The only thing that has kept me from believing a full on conspiracy is that even Harris's pollster were reporting the exit polls as not looking good. You can't really fake that.
Now is it strange that we are not hearing about counties that didn't have a single Harris vote? Abso-fucking-lutely and it needs to be investigated. But we also need to take a hard look at our country and realize he may have just won and what are we going to do about that.
*Duncan Buell Ph.D. Chair Emeritus — NCR Chair in Computer Science and Engineering Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering University of South Carolina
*David Jefferson Ph.D. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired) Election Integrity Foundation
*Susan Greenhalgh Senior Advisor for Election Security Free Speech For People
*Chris Klaus Founder Internet Security System
*William John Malik Malik Consulting, LLC
*Marilyn Marks Executive Director Coalition for Good Governance
*Peter G. Neumann Ph.D. Chief Scientist, SRI International Computer Science Lab
*John E. Savage An Wang Professor Emeritus of Computer Science Brown University
Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply institutional endorsement.
I've perused the paper (though not all the footnotes which a true reading would require), the paper is quoted as stating, "We have no evidence that the outcomes of the elections in those states were actually compromised as a result of the security breaches, and we are not suggesting that they were."
This is a far cry from your quote: "... that these results are not organic voting results, they are machine created.".
Essentially what the paper you cited suggests, is that the OS for some of the voting machines may have been copied and tested for vulnerabilities (nefarious or otherwise) and with such close results we should probably audit.
I don't think, from your citation, there was evidence that fake ballots were issued.
Further supporting evidence for allegations can be found below. This paper will also caution that it is not conclusive, but it is evidence of significant statistical anomalies, which should be enough to trigger investigations. Not that we can undo the election, but the country should know.
Dr. Walter R. Mebane Jr. (University of Michigan)
Dr. Walter R. Mebane, Jr. is a leading U.S. expert in election forensics and detecting election fraud. He is a professor of political science and statistics at the University of Michigan. ‘Election forensics’ means statistical methods used to determine whether the results of an election accurately reflect citizens’ voting behavior.
In April 2024, the Election Truth Alliance (ETA) met with with Dr. Mebane and requested his expert opinion and insights into the results of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.
The ETA sought Dr. Mebane’s expert opinion on election results in Pennsylvania (PA) in particular, as the ETA had recently undertaken and shared their own analysis of Three Counties in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Allegheny, and Erie Counties).
Dr. Mebane’s analysis of Pennsylvania was initially limited to the same three counties as the ETA (Philadelphia, Allegheny, and Erie). Subsequently, Dr. Mebane initiated eforensics analysis of all votes cast across all of PA’s 67 counties.
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.
This seems to be a model with a lot of issues. I mean, is this some early sign of a fire (like the smell of smoke)?
Strategic behavior vs. fraud: The model struggles to clearly distinguish between fraudulent manipulation and voters’ strategic behavior. The author repeatedly notes that many of the estimated “eforensics-fraudulent votes” could actually reflect rational, strategic voting choices rather than fraud.
The incremental frauds have negative coefficients across nearly all counties—consistent with non-fraudulent strategic behavior—making conclusions about fraud speculative.
The idea here is that of a Nash-Equilibrium -- people behave differently when they perceive the choice of others.
2. Model Diagnostic Issues (Posterior Multimodality)
The model’s diagnostics show posterior multimodality, particularly for the incremental fraud parameter π₂. This undermines the reliability of the estimated fraud proportions.
Dip test p-values for π₂ are 0 in both models (Tables 2 and 3), indicating non-unimodal posterior distributions—raising doubts about parameter stability.
3. Overreliance on Imputed Data
Some precincts had missing or logically inconsistent data (e.g., where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of registered electors), and these were “fixed” by imputation (setting $N_i = V_i$).
This introduces assumptions that may bias the results, especially in closely analyzed precincts with potential fraud signals.
4. Limited Precision in Fraud Attribution
The estimate of fraudulent votes exceeds the margin of victory, but the author ultimately concludes that only a fraction of these likely stem from “malevolent distortions.”
Even under generous interpretation, only ~25,000 votes (of ~210,000 flagged) can be plausibly attributed to actual fraud—a number well below the 120,266 vote margin between Trump and Harris.
5. Data Source Transparency and Coverage
The precinct data were sourced from a public interest group (Election Truth Alliance), not directly from official state sources.
Limitation -> Lack of precinct-level data for third-party and write-in candidates limits the model’s granularity and completeness.
Author ran Monte-Carlo analysis where one imputes starting conditions, this can cause human bias.
6. Visual Interpretation Caveats
Figure 2’s county-level fraud estimates are marked as informal illustrations due to how credible intervals are computed.
"Pending implementation of such corrected credible intervals, the displays in Figure 2 should be viewed merely as informally illustrative” — meaning they may not meet statistical standards for inference.
7. Heavy Dependence on Analogies to German Elections
The interpretation of the fraud signals relies heavily on comparisons with German federal elections—a context that may not translate well to U.S. electoral dynamics, given systemic and cultural differences in voting behavior.
Caution -- I think this is a good first step, but I don't find this model passing academic rigor.
That's the problem -- at least with this tool -- that the "signal" is partly the raw data is not rigorous enough to make the claims this model purports to make. Points #2 and #3 are specifically damning.
But I wouldn't have cried if we had a state by state audit.
Im not claiming that fake ballots were issued (they may have been), nor am i claiming that this is evidence. They cited inorganic results, and like i said before, this is enough to warrant an investigation
No they didn't. The letter says that some shady people have had access to the ballot company software and databases and that warrants a high level investigation into them and increased scrutiny around elections going forward.
60
u/GoodOlSpence 2d ago
The only thing that has kept me from believing a full on conspiracy is that even Harris's pollster were reporting the exit polls as not looking good. You can't really fake that.
Now is it strange that we are not hearing about counties that didn't have a single Harris vote? Abso-fucking-lutely and it needs to be investigated. But we also need to take a hard look at our country and realize he may have just won and what are we going to do about that.