Sunday, December 20, 2020

UPDATED: Bill Binney's Bombshell Examined

Bill Binney has thrown a bit of a bombshell into the debate about the Election Hoax. Working off a WaPo article, Binney calculates that Biden may have actually received something like 66 million votes--for short of his supposed mega landslide of 80 million and also far short of Trump's 74 million. 

However, a closer examination of the premises behind the WaPo article suggests that Binney misunderstood premises on which the WaPo reporters' statistics were based.

Before we get into the numbers, here's the Wikipedia short bio of Binney, to show that he really does have a "head for numbers" and to explain why I took his thesis at face value:

Binney grew up in rural Pennsylvania and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from the Pennsylvania State University in 1970. He said that he volunteered for the Army during the Vietnam era in order to select work that would interest him rather than be drafted and have no input. He was found to have strong aptitudes for mathematicsanalysis, and code breaking,[6] and served from 1965 to 1969 in the Army Security Agency before going to the NSA in 1970.

Binney was a Russia specialist and worked in the operations side of intelligence, starting as an analyst and ending as a Technical Director prior to becoming a geopolitical world Technical Director. In the 1990s, he co-founded a unit on automating signals intelligence with NSA research chief Dr. John Taggart.[7] Binney's NSA career culminated as Technical Leader for intelligence in 2001. He has expertise in intelligence analysistraffic analysissystems analysisknowledge management, and mathematics (including set theorynumber theory, and probability).

Here's what I included in a post this morning, quoting Binney:

REVEALED: ‘Simple Math’ Shows Biden Claims 13 MILLION More Votes Than There Were Eligible Voters Who Voted in 2020 Election

Correspondent Margaret contacted me this evening, having run the numbers and seen that they didn't add up. Here is her analysis, which led me to go back to examine the WaPo's premises:

According to the Washington Post 2020 voter turnout in raw numbers was the highest in over a century.  That is believable due to the large number of absentee ballots that were enabled this special Covid year. Based on the total votes, 19.6 million more people voted than had ever voted before in an election. (159,633,396, first ever to go over 140 million).

When you do the math using actual tallies of registered voters in each state as of the most recent point before the election cutoff in each state you find something interesting.

turnout = # votes /# registered to vote = 66.2 % (WaPo)

There were 159,633,396 total votes for President (81.3  million for Biden and 74.2 for Trump 4.1 others)

Total registered to vote = 213.8 million

So total 159.6 votes divided by 213.8 = 74.6 percent voter turnout

Why the discrepancy? If WaPo's voter turnout percentage is correct and only 66.2 percent of registered voters turned out and the vote total should be only 141.6 million. Where did the other votes come from? 

If we take the voter turnout percentage and multiply times the registered voter total:

66.2 percent x 214 million registered voters gives us 141,668,000.

Yet 159.6 million votes were counted.

So, with that under our belts, here is what the WaPo article states about their numbers:

Turnout figures are based on historic and current estimates from the U.S. Elections Project of citizens age 18 and over who are eligible to register and vote, and of ballots cast.

I read this to mean that, for purposes of the WaPo article, turnout = ballots cast / all citizens "eligible to register and vote." Thus, the WaPo's turnout percentage appears to be based on a percentage of those who were theoretically eligible, not on a percentage of those who actually registered

The number of those who are ELIGIBLE to register and then to vote is, of course, smaller than the number who actually DO register. The number who register and then actually do vote is, once again, smaller than the number who simply register. The result is that if we look at the larger total number of persons who were theoretically eligible to register and then to vote and compare that to the actual number of votes, we come up with ~66%. But if we compare the smaller number of persons who actually did register to vote to the same actual number of votes, we get, as expected, a higher percentage: ~73%.

If my reasoning is correct, then Binney's numbers were based on a faulty reading of the article. I hope commenter EZ will take comfort in this. He gets to chide me for not examining the WaPo's premises more closely and relying blindly on Binney's authority.

Thanks go to Margaret for setting this out so clearly.

UPDATE: It should go without saying, but I will say it: 73% of registered voters actually voting is still a crazy high number. That comes back to the crazy and historically high number of votes supposedly cast and all the anomalies and irregularities that have been documented. So, none of the above is a validation of the election numbers. It's simply a questioning of Binney's interpretation.


  1. Sorry, but the 73% of registered voters voting number is pretty ridiculous, too, even as Binney wrongly analyzed the data.

  2. Can someone with a twatter send a link to Bill please and ask for comment? I'd be interested in hearing his feedback.

    By reputation he is not that unreachable or unreasonable if that is his actual twatter.

    A dozen doughnuts says he'd give us (if not everyone) a correction and/or explanation on his analysis and proper credit if corrected.

  3. Why would WAPO use as its base the total number of eligible voters, unless it is to reduce the percentage of people who voted to a more credible 66% rather than the jaw dropping 73% “of ballots cast”? I am not a numbers geek, (apologies to Margaret if that sounds insulting) but isn’t the latter figure further evidence of voter fraud? When have we ever seen such a large percentage of voters?

    1. I was just getting ready to make exactly this comment- when I was looking at previous "turnout" numbers, it was always described by giving the percentage of registered voters, not "eligible to register" voters- literally always.

    2. That's the way I recall it as well: turnout = % registered voters. Gaslighting.

    3. I also see this is further evidence of cheating. We KNOW 43,000 voted in more than one state. We KNOW voter rolls
      were not cleaned up. GA refused to correct voter rolls of those who filed change of address forms. We KNOW some ballots were fed through the machines multiple times. We have tape of cased pulled from under a table once observers were removed and counting supposedly stopped, yet they feverously fed ballots from those cases through the machines for hours. plenty of fraudulent numbers.

  4. Mark, you can atone by putting on your decoding ring and simplifying Dyer's article for us. "The key supporting effort appears to be underway on Trump’s operational timeline"

    1. The part that bothers me is, that John Roberts is also head of the FISA court. So why would he approve wholesale surveillance of election fraud?

    2. Mike, thanks for the link. I'm checking it out, in conjunction with Cassander's link of Kunstler's much briefer article and a few other things.

    3. Dyer's article was me.

      Is she suggesting that the SolarWinds hack was the vehicle by which the Chinese (and/or other malefactors) corrupted election results?

      And that Trump and his associates in DoD will be able to prove it?

      And that such proof will demonstrate fraud and reverse election results, even in the absence of action by state courts or legislatures, federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, the Electoral College or the United States Congress?

    4. @ Anon--John Roberts is NOT head of the FISC.

    5. @ Cassander she may just as well be suggesting that the this maze was intended to disguise enemies domestic engaged in election fraud.

    6. Yeah Anon & Mark, Boasberg is the Court head, appointed by Roberts.

    7. @Cassander; just read Dyer's article. Wow. She's basically saying hold your horses... Trump's got this. Interesting movement too w/the Defense council et al. Can't put my head together to suggest how this all plays out. Gonna get sloppy and messy.

  5. US census: 210M age 18 & over
    Do the math.

    1. Shouldn't that number be corrected far lower due to all the Covid deaths? :-)

    2. According to Statistica, the number is about 250 million (I had to estimate the percentage between the ages of 18-19 since the only statistic given was 15-19). Of course, not all of the 250 million are citizens- probably at least 10-20 million or more are non-citizens.

    3. Really? 250 million 18 YO and older in a country with total (legal) population of 330 million?

      That doesn't bode well for the country in 20 years or so, does it?

    4. Remember that 200 million of us died before the end of one of Biden's speeches. I guess at least half of all those people had already mailed in their ballots ahead of time.

    5. US Census 2016: Total pop 18+ 245M Total citizens 18+ 224M
      Total voters: 137M 61% of citizens
      2020 Total voters: 155.5M 68% of estimated 228M citi

      Remarkable, given the lack of enthusiasm for Biden, and his underperformance in all but a few key counties

    6. Barr found nothing remarkable about that or anything else.

  6. So much dreary news in the air, I can't help but share this OT but heartwarming story from the guys over at Powerline. Much worth a read to the end.

    "A Christmas Story"

  7. 73%? Totally believable. Happens in Venezuela and Cuba all the time.
    Tom S.

  8. I've posted similar numbers as Binney on other news sites. Using data from Number Of Registered Voters by State 2020 (, I calculated the following: Number of registered voters in the USA = 213,799,467;

    NBC suggests voter turnout was 66.8%, that's = 142,818,044 votes nationwide;

    Trump reportedly won 74,111,149 votes, leaving 68,706,895 votes on the table (assuming zero votes for either Trump or Biden);

    How did Biden get a reported 81,009,468 votes, 18% more votes than were available

    People complained that the data I used was "old" so I found data from accurate from September or October 2020, except that New York has no data newer than February 2020, and Massachusetts is August 2020, the number of registered voters is 118,740,040.

    Party Number of Registered Voters

    Democrat 47,106,084

    Republican 35,041,482

    Ind & Misc 33,696,700

    Libertarian 652,261

    Green 240,222

    Constitution 129,556

    Wk Families 49,758

    Reform 9,004

    Other 1,814,973

    Total 118,740,040

    I have also seen posts claiming the total number of votes was 240 millions, but that number is based on an article, updated on November 4th, which lists the number of eligible voters at 239.2 million with 159.8 million ballots cast (2020 election sees record high turnout with at least 159.8 million votes projected (

  9. The logic of the putative Binney post makes no sense to anyone who understands measurements versus calculations.

    The number of votes cast is a measured value (actually the sum of many smaller measurements) based on counting the votes.

    The "eligible voters" total (or registered voters) is a measured number, +/- some estimated adjustments. Basically it comes from the census, or for RV, from the sum of voters on voter lists.

    if you divide the ballots cast by the either the Voter Eligible Population or Registered Voters, you get a CALCULATED VALUE: the "voting rate."

    You cannot take a calculate number like the voting rate and use it to retroactively "calculate" the total ballots cast, because the voting rate is a calculated value based on votes cast, which is a measured value!

    This is arithmetic sophistry, something which the real Bill Binney would not engage in.

    I repeat my earlier suspicion, the twitter account with his name is not real -- it's a fake.

    If it is real, why do two people who know Binney as well as anyone have no links to the Binney twitter account in their twitter feeds?

    1. Bill Binney quote about social media:

      “I just don’t participate in social media. First of all, I don’t want them knowing about it, I don’t care to have them sharing and I certainly don’t want them to sell it. And I’m not gonna work for nothing.”

      >> <<

      DO you really think the guy who said this in an interview is posting inaccurate garbage on twitter today?

    2. He might or might not--I don't have the facts to make the determination. Something current from him on the subject would be helpful. That quote is the better part of 5 years old, so he may well have changed his mind. I'm open to a solution.

    3. Yeah, something current from him on the subject would indeed be helpful.
      Yeah, that quote is the better part of 5 years old, but in these days since this uproar started, "his" page has said *zip* about this aspect.
      Until that page addresses this aspect, I'll doubt that the page is really his.