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

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


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

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?


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


  1. Tim Owens

    The avalanche of Trump votes strained their cheating methods to the max but, they had totally unbelievable Chinese-printed-up reserves ready for a doomsday scenario. SINCE THE DEMS DIDN’T MIND CHEATING FOR VICTORY THEN, THEY SHOULDN’T MIND ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ SUPPORTING MARTIAL LAW TO STOP THEM.

  2. JR

    Suppose they were to perform forensic audits, do you think time of day audits should also be considered or was the software manipulated to yield vote flips of the noted magnitude at pseudo-random intervals?

  3. Sheri

    Tim Owens: There is not a snowball’s chance in a warm place that Trump will declare martial law. He WILL NOT DEFEND AGAINST DOMESTIC ENEMIES. For one thing, the feminized, SJW military will not back him. They are sissies and will not go there. So, learn to love Biden/Harris.

    “The first thought of many citizens is that common ballot stuffing cannot produce massive fraud so accept the results and move on.” The Democrats have been doing this by the TRUCKLOAD for decades. There is NO SUCH THING AS COMMON BALLOT STUFFING.

    All the statistics in the universe will NOT stop Joe from being president–or shall I say Obama, since he fully admitted he will be running the show on national television. NOTHING. It’s over for this election. You can use the statistics to pass laws (excuse me, I bent over double in laughter for a moment) to stop this but after decades of fraud and no action, honestly, you don’t deserve success. In 1933, the Democrats moved the inaugeration, etc to January, making it IMPOSSIBLE to oppose an election. They win all the way around because Republicans are watching football and drinking beer. They are still watching football, though only God knows why…..Anyway, until you understand order and acting before the car is over the cliff, the horse is out of the barn, the toothpaste is out of the tube, etc, YOU WILL BE LOSERS. That’s reality.

    Until you understand that Supreme Court justices are Judases, you will never win. Until you understand that most of the government is dishonest and vile and will be voted in over and over–well, your chances of winning at this point are pretty much zip. Too little action and very, very too late.

  4. DAV

    The problem, as I see it, is that a statistical analysis can only suggest that fraud occurred and can’t prove it. The results we’ve seen are highly improbable without fraud but are still possible.

    So the question is: Now What?
    [*] A simple recount will just return the same results unless there were large numbers of ballots for Biden that were counted multiple times.
    [*] An audit of the ballots likely won’t do as well. How do we know the votes weren’t changed?
    [*] The records of who voted are likely lost.
    [*] No court seems willing to even consider the likelihood of fraud including SCOTUS. It seems odd that Texas, et al would have no standing without hearing what they had to say. It’s as if state A can pollute a river shared with downstream state B and state B can’t get any relief

    Frankly, it’s beginning to look like a lost cause. Even if fraud is proven, the only real remedy would be another election and that will not happen.

  5. Tim Owens

    Well, I’m afraid you are right but, I, personally, have an Ace up my sleeve as the cure for all this. I have an excellent record of getting my prayers answered so, I think that I shall direct them towards having a massive asteroid smack and fry the Earth. Sure, we’ll all be dead but, I think that as the cockroaches emerge as the new dominant species on the planet that they will stand a far better chance than we of perfecting civilization.

  6. Hun

    It’s foolish to expect that this will change the official election result, but it is still important to do if one wants to delegitimize the system.

  7. Charles Twardy


    Why do you assume “The number of absentee ballots for each candidate should be uncorrelated”? People in the same precinct have a *lot* in common, including employers, schools, schedules, economic situation, and infection rate. Reds are less concerned than Blues about COVID, but I’d hazard the the percentage of precaution takers (and absentee voters) varies with nearby infection rate.

    So my guess is the likelihood ratio is about 1:1 – both theories explain the data pretty well.

    One test would be to check the scatterplots from other years. Have you?

  8. Clazy

    As conservatives, we should maintain our faith in process, even if it’s hard to see the path it will create. It gave us Trump, after all, and almost no one saw his election coming, much less the great success of his first term. Keep digging for the truth!

  9. JH

    Implications for Decision Makers: Considerations for Further Action

    … 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.

    What are the problematic states? Why random selection? Things already happened. Trump campaign should just go ahead and investigate if there is a whiff of fraud; and pays for the investigation.

    Is this defeat so devastating that people are believing everything that seemingly gives them a ray of hope?

  10. JH

    “So …. This claim ignores that question altogether to treat each vote as if it were a coin flip.”

    If each vote is treated as a coin flip, then the same analysis can be used to demonstrate vote/voter fraud in all red states too. As I said before, the binomial model (coin-flip for each vote) is invalid, e.g., voters in the same household tend to vote the same way, hence nondependent. Furthermore, the probability of voting for Trump could differ depending on the neighborhood.

  11. jim fedako

    DAV –

    I agree the election turned on massive fraud. However, your comment, “It’s as if state A can pollute a river shared with downstream state B and state B can’t get any relief,” is not analogous to the situation. The Ohio legislature could have made a farce of the election and chosen to annul the vote, and subsequently given the Ohio electors to Biden. Texas would not have any standing in this.

    The only one with standing is Trump, since he was not afforded a fair election.

  12. Uncle Mike

    The system is de-legitimate. Traitor Joe and Kommie Ho are illegitimate. The cockroaches have already taken over; no asteroid needed. What is important now is that the soulless slimesuckers are reminded of how evil and despised they are every minute of every day for the next four years.

    Unless the Kraken can pull a rabbit out of the hat. The lovely Kraken. Good kitty. Feed the kitty.

  13. Darin Johnson

    “The number of absentee ballots for each candidate should be uncorrelated.”

    Surely the *numbers* are correlated — large precincts will have large numbers of absentee ballots for each candidate.

    Perhaps you mean the percentage of ballots that are absentee. But these could be correlated, too. Precincts with, say, lots of elderly voters would have higher percentages for each candidate.

    What am I missing?

  14. Sheri

    DAV: I agree that it is hopeless. Even if fraud is proven beyond a doubt, no one is going to overturn an election no matter how much cheating occured. No one has the balls.

    I have no idea what next. The obvious answer is succession and civil war IF we really want our representative republic. I can’t believe we will do this. We simply become subjects and lose our freedom. You are right—we have no choice. We sold our republic and there is no do-over.

    Tim: I was hoping for the asteroid to hit BEFORE the election. Sadly, no luck.

    Hun: Completely agree.

    Clazy. NO, the system is completely broken. You want unicorns and fairies. Trump was an anomaly and will NOT happen again. It’s lost.

    Jim: How do fight a federal election that was stolen if the states are basically their own countries and have all the rights? It’s not really a federal election at all and the Electoral College becomes a joke. If five states can override 45 states, then the election is just those 5 states. The other 45 do not count. It’s not a United States, it’s 50 separate nation states. That’s all I can see in this.

  15. Stephen Rasey

    \\ The number of absentee ballots for each candidate should be uncorrelated. //

    Why? While I believe there is much election fraud, I am not convinced this analysis supports it.

    First of, it is not “the number of absentee ballots”, but the PERCENT absentee.

    Second, IF there is an overall propensity for Democrats to vote absentee compared to Republicans, why shouldn’t the percentages correlate?

    I agree, the correlation is indeed suspicious. The snakes seem too in concert. Yet as Republicans were cautioned about mail ballot security, and Democrats were urged to vote by mail, plus common logistical elements within precincts, some correlation should be expected. But how much?

  16. Dean Ericson

    More nefarious vote exposure in Michigan:

    This one has computer experts examining Dominion machines and concluding:

    “We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results”

    Link to forensics report:

  17. jim fedako

    Sheri –

    Trump has standing, in my opinion. But I have no standing in the process that gave Michigan votes to Biden. Nor does (say) the Ohio legislature.

    Keep in mind that some states are moving to have their electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote, regardless the vote count in their respective states. If that had been true today, the electoral votes in the swing states would have gone to Biden in the end.

  18. Dixon Craig

    \\ The number of absentee ballots for each candidate should be uncorrelated. //
    Not Necessarily.
    ‘Something’ causes a voter to vote by mail.
    It could be something that effects both Democrats and Republicans.
    For example, a precinct may have an unusually large elderly population who have trouble standing in line all day. Or maybe a large population of working poor who do not want to take time off work.
    Perhaps the precinct was the subject of ‘mostly peaceful’ protests, or an intense Covid scare and people do not want to gather in public.

    Parallel Snakes are not good evidence of fraud. Good evidence is someone coming forward and admitting they re-programmed voting machine or they ran ballots through several times in return for a bribe.

  19. DAV

    jim fedako,
    The Ohio legislature could have made a farce of the election and chosen to annul the vote, and subsequently given the Ohio electors to Biden. Texas would not have any standing in this.

    Yes, you are right but you missed the point of the argument that Texas was making: PA, et al illegally degraded Texan votes thus causing harm to Texas. No different in principle than PA polluted our streams. So, yes, Texas should have had standing. SCOTUS didn’t allow Texas to state present its case.

    The states named as defendants allowed illegal voting by bypassing their state legislatures to change the voting laws. In PA they could only be changed by amending the state constitution — an arduous process which never happened.

  20. DAV

    \\ The number of absentee ballots for each candidate should be uncorrelated. //
    Not Necessarily. ‘Something’ causes a voter to vote by mail.

    But %dem votes should not have any correlation to %rep votes within a precinct. Should have nothing to do with voting by mail. Note the nine precinct plots and only one shows any correlation. Gotta wonder why.

    Good evidence is someone coming forward and admitting they re-programmed voting machine or they ran ballots through several times in return for a bribe.

    Much better evidence is someone coming forward …
    There, fixed it for you.

  21. jim fedako

    DAV –

    I didn’t “miss the point of the augment.” I simply do not agree it is valid.

    I really do not know how Texas was harmed. Was the Texas electoral count affected?

    Look, to be heard by the Supreme Count in a timely manner, the claim had to arise from the states. But that procedural maneuver does not validate the claim.

    You are making an assertion that I believe false.

    The Supreme Court agrees (not that the court has a record of ruling in a just manner).

    Note: I agree there was fraud that turned the election. But that does not make the states’ claim any more valid.

  22. Tim Owens

    Under a Biden administration…rather, a shadow Ostupid-Soros administration, all rays of hope will be extinguished. I, and HUGE numbers of disenfranchised voters, will quit voting. Period. The Thugocracy will control ALL elections without fear as the chickensh*t courts have firmly established that they regard elections as Kryptonite. Proof, anomalies, correlations, and evidence means NOTHING. Dominion machines will be mandated by the Feds and the states had better cooperate if they want to keep getting Federal funds for roads or, for anything. Thugs 1 USA 0, Game Over, Man! GAME OVER!. We’re screwed FOREVER if Trump rolls over and lets them get away with the crime of the century.

  23. Amateur Brain Surgeon

    Most Americans think their experience of the past – although corrupt – will simply continue as it has during the lifetimes of them and their parents.

    But the massive fraud has changed everything and brought the country to a point where it is staring into a bottomless chasm and the view is shocking and many want to listen to the establishment which tells them that while there may have been fraud it is not large enough to overturn the election etc etc and just be patient until the next election cycle where the republicans can take back the house…

    Trump is a different breed and he has turned a deaf ear to the political pablum

    He is unlike any politician America has ever seen. You tube vids show him wrestling during a WWRF event. He is an anti politician who says outrageous things and he knows he is loved by his followers for saying such things.

    One wonders if his rhetoric has also fundamentally changed him. Has he paid enough attention to his own words to understand he has given signals that indicate a clear intent to act to preserve what is salvageable of America?

    He clearly loves America.

    Now, has he seen enough, heard enough and said enough to continue n his path to cross the Rubicon, declare a state of insurrection exists, and seize control of the govt militarily? He has to know if he does that, he will be the object of assassination attempts.

    IF he does this, there will be war in America.

    Other than that, it is just anther Monday in America

  24. Ryan

    WMB: Can you add another line to the chart which is the percentage of all votes which were absentee for each numbered precinct? I’m having trouble understanding why the R and D lines shouldn’t be correlated. If in any individual precinct there were a lot more absentee than in person votes then the percentage of each candidate’s votes there which were absentee should be higher.

  25. Tim Owens

    For me, better war than slavery in a huge banana republic. Enjoy the new American Corruptocracy, slaves.

  26. BB

    Interesting analysis. Two observations:

    1) As others have noted, this is based on the assumption that the % of Biden voters which used an absentee vote ought to be independent of the % of Trump voters in a given precint. While this assumption looks reasonable, it is still an unproved assumption and thus a weak point of the argument. If you can (somehow) provide evidence for this assumption, it will strengthen your case considerably.

    2) This just analyses one county. That leaves you open to the accusation of cherry-picking your data. Perhaps you just selected the one county where, by chance, there is this correlation, and hidden away all the others which don’t support your thesis. Maybe some other counties show a similar degree of correlation going the other way (i.e. higher Biden % correlates with lower Trump %), and there is a continuous distribution of gradients of the curve. This one just happens to be the most extreme and you deliberately discarded all the rest. I don’t expect that this is true, but your data isn’t sufficient to prove this possible accusation false.

    This analysis needs to be supplimented by a similar analysis in other counties and states as a control, including those where there is no hint of corruption, to give a reasonable control. Otherwise it will be all too easy for a competent defence to cast enough doubt to defeat it in court.

  27. Brian McCarthy

    Sorry, I don’t follow this at all. Why should %Absentee R and %Absentee D be uncorrelated across precincts? Shouldn’t they be correlated as a result of demographics, density, existence of public transport, etc?

  28. Eric Quinnell

    Perhaps we should have put a baseline for folks to consider, using a quantitative PEARSON coefficient to prove the point.

    Fulton County, GA 2020 per precinct %REP vs %DEM PEARSON: 0.256 (doesn’t correlate), no constant multiplier
    New Mexico per county PEARSON: -0.142 (doesn’t correlate), no constant multiplier
    Eaton County per precinct PEARSON: 0.813 (correlates), semi-constant multiplier

    Eaton County is not special per precinct, nor is Michigan per county. This correlation exists sporadically in many counties and many states, while others are are completely non-corollary. Signature also goes back in time in some places in 2016.

    Correlation is not causation. But logically ask: why would absentee ballots as a % of the total vote be correlated to competing candidates, at a constant multiple? Does 1 Trump absentee supporter call 1.5 of his friends to file absentee with him, and only do so if they all do it together? And why has this been going on for some time?

    And if true, why not elsewhere in the country? Neither corollary or at a constant multiple.

    What is the explanation for this? Including back in 2016? But only some places…

    For extra credit, why does the %absentee of total votes and of total registrations also correlate? Which is the base variable here?

  29. DAV

    Ryan: I’m having trouble understanding why the R and D lines shouldn’t be correlated
    Brian McCarthy: Why should %Absentee R and %Absentee D be uncorrelated across precincts?
    BB: this is based on the assumption that the % of Biden voters which used an absentee vote ought to be independent of the % of Trump voters in a given precint
    among others.

    The problem is that in Eaton County the difference between %D and %R is almost a constant. IOW: they are in lock step — you can predict one from the other. One would expect a larger variation in the differences. Imagine asking 44 people taking two at a time and asking the one on the right to give you a number (R) and the one on the left always gives you R+n. The probability of that happening is around 1/1000000.

    While only mentioned in the PDF, Oakland and Wayne counties also showed the same pattern. Biden got 50-60% more votes everywhere in Michigan including all the counties that voted FOR Trump in 2016. The vote distribution hardly changed from county to county.

  30. Mike B

    Read the analysis. A few questions. IMO the only things that matter are the two large batches of absentee ballots that were processed at 3:54 and 4:02. How were they received? Mail or drop box? If they’re from suburban Lansing drop boxes, it’s entire possible that this is legit

  31. RB

    Mr. Briggs, can you put up some plots of data, like that given by Eric Quinnell in the comments, showing that percent absentee vote for each party in a given precinct is __uncorrelated__ under normal circumstances?

  32. Dean Ericson

    Mr. Briggs, can you kindly detonate a neutron bomb that eliminates leftists? Would clarify matters wondrously. Thanks in advance.

  33. Briggs


    These are from Eric.



  34. DAV

    Jim Fedako,

    Rehnquist, in Bush v. Gore, said Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of appointment of electors and a significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question. It reasoned that Florida violated the legislative mandate. Whatever, “significant departure” means.

    This is the heart of the Texas complaint: PA, et al did not live up to the agreement made (Article II) when joining the Union. In an amicus curiae supporting Texas:

    While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court.

    So, yes, how other states acted affected Texas. They violated the Constitution. SCOTUS dodged this without outlining the reasoning so we are left wondering why Texas had no standing; why they declined to hear argument for enforcing Article II; and what exactly would be necessary for standing to exist.

  35. Eric Quinnell

    Updated: trimmed some unnecessary personal anecdotes to focus discussion on data, process, and questions I wish to solicit.

    Dr. Briggs posted some of the graphs requested, but naturally this will merely increase the requests for even more data. The data is abundant; we posted some signatures worth looking into, and you are more than welcome to extract more yourself to support any hypothesis you wish. We are happy to provide more if it is already available.

    The “parallel snake” effect is merely one of the many oddities we’ve found over the last month — it’s just the most curious, which is why we post it here.

    Curiosities aside, perhaps we should expand the post with other relevant questions, as some of the feedback already is expansive.

    What is a better use of our resources as a whole? Is it to statistically sample and audit oddities? Or is it to file lawsuits all the way to SCOTUS to prevent even looking? Our system has chosen the latter. Why?

    1 allegation not under oath was enough to bring impeachment proceedings against a sitting president. Yet 5,000+ affidavits are not enough to warrant enough evidence for an audit. Why? Are we that partisan? Will that now apply to even math analysis? If there’s nothing to see here, why are we looking at such a ridiculous graph? I am unsatisfied with any and all explanations to date.

    The null hypothesis currently includes impossible probabilities. Occam’s razor can mean whatever a political lens wants it to mean. At some point the probabilities are meaningless and events are occurring outside voting behavior — e.g. encouraging more absentee voting by party may superficially explain some counties, but the thesis is defeated in some easy samples elsewhere. The signature is too controlled to be that of simple voting behavior, is it not? Perhaps there’s a central counting board explanation?

    At the end of the day, all we can do is provide snippets of data such as this. Perhaps we will publish the rest in the future. Until then, only YOU can convince yourself. Our data exists for the public and the courts to consume or ignore.

    I certainly hope folks get what they voted for. More importantly I certainly hope your vote isn’t an illusion and hasn’t been for at least a decade. Whether one believes that or not should not be from a lack of data, which we are happily providing.

    But I’m rather convinced the math in many forms says SOMEthing unnatural or external occurred. Was it clandestine, benevolent, or an innocent constraint?

    Believing what actually occurred is left to you, and you alone.

  36. jim fedako

    DAV –

    Sorry, you are letting your emotions rule. Bush v. Gore was not (say) Florida v. Texas. Do you see the difference in standing? If so, why are you conflating the two?

    Once again, Texas has no standing in the swing states. Nothing that happened in those states affected the Texas electors. You can wish it so, but it ain’t so.

  37. John B()


    Thank you

  38. DAV

    Sorry, you are letting your emotions rule.

    Never occurred to me you have a degree in mind reading. How else would you think you know my emotional state? You must not have been paying much attention in class or they took you for a sucker. Maybe you can get your money back.

    There are a rather large number of amicus briefs and signers who disagree with your assessment of Texas standing. Maybe they are being emotional as well. Perhaps you can take a peek at their minds and tell us with your (*ahem*) “skill”?

  39. Darin Johnson

    This has been a frustrating post. Eric Quinnell, I appreciate your efforts to clarify, but I’m afraid it has not increased my confidence in the analysis.

    Near as I can tell, the confusion stems from you saying in the text that the percentage of absentee ballots “should not” be correlated, and then clarifying in the comments that you meant they have not been correlated in past elections. There are *many* things different about absentee ballots this time around. Is this really the thin reed we’re hanging our conclusion on?

    I certainly hold out the possibility (based on Bayesian wo-wo-wo feelings — 37.6%) that I’ve misunderstood something. So no disrespect intended, please.

  40. 1 – to the extent that I’ve looked at the numbers it seems obvious to me that there were three separate kinds of cheating going on in addition to the usual zombie and illegal vote for democrats:

    1.1 – some people ran multiple stacks of ballots favoring Biden through multiple times during regular counting;
    1.2 – something very similar to the fraud alleged by Soloman ( ) occured across the country; and,
    1.3 – some people added ballots and “adjusted” numbers after the election.

    So, will Trump get his day in court? I’m betting on it – and when that happens I’m hoping things end with a Bang! (but a whimper seems possible too).

    p.s. I did a draft article on how to fix the elections mess – see my alter-ego site. Comments would be welcome. (rudy at winface dot com )

  41. RB


    I’m not sure why asking for data which would make the argument in the post clearer was such a faux pas? Our gracious host then put up a few graphs showing some of the data I was curious about, which was all I asked for.

  42. Uncle Mike

    Thanks, Eric. Never give an inch.

    What I chose to believe or conclude, based on all the pertinent opinions and data I have encountered, is that widespread systemic vote fraud occurred in numerous states, including my own.

    Oregon has had vote-by-mail since 1998. Every election is rife with fraud. It is well known here. The people vote one way, the results are the opposite. We have a one-party state with deep corruption and social and economic decay. The ruling party has excessive disdain for the citizens and our well-being. In the most recent election heroin and methamphetamine possession were decriminalized. Our governor is decadent, corrupt, authoritarian beyond law, and an actual witch, in a coven, who worships Satan. We suffer under a twisted travesty of deceit and destruction. All thanks to fraudulent vote-by-mail. That’s what is in store for the entire country when fair elections and rule of law are abandoned.

    Some may celebrate the victory of a known corrupt traitor, and insist that contrary opinions be silenced. They lose something that should be dear to them: their God-given human rights. Squandering your freedom for political victory will not serve you. Such foolishness is despicable.

  43. Eric Quinnell

    Updated my response to a proper, anecdote-less post. My experiences need not pollute the discussion of the data, which I now see as shutting down the conversation. Edited, please continue, I should never harp on solicitations for more data.

  44. Some commenters have pointed out that democrats were more likely to use mail in ballots. There’s also still some never Trump conservatives. Trump is also a negative vote turnout machine. Look at 2018. I voted for him twice (considering the alternative). He did a lot of things I like that no other president would or could’ve done, but he’s also sleazy, narcissistic, a pathological liar and making conservatives who tout values look like 80’s era televangelist hypocrites. It’s time to move on and find a better candidate. I recommend Ted Cruz.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *