Anomalies that were buried after the election
[Note: back in 2020, your scribe was writing periodically for UNCOVERDC, among other blogs. One of the continuing features of UNCOVERDC these days is their daily “News from Around the Web,” which captures news items collected daily from various social media sources. Well worth taking a gander if you’ve never visited their website.]
Immediately after the 2020 election, I was fortunate to be in contact with a group of independent analysts and experts in their respective fields, e.g., statistics, mathematics, computer science, etc., who provided early analysis of publicly available election data sets from Edison Research and other sources. With their concurrence, I wrote several articles that described their election analyses in several of the swing states – and their inferences that “something was rotten in the state of Denmark.”
With President Trump’s wonderful speech on 16 July that summarized five major election integrity issues in our election systems, a re-posting of some of the election fraud-related articles written in 2020 and 2021 is in order. Time to connect some dots and for the election fraud-deniers to be held accountable! The deniers are part of a long-running conspiracy to disenfranchise legitimate American voters.
The below article was posted on 2 December 2020 at UNCOVERDC here.
Machine Manipulation of Michigan Absentee Ballots
- by: Stu Cvrk
- 2020-12-02
As reported in an earlier article at UNCOVERDC, a technical team comprised of five statistics experts was formed at the request of the President’s campaign to conduct a statistical analysis of certain voter data in key states in order to determine whether there were any significant anomalies evident, and if so, which counties were most suspect. The team’s express purpose was to help ascertain that all legal votes — and only legal votes – would be counted. In that previous report which focused on Pennsylvania, the team examined voter registration lists, votes tabulated over time for President Trump and Joe Biden, excess Democrat votes Biden received in ten Pennsylvania counties far and above prior election years, and a Benford’s law analysis of votes received.
The anomalies found by the team were summarized in the article linked above. What was not examined in that previous report was the widely suspected machine manipulation of ballots by Dominion Systems (and other vendor) ballot marking devices. The team subsequently examined Michigan absentee ballot data sets for nine counties to conduct such an analysis, and the results for the Ingham County and Oakland County data sets are displayed and described in the rest of this article. They are nothing less than a bombshell! Excerpted from the report:
The plot below is the percentage of absentee ballots received by each 2016 presidential candidate in Ingham County (Michigan), by precinct (Red = R and Blue = D). Note the irregularities that occur: some precincts are higher for R, some are higher for D. More importantly, the difference between the two (R minus D) varies widely — from plus to minus. In other words, neither the red line nor the blue line has a discernible pattern. This is what a normal result looks like!
Now, compare that to the 2020 percentages of absentee voters in Ingham County, as depicted in the report:
Note that the percentage of Democrat absentee voters exceeds the percentage of Republican absentee voters in every single precinct except for one outlier (#3). What is the statistical probability of that happening? Somewhere approaching zero! But what is even more incredible is that the curves track each other almost completely. These are independent variables that are supposedly being plotted, i.e., neither plot should be dependent on or linked to the other by any mathematical means. This is yet another statistical impossibility – unless the data were manipulated by machine algorithm!
There were nine problematic Michigan counties identified by the team that exhibited the same statistical anomalies as shown above for Ingham County. For additional comparison purposes, here are the 2016 and 2020 plots from the report for Oakland County, which has four times the number of voters than Ingham County.
Once again, the 2016 plot looks normal while the 2020 Biden and Trump plots track at almost exactly the same proportionality – a statistical impossibility without direct data manipulation. In addition, the proportionality between the red and blue plots is maintained across the graph. This simply cannot happen without manipulation!
The team also plotted the absentee ballot data using two additional methodologies for comparison of 2020 results versus 2016: the percentage of Democrat and Republican absentee ballots versus precinct and the ratio of Democrat-to-Republican absentee ballots per precinct. The results for Ingham County using those two methodologies are shown below:
Note that the 2016 plots look normal while the 2020 results appear to be artificial. All three methodologies used by the team delivered the same anomalies indicating data manipulation.
Here is the conclusion from the report:
This is very strong evidence that the absentee voting counts in some counties in Michigan have likely been manipulated by a computer algorithm. The comparison of the 2020results to the normal 2016 election data is dramatic. If no other plausible explanation can be made for these unexpected findings, it appears that this computer software was installed sometime after the 2016 Presidential election. On the surface it would seem that the tabulating equipment in infected precincts has been programmed to shift a percentage of absentee votes from Trump to Biden. An accurate hand-count of absentee ballots from a sampling of precincts might be helpful.
The real bottom line is this: Michigan absentee ballots were almost certainly machine manipulated in favor of Joe Biden. This involved subtracting Trump votes and adding them to Biden totals. Given that Dominion systems were widely used in many states across the US [in 2024], the widely-reported “74 million Trump votes” are considerably under-counted by perhaps millions of votes while Biden’s total is over-counted by millions. It would explain why absentee candidate Biden’s supposed 80 million total that has been endlessly repeated by the gaslighting legacy media eclipsed the totals achieved by Barack Hussein Obama (twice) and Hillary Clinton. A large and to-be-determined number of Biden’s votes were fraudulent. It is the only explanation that makes sense. ….
<End of the article posted in December 2020>
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The issues uncovered in the above 2020 article were never investigated or explained. None of the cottage industry of election fraud deniers that sprang up after the 2020 election bothered to investigate the anomalies discovered in this or any other independent reports written at the time that questioned the integrity of the 2020 election. They were too busy parroting Chris Krebs, then the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary, who pronounced that the election was “the most secure in U.S. history.”
In retrospect given what else has dribbled out about 2020 election fraud since then, this is simple malpractice by the legacy media – and by the RNC who basically rolled over on the topic. After all, there has NEVER been a full forensic election audit conducted in ANY county in the US. But that’s a story for another day….
The end.
StuinSD is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support his work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This article originally appeared in Stu Cvrk’s Substack. Reprinted here with permission
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
“Once again, the 2016 plot looks normal while the 2020 Biden and Trump plots track at almost exactly the same proportionality – a statistical impossibility **without direct data manipulation**.”
___
Good article Stu.
I agree that the data indicates something anomalous happened in 2020 and that that anomaly overwhelmingly favored the Dems.
But, it seems to me that, in addition to your “**without direct data manipulation**” conclusion there is at least ONE other possibility, that is, that the Dems managed to get a higher, and generally uniform, average response rate from their absentee voter pool of approximately 30% above what the GOP was able to achieve.
The fact that the Dems’ response rate was both higher and uniform across two, disparate counties, *might* be due to ‘**direct data manipulation**’ but it could equally be due to an organized, and effective, effort by the Dems to harvest the absentee ballots that were sent out and then markup and return those ballots to the election authority. In other words, once the ballots got out in the wild the Dems gathered or harvested an appreciable percentage of the ‘available’ absentee ballots (using some highly efficient mechanism… some suggest that they had agents either in, or working closely with, the USPS.)
The fact that the return rates were near 80% but never at the 100% rate indicates, at least to me, that there was either (a) some structural reason that the Dems couldn’t harvest 100% of the ballots or (b) made strategic and/or tactical decisions as to the level of return rate of those ballots set to at a level that, while suspicious, wouldn’t raise suspicions and trigger further inquiry by the authorities and/or the GOP. This would be, ISTM, classic gray zone strategy behavior.
The fact that there was a ‘pause’ in counting and then a coordinated, finely controlled, and widely distributed uptick in tallies in favor of the Dems, but never up to the 100% response level, seems to indicate to that, unless we can show some signal was sent to ALL of the different vote counting centers as to how many more Democratic ballots were needed at each site that, a signal that should have been detectable by an analysis of signal traffic.
I strongly suspect that what we saw with those elevated Dems absentee ballot return response levels was, most likely, due to the Dems having very large pool of harvested absentee ballots that had already been centralized, marked, and when the demand call came in setting numeric targets for each precinct, the Dems’ operatives inserted those harvested ballots to the tabulating centers to be counted.
There is at least some evidence of the potential for this vector when the counting centers, like Atlanta (a water leak) and Detroit (the papering of the windows), went dark the tallies for the Dems took dramatic leaps.
And, since the public has access to how many ballots have been returned and have access to this information throughout the period of early voting, the Dems wouldn’t have to wait until election day to formulate how many make-up ballots that they need to insert into the system and they could do it early enough in the process to allay suspicions.
Anyway, great article and I hope that my comment is taken in the sense that it was given, that is, to help us stop anyone from stealing our elections.