Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
Posted on 11/21/2020 3:50:08 PM PST by Pollard
Executive Summary
We find considerable evidence consistent with the possibility of electoral fraud in vote counts in Montgomery County, PA.
In particular, we examine a highly anomalous update to mail vote totals in the NYT/Edison data which enormously benefited Biden, and which looks suspicious on a number of dimensions.
At a high level, our results are suggestive of a new and highly suspicious batch of mail ballots being added to the count sometime between Wednesday early morning and Thursday morning. These ballots are drawn from an implausible distribution that enormously favored Biden and simultaneously harmed Trump (the latter being done in addition by allocating more votes to Jorgensen). Said mail ballots end up being extremely different both from the mail ballots that came before (as measured in NYT data), and the mail ballots that came afterwards (as measured in the county’s own data).
The key evidence is as follows:
⦁ On Thursday November 5th at 9:09am a large batch of 90,022 mail/absentee votes get added that has over 95% support for Biden, but total votes to go up by only 9,534, implying that in-person votes actually went down by 80,488. On its own, this is a very strange irregularity, as ballots cannot disappear, and in-person ballots cannot become mail ballots. Something is wrong in the reported data, the only question is what.
⦁ The new batch of 90,022 mail ballots looks nothing like existing mail ballots. If the update is a data error, it must be a complicated error along multiple dimensions and is unlikely to be a simple typo. The new batch is improbable on four separate dimensions:
(Excerpt) Read more at revolver.news ...
Excellent! Get it before an honest judge, stat!
I suspected this was going on in the collar Counties, and this confirms my suspicion. Delaware, Chester, and Bucks should be examined as well.
They’re NO HONEST JUDGES ANYMORE!
Yep - at the end of the very well reasoned article is the following:
When looking at votes counted up to November 10th, the mail ballots show a striking consistency in votes for Biden. The lowest precinct in terms of election day in-person vote share for Biden is Franconia 5, where only 16.3% of votes went for Biden. But even here, apparently 60.4% of mail votes up to November 10th went to Biden! The crazily heavy Republican precincts nonetheless all sent in strong majorities of mail votes for Biden. ....... The most striking thing is simply the disconnect in the levels, whereby mail ballots assigned to extremely heavy Republican precincts still voted overwhelmingly for Biden.
Folks should read this because the math is the strongest thing we have to show gigantic irregularities in only a few counties that completely changed the results of the election.
The numbers listed in this piece are impossible. We are talking some 1 in a million stuff here.
Writes an article analyzing Presidential election results and the American Professor can't even use his real name. He must be involved in some kind of international multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operation.
/s
Is it available anywhere?
ML/NJ
I’m not sure if the links are still up, but there are a number of folks that scraped the site for the data.
Hope springs eternal! :-)
Must be but I have no idea where. On nyt website presumably
The name, Simon Fish, is an English translation of Simeon Poisson, a famous French mathematician of the 19th century.
Yes! This is very important!
The way the deep state perpetrators did the numbers on Biden is statistically impossible!
Trump got 410 electoral votes!
Biden is probably sitting in his bunghole basement and has no idea what’s going down-probably doesn’t care either!
A large batch of ballots were added at 9am in the morning that were 95% for Biden. This seems to be a strong trend on all the swing states where Trump was leading and then *poof* his lead disappears.
Every comparison of pairs of candidates shows improbable changes. This is important, as it helps rule out the possibility that a single typo in the data drives the pattern.
Irrespective of the old distribution, the new batch is extremely unlikely on its own terms, as it has a ratio of support for Jorgenson relative to Trump (20%) that is higher than virtually every county in America. The last fact is consistent with aiming to get Biden’s vote share “high but not impossibly high” while simultaneously trying to not give any more votes to Trump than absolutely necessary.
The distribution of the ballots being removed from the in-person counts is even more implausible (98.1% Biden), making it difficult to explain the overall vote update as being due to genuine mail ballots having been previously incorrectly classified as in-person.
They added votes to Biden out o thin air. They pulled votes from Trump and gave them to Jorgenson.
Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
I have been screaming this since the day after the election. The fraud is definitely in Montco also Chester, Delaware and Allegheny counties...probably more than Philly.
Some people have claimed that they did this more in Trump country than blue cities. Anywhere they could get those damn machines in probably.
The main takeaway from this long piece re: this is that AFTER election day the percentage of mail-in ballots for Biden increased. Combine this with Montgomery County (outskirts of Philly) where apparently Joe Jorgenson got the highest percentage anywhere in the country?
The math does NOT add up and frankly it makes the claims of the Trump campaign far more credible. I know we have beaten the dead horse, but at the very least this stuff must be looked at and closely examined because the statistical analysis at the least shows a lot of smoke. Can anyone explain why the libertarian candidate would so overperform in a predominately minority community?
Anyone?
And consider the implausibility of that 95%!!
The article indicated that all absentee ballots from the county were sent to the same P.O. box. Hence, all ballots would be mixed together from all parts of the county. We know that from statistical modeling (especially well defined in polling algorithms), indicate that only 1000 or so samples need to be taken to get very close to a complete sample for the entire population. In this case it was 90,000 votes! This is a huge sample size and the fact this sample disagrees with all other samples by a large margin is statistically impossible (not just unlikely). This one finding is proof that these are not real votes. And the fact they reduced the in-person count at the same time is just icing on the case.
Of course the only other explanation is that this was an entry error but I think the article sufficiently debunks that theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.