The 2020 US Election and Algorithm Manipulation By Chris Knight (Florida)
This topic has gone off the boil now as deplorable Americans are obeying big daddy Trump, and like him doing nothing, rather than mount peaceful protests, or mass strikes to bring Biden to his knees. Well, they get what they deserve, because if you do not fight, you certainly lose, and nothing needs to be illegal, so it is not hard compared to the sacrifices made by previous generations for this selfish, gutless one. How can people lay in bed and sleep accepting this bs? And, here is more salt to the wound:
https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-03-08-there-is-no-way-biden-won-the-2020-election.html
“Statistical experts say they’ve found patterns in 2020 election data that suggest “algorithm manipulation” may have affected absentee votes in multiple states.
The findings were initially cited in reports of swing state voting patterns compiled by John Droz, a physicist and founder of Alliance for Wise Energy Decision in North Carolina. Droz described the reports to LifeSiteNews as the work of “a team of statistical experts (PhDs) who expressed an interest to working on this topic of national importance, for free.”
n an analysis of Michigan’s 2020 results, two statisticians working with Droz, Dr. William M. Briggs and Thomas Davis, found that absentee vote results for Republicans and Democrats appear to “track one another” in several counties.
Briggs, a former professor at Cornell Medical School, and Davis, an IT entrepreneur and former Michigan State University professor, say that the findings indicate fraud. They confirmed to LifeSite that courts may never have seen the data.
The two experts’ analysis, titled “Irrational MI Absentee Ballots Findings,” features graphs of vote totals for Democrats and Republicans in recent presidential elections based on state data.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Brigg and Davis said that while Michigan’s high level of absentee voting among Democrats in 2020 didn’t raise suspicions, patterns at the precinct level did, with suspicious correlations between the percentages of votes for either major party that were cast by absentee or mail-in ballots.
They pointed to Ingham County, citing Ingham’s 2016 absentee vote data as an example of “what normal results should look like.”
The blue line in the graph above shows the percentage of all Democrat votes, in this case for Hillary Clinton, that were cast via absentee ballots in Ingham County precincts. The red line, in turn, indicates the percentage of all Republican (Trump) votes from absentee ballots in the same precints.
“Note the irregularities that occur: some precincts are higher for [Republicans] some are higher for [Democrats],” they said. “More importantly, the difference between the two [Republican minus Democrat] varies widely — from plus to minus. In other words: neither the red line nor the blue line has a discernable pattern.”
Unlike the 2016 data, the results from the 2020 election do evidence a “discernable pattern,” Briggs and Davis said, calling the comparison between the results “dramatic.”
“Not surprisingly, the percentage of Democratic absentee voters exceeds the percentage of Republican absentee voters in every precinct. What is remarkable (and unbelievable) is that these two independent variables appear to track one another,” the two experts said.
“There is no apparent legitimate explanation for the two absentee lines to be tracking each other like that — other than it being due to a computer algorithm,” they continued.
Graphs of election data from Michigan’s Macomb and Oakland counties included in the report show the same pattern. Briggs and Davis flagged a total of ten Michigan counties as problematic, although many jurisdictions didn’t post relevant data, they said.
A widespread anomaly
Michigan was far from the only state affected by suspicious correlations in absentee vote results in 2020, Davis told LifeSiteNews. In a report provided to LifeSite, he outlined similar issues in dozens of counties across twenty states, including nearly all battleground states.
“From a statistical perspective these are independent variables — which have no relationship with one another,” Davis said of the respective absentee vote results for Democrats and Republicans. “Yet, the graphical representation of these values in many cases reveals a clear pattern, even to a casual observer.”
“That the same type of pattern is seen across such a wide variety of locations is truly remarkable,” he continued. “Algorithmic manipulation of absentee votes remains a plausible explanation.”
Davis mentioned that he is not aware of any of these findings having been seen in court. “Although the snake graphs clearly represent a statistical anomaly worthy of further investigation,” they didn’t garner much traction in the frenzied weeks following the election,” he said.
“Many people dismissed them out of hand because the blue line riding above the red line is consistent with the narrative, ‘Dems pushed absentee voting; Reps encouraged in-person voting,’” he added. “And, while this may be true, the fact that the two lines follow the same contour — revealing a statistical correlation — got overlooked,” Davis said.
In the Michigan report, Briggs and Davis called for a hand recount or forensic audit in the impacted counties. Michigan, like many states identified in election fraud complaints, has yet to conduct a full recount or audit of 2020 votes.
“Tracking” vote gains
Among the counties flagged by Droz’s team was Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County, which encompasses the city of Pittsburgh and has been at the center of numerous election integrity lawsuits. Allegheny, a stronghold for Democrats, helped push Biden over the top in the Keystone State last year, with over 50,000 apparently new Democratic voters.
An affidavit signed in December by Davis and other statisticians that was provided to LifeSite attests to the same pattern as in Ingham. The declaration points to an anomalous “40-50% advantage almost uniformly above the Republican absentee vote percentage” for Democrats in the county.
Moreover, the experts flagged Allegheny not only for suspicious vote totals, but also for correlated time data of absentee vote tabulation across hundreds of precincts. A Pennsylvania election analysis organized by John Droz reported that increases in the amounts of votes gained by each candidate showed “bizarre” conformity during Allegheny’s vote counting process.
“While there are many timestamps, any selection of those timestamps — whether using many or a few — show perfect lockstep updates,” the report reads. “This holds perfectly true for all three candidates, with no timestamp breaking the mold.”
“The results of the Allegheny time-series incremental absentee votes defy reality in a perfectly synchronous fashion — with all 1,300 precincts and candidates marching perfectly in time toward their eventual total of 340,000 absentee votes,” it continues.
“Looking at the percent share of each candidate per timestamp the ratio nearly perfectly fixed all throughout November 4th and 5th,” the report adds. “The % gain starts deviating slightly by November 7th, but not much.”
“Checking if this is some kind of bizarre anomaly only at an aggregate level, we checked into the precinct level data,” it reads, noting that “one would not expect [Allegheny precincts] to update at roughly the same rate as each other.”
However, “sure enough, they do track with each other,” the report found.
“Precincts 1-254 are shown each marching toward their eventual 100% take of absentees, with very few leaving the pack to complete early or start late,” according to the analysis. “Other graphs have some variance, but the overall picture is consistent across time and candidate.”
Droz’s team analyzed data from Edison, a research firm that provides exit-polling data to major news outlets, and compared the information to public datasets, according to the December affidavit. Courts may not have seen these findings either, a source close to the Droz team told LifeSite.
Lack of judicial interest in evidence brought by Republicans in the aftermath of the election hasn’t been unusual, as Droz and his associates also have said. According to a list of over 80 court decisions put together by the group, only 27% of election lawsuits filed by Republicans and other groups were fully adjudicated on merits.
The list includes decisions like one by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that dismissed a Trump campaign lawsuit though the court did not hear the case. Several other courts rejected suits on the grounds that Republicans or the president lacked legal standing or failed on other technical counts, while other judges determined the opposite, some ultimately ruling in favor of Trump or the GOP.
“At this point we’re all tired of the dishonest assertion that there was no 2020 Presidential vote fraud, malfeasance or other irregularities/illegalities, supposedly because ‘the courts dismissed those claims as unfounded, wildly exaggerated, etc.,’” Droz said to LifeSite. “[T]hat is simply not true,” he said.”
For those who have come in late, here are some sites summarising the stolen election evidence. It is just a small sample, but enough to get one started. This will be like 9/11, only from the beginning, millions of people believe, but we have yet to see what they are going to do about it.
“Introduction Volume 1 of the Navarro Report, The Immaculate Deception, assessed the fairness and integrity of the 2020 Presidential Election by identifying and assessing six key dimensions of alleged election irregularities. These irregularities included: outright fraud, ballot mishandling, a wide range of process fouls, multiple violations of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, voting machine irregularities, and statistical anomalies. This assessment was conducted across six key battleground states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It would be the outcomes in these six states that would ultimately be election-determinate – just as the strategy of the Democrat Party assumed. Evidence used to conduct The Immaculate Deception assessment included more than 50 lawsuits and judicial rulings, thousands of affidavits and declarations, testimony in a variety of state venues, published analyses by think tanks and legal centers, videos and photos, public comments, and extensive press coverage. Three key findings of the report include: (1) Six types of election irregularities were present and pervasive in most or all of the battleground states; (2) Each battleground state differed in its own way with respect to the types of irregularities that were election-determinate; (3) There was no single “silver bullet” that allegedly won the election for Biden; instead it was “death by a thousand irregularities” in any given battleground state; and, most importantly with respect to the question as to whether the election may well have been stolen, (4) the narrow alleged Biden “victory” margins in each of the six battleground states were dwarfed by the number of potentially illegal ballots. Volume 2 of the Navarro Report, The Art of the Steal, examined the institutional genesis of the six types of election irregularities. One key finding: The Democrat Party efforts to strategically game the election process across the six battleground states began years before, and in many cases, shortly after President Trump was elected in 2016. A second key finding: the Democrat’s This gaming of the election process was implemented through a two-pronged Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy designed to flood the six key battleground states with enough un-scrutinized and potentially illegal absentee and mail-in ballots to turn a decisive Trump victory into a narrow alleged Biden “win.” Prong One of the Democrat strategy dramatically INCREASED the amount of absentee and mailin ballots. Prong Two dramatically DECREASED the level of scrutiny of such ballots. This resulted in a FLOOD of potentially illegal ballots into the battleground states more than sufficient to tip the scales from a decisive legal win by President Trump to a narrow and potentially illegitimate alleged “victory” by Joe Biden. Importantly, much of what the Democrat Party and its operatives did to effectively achieve what may well be an illegal result was pursued through a variety of legal means. Nonetheless, at times, Democrat government officials also bent, and at times, broke the laws or rules of their state. Volume 3 of the Navarro Report is designed to serve as a capstone to what has been a comprehensive analysis of the question: Was the 2020 presidential election stolen from Donald J. Trump? In this report, we provide the most up-to-date statistical “receipts” with respect to the potential number of illegal votes in each battleground state.
The broader goal of this final installment of the Navarro Report is to provide investigators with a well-documented tally of potentially illegal votes on a state-by-state and category-by-category basis. This tally is presented in Figure One on the next page of this report. Note that each number in this figure has a corresponding endnote identifying the source of the number. Note further that we have taken a conservative approach to the count of potentially illegal ballots. As with previous volumes of the Navarro Report, you can see clearly in Figure One that the number of potentially illegal votes dwarfs the very thin alleged Biden “victory” margins. In the face of this evidence, no reasonable person would conclude that the 2020 presidential election was, beyond any shadow of doubt, a fair election. Rather, anyone who reads this report should feel compelled to seek greater clarity about whether, in fact, this election may have been stolen from Donald J. Trump. While it is now politically correct in progressive circles and the mainstream media to demand that all Americans submit and confess to the “truth” of what may well be the fiction of a free and fair election for the sake of “unity” and “harmony,” such a Kafkaesque demand in the face of the evidence in this report will likely have the opposite effect. To wit: almost half the country now believes that there were significant irregularities in the 2020 presidential race; and the failure to fully investigate these irregularities will only increase the number of Americans who have such doubts. This will be particularly true if the suppression of what necessarily must be a search for truth is facilitated by the authoritarian – nay fascist – behavior of a small group of social media oligarchs who have taken it upon themselves to de-platform and censor tens of millions of pro-Trump Americans who now find themselves victims, rather than consumers, of platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. In considering these truths, let us never forget two things: (1) The Democrat Party and its operatives stole the 1960 Presidential Election – it happened then and it can happen again; and (2) it took decades for historians to finally acknowledge the 1960 version of the Immaculate Deception in the face of the same kind of virtue-signaling and cancel culture pressures we are witnessing today. Despite a similar quest to silence Republican and conservative voices today, 74 million Americans who voted for President Donald J. Trump have the right to a full investigation and bipartisan search for truth. If, however, the Democrat Party, RINO elements of the Republican Party, the anti-Trump mainstream media, and the out-of-control censoring social media oligarchs do not cease and desist from their efforts to suppress the search for truth about the 2020 election, history will judge all of these people, corporations, and institutions in the harshest possible manner. At this point, we have moved dangerously in what seems like a nanosecond from a full and vibrant American Democracy to a Communist Chinese-style, Cancel Culture, Police State guarded by a collusive social media oligopoly that is beyond out of control. In the remainder of this report, we will simply present the statistical “receipts” on a state-by-state and subcategory-by-subcategory basis what may well be the worst theft in American political history. If the U.S. Congress and State Legislatures across the six battleground states ignore this evidence, they will do so not just at their own peril but also at the peril of America’s faith in our elections and the sanctity of our Republic.”
Comments