As President Trump and his allies hope to get to the bottom of election fraud concerns in Arizona, the Donald has also set his sights on a new and potentially even more important target — Pennsylvania.
President Donald Trump is demanding that the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania State Senate conduct a forensic audit of the 2020 election, similar to the audit currently taking place in Maricopa County, Arizona. Trump is making it clear that “If Pennsylvania Senate leadership doesn’t act, there is no way they will ever get re-elected!” [National File]
As Trump and his supporters gear up for election transparency in PA, it is useful to revisit Revolver’s ground-breaking statistical work suggesting foul play in the Keystone State.
Revolver’s first major investigation into PA voter fraud looked at a highly unusual ballot dump that occurred in the middle of the night between Wednesday November 4, 2020 and Thursday November 5, 2020:
We find considerable evidence consistent with the possibility of electoral fraud in vote counts in Montgomery County, PA.
In particular, we examine a highly anomalous update to mail vote totals in the NYT/Edison data which enormously benefited Biden, and which looks suspicious on a number of dimensions.
At a high level, our results are suggestive of a new and highly suspicious batch of mail ballots being added to the count sometime between Wednesday early morning and Thursday morning. These ballots are drawn from an implausible distribution that enormously favored Biden and simultaneously harmed Trump (the latter being done in addition by allocating more votes to Jorgensen). Said mail ballots end up being extremely different both from the mail ballots that came before (as measured in NYT data), and the mail ballots that came afterwards (as measured in the county’s own data). [Revolver News]
The key points investigated in the article are as follows:
On Thursday November 5th at 9:09am a large batch of 90,022 mail/absentee votes get added that has over 95% support for Biden, but total votes to go up by only 9,534, implying that in-person votes actually went down by 80,488. On its own, this is a very strange irregularity, as ballots cannot disappear, and in-person ballots cannot become mail ballots. Something is wrong in the reported data, the only question is what.
⦁ The new batch of 90,022 mail ballots looks nothing like existing mail ballots. If the update is a data error, it must be a complicated error along multiple dimensions and is unlikely to be a simple typo. The new batch is improbable on four separate dimensions:
⦁ It has a level of support for Biden (over 95%) that is statistically impossible to have come from the same distribution of mail ballots counted up to that point (74.9% for Biden)
⦁ Every comparison of pairs of candidates shows improbable changes. This is important, as it helps rule out the possibility that a single typo in the data drives the pattern.
⦁ Irrespective of the old distribution, the new batch is extremely unlikely on its own terms, as it has a ratio of support for Jorgenson relative to Trump (20%) that is higher than virtually every county in America. The last fact is consistent with aiming to get Biden’s vote share “high but not impossibly high” while simultaneously trying to not give any more votes to Trump than absolutely necessary.
⦁ The distribution of the ballots being removed from the in-person counts is even more implausible (98.1% Biden), making it difficult to explain the overall vote update as being due to genuine mail ballots having been previously incorrectly classified as in-person.[Revolver News]
On the basis of this analysis, we provisionally conclude that foul play is the most compelling and parsimonious explanation for the voting anomalies:
Adding all this evidence together, there is a strong case for the following interpretation:
-Some time after election night, a very large batch of mail ballots were counted that showed an enormous advantage for Biden-This batch looks nothing like the mail ballots counted up to that point in the NYT data, and also looks different from the mail ballots counted later in each precinct as measured using the county’s own data
-The batch looks implausible on its own face, in terms of relative vote shares of Libertarian and Republican votes
-The updates are difficult to reconcile with simple data errors like genuine mail ballots being mis-classified as in-person, or a single candidate total being incorrectly entered as a typo.
These facts present strong circumstantial evidence suggesting fraud in mail votes in Montgomery County, and need to be investigated further. [Revolver News]
But our investigation did not stop there.
Part 2 of our investigation into PA voter fraud provides a detailed and plausible fact pattern that fits the statistical anomalies described above and in Part 1 of our investigation:
Suppose, hypothetically, someone was planning to commit electoral fraud in Montgomery County, PA, in favor of the Democrats.
By 5:43am Wednesday morning after election night, Trump is ahead by 618,840 votes, with counting still proceeding. So far, Montgomery County, PA had reported 148,100 mail votes (running 24.4% Trump, and 74.9% Biden) and 388,018 votes total (running 40.8% Trump, 58.2% Biden) (Raw data, Fact 6). Montgomery County has the third highest expected number of votes of all counties in Pennsylvania (Raw data), so they’re one of the few places in a position to be large enough to possibly affect the outcome via fraud. Pennsylvania was always going to be close, and so the fraud perpetrators wanted to keep as many uncounted ballots as possible in reserve, so that if needed they could produce fraudulent ballots and run up the statewide total for Biden. But crucially, the perpetrator didn’t know in advance exactly just how many ballots would be needed to win the election. So they kept a fair amount back, holding 23% of precincts still in reserve. (Raw data) The amount of mail ballots they had counted by Wednesday morning relative to Edison forecasts is relatively low in the data.…
On Tuesday night, the county had held a press conference pre-announcing an approximate number of absentee ballots they’d already collected, but somehow not counted. Some people wondered if it might look weird for a county to hold a press conference on election night rather than just count the votes, but ostentatious displays of transparency make great cover, even if just by unrelated groups taking advantage of them.
Over the course of Wednesday, counting goes on. But for some reason, and this possibility is somewhat open to interpretation, somebody screws up and enters each new update into the “in-person category.” It’s hard to know quite why this happens, but you can imagine different variations at this point. In one, it’s just a pure screw-up – someone doesn’t know how the scheme works, and enters the wrong vote type in a database, then has to correct it later. In a different variant, it could be pre-planned – a great cover story if you need to make extra changes on Wednesday night is “these obvious mail ballots, which were pre-announced, have to be changed to the correct category.” In any case, there isn’t a single update made to mail-in ballots over the day on Wednesday (Raw data).
Wednesday night arrives, and organizers of the fraud realize they now have not one, not two, but three problems with their fraud scheme…
Finally, Revolver’s statistical team approached the PA voter fraud situation from a separate and entirely novel angle — by looking at birthday distributions of registered voters:
We construct a new metric of potential voter fraud using suspicious distributions of birthdays in Pennsylvania voter registration data. The basic idea is that people picking fake birthdays will make predictable non-random choices, like picking round numbers for days of the month, and not knowing what true birth month distributions look like.
Under this metric, a number of counties in Pennsylvania have extremely unlikely distributions of voter birthdays. Seven counties representing almost 1.4 million votes total (Northumberland, Delaware, Montgomery, Lawrence, Dauphin, LeHigh, and Luzerne) have suspicious birthdays above the 99.5th percentile of plausible distributions, even when using conservative assumptions about what these distributions should look like.
These suspicious birthdays also matter significantly for election outcomes. While there are suspicious counties that vote Republican overall, in general more suspicious birthdays in a county are strongly associated with a larger Biden vote share, and a higher Biden vote share relative to all Democrat presidential candidates since 2000. More suspicious birthdays are also associated with a higher vote share for Jorgensen relative to Trump (consistent with a fraud scheme aiming to get Biden high but not “too high”, while simultaneously giving as few votes to Trump as possible).
Finally, we quantify the magnitude of how this potential fraud may have impacted the election. Even a small reduction in the amount of suspicious birthdays (to the 98th percentile of the conservative distribution) would be predicted to have resulted in Trump winning the state by 71,500 votes. This suggests that whatever is driving the anomalous patterns in birthdays is sufficiently important to affect the statewide election result.[Revolver News]
We encourage you to read each of our statistical studies in full and share them as widely as possible.
The more we press for answers about this election, the more we undermine the legitimacy of the Biden regime, and the more opportunities we offer our corrupt ruling class to make a mistake and reveal the truth. We’re not giving up. We’re not backing down. And we’re not going to stop demanding answers.