Talk:US presidential elections 2020/Fraud allegations

From A Closer Look On Syria
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pennsylvania results

Penn. (20) Biden ahead by 28,877 (0.43%) Joe Biden 3,337,069 (49.6%) Donald Trump 3,308,192 (49.2%), as per Fox News, seen at 14:09 UTC, November 7, 2020

Pennsylvania: population 12 807 060, number of lawyers 50 112 (39.1 lawyers per 10 000 people), as per this

  • USPS rushes to deliver another 2,000 ballots in Pennsylvania, North Carolina before deadline - Politico, November 6, 2020
    Pennsylvania's are still a source of dispute. The state Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania can accept ballots through Friday afternoon — a three-day grace period — but conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have indicated they may wish to overturn that decision since it wasn't sanctioned by Pennsylvania's legislature.
  • Fmr Trump Chief of Staff: 'Justice Department should weigh in on potential fraud’ - YouTube, November 5, 2020
    7:37 In Penn., a mail in ballot has to be signed ... signature matched against voter registration record...this year, Penn. Supr.court ruled that if those signatures are different ...(they will still count the ballot)
    ... a couple of states said they will not require postmarks....(or if they do), some of the envelopes are prepaid envelopes, ...and those often are not postmarked
  • Rudy W. Giuliani @RudyGiuliani, November 6, 2020
    AT LEAST 21K Dead People on Pennsylvania Voter Rolls. 9,212 registrants have been dead for at least five years, at least 1,990 registrants have been dead for at least ten years, and at least 197 registrants have been dead for at least twenty years,"
  • 101420 provisional ballots were issued (those are used when voter eligibility is in question; CBS example: voter requested absentee ballot but then came to vote in person).

At the same time, CNN and CBS "project" Biden wins Pennsylvania and the presidency.

So it the New York Times

--Resup (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is a full timeline of results by precinct for Pennsylvania. The spreadsheets are derived from JavaScript Object Notation (.JSON) files. For example the file NOVEMBER_04_2020_070818.json contains results for Philadelphia timestamped at 7:08:18 am on November 4, 2020. This is the first time Philadelphia published any results. The last results show the vote tally on November 11. Early results show Trump doing well in Philadelphia. The votes that have been added later go to Biden by a very high margin, maybe 10 to 1.

The spreadsheets come from this video on Rumble: Smoking Gun: Dominion Transferring Vote Ratios between Precincts in PA. - By: Edward Solomon (linked here). I think the analysis is bullshit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Pressed for time; quick comment, it's kind of interesting , + also that somebody had motivation and spare time to fish this out, but, if justified, this seems to be about small number of votes, like fine tuning? (taking DJT side for the sake of the argument). But apparently this was after a big jump in favor of Biden in early morning hours (I may be conflating with other states here, I am not not on top of timing of change in PA). This probably needs to be taken together with how relative standing was changing throughout the day, and whether there was a need (hypothetically) for such fine tuning. If somebody employs such "cheating", it should be to get somewhere, not for the heck of some rational numbers timeseries? --Resup (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Allegheny, PA

See full raw data, etc. here

Noted, in my view what will make or break it are legal issues, like whether ballots received after deadline, or without proper signatures, etc, should be removed, and whether it is even possible to do so at this stage in the counting. Other information, I think, is circumstantial. --Resup (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Benford law"

What follows does not resolve the controversy either way, it basically says that "Benford law" appears by itself insufficient.

Benford law is presumably to do with dependence of presumed probability distribution on scaling, like counting number of people, or of dozens of people, or hundreds of people. But in case at hand, it may give artifacts. I looked at Allegheny, PA data. Those come as election day votes, absentee ballots, totals for each candidate, and also numbers of registered voters and total numbers of those voted , per voting district. Plots of leading digit histograms of Biden and Trump totals are accurately presented in the article

However , leading digits of both Biden on-the day votes and absentee votes (not the totals) look "as expected", falling down . While doing it with numbers of registered voters and total votes received give "wrong" shapes. This may be spurious, however. The thing is , that if we place numbers of total votes per district in boxes (corresponding to ranges of per-district votes), with ranges selected in hundreds of votes,

[0,99], [100, 199], [200,299],...,

then Trump numbers in those range boxes will look like

  • 417, 334, 287, 139, 67, 42, 15, 10, 4, 4, 3, 0, 1

(so, in 417 districts Trump totals were in the 0 to 99 votes range, etc)

while Biden's

  • 57, 246, 428, 325, 169, 53, 29, 7, 5, 3, 1, 0, 0

So, most Trump district are below hundred votes, followed by 100 to 200 votes; this produces lots of leading ones (in just under-100 boxes, leading digits are roughly equally distributed in Trump case, with 50 having leading 1). While for Biden, his districts mostly produced 200 to 400 votes with considerably less of under-100 districts (and there are just two leading ones in under-100 range). Number of over-1000 districts is small for both and can be ignored. So the apparent meaning is that Biden votes come from larger districts

As a test, I run counting with different number bases (I tried bases 5, 7, 11, 12,14, 16, 18), and leading numbers distributions tend to become "correct" -shaped for all, with a larger base. I am not sure what it is supposed to be "according to science" in different number bases , but effect of this on the leading digit is also kind of "scaling", so I suppose by the same logic, or its absence, it is supposed to have the same, 1/x kind of shape using any number base before taking leading digit? (Please correct me if I am wrong here...) --Resup (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Benford's law makes two assumptions:
  1. The values are randomly distributed over a range of multiple orders of magnitude.
  2. Fraudsters are more likely to change the first digit in a number than other digits, i.e. adding or subtracting even figures like 100 or 200 votes / dollars.
I looks to me that 100 or 200 votes have been added to most Biden totals.
Correction: Actually the changes do not have to be even numbers. They can be random numbers in a certain range, as long the distribution is not normalized to match Benford's law.
This is what we need to do:
  • Put Trump and Biden numbers in a spreadsheet in increasing order, both in separate columns. (Ignore which district the came from.)
  • Compare the nth Trump count to the nth Biden count and calculate the %.
  • Plot % and log(n) for both counts.
We should see some discontinuity in the % plot.
Another test to do is to calculate the logarithm of each count and plot the distribution.
P.S. - Can you post a link to the Allegheny, PA data.
Update: I found the data here. Unfortunately I am unable to open the .xls file in LibreOffice. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Progress: I converted the .xls file online to .numbers file for macOS. Unfortunately the Apple App Store did not allow me to download the latest version or any version of Numbers as I am still running Mojave. I tried following these instructions. Actually I may have "purchased" Numbers already in 2019 for some other Mac. Let's see how it works. Or I could use MATLAB, but I would still need to get the numbers out in .csv format. ... ....
Did not work. The .xlm file is in some Microsoft XML format that none of my applications or converters are able to parse or understand. Where did you get your raw data? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
See the data and graphs here: Talk:US presidential elections 2020/PA Allegheny -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
You can convert it here -- Charles Wood (talk)
Yes, I now have it in spreadsheets in Apple Numbers and MS Excel formats. I downloaded the data in text and slightly edited it before importing it into Numbers. Unfortunately I cannot post text files or spreadsheets here. (Not even .zip files. Only PDFs and media are allowed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Google drive? And/Or Google Docs --Charles Wood (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Allegheny, PA, First digit tally, Base 16

This is base 16, not base 10 ! (Write all numbers in base 16, and investigate distribution of the leading digit, which now can be from 0 to 15 , when that digit is written in the usual base-10 way).

What are we supposed to see here ? ---Resup (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Column=2 Registered Voters


Column=3 DEM Joseph R. Biden/Kamala D. Harris Election Day


Column=4 Absentee


Column=5 Total Votes


Column=6 REP Donald J. Trump/Mike R. Pence Election Day


Column=7 Absentee


Column=8 Total Votes


Column=9 LIB Jo Jorgensen/Jeremy Spike Cohen Election Day


Best Biden places

{election day, absentee, total} for both. Note that Biden roughly doubles his election day result on the absentee count, while Trump does 1/2. --Resup (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

PITTSBURGH WARD 2 DIST 1 Biden {292,745,1037}; Trump {286,119,405}

OHIO DIST 3 Biden {309,610,919}; Trump {531,176,707}

MOON DIST 5 Biden {251,665,916}; Trump {787,265,1052}

N FAYETTE DIST 5 Biden {305,602,907}; Trump {940,267,1207}

ROBINSON DIST 9 Biden {222,657,879}; Trump {661,252,913}

N FAYETTE DIST 3 Biden {255,601,856}; Trump {703,208,911}

N FAYETTE DIST 2 Biden {298,552,850}; Trump {700,190,890}

MCCANDLESS WARD 6 DIST 3 Biden {178,641,819}; Trump {395,220,615}

MOON DIST 6 Biden {290,518,808}; Trump {803,233,1036}

PITTSBURGH WARD 4 DIST 7 Biden {441,343,784}; Trump {98,27,125}

OHIO DIST 2 Biden {150,600,750}; Trump {543,224,767}

PITTSBURGH WARD 2 DIST 2 Biden {176,557,733}; Trump {168,89,257}

S FAYETTE DIST 3 Biden {353,376,729}; Trump {578,113,691}

PINE DIST 5 Biden {205,512,717}; Trump {549,180,729}

PITTSBURGH WARD 14 DIST 31 Biden {152,551,703}; Trump {111,58,169}

MOON DIST 2 Biden {209,494,703}; Trump {537,182,719}

HAMPTON DIST 11 Biden {245,452,697}; Trump {609,131,740}

PITTSBURGH WARD 14 DIST 7 Biden {291,399,690}; Trump {47,12,59}

PITTSBURGH WARD 1 DIST 1 Biden {222,465,687}; Trump {121,59,180}

EDGEWOOD DIST 1 Biden {221,462,683}; Trump {82,24,106}


See also Petrix Election Integrity Test
Analysis of results from Milwaukee as seen on election night

Here is a long thread about possible fraud in Milwaukee by Shylock Holmes:

The final data should be available at the Milwaukee county clerk's site here. An election night screenshot is here on Wayback Machine. (I am unable to access the live Milwaukee site.) There does not seem to be any readily available file in a spreadsheet-friendly format. The data would need to be scavenged from the web page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I imported the Milwaukee election night data and made the graph. Same effect! Small precincts turn blue. Could someone please show me a dataset from some honest elections. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I did the same thing with similar outcome (can post in same format as before if helpful). Somehow less trouble exporting into comma-separated file now. --Resup (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Raw data is ion the page history here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Benford test (usual base 10), first digit tally. Biden has second peak at 5, while other candidates look "as expected" by Benford thing. --Resup (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Format: {leading digit, count} (leading digit is zero when 0 votes received). Data used: unofficial results, Votes reflect Milwaukee County ONLY as of Nov. 4, 2020 3:56 a.m

{0, 4}, {1, 86}, {2, 35}, {3, 51}, {4, 69}, {5, 79}, {6, 62}, {7, 42}, {8, 28}, {9, 22}
{0, 3}, {1, 114}, {2, 85}, {3, 89}, {4, 57}, {5, 35}, {6, 36}, {7, 27}, {8, 16}, {9, 16}


First of several exhibits in the same document; all FWIW; for jurists to figure --Resup (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"Hammer and Sickle"

For whatever the fuck it's worth, or means --Resup (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Here, Russ Ramsland (who appears to be the same guy as this one, in addition to being a company CFO) makes the same damn claim --Resup (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And apparently some bad triple-ass Russian Chinese Iranians already made this must be fake video for the case at hand , here --Resup (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And here, possibly with the help of North Korean graphic designers, we got same fucking video + the clock . Must be straight from the internet research agency in Olgino? --Resup (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"Factcheck" claims that CNN video was a data entry error corrected about an hour later, and that there is paper trail to prevent irreversible alteration of digital records (perhaps, but would it be discovered without the opposite camp raising hell about falsifications?). Noted: DJT terminated DHS cybersecurity chief --Resup (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Reality, TV

Numerous witness testimonies from Arizona and Michigan are broadcast via DJT Twitter account. A long hearing in Arizona yesterday, multiple 1 or so minutes long snippets from Michigan today. Those testimonies appear largely sincere, measured. They show multiple but necessarily rather small scale violations facts, or indications pointing to possible large scale violations based on modelling attempts, for example based on voter affiliations by location in Arizona + assumptions on percentages of those keeping their affiliation "loyalty", compared with reported voting tally by location; and claiming that best match is 130 % of democrats go to Biden and -30 % to DJT, or otherwise the match is quite poor.

All of that does suggest violations; or create a reality TV picture of it, in the eyes of the supporters.

But what will the Scotus will do with all this? Override election results reported by state officials in those states, based on the above (ie testimonies of small scale violations and circumstantial indications of larger ones)? The fact that Scotus majority is Republican may be of limited use here; those Republicans may feel political pressure and compensate for this by being even more pedantic about things then they would be normally. Elections are not a good fit for being decided by lawyers. While there may be not enough time, or established/establishable facts to really do it otherwise, by some due process. --Resup (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Major networks non-coverage

Long address by DJT, the sitting president, on major issue of elections, (links) is not covered by major networks. CNN comes up with an "explanation". BBC sheepishly writes about that "he lost the election, but did better than most experts were predicting", just ignoring the claims. This is very different from typical coverage of Russia's accusations in 2016, which by the time of its carpet-coverage (if ever) were not through the courts or supplied with concrete evidence, despite happening in USA and outside of the domain limited to the enforcement and service agencies, and where the "free press" could play some role in the discovery, or refutation.

On the flip side, it is likely that it is not entirely about fairness and issues of the state, with DJT likely raising funds for continued challenge, and Guliani not forgetting cigar-puffing commercials in the middle of his youtube videos. While little men, keep to being little men, some risking their jobs in the process. The truck driver on Fox/Lou Dobbs here. --Resup (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

WTF R "White hat hackers" ?

  • @NatyLiy, Twitter, 7:58 PM · Nov 30, 2020 (on video). --Resup (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    "#ArizonaHearing: "Are you willing to say under oath, that you've seen the connection to the internet, that you've seen it gone offshore to Frankfurt, Germany?" Col. Waldron: "Yes, our "White" hat hackers, they have that traffic and the packets.

Funnily, during early stage of disturbances in Belarus', I was following some social media post (details not saved), which somehow led me looking at a map of Frankfurt, Germany, where some registration address was; FWIW; no idea whether there is any connection --Resup (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

WTF S "305 MIB The Kraken" ?

Hey, what the fuck is going on here ? --Resup (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


The argument that general assembly cannot be convened because it was decided in the past that electors are determined by popular vote is ill-considered or phony. It is alleged that election results do not represent actual vote by those people, so to implement those earlier decisions state legislators can adopt whatever measures are appropriate, say signature verification. (They can also interpret or change earlier decisions, if so warranted, but it does not seem they are asked to do so , so far) --Resup (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Will Texas et al vs GaMP be decided by mass media?

  • American Democracy Is a Fiction & Who Do Republicans Represent? -- PCR-not- the-test, December 7, 2020
    Normally, when the US Supreme Court weighs in on a major or turning point decision, such as abortion, it does so only when it knows it has the support of the media. The Justices are protective of the court as well as of themselves. They don’t want the Court discredited by a media campaign, and they don’t want retribution from Democrats in the form of a packed Court. Neither do they want Antifa and BLM camped out on their lawns. My prediction is that the chance is greatest that the Court will go with the Establishment, and the Establishment, both Democrat and Republican, want the outsider Trump out. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will rule against the Establishment’s wishes.
  • December 10, 2020. CNN is "explaining" its audience how is the lawsuit not sensible, and how is Pennsylvania response is a stunning rebuke. You better obey !

--Resup (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)