Posted on 12/13/2020 12:10:47 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Ben Turner, the founder of FraudSpotters, a company that specializes in producing fraud detection software for insurance companies, said he recommends an audit of the Dominion voting machines after his review of the data.
Turner wrote that he was shocked by Sidney Powell’s claims that Dominion voting system switched votes from Trump to Biden. Turner said his goal was to disprove Powell’s claims, but his analysis revealed troubling concerns.
In his analysis, Turner writes:
“Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preference.
For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to have increased Biden outcomes (with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes) by 0.3% in Georgia, 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. The apparent average of 1.5% “Dominion Effect” is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia, and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada. It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported outcome in those two states.
Assuming the “Dominion Effect” is real, it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election.
These results are scientifically valid and have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100.”Ben Turner, FraudSpotters
Tuner concludes his review by calling for an audit. He writes, “The best way to restore faith in the system is to audit the Dominion voting machines in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin.”
If it was a 1% or so difference with one candidate, that’s not dispositive.
But 3% considering both candidates, that’s a big problem.
An audit of the machines is warranted.
Antrum, Michigan has some results which a judge should grant release tomorrow.
1% of a million is 10,000. It adds up.
Why would a ‘Fraud Investigator’ Set out to disprove a person claiming there was fraud? (Yes, i know, rhetorical question)
You would think an honest fraud investigator would ‘set out to’ investigate the fraud claims without any bias or desire to ‘disprove’ anyone
Someone actually honest about it? I’m pleasantly surprised.
RE: 1% of a million is 10,000. It adds up.
The article said 1.5% on average. Which means 15,000. That’s a huge number. Biden won Arizona by 10,000 ( and this analysis only limited itself to DOMINION machines. What about mail-in ballot fraud? ). And he said 1.5% HIGHER for Bien and 1.5% LOWER for Trump.
We need FULL audits of each of those states - not just the Dominion machines.
Do the number of mail in votes match the number of mail in envelopes? If not, there is a problem.
Do the signatures on the mail in envelopes match the voter’s signature on file? If not, there is a problem.
Is the number of votes more than the number of registered voters? (This happens frequently in Detroit) If so, then there is a problem.
How many 16 or 17-year-old voters voted? How many non-citizens voted? Other ineligible voters (voted more than once, used non-residential address, etc.)
RE: Why would a ‘Fraud Investigator’ Set out to disprove a person claiming there was fraud?
Why not? There are a lot of fraudulent claims and accusations.
Wasn’t there testimony in the Georgia hearings that it was 5%?
great. join the crowd. file a brief with the USSC.
bookmark
Agreed,totally surprised , an honest evaluator.
So let’s get these machine’s audited.
We need the TRUTH.
GOD knows what happened in the election.
People set out to disprove outlandish claims all the time. This guy has an expertise so decided to see if his intuition was correct.
He discovered there is a basis for concern for further evaluation.
A hat tip is in order. He could have kept his inquiry to himself.
Surprise, surprise, surprise! 😏
p
[[1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump]]
A 3% disadvantage for President Trump- hat is not insignificant = 30,000 per million votes- 15,000 that were stolen from Donald Trump, and 15,000 that were made up out of thin air and given to biden, per million votes
Say 2000 votes cast, for the sake of argument- 1000 legitimately went to Trump, and 1000 legitimately went to biden- but dominion machine takes 1.5% way from trump, gives biden 1.5%- Trump ends up with Trump gets 985, biden gets 1015- biden wins
Question- Why does Biden ALWAYS get % added to his counts, wile Trump ALWAYS got % deducted?
Answer= Corrupt election-
Are there ANY instances where Trump got added to and biden subtracted from? Not That I’m aware
1.5% makes a LOT MORE SENSE than Sidney saying 30% (something like that). The super-high number did not help with her credibility (nor was it necessary).
that 1.5% is just for the dominion software/machines=- There are other alleged instances of fraud in the election- not just with the machines-
True, no doubt about that...but I was hearing 30% or so just from the machines themselves. Probably others were too.
Well, the 3% *it’s actually 3% because 1.5 added to bide, 1.5 subtracted from Trump)- may actually be just the tip of the iceberg concerning the machines too
Sydney had this to say:
“”They designed and developed the Smartmatic and Dominion programs and machines that included a controller module that allows people to log in and manipulate the vote even as it’s happening. We’re finding more and more evidence of this. We now have reams and reams of actual documents from Smartmatic and Dominion including evidence that they planned and executed all of this.”
It remains to be seen what evidence she has to support her claims-
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.