Home #fraud More evidence of massive Democrat fraud in the election

More evidence of massive Democrat fraud in the election [Video]

71
0
more-evidence-of-massive-democrat-fraud-in-the-election-[video]

Some of my recent pieces took bits from the massive three hour hearing before the GOP legislators of Pennsylvania to describe the fraud that took place in that state and others, artificially “creating” a win for Joe Biden. There is so much information pointing to fraud that the only real problem these days is that the main networks refuse to acknowledge this or report it. They are all in the tank for Joe Biden and the Great Reset, and it is honestly chilling trying to figure out why, given that President Trump:

  1. Brought about the best economy in US history
  2. Ended foreign military actions on a large scale, and prevented others from starting
  3. Has been the most pro-life and Christian-supporting President in history, especially in our anti-Christian times
  4. Gave the United States tremendous positivity for the last four years…

Apparently the World Economic Forum wants Biden and globalism and all that back. God only knows why. A separate piece is in the works to discuss that more deeply.

However, the how of this election fraud continues to astound any time it is actually reported. We bring two sources here – the first is a video by an election worker at the Pennsylvania elections who talks here about the irregularities he saw personally. Here is that video:

The second is data from a site called Vote Pattern Analysis, whose piece we excert from showing some of the big highlights in the anomalies they detected. We excerpted passages, but we believe our excerpting does not change the tenor of the whole story. Still, of course, we encourage our readers to read the entire original text in order to fully have the context of the writers of this piece:

In the early hours of November 4th, 2020, Democratic candidate Joe Biden received several major “vote spikes” that substantially — and decisively — improved his electoral position in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Much skepticism and uncertainty surrounds these “vote spikes.” Critics point to suspicious vote counting practices, extreme differences between the two major candidates’ vote counts, and the timing of the vote updates, among other factors, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of these spikes. While data analysis cannot on its own demonstrate fraud or systemic issues, it can point us to statistically anomalous cases that invite further scrutiny.

With this report, we rely only on publicly available data from the New York Times to identify and analyze statistical anomalies in key states. Looking at 8,954 individual vote updates (differences in vote totals for each candidate between successive changes to the running vote totals, colloquially also referred to as “dumps” or “batches”), we discover a remarkably consistent mathematical property: there is a clear inverse relationship between difference in candidates’ vote counts and and the ratio of the vote counts. (In other words, it’s not surprising to see vote updates with large margins, and it’s not surprising to see vote updates with very large ratios of support between the candidates, but it is surprising to see vote updates which are both).

The significance of this property will be further explained in later sections of this report. Nearly every vote update, across states of all sizes and political leanings follow this statistical pattern. A very small number, however, are especially aberrant. Of the seven vote updates which follow the pattern the least, four individual vote updates — two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, and one in Georgia — were particularly anomalous and influential  with respect to this property and all occurred within the same five hour window.

The four vote updates in question are:

  1. An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump
  2. An update in Wisconsin listed as 3:42AM Central Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 143,379 votes for Joe Biden and 25,163 votes for Donald Trump
  3. A vote update in Georgia listed at 1:34AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 136,155 votes for Joe Biden and 29,115 votes for Donald Trump
  4. An update in Michigan listed as of 3:50AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 54,497 votes for Joe Biden and 4,718 votes for Donald Trump

This report predicts what these vote updates would have looked like, had they followed the same pattern as the vast majority of the 8,950 others. We find that the extents of the respective anomalies here are more than the margin of victory in all three states — Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia — which collectively represent forty-two electoral votes.

Extensive mathematical detail is provided and the data and the code (for the data-curation, data transformation, plotting, and modeling) are all attached in the appendix to this document[1].

Late on Election Night 2020, President Donald J. Trump had a lead of around 100,000 votes in Wisconsin, a lead of around 300,000 votes in Michigan, and a lead of around 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania. Back-of-the-envelope calculations showed that in order to overtake President Trump, Joe Biden would have to substantially improve his performance in the remaining precincts — many of which were in heavily blue areas like Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia.

On Election Night, conflicting news reports came in that various precincts were stopping their count for the evening, sending election officials home, or re-starting their counts. There remains a large amount of confusion to this day about the extent to which various precincts stopped counting, as well as the extent to which any state election laws or rules were broken by sending election officials home prematurely. Whatever the case is, various precincts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania continued to report numbers throughout the night. 

By the early hours of the following morning, Wisconsin had flipped blue, as did Michigan soon after. A few days later, Georgia and Pennsylvania followed suit. Given the uncertain context, many American observers and commentators were immediately uncomfortable or skeptical of these trends.

For context, using publicly available data from the New York Times, here is a visualization of  the number of votes by candidate in Michigan from the beginning of election night to 7pm Eastern Standard Time (EST) on November 4th, 2020:

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

Web Hosting