By Timothy Easling, Senior Columnist
Several of these spikes in Pennsylvania added up to more than 570,000 votes for Biden while Trump only received about 3,200. At a ratio of almost 200 to 1, the spikes are statistically impossible.
The USA election of 2020 has proved to be quite the source of controversy. The line from most publications is about how the 2020 election was the “most secure in American history.” But while most media seems to be happy to dismiss claims of fraud without even mentioning the specific allegations, there is simultaneously no rationale provided for why the election was so secure. This article is by no means a comprehensive look at the allegations made by various legal teams across the USA but is intended as a sample of some of the major issues that have gone unreported.
Voting machines used to be widely reported on as having weaknesses that could leave them vulnerable to hacking and fraud; to illustrate this, here are examples from CBS, the New York Times, and the BBC. Yet this year, in an odd 180, almost no media sources have reported on even the possibility of fraud.
Dominion voting machines
Dominion voting machines (used in 28 States) appear to be one of the major sources of irregularities in the vote counts cited during the various hearings that have been taking place recently. There were several massive voting spikes that appear to be strange anomalies—not following any consistency with the rest of the data. Several of these spikes in Pennsylvania added up to more than 570,000 votes for Biden while Trump only received about 3,200. At a ratio of almost 200 to 1, the spikes are statistically impossible; if one were to convert the spikes to a percentage, it would be the approximate equivalent of a candidate receiving 99.5 percent of the vote. While one batch of votes coming in with such a ratio could possibly be a very strange one-off anomaly, it is highly unlikely that multiple batches of randomly unsorted votes achieved the same ratio—especially in such large numbers. The spikes are also concerning because of the speed at which these spikes were processed (they exceed the measured capability of the machines). No election official has commented on the irregularities.
The spike impossibility is best illustrated with an example. Mail-in ballots have been reported to be overwhelmingly requested by Democrats, and the reports seem to be correct. Unfortunately for the spike likelihood, the totals are nowhere near the ratio shown in the irregularities. California, which few would debate is a Democratic stronghold, saw early mail-in ballot totals as 6,157,827 for Democratic registered voters, 2,955,528 for Republican registered voters, and 2,977,358 for those with no party affiliation. Even if one were to assume that every single Democratic and non-party member voted for Biden (another statistical impossibility), that would mean 9,135,185 voters of the 12,090,534 votes were for Biden—or approximately 75.6 percent, almost an entire 20 percent off of the spike percentages. In order to extend this impossible ratio to a state level, 99.5 percent (12,030,081), 2,894,985 of the 2,955,528 Republican voters (98 percent) would have needed to vote for Biden.
As an aside, even the strongest Biden county in one of the strongest Democratic states came nowhere near the ratio; the highest concentration of Biden votes in California was in San Francisco County with 85.3 percent of the vote (377,772 to 56,329).
Also of major focus for the Dominion machines is the concern of the weighted vote feature, which supposedly exists for “their condo or land ownership customers who may want to tabulate votes based on the amount of land each participant may own.” Weighted votes is a common feature in voting software—some for the aforementioned reason—to allow some votes to count more than others (e.g., A vote for one side could count as 1.4 while a vote for the other could count as 0.7). Dominion, in their full-page defence on their website of allegations made against them, avoids transparency and makes no mention of it. Dominion also curiously dropped out of several public hearings they were slated to appear in.
Other statistical irregularities
The New York Times had a live dataset for the election and it revealed some more irregularities. In more than one instance, there were multiple negative vote entries. One instance in Virginia had two massive negative entries (-330,153.34 from Biden and -37,510.39 for Trump—and -308,341.59 for Biden and -80,357.05 for Trump) less than 20 minutes apart. Stranger still is the fact that these numbers are not whole numbers—despite every vote supposedly only ever counting as one whole vote. The data seems to indicate votes were weighted differently at some point. Those with any accounting training are well-aware negative entries tend to indicate adjusting/fraud. Unless several hundred thousand US citizens decided to rescind their votes near-simultaneously, the data indicates some very strange occurrences. No election officials have commented on the irregularities.
Fake voter addresses
The public hearings held in Pennsylvania and several other battleground states have produced many allegations based on more than just logic and statistics. There are multiple instances of voters’ residential addresses not being residential addresses, despite efforts to make them appear so. An example of this alleged voter fraud lists a host of addresses such as 4339 Hartley Bridge Road APT 167 in Georgia. A quick internet search reveals the address as a UPS store. Likewise, 724 Charlie Smith SR HWY APT 5402 and UNIT 5734 are both the same USPS. In fact, all of the addresses are registered businesses, PO boxes, or post offices, that have tried to claim they are residential addresses. If true, the registered addresses are clearly attempts at fraud because they claim to be apartments, units, or suites—rather than simply having the main address be a mistake. Registering with a fake (non-residential) address is illegal under US Law. There are thousands of these claims. No election official has commented on these claims.
A handful of other allegations made in the hearings were that some ballots were sent out and returned the day-of; some were sent out and returned the day after; and some were somehow recorded as being returned the day before they were mailed out. Watchers were also barred from observing many votes—in some cases only being allowed in a room for five minutes every hour; many watchers were also restricted to a specific area of each voting room, often resulting in many votes being counted as far as 25 feet away. Votes were often brought in from entirely separate rooms that watchers were not allowed any access to. Watchers were also not allowed to view individual ballots or challenge any of the processes, even if they saw direct violations of US law. Watchers also observed ballots being completely separated from their envelopes and the envelopes sent to the far side of a room, or a separate room entirely, making any forensic audit near-impossible to verify. The question has been asked of what the resistance to watchers is; if there is nothing to hide, why was access restricted? Many votes had no signature and yet were still counted, and thousands of votes arriving were observed to be perfectly filled-in—as if by machine. As noted in the Arizona hearing, technology to determine whether a machine has filled-out a ballot exists but has not been used. No election official has defended the various allegations.