What are we learning about vote counting from monitors and whistleblowers

Running totals of late votes in Pennsylvania
Running totals of late votes in Pennsylvania

Let’s take a look at the latest stories.

Here’s a new statistical analysis from William Briggs, writing for The Stream:

There’s a lot of chatter online about statistical oddities in several states, and I’ve been asked to analyze the votes in Pennsylvania. That work is ongoing, and at the moment, I’m working with limited data. Still, I think there are clear signs that something untoward happened in the Keystone State. Here are a couple of telling examples.

I’ve gotten official county-level timed voting data that started at 11:00 on November 4, the day after the election, to 11:29 on November 7, which is Saturday. So, these are all late vote counts. They start, county by county, where the vote left off on election night.

[Above] is a picture of the running totals by the time the votes were added, summed across all counties, during those time periods. They do not start at 0, but where things were after election night.

The early gains for Biden are mainly from Philadelphia, Allegheny, Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties. A simple plot (click to see: it’s large) shows the size of vote additions for both candidates, when new vote totals (greater than 0) were added by county (and not all counties added votes after election day).

All goes well for Trump until election night, November 4, at 9:15 pm, when he loses just under 10,000 votes. Curiously, this loss is from three different counties simultaneously: -1,063 in Allegheny; -2,972 in Bucks; -7,135 in Chester. Biden never lost any votes (at least, not in this late voting).

This does not mean the decreases happened at that moment. Rather, that’s when they were recorded in the official data.

Biden’s next curiosity was the big increase of 27,396 votes on Nov. 6 at 8:53:00 over one consecutive reporting period. This bump is just like the blue-red F-memes you have seen: this only seems more spread out because of the finer time scale used.

These two curiosities account for a 37,263 vote swing for Biden. Biden’s total, as of the end of this data, was 3,344,528, and Trump’s 3,310,326. Biden therefore “won,” in this dataset anyway, by 34,202 votes.

So, three separate counties removed about 10,000 votes from Trump on Wednesday evening. And then late Friday, about 27,000 votes were added for Biden.

This happened after it was clear that this is what Biden would need to push ahead. This needs to be answered.

Detroit poll monitor barred from observing counting:

An affidavit from a Republican poll challenger in Detroit, Michigan confirms there may be voter fraud in the state.

Former Michigan Assistant Attorney General Zachary Larsen testified that at the convention center in downtown Detroit, election officials appeared to be processing a “majority” of mail-in ballots from ineligible voters that were not listed in the poll book of eligible voters, nor Larsen’s scanned list. Larsen confirmed in the affidavit that he had heard similar reports from other concerned poll challengers as well.

Read this sworn affidavit from GOP poll challenger, and former Assistant AG for Michigan, Zachary Larsen, on the alleged fraud he observed in Detroit. This is Third World stuff, and every American should be outraged if these allegations are true https://t.co/63nLXJxAZF pic.twitter.com/9WbamMw4Yc

— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) November 9, 2020

When Larsen tried to shift positions to get a better visual on the poll book on the computer screen and the mail-in envelopes to confirm his suspicions, he was “loudly and aggressively” scolded for not social distancing by standing at least six feet away from the election official.

Larsen protested the election official’s reprimands saying that he couldn’t see to verify the eligibility of the voters’ ballots which were being counted, but the worker told him he had to stand with the computer screen out of his view.

Despite being allowed to observe from an “equivalent distance from poll books” on Election Day in other precincts such as both Lansing and East Lansing, Larsen was asked to leave the premises after the official summoned their supervisor who demanded he stand six feet away.

The documents also notes that, despite their insistence about social distancing, the supervisor was sitting approximately three feet away from the other officials, thus breaking their own social distancing rule.

Larsen left to fill out a challenge and talk with an another attorney. Shortly after he left, the document states that no new poll challengers were allowed in the counting room and he was also prohibited from re-entering.

“Election officials never allowed Mr. Larsen to re-enter the counting room to fulfill his duties as a poll challenger after he had discovered the fraud which was taking place,” the affidavit said.

Whistleblower complaint ignored in Nevada:

A second sworn affidavit from a whistleblower who was an election worker in Clark County, Nevada, claims mail-in ballots were improperly filled out in a Biden-Harris van outside a polling place.

[…]The whistleblower, who worked as a poll worker from Oct. 17-30, complained about a Biden-Harris bus or van that was often stationed outside the polling place that would often have “speakers, dancers, music and other festivities going on” and whose organizers had to be told “several times a day” to “stay 100 feet from the polling location.” He also said that voters without proper identification were permitted to cast provisional ballots.

The biggest shock claim, though, dealt with improperly filled out ballots in the van belonging to supporters of presumptive President-elect Joe Biden, whom he saw while on a lunch break walk on Oct. 28 or 29.

“I personally witnessed two people handing multiple unopened mail in ballot envelopes to two other people who then opened and filled out the ballots against the side of the Biden/Harris van,” the affidavit said. “The same two people who marked the ballots then put the marked ballots in official pink and white envelopes. These people were not poll workers.”

The affidavit continued: “By my final walking lap, there were 5 or 6 additional people who formed a human wall, which moved as I walked by, apparently in an attempt to block my view of the four people who were opening envelopes, marking ballots, and placing those ballots in the pink and white return envelopes.”

The whistleblower recalled reporting the incident to a supervisor, who then called the Clark County Elections Office, to no avail.

Thats the latest. I am expecting lawsuits. Many lawsuits.

6 thoughts on “What are we learning about vote counting from monitors and whistleblowers”

  1. This guy is saying mathematical analysis of four major counties votes in Michigan shows there is apparently an algorythm in the software causing the “glitching” resulting in votes being taken from Trump and given to Biden.

    It appears the algorithm (weighting of votes) kicks in when the % voters in a precinct are a certain percentage republican voters in the precinct – some counties have it at 20%, others at 40%. The same algorithm was not applied in all counties (Wayne county is highly democratic and did not use this algorithm)

    He believes all major vendors have this weighting, probably because the original vendor was Diebold and had this issue.



  2. But Wintery! You forgot that this election has already been called. President-Elect Harris…erm…President-Elect Biden has won and any suggestion of foul play is nothing but conspiracy theory and undermining of the Democratic process. I mean, yes, Trump was only elected because Russian agents meddled in our elections, but this was nothing but one rare case where election results are in doubt.

    Quit spreading crazy conspiracy theories and misinformation!

    **End Sarcasm

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you Wintery for keeping us informed.

    I think I’d suggest we all prepare, because if those states do go to Trump, thus resulting in a Trump victory……well let me put it this way. With all the threats the leftists are making, this could get ugly. Really ugly.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. As an example ple of how a first world election occurs. My province of Saskatchewan just had an election in Canada.

    We have about 61 ridings or members of the legislature around.

    To get a mail in ballot you had to go through an identity process to get the ballet and each riding knew how many were issued as a number.

    There were almost a week of advance polls which is when I voted. Along with same day voting.

    Only about seven were close enough to even have to wait for mail in ballots to be process and they had exact number telling you 1274 mail ballots were issued in that riding so you had an idea as to how much it could swing.

    It wasn’t a matter or waiting for some unknown number of ballots to come in. It was known as an exact number so you knew how it would go.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I know about about Canadian elections, they are really excellent. At preventing fraud. Your name has to be in the book. You need photo ID. And they mail you something to your address to tell you where to vote.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s