Spherical Model: Data Scientists Are the New Superheroes

Presidential election map, as of Nov. 9, 2020
The Epoch Times

We're still here, counting, and waiting to know the outcome of the election, despite what the media and Joe Biden have announced. People keep saying it's like Groundhog's Day; we wake up and live it over again.

We've been here before. It’s hard to consider that 2000 was now 20 years ago. College students today didn’t even experience what was happening then. So, here’s a little history lesson.

History Lesson

During that 2000 election, President George W. Bush was declared the winner of the presidential race the night of the election. Al Gore conceded. Then Gore retracted his concession and asked for a recount in Florida. Not all of Florida. Not in counties he thought he should have won but didn’t, leading him to be suspicious of voter fraud. Only in specific securely Gore-winning counties. The recount included precincts reporting zero votes for Bush, a statistical unlikelihood—even, you could say, an impossibility.

The more they “recounted,” the more votes they “found” for Gore. It was a suspicious process. It depended on subjective discernment of voter intent when a computer punch card hadn’t been punched correctly, leaving chads, the little rectangles that were supposed to be punched out, hanging, or pregnant (indented but not removed).

Long story short, the Florida Supreme Court got involved, overruling the laws of the state legislature in an attempt to achieve a particular outcome (a Gore win). The US Supreme Court stepped in—at the time still a Supreme Court during the Bill Clinton presidency—and stopped the Florida Supreme Court from breaking their own state laws. The outcome was to return victory to George W. Bush.

At the time, one of the interesting stories I came across on the internet was from a mathematician who proved, with math and logic, that what we were seeing was fraud. I wish I still had my hands on that article. But what I’m seeing this week is the enlargement of that story.

This year the fraud isn’t confined to a couple of hard-core Democrat counties willing to pad their numbers upon request; it is essentially Democrats in every swing state (and who knows beyond that) doing whatever it takes to add numbers to their side.

Image from Freedom Through Truth Pac Facebook page
where FB "helpfully" tells me it's partially false;
the fact check tells me Dems aren't colluding with CIA,
but everything on the list apparently checks out.

And there’s proof. It won’t be the same kind of proof as, “I watched that person illegally fill out a ballot, right in front of me, and add it to the stack to be counted, and here's the video.” But it will be the kind of proof that has sufficed in fraud cases, and other types of cases involving numbers, for quite a long time. We have the proof because data scientists and forensic accountants are stepping up.

A few days ago a friend posted a link to a Reuters “fact check,” debunking a whole list of supposed voter fraud cases that had been determined to be baseless. I wrote about voter fraud last Thursday, and I’ve been keeping up on such accusations; not a single one of the Reuters list was one I had heard of or was looking into. Debunking them did nothing to debunk the multitude I talked about Thursday, nor the ever-growing additional cases I’m talking about today.

In other words, if you’re depending on mainstream media sources to tell you the truth about the actual fraud going on, you will find yourself shocked and disturbed when the evidence going into the courts yields its inexorable outcome.

It’s About Math

Fraud stories, from here on, will look like math. Like this one: In Milwaukee, 7 wards (voting jurisdictions, like precincts) had more votes than registered voters. And people are noticing thousands of dead people on voter rolls, or among actual voters. People are going over the available public data right now, discovering this type of anomaly, for which often the only explanation is voter fraud.

Benford’s Law

You’re about to hear more about Benford’s law. It’s a forensic accounting tool to identify anomalies, which has been used successfully in voter fraud cases for some time. In brief, layman’s terms (and that’s all I can handle in this field), there are certain numbers that are expected to occur in random counts. 1s and 2s show up naturally a lot more often than 3s, 4s, 5s, etc. There’s a natural curve. It looks like this, the curve for a write-in candidate in Milwaukee:

Benford's law graph, expected
image from here

When a set of data doesn’t follow the expected pattern, it is an identifier of interference—or fraud.

When this test is used on jurisdictions where Biden was struggling before a sudden middle-of-the-night vote dump, his pattern looks like this, in Milwaukee, Allegheny, and Chicago:

Benford's law graphs showing anomalies of Biden in Milwaukee, Allegheny, and Chicago
composite of images from here

It is not simply suspicious; it is an indicator that fraud occurred. Benford’s law is frequently used in court, because it is a reliable test.

In case you’re wondering, the curve for Trump, consistently across the country, is close to expected, with only occasional minor deviations within an acceptable percentage.

Let me say this really clearly: this is not someone’s opinion that we have something that hints at fraud for Biden; it is evidence that we are looking at fraud. This evidence will hold up in court.

Mail-In Anomalies

Several anomalies show up comparing late mail-in votes to other votes. We’ve expected more mail-in votes to go to Biden than Trump, because Democrats were pushing people to both be afraid of voting in person because of COVID-19, and to do mail-in wherever possible, disregarding safeguards necessary to prevent voter fraud. However, mass mail-in voting actually may make it easier to catch mail-in ballot fraud.

Mail-in rejection rates tend to be high—the highest of all forms of voting. The pattern this year, in particular places, is an extraordinarily low rejection rate for mail-in ballots—which happen to coincide with areas that prevented Republicans from viewing the ballot review process.

Election observers in Philadelphia are kept behind barriers,
too far away to observe ballot checking, Nov. 6, 2020
image from Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times

Another anomaly compares apples to apples. If you look at ballots that came in through the mail system, which processes the voting envelopes randomly, you can see a consistent pattern: even distribution of D and R votes, with movement toward R later in the process. The assumption here is that there are more Rs in rural areas, with mail needing to travel further, so they arrive closer to the deadline. This pattern occurs consistently around the country. (See graphs here.)

But in areas that received post-deadline mail-in ballots, those ballots skew dramatically toward Biden. They do not match what can happen with ballots randomly going through a mail system. They do not match the distribution of the same type of ballot in the same jurisdiction that arrived just before the deadline. They appear to be non-random dumps of D votes.

Undervote

Let’s add another anomaly.

In past years, when Democrats wanted to contest a close election, one detail they looked at was the undervote; that is, votes that only vote for the top of the ticket and leave the rest of the ticket blank. A certain percentage of those will occur. Some people care only about the top-of-the-ticket race and don’t bother with the rest. But that is rare. Most people vote down at least through several races, if not the entire ballot. When you see undervotes, that indicates someone who quickly votes what matters to them, because of time pressure.

Imagine someone at a polling place, with a list of voters who haven’t voted, then quickly voting for those names, one after another, before someone discovers what they’re doing. Even 10-20 per polling place could switch a close election’s outcome. So it’s something Democrats know to be suspicious of.

Except this election. This year they’re telling you massive numbers of undervotes—all for Biden—are totally normal. There are areas with inordinate amounts of undervotes. Beyond suspicious. Into the territory of “fraud is the only explanation.”

For example:

In Michigan, Trump received 2,637,173 votes while the GOP senate candidate received 2,630,042 votes. The difference here is only 7,131 which is not far off from what we see historically. In the same state, Joe Biden received 2,787,544 votes while the Democratic senate candidate received 2,718,451. The difference is 69,093 votes which is much higher than the historical norm.

In Barack Obama’s 2008 victory, he received a total of 2,867,680 votes, while the democratic senate candidate received 3,033,000 votes. Somehow Joe Biden gained over 60,000 ballots with no down-ballot vote.

Illegal Voters

Let’s add that there are many votes cast by people not legal to vote in the state. In Nevada, this could be tens of thousands. It’s not uncommon for citizens to have homes in both California and Nevada. Suppose a person left their California home to escape the harsh pandemic shutdown, or possibly to escape wildfires. For whatever reason, they’re in Nevada, instead of in California, where they’re registered to vote. A Nevada mail-in ballot arrives for them in the mail, even though they aren’t registered to vote in Nevada. What the heck! California isn’t going to change because of their vote, but Nevada’s a toss-up. They fill out the ballot and send it in. They don’t think they’ll get caught, and if thy do, they can plead ignorance of the law; after all, the ballot came to them, so it was a fair assumption that the government knew what it was doing.

True, it is a fair assumption the “government,” or its operatives, knew what they were doing. That’s the point. And that’s one reason Nevada can’t seem to provide an accurate vote count yet.

Then there is non-citizen voting—people who should not be voting in US elections in any jurisdiction. Just the Facts provides the math estimates for seven the states still up in the air. Here’s how much Biden has benefitted from illegally cast non-citizen votes:

· Arizona: 51,081 ± 17,689

· Georgia: 54,950 ± 19,025

· Michigan: 22,585 ± 7,842

· Nevada: 22,021 ± 7,717

· North Carolina: 46,218 ± 16,001

· Pennsylvania: 32,706 ± 11,332

· Wisconsin: 5,010 ± 1,774

Taking only the low-end estimates would put Trump up to 259 electoral votes. The high end would give him 285—that’s from this form of fraud only, leaving out the dumped fraudulent mail-in ballots and other types of fraud.

Do non-citizens actually vote in such numbers? Most states don’t do much to prevent it. Here’s what previous surveys of non-citizens have told us:

· 15% admitted they were registered to vote in 2008, and 8% stated “I definitely voted” in the 2008 US presidential election.

· 14% admitted they were registered to vote in 2012, and 9% stated “I definitely voted” in the 2012 US presidential election.

· 13% of Hispanic non-citizens admitted they were registered to vote in 2013.

· In 2008, 82% of non-citizens who said they voted also stated that they voted for Democrat Barack Obama, and 18% said they voted for Republican John McCain.

Counting Software “Glitch”

There’s more. There’s a program hack, used with a particular system, detected in Antrim, Michigan, where a hand recount proved that 6,000 votes for Trump were switched toward Biden. That error was corrected, because the county noticed and did a hand recount. But that was one of 37 counties in that state that used the system. And 30 states around the country used that counting software. Pay attention to the company names Dominion’s Democracy Suite and ImageCast, Scorecard, and a government supercomputer called Hammer. We should be hearing more about these.

Places where the "glitchy" software has been used
image found here

That is different from a ballot dump of mail-ins, where you simply remove them from the Biden total. This is double the damage. When Biden took Trump votes this way, he went up 6,000 while Trump went down 6,000—a shift of 12,000. If you assume 6,000 votes were changed in this manner in each of those 37 counties, that would be a switch of 444,000 votes in a state where the count currently shows Biden up by 146,123.

Another story I read shortly before posting shows that there were ballot systems connected to the internet, rather than just to an LAN. This is illegal. It introduces the possibility of hacking.

The Future

Remember that, in 2000, even though just a couple of counties in one state were at issue, the recount and final decision took until December 13^th. We didn’t know who would be our president until then. Not knowing for a long time is not unprecedented.

This year the Electoral College is scheduled to cast their votes on December 14^th. There are several scenarios that could play out.

One: The courts take up the cases quickly, and appeals are handled quickly as well, due to the urgent and important nature of what’s at stake. The courts consider the evidence and rule on the cases. Depending on the various cases in the various states, several states could flip to Trump’s column. Pennsylvania and one or two others would do it. At that point, the decision of who is president would be complete, and that means other cases, while important for prosecuting fraud, would be moot concerning determining the presidency.

It’s also possible—but it looks unlikely to me—that the courts consider the evidence and do not find a remedy, such as removing certain numbers of fraudulent votes from Biden’s count. Another remedy could be a re-vote, but I see that as mostly unlikely. In Georgia, it is not out of the question, because they have a scheduled runoff for Senate races already set for early January; they require re-registering to vote in the runoff, by the way.

Two: The courts do not make a determination concerning the fraud and appropriate remedy in time for the December 13^th deadline. There’s a lot of sudden discussion of the process we don’t usually look at. One part relates to state legislatures; they are the ones to determine the slate of electors. If a state cannot determine the will of the people by the vote, then it falls upon the state legislature to meet and make that determination. State legislatures actually certify their state’s votes, and they have a choice in these states with obvious fraud, according to The American Thinker:

certify an election that was clearly fraudulent, certify a different slate of electors who will vote against the popular, but fraudulent vote, or just fail to certify.

Nearly all of the swing states that are up in the air, despite having Democrat governors and election officials, have Republican majority state legislatures. Still, the most likely scenario, for lack of courage, is that they fail to certify, and so they send the final decision elsewhere.

Three: The courts and state legislatures do not provide an answer in time. Then the decision falls to the US House of Representatives, as outlined in the Twelfth Amendment. However, that does not mean an automatic win for Democrats, who hold the majority. It’s not apportioned in the normal way the US House does its business. Each state will have one vote: Texas gets 1, California gets 1, Wyoming gets 1, Rhode Island gets 1. And every state’s one vote is determined by the majority of that state’s US House delegation. In other words, there may be a larger number of Democrats in the total House, but there are more states that have more Republican representatives than Democrat representatives.

The count as it currently stands is 24R-22D. According to what the vote count so far shows, in early January, when the new Congress is seated, the count will be 26R-20D.

So, that’s your Constitution lesson for the day.

What do I think is going to happen? I think the amount and placement of the fraud is both obvious and provable. I believe the most peaceful remedy will be the revelation, over the next several weeks, of the proof of the fraud. I do not expect the media to share the proof, but it will get out there. It has to. There is already so much that I can’t imagine accepting this election as a Biden win. But at this point I am trusting the courts to rule according to the law.

If word gets out about the fraud, Scott Adams calls this the best-case scenario. He says it’s better than if Trump had been declared the winner in a close race on election night—which would have spurred rioting, and even more weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth than we’ve seen so far. He says people will realize, over time, “Hey, it was our party that was corrupt.” And, even though the vast majority of Democrats aren’t willing to engage in voter fraud, they will see clearly that some in their party did. And they’ll be willing to accept the outcome.

He’s an optimist. I like to be as well. But we’ll see. By the way, Adams predicted a 60% likelihood that Trump would be in the White House in January; 40% Biden. Even now, he still holds to those probabilities.

Miracles can happen. Thirty-one years ago today, the Berlin Wall fell.

Whatever happens, I leave it in God’s hands.

Sources

I’m not an investigative reporter. I’m a blogger gathering info and trying to share it with somewhat organized clarity. I suggest you don’t take my word for it. Here’s some of what I looked at for today’s blog post:

· Leigh Dundas video

o Dundas links to this article: “There is Undeniable Mathematical Evidence the Election is Being Stolen”

· Lou Dobbs interview with attorney Sydney Powell video

· “BREAKING: ‘Too Close To Call’: Georgia Headed For A Recount After Biden Takes Lead” video

· “Right Now: Trump lawyers holding press conference in Philadelphia” with Rudy Giuliani, video

· “‘Like Flipping a Coin and Getting Heads 100Times’: Stats Boffs Scrutinize Biden ‘Victory’ Numbers” by Raheem Kassam and Natalie Winters for The National Pulse

· Twitter thread from an anonymous data scientist, containing excellent graphs and explanations, at this url

· “Quantifying Illegal Votes Cast by Non-Citizens in the Battleground States of the 2020 Presidential Election,” by James D. Agresti for Just Facts

· “New Election Math: It’s Not 270, It’s 26-24*UPDATED*” by Jay Valentine for American Thinker

· “Getting Republicans into the House is as crucial as getting Trump re-elected” by Andrea Widburg for American Thinker

· “Another Cliffhanger” by Clarice Feldman for American Thinker

· “Election Outcome Unclear Amid Pending Recounts and Legal Challenges” Epoch Times, Nov. 8, 2020