers, it looks like a spike or a saw.

There’s a bunch of different people out there running the numbers for themselves and posting the results so you can check their math. It appears that checking various places around the country Donald Trump’s votes follow the curve. The 3rd party candidates follow the curve. Down ballot races follow the curve. Hell, even Joe Biden’s votes follow the curve for MOST of the country. But then when you look at places like Pittsburgh the graph looks like something that would have made Hugo Chavez blush.

It’s amazing how all these extremely improbable statistical events just keep on happening, but only in the places where they make the most difference. Go figure. “It’s a miracle!” declared the Party of Science.


  1. Another way fraud was done...

    His wife’s ballot was declared as having voted twice.

    I wonder if that was deliberate to have her ballot thrown out?

    Or just going through eligible voters and cresting a ballot for them.

    The blog author is ex state department, pretty high up, and I have a lot of respect for him.

  2. From the Epoch Times:

    Election Systems in Michigan County
    Appeared to Be Connected to Internet:
    Sworn Affidavit

    Voting machines used in Michigan’s Wayne County appeared to have been connected to the internet, according to a sworn affidavit signed by a poll watcher.

    At approximately 11 p.m. on Nov. 3, Patrick Colbeck observed an icon identifying an active internet connection on the screens of the computers used to tabulate and adjudicate ballots.

    “All it takes to confirm the connectivity status of a Windows computer is to roll the cursor over the LAN connection icon in the bottom right comer of the display,” Colbeck’s sworn affidavit states. “When there is no internet connection, a unique icon showing a cross-hatched globe appears. I proceeded to review the terminal screens for the Tabulator and Adjudicator computers and I observed the icon that indicates internet connection on each terminal. Other poll challengers can attest to this observation as required.”

    More here:

  3. Welcome him to the fight

    1. Any chance, this noise from Mr. Wood will get some of the GOPe off of their dead asses?

  4. To your point regarding a judge going down their own road I recall an article about a judge in Ga. being asked for some relief re deceased voters and other irregularities. Judge says I want evidence not stories or reports-give me names of dead voters. Relief denied. The lawyers of course should be prepared for all this, but statistical anomalies might be a hard sell other than to get a recount. Maybe that’s all you need and of course the statistics may just be part of a larger body of evidence. Hopeful nonetheless.

  5. WOW Shippy is zinging

    1. No, that's Scott Hounsell. He's following up on a previous article and will probably do additional such articles on other states.

      This article, btw, largely confirms what Sergeant Friday and Cassander/Yancey Ward have been saying about--look at the suburban counties.

    2. I was thinking of doing a quick hit on that one.

  6. For a good popularization of some of the thinking in this post, see (popular enough to be in Wiki) novelist/ ex-accountant Larry Correia, at :

    "... what is potentially fatal for America is, half the populace believing that their elections are hopelessly rigged, and they’re eternally f*cked....
    ... as of yesterday morning, the Wisconsin Midnight Mystery Dump was something like 98.4% for Joe Biden. That’s better than the bluest of blue cities manage. That’s better than Biden did in DC.
    I saw one 28k dump yesterday (I want to say it was 538 talking about PA) that was listed as ALL for Biden. That’s basically *statistically impossible*.
    In a small populace, you can get 100% of the vote. However the larger the sample, the more likely there will be dissenting votes. Even in the bluest of blue areas or reddest of red areas, somebody is going to be a cranky dissident, or an old person is going to fill in the wrong circle.
    When you get into the hundreds or thousands, yet maintain that kind of perfect ratio, basically impossible.
    Plus we are spposed to believe that Joe Biden, the guy barely campaigned, who got like 12 sad looking people to his rallies, was more popular than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?"....

  7. @Mark

    I take it the reason to use statistical analysis in litigation being contemplated is to show the inherent improbability (or better, impossibility) of all those Biden-only ballots that turned up after counting shutdowns being 'valid' ballots... because the proponents can't find (or haven't yet found) related direct evidence of malfeasance by election officials in miscounting the underlying ballots.

    Why not?

    Some human being had to strike a keyboard in some election jurisdiction to turn x,000 Trump votes into x,000 Biden votes. If y00,000 Biden votes turned up without another vote for a down-ballot candidate, some human being had to strike a keyboard in some election jurisdiction to count those ballots. Or some illegitimate program did it automatically...but, if so, some human being somewhere struck a keyboard somewhere to add the illegitimate program. A log of those keyboard strikes must exist.

    Is the idea to rely on statistical inferences because no malfeasant human keyboard striker who will admit to his actions can be found within the time parameters necessary to challenge an election?

    I ask because surely such malfeasant human beings exist and can (and ultimately will) be found.

    And, just for one lead, I would suggest that law enforcement go ask Hillary Clinton if she knows who they are.

    1. Not exactly. It's to avoid a 'no harm no foul' ruling. That's my understanding. It's also to get past the 'clerical error' excuse by showing a pattern of such events in multiple states.

    2. Hmmm. Maybe so.

      I would still think that finding the perps who changed the votes (or inserted the program which changed the votes) is better evidence of fraud than statistical inferences...

      I am aware that commenter Andy S. has said that in his experience federal courts often reach conclusions based on statistical inferences...

    3. A statistical pattern supported by expert testimony can be far more probative than eyewitness testimony. Especially when the pattern of 'glitches' seems to extend across a particular subset of states ('swing states') and exhibit a partisan bias.

      The type of remedy being requested plays into this, as well.

    4. Obviously, you would love to find the perp. But likely to in the limited time we have, well, to quote the Big Guy, “C’mon Man.” Take a look at that hour long video Mark posted a few days ago that explained how vulnerable Dominion is. As I recall, they said that the exploits include the ability to swap out log files. That’s where the evidence will be—if it hasn’t been swapped out. They got lucky because an insider poll watcher (as I recall) downloaded a log file that let them see what had happened. Without that, all you have left, I suspect, is statistics.

      One of the key areas where federal judges use statistics is when looking at how legislatures have gerrymandered districts. That’s an example of their use by judges in the election setting. The plaintiff’s can’t “prove” the legislature’s motive; but they can show the result and eliminate other explanations to the point that a judge can conclude that the gerrymander was for an illegal purpose.

      Andy S.

  8. As Winnie the Pooh might say, why not both? Mine the data for statistical anomalies and also present sworn affidavits testifying to voter fraud? General and particular. Seems like a win to me.

    1. Of course both is best. And here’s some good evidence:
      6553 confirmed dead people voting. 7887 likely (includes confirmed but also includes others [most probably so old that they are likely dead even if not showing up in the SSA death database]).

    2. Here’s the complaint for Wayne County, MI alone. About 1/4 through it, but pretty damning.

      Andy S.

    3. I’ve now read the complaint. Two quick observations. 1. The affidavit stating that the poll workers were instructed to use a birthdate of Jan. 1, 1900 on absentee ballots can easily be checked. If it checks out, that gives credibility to all of the averments of that affidavit. 2. Very strange that they don’t allege violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and only allege violation of the Michigan Constitution EP clause. Makes it almost impossible to get SCOTUS review of an adverse decision of the Michigan Supreme Court. If they added a US Constitution claim, it would make the always difficult path to SCOTUS a little less difficult. Don’t understand that strategy.

      Andy S.

    4. Complaint filed in federal court in PA:

      Also pretty compelling.

    5. Re: my comment on the Jan. 1, 1900 birthdate. Look at this post and scroll down near the bottom (actually, read the whole thing, it is very good) to the photo that is taken of a computer screen -- It shows a bunch of DOB's of 1/1/1900. So that jives with what is alleged in the affidavit in the MI state court action. Maybe there's another explanation, but for now, that's giving that affidavit a lot of credibility.

      Also, when I was reading that RedElephant post, I noted the screen shots of Georgia results from NBC. It was reporting mail-in ballot requests and mailin/early in-person ballots returned by party (it does that for several of the battleground states). I zeroed in on GA because according to research I was doing earlier in the night, GA does not record party registrations. (In the small print, it says the party registration is "modeled".) Regardless, I was thinking that maybe this was a falsified screen capture so I went to NBC and found the results and low and behold, it is reporting absentee ballot requests by party.
      But, notice something strange? On the NBC site, it is no longer reporting mail-in and EV ballot returns by party. The absentee ballot return numbers are the same (4,011,169) but now NBC is reporting the return info by "vote type" (Mail in or early in-person).

      Ok, let's go deep on this. On RedElephant, the NBC screen captures for GA and AZ say "last updated Nov. 9." Looks like that's what it says for WI. For Michigan, the screen capture missed that part of the screen. But for each of them, NBC was reporting Mail-In and EV returns by party and for at least 2 of them and probably all of them, it did so on Nov. 9. Now look at the NBC site for each of those states. Each one was updated on Nov. 9 and the "button" was changed from "party registration" to "vote type." The only conclusion I can draw is that after RedElephant published, someone went in and changed the display button to not show returns by party. An investigative reporter might want to ask NBC why this happened and if the screenshots on RedElephant are accurate.

      Andy S.

  9. If I’m just entering vote totals into a spreadsheet, I totally understand how there’s a tendency to want to appear natural and have an even (but unnatural) distribution on the numbers. I’m glad it works in financial fraud, or voter fraud if a person was entering in digits, but I don’t see it being useful in this type of data.

    1. Go back and reread. This is a standard way to detect electoral fraud.

  10. Here's a 43 second clip from somebody who was recording CNN (I think) on election night.

    Start of video PA total votes are:

    Trump 1,690,589
    Biden 1,252,537

    At the end of the video the totals on the screen for PA are:

    Trump 1,670,631. -19,958 votes
    Biden 1,272,495. +19,958

    Talk about good eyes!!
    The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away...


    1. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away..."

      I guess that 10% to "The Big Guy" really paid off.

      Or maybe it was just the free will and nefarious design of some mortals.

    2. Again, my BS meter is swinging wildly. Why is someone sitting there recording this on an phone? Most likely, they taped it and then recorded the replay. But why does it cut off so quickly after the change? And there is what appears to be a split-second change in the video at that point and the words that are said are a repeat of what was just said. If the video had continued, would we have heard a complete sentence or did someone edit in the previous words a second time?

      Andy S. (OK, got to do some work now!)

    3. Unknown,

      One of the changes in technology is that pretty anyone can rewind live television coverage using the remote. So, surely happens in these cases today is this- the person was watching the very moment the change was made and was puzzled by it, so rewound the video feed to see if his eyes were deceiving him- he saw that it was not. So, to post to it twitter/facebook etc., it was just easier to capture it on the phone video recorder for upload. You would have a point were this the 1992 election, but not today.