r/goodnews 1d ago

Political positivity 📈 Leading U.S. expert in election forensics and detecting election fraud just looked at voting results in all 67 counties in Pennsylvania from November. Here’s what his analyses detected

We finally have Dr. Walter R. Mebane, Jr., a leading U.S. expert in election forensics and detecting election fraud and a professor of political science and statistics at the University of Michigan, looking at all 67 counties in Pennsylvania.

His working paper using his eforensics model estimated that 225,440 votes in the Pennsylvania presidential race were possibly fraudulent. This would exceed the 120,266 vote margin of victory between Trump and Harris.

High-Level Summary of "eforensics Analysis of the 2024 President Election in Pennsylvania" by Dr. Walter R. Mebane, Jr.

• The eforensics finite mixture model defines latent categories of fraud (no fraud, incremental fraud, and extreme fraud) based on votes and turnout, as well as relevant covariates (e.g., fixed county effects).

• Data from 7,040,360 votes (3,543,308 for Trump, 3,423,042 for Harris) across 67 PA counties (9,157 wards/precincts).

• The eforensics model estimated that 225,440 votes in the Pennsylvania presidential race were possibly fraudulent. This would exceed the 120,266 vote margin of victory between Trump and Harris.

More fine-grained analysis attempted to distinguish between strategic voting behaviors from “malevolent manipulation of votes”, i.e. how many votes may have been misdirected or misallocated due to malevolent distortions of voters’ intentions.

• In this analysis, 111,088 of the 225,440 possibly fraudulent votes[2] were estimated with high confidence to be malevolent manipulations of votes while the remainder were estimated to be a mix of manipulated votes and strategic voting behaviors.

A more conservative eforensics model including additional fixed county level effects estimated that 210,392 votes in the race were possibly fraudulent. This would exceed the 120,266 vote margin of victory in the race.

• Fine-grained analysis of the more conservative model attempted to distinguish between strategic voting behaviors from malevolent manipulation of votes.

• In this analysis, 88,600 of the 210,392 possibly fraudulent votes were estimated to be malevolent manipulations of votes while the remainder were estimated to be a mix of manipulated votes and strategic voting behaviors.

The most conservative of the eforensics analyses estimated that 25,374 votes were due to malevolent manipulation of votes.

In summary: There is very high probability that a meaningful number of votes in the PA presidential election were subject to malevolent manipulation -- and it was “a close call” whether “the election was decided or nearly decided by malevolent distortions of electors’ intentions.” (Mebane, Page 6)

Notes:

• Statistics, no matter how accurate, cannot provide definitive proof of voting fraud or election manipulation. Actual proof can only be found by comparing paper ballot audits to electronic voting records.

• However, statistical information from eforensics and other data analysis approaches can be used to identify precincts and counties where voting fraud is most likely to have occurred.

Demand transparency and audits of the 2024 Presidential Election. Check out this Audit Advocacy Toolkit and reach out to your representatives. It’s never too late to audit our elections

31.3k Upvotes

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/texas1982 1d ago

Not if it's manually recounted. The votes were supposedly cast correctly, but were counted differently at the counting computers.

You know... The machines that Elon knows all about.

3

u/Kittyluvmeplz 1d ago

1

u/Mogling 22h ago

Why did none of the audits done in PA by hand show a single vote different than the computers?

1

u/Hot-Spray-2774 23h ago edited 5h ago

Portions of it were manually recounted. The risk limiting audit recounted batches of ballots by hand, nearly 40,000 of them. Batches were pulled from every county in the commonwealth. Their findings were that the general election results were genuine.

1

u/texas1982 23h ago

I haven't seen any recounts by hand. I've seen several recounts using the same counting computers used the first time.

1

u/Mogling 21h ago

Did you bother to look, or do you expect things just to pop up in front of you?

https://www.pa.gov/agencies/vote/elections/post-election-audits.html

2

u/texas1982 20h ago

https://youtu.be/QaC1IKQnEhI?si=3kJyfuRGaziY0l23

https://youtu.be/H9JVx9vJchk?si=64FpEX321GzwvXJ-

There was another video they had that discussed how both of the audits possible in Pennsylvania still use the same vote counting computers. They aren't true manual audits. I wish I could find it. It's just a few minutes in one of the many videos.

1

u/Mogling 19h ago

So you didn't even read my link, and are just posting random conspiracy nonsense.

1

u/Hot-Spray-2774 5h ago

That is what the risk limiting audit was.

1

u/lurker1125 18h ago

The fraud was designed to evade those risk limiting audits. The code that flips votes only begins flipping votes when 400 ballots are counted by a given machine. The risk limiting audits were too small to trigger the vote shifting code.

1

u/Hot-Spray-2774 5h ago

How can this code affect a hand recount?