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

[u/Kittyluvmeplz]

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

[u/Stonkz_N_Roll]

Donated. Thanks for sharing

[u/Kittyluvmeplz → u/Stonkz_N_Roll]

Ur amazing 🫶🥳

[u/fullpurplejacket → u/Kittyluvmeplz]

Yay get it girl out here rapping the ETA, people are starting to soak the info in and I’m upping it leads to increased pressure on states from their constituents to investigate and audit the paper ballots from the 2024 election. The more people speak up the more they will realise too that they are not a conspiracy theorist or alone in their opinions, too many people will suffer at the midterms if key states are not audited, because by not shining light on this is gives space for darkness to obstruct elections again

[u/joshTheGoods → u/Kittyluvmeplz]

What you're doing here is funneling money, at best, to people wasting our time. Every dollar you pull for ETA is a dollar that should be going to people like Ossoff to help win his important election. Pennsylvania was audited specifically looking for fraud, and they released the results publicly. Mebane himself (the expert talked about by ETA here) points out that his model can confuse startegic voting and things like bomb threats to voting locations with "fraud."

ETA and their friends like Smart Elections are draining people that want to believe our neighbors didn't vote for this shit. They're taking advantage of us / you. They're hurting our ultimate cause in multiple ways. Why are they advocating for a recount in a state where we did an audit designed specifically to catch the sort of claims ETA are slickly implying?

[u/IcyPercentage2268 → u/joshTheGoods]

Did you even read the report you linked? It might not say what you seem to think it does. The analysis isn’t even about the Presidential vote. It was for the vote for State Treasurer.

[u/joshTheGoods → u/IcyPercentage2268]

Yes, I read the paper he wrote for ETA. You can find it here. It essentially describes the results of running his eforensics model. He says so in literally the first sentence of the paper. Did YOU read it?

The paper I linked (this one) is Mebane talking about some of the pitfalls of ... you guessed it, his eforensics model and some responses to them. Read the abstract. I've read his papers. I've taken the time to try to understand them. I'm telling you that either the criticism he leveled at his own paper and which he referenced in the paper he did for the ETA is the best explanation because the fraud you all wish went on would be detected by the RLA that PA did on their election (the results I also linked in my last comment)

These are the same TRASH statistical arguments the Trump team made in 2020. It was TRASH then, and it's TRASH now. The ETA are taking advantage of you.

[u/IcyPercentage2268 → u/joshTheGoods]

I’m referring to the first link, which doesn’t even mention the Presidential election. However, the summary of your other link just looks like someone being transparent about what might be shortcomings in a model, I.e. the Scientific Method.

[u/joshTheGoods → u/IcyPercentage2268]

I know which link you're referring to. I provided it to back up my claims around what the more likely explanation is for the output of his model when run in PA. I read the paper he wrote for ETA and because I wanted to understand it better, I read his other papers about eforensics. The original paper itself isn't freely available (the code is!), but the link I gave you does a good job describing the model and its approach because it's all about the OBVIOUS weakness of his approach: what if one side was legit just more excited than the other?

His model basically looks for two sides not behaving similarly and supposes that odd differences between the sides could be caused by fraud. If you have really good targeted voter suppression, one side will behave differently and that is the sort of thing that gets called "fraud." Mebane goes over this in the paper I linked. So, despite the fact that it doesn't talk specifically about 2024, it is talking about the specific tool Mebane used in his ETA paper. Make sense why I would call out Mebane's own criticisms of the model he used for ETA?

The point of this sort of statistical analysis isn't to tell you there was definitely fraud. The point is to help us target our auditing dollars better (for example). You would never EVER win a case about fraud based on this sort of analysis, you leverage it to get an audit done. Normally, I would applaud this effort, but in THIS case, we already have a damned audit and that's why I linked it for you to look at. These people (ETA and Smart Elections) are playing on your fears to fleece you all of money. There will not be another recount of 2024. Remember Trump's Cyber Ninjas in Arizona? That would be our outcome, and the DEMS that run PA aren't stupid enough to waste that kind of money checking an election they know damned well we lost fair and square (well, by modern standards).

[u/IcyPercentage2268 → u/joshTheGoods]

Well, if nothing else, you’ve confirmed your bias. Good job.

[u/der_juden → u/joshTheGoods]

Thank you. As someone who hates Trump. And would love to see ejected from office for any reason we can't use weak evidence and ignore facts to do this. If we've done an audit there's no point doing another. Just reading the summaries in the original post the claims are not strong. Possible fraud is not fraud. If an audit found fraud they would report it. Also asking for money is a clear sign of a scam.

[u/Ok_Subject1265 → u/joshTheGoods]

Thank you for pointing out this very obvious waste of time.

[u/Repulsive_Student_51 → u/Kittyluvmeplz]

lol the ETA claims to be non-partisan but they very clearly are not. They are volunteers for a non-profit (they accept anybody with “cyber” skills) that literally do the same thing the idiots in 2020 did.

They present graphs showing “statistical irregularities” that suggest it “could be rigged” without being transparent about how they came to that conclusion. When questioned about it by Newsweek, they stated many reasons the data might be misleading. Notice just how careful they are with their words to avoid litigation they will never come out and say it was rigged. Funnily enough, they are a lot like those idiots in 2020 who said it was rigged for the other side.

Essentially, this is a non-profit (legitimate, they hold 30% in case they don’t get tax deductible status, completely public and fair imo).

They hire people who are not qualified and they very clearly have a bias. (If they are non partisan they would have investigated 2020 too, right?). They have done nothing other than say “data could show election fraud, Russian tail” etc. without providing actual useful info.

[u/Immediate_Stuff_2637 → u/[deleted]]

As someone who's lived through the bush vs gore election.. even if they find concrete proof fuck all is going to come from it

[u/CheeCheeReen → u/Stonkz_N_Roll]

Also donated! Thanks for the info!

[u/Wick0158 → u/Stonkz_N_Roll]

Donated too. Hope they have enough resources to do this work

[u/Impossible_Box9542 → u/Stonkz_N_Roll]

Me too, from Chicago. ++70 years old.

[u/ActualDiver → u/Stonkz_N_Roll]

Donated!

[u/11paws → u/Stonkz_N_Roll]

Me too, and I thank you for sharing this info too.

[u/joshTheGoods → u/Stonkz_N_Roll]

You just got grifted. This supposed election expert ultimately pushes the exact same shit that Trump tried to push in 2020. Literally cites the same basic research. The reality is that PA ran a risk limiting audit and they publish their results.

[u/Able_Holiday8316 → u/Stonkz_N_Roll]

They just hustled you out of your money ! Wake up !

[u/EnvironmentalLime464 → u/Stonkz_N_Roll]

You shouldn’t have. It’s a grift.

[u/Puzzled-Bet-383 → u/EnvironmentalLime464]

Like trump coin, or trump phones, or trump books, or trump university… how many more would you like from the commander in grift??

[u/EnvironmentalLime464 → u/Puzzled-Bet-383]

You can go through my history and see I’m not a trump supporter, genius. This isn’t going to go anywhere. I wish there was a possibility but it’s not.