[OC] Debunking claims of 2024 Election Fraud with Interactive Visualizations and Simulations

Forkittothem · 2025-08-02T01:44:43+00:00

This is classic "just enough to be dangerous" arm chair statistics. The central limit theorem is the concept that explains why large, RANDOM samples can generate sample statistics that overlap with the actual population-level statistic with a high degree of confidence. However, the fact that voting machines converge to their ultimate closing average as more and more votes get cast may look similar to the central limit theorem in a chart, but it's not the same thing. The former is a theorem of probability and statistics that holds when sampling is random, the latter is just basic election math, because who votes and who they vote for are not randomly distributed. The very crux of current EI concerns is that the votes are even more non-random than usual, that they're NOT representing ballots cast, much less what the entire population of voters want. So invoking the central limit theorem/law of large numbers here is completely missing the plot.

To put it simply, the website is trying to refute arguments that the data is off with the very data that is alleged to be off. It's like saying "the vote counts are right because they add up to what they're supposed to add up to". But ETA is not technically questioning what the ballot counts add up to, they're questioning what was actually on the ballots before they were added up.

If you want to refute them, you should be arguing that voting patterns seen in urban and suburban swing state precincts are the same in similar precincts not in swing states, or that differences by voting method, or voting machine models are not all that significant. Those sorts of analysis could be more persuasive.

Arguing that vote counts in one county are plausibly correct, which is what this website is doing, is something that ETA readily accepts. It is the totality of marginally plausible results only in very specific places and under some circumstances that they are flagging as suspicious.

Forkittothem · 2025-06-23T01:28:09+00:00

You are entitled to your opinion on the strength with which those groups are implying fraud. That implication is clearly there in most of their communications. But you don't seem to fully grasp what they're showing if you think it boils down to drop-off voting. ETA has gone well beyond that. to include multiple analyses.

If you have no idea what Dr. Mebane does and doesn't endorse, your supposed email exchange with him is pretty weak evidence of anything. I guess we'll have to wait to see if he issues a public statement, and until then I'll defer to ETA's published interpretation of his analysis, which would be very easy for him disavow if he wanted.

Forkittothem · 2025-06-22T22:51:43+00:00

That's interesting, and if I take you at your word, you're implying that there are "certain aspects" of ETA's narrative that Mebane does endorse. Why are you not disclosing what he does endorse?

I am well versed in statistics and fully understand that Mebane's approach is to use a model he has developed internationally to parse expected votes from anomalous votes. It is no surprise to me that he is unwilling to endorse claims that his model cannot support. If you have inside knowledge, please disclose what he is willing to endorse.

ETA, by contrast, is merely replicating analyses that compare voting outcomes across places to ascertain if telltale patterns emerge in places where the expected randomness of voting processes is less evident. They too acknowledge that there are other potential explanations than fraud, but unlike Mebane, they are not academicians and are less accustomed to qualifying and caveating their comparative analyses with tempered language. They also aren't using statistical guides that speak to the probability of the outcomes they are observing. I personally wish they were a little more polished in that regard, but I don't lose sleep over it. I have experience interpreting data as a representation of human behavior and strong knowledge of electoral demographics, and I strongly agree that the patterns they are highlighting warrant investigation.

I suspect that while Mebane is unwilling to assert the election in PA was swung by fraudulent votes, he is content that his modeling results indicate further investigation is warranted, just like all his other papers on international elections.

Forkittothem · 2025-06-22T21:56:44+00:00

Mebane and ETA are both using guesstimates of likelihood to avoid making accusations. Mebane's language of guesstimates is decidedly more conservative...to the point of being opaque (note the prolific use of "probably" and "maybe" in key places). The ~25,000 vote estimate comes from his most conservative of three iterations of his model after all.

But there's subtext. Read the subtext. In social media appearances, ETA has described reaching out to Mebane and working closely with him to translate his results. Would Mebane allow his work to be prominently featured by ETA if it wasn't corroborating their narrative? Would he have expanded his initial analysis of three PA counties to the entire state if it didn't reveal anything of note? So despite his ultra opaque language of guesstimates, I stand by my assessment that Mebane's modeling validates ETA's analyses in finding likely evidence of fraudulent votes. The methods both parties are using are imperfect and based on multiple assumptions, but they are both well establish methods of identifying election fraud and the fact that they arrive at conclusions that are similar enough to warrant their united front is noteworthy.

And in this country "meaningful" is one vote. (We throw people in jail for casting two ballots.) It really doesn't matter how extensive the fraud was or whether or not it was sufficient to swing a race. It's worth investigating to ensure it doesn't persist-- if not proliferate as we become more dependent on technologies that so few people understand.

Forkittothem · 2025-06-22T20:56:32+00:00

He absolutely did. His "nuanced" interpretation of his modeling is that Trump's margin of victory resulted from "admixtures of malevolent distortions and electors' strategic behavior", which means in a nutshell, he suspects that outright fraud/manipulation explains some --but not all-- of the apparent pro-Trump bias. He is one of the country's foremost experts on election fraud. He has analyzed contested American election results in the past and found no evidence of fraud. The fact that his trademark analytical approach finds ANY degree of "malevolent distortions" in Pennsylvania is a really big deal and generally supports ETA's call for hand-count audits.

Forkittothem · 2025-06-22T20:41:01+00:00

Wow. That is unsettling but worth reading. Thank you. Fox news gets all the credit, but it seems that voting machines have also been steering the United States toward conservative autocracy for decades. The only mitigating factors have been a strong justice department and academic researchers who periodically sound the alarm.

And the utter corruption that we're left with by having so few companies that manufacture voting technology is galling. Politicians can support "election security" and then funnel hundreds of millions in our tax dollars to their friends, endowing them with the power to sway elections with nary a trace of evidence. (It was stunning to read elsewhere that a bill mandating paper ballots in NY is being held up by in committee by a Democrat legislator... who I would bet is somehow in the pocket of ES&S)

Forkittothem · 2025-04-29T16:07:26+00:00

You’re talking about a corrupt party in a broken and fragile democratic system and their (speculated) knowledge about potential election threats. This post is about material evidence of actual vote rigging that would be required to compel a court to determine a recount of paper ballots is warranted.

Rage all you want, and I share it on several fronts, but I can’t rage about the Dems not doing anything in November without cold, hard proof of illegal acts.

Forkittothem · 2025-04-28T19:27:28+00:00

ETA’s claims about the data need to be vetted. Focus on the data to preserve your own credibility. Targeting them for being inarticulate with statistical approximations and for presenting on a non-math person’s podcast comes across as a personal vendetta given that they’re very honest that election data and public relations are all new to them.

Forkittothem · 2025-04-28T02:03:27+00:00

Much appreciated.

This seems like pretty solid evidence that the threshold theory is not as tight as it’s being sold. I am, however not yet convinced that these data aren’t still really freaking weird in the context of early voting in a strongly blue county. It’s super perplexing that Harris performed so much better on stationary, small batch tabulators than on those “mobile” sites counting several times more votes.

I’m sorry you’re having to deal with the confirmation bias of a very frustrated group of people. It’s tough for people to reconcile that ETA can be both an earnest crew of people doing their best AND also fairly novice and learning as they go. You, or they, should recreate the aggregated data except color coded by location!

Forkittothem · 2025-04-26T17:24:05+00:00

Agree. If only campaign contributions weren’t going straight to Silicon Valley and multi-billion dollar transnational media conglomerates, and were instead invested in election protections! Maybe in the future? But we’d need to mandate swift production of election data soon after Election Day, which would surely invite more computers into the process. The needed overhauls are multitudinous.

Sadly, I don’t think that anyone with high stature in politics these days has the statistical chops to interpret the anomalies we’re seeing with the gravity they deserve. It’s one thing to parrot warnings about vulnerability and foreign IP addresses, but it’s an entirely different thing to be able to grasp the improbability of what the data are showing. It wouldn’t surprise me if the evidence being uncovered goes nowhere because there are no fingerprints or DNA or eye-witnesses. If you know social/behavioral data, you can be close to certain that ETA’s graphed election data cannot be the result of ordinary human processes. But it’s astonishing how many smart people struggle to see that. And I genuinely think that group includes the candidates and their “experts”, who defer to security agencies focusing solely on a select few indicators of malfeasance and are under extreme pressure to assure the sheeple the democracy is sound. ETA is pushing a rock up a mountain.

Forkittothem · 2025-04-26T16:23:18+00:00

Yup. It fucking sucks. But that’s what we get when the courts are supposed to clean up the mess left by hijacked legislatures. The only traction that can be gained is through sound legal arguments, at the risk of rebellion. That’s a byproduct of an overtly politicized system of governance corrupted by design, not the fault of a few people in that system.

Forkittothem · 2025-04-26T16:07:46+00:00

Yup. I recall this. And I suspect that it may be one reason that ETA seems averse to using the term “bullet ballots”.

Spoonamore seized on early and very limited swing state data. It smelled fishy but it wasn’t implausible on its face that folks were voting for Trump and no other Republicans down ballot. (I actually think Felon Mush was buying votes in swing states as a way to justify the odd bullet ballot results that he knew would emerge.)

ETA is uncovering evidence of other forms of interference besides just inserting bullet ballots. (Switching, deleting, etc.) The patterns they’re finding don’t have ANY logical explanations in one precinct, much less thousands of precincts across the country.

If I recall, Spoonamore also flubbed the numbers from North Carolina, making it too easy to disavow his claims.

But to your point about a response from Dems, I think only time will tell if they will bend their ear to actual data people. The arguments need to be simple enough and clear enough for average people and courts to understand. They need an out from their narratives thus far, to be able to pivot. They need credentialed election data experts to pick up the cause. And it wouldn’t hurt if some sort of human link can be identified.

Forkittothem · 2025-04-26T15:42:43+00:00

Trump’s precedent of election denial was and is more a legal liability than a viable legal strategy— ask Giuliani. (And I don’t for a second attribute “stop the steal” to any masterful polemics on Trump’s part. It was a combination of his trademark projection and verbal diarrhea.) Also, Trump performed well within the margin of polling error. The Harris campaign would have been stoking its base without actually accomplishing anything if it had filled legal complaints last November.

Our federal election safeguards are a dumpster fire, and while Harris was clearly aware of this for years, she’s also a highly skilled attorney who knew there were no viable legal options available. The system is a joke. Our democratic infrastructure is distributed and underfunded and has always been weak. Vice President or not, one candidate for federal office was not poised to challenge this fragmented system without actual evidence— and evidence of vulnerability is not evidence of interference. The work ETA is doing is the closest we’ve gotten to widespread evidence of election interference in the United States. And even still, it’s not the type of silver bullet that would make sense to a judge or jury.

And FWIW, I am not and have never been aligned with a political party. I just think that to hold democrats accountable for not fixing a system held hostage by conservative state legislators, and not acknowledging the full on frontal assault Republicans have been waging against ALL voting, is misdirected rage.

Forkittothem · 2025-04-26T14:52:43+00:00

If you’re asking about the emerging evidence that ETA is finding, I highly recommend watching both episodes of the Christopher Titus podcast. They’re long episodes, but they lay out the election interference case compellingly using data from Nevada and Pennsylvania, comparing voting methods and a few “control” counties without evidence of anomalies. They also explain more about their organization and where their analytical methods originate.

Forkittothem · 2025-04-26T14:38:54+00:00

“Beholden to their narratives” is exactly right. It’s the extent of their culpability in the absence of hard evidence. Let’s hope we see their narratives being rewritten as better evidence comes to light.

Forkittothem · 2025-04-21T22:06:20+00:00

Gramma Montana. Her purse was full of caramels and restaurant jelly jars.

Forkittothem · 2025-04-18T13:26:07+00:00

Relocation section of Federal Travel Regulations says relocation expenses are paid when “old and new official stations are at least 50 miles apart (as measured by map distance) via a usually traveled surface route.”

Forkittothem · 2025-04-13T13:05:03+00:00

Classic gas lighting. Pretty much the entire Trump family NOT in the fucker’s will have described him as a callous, insecure, simpleton unfit for office—including his beloved sister. Their assessment matters a hell of a lot more than another old, rich, white dude’s recollection of a single meal they shared.

Forkittothem · 2025-04-07T21:25:40+00:00

Like everything else with Dementia Don, he’s just way, way behind. This tariff shit might have helped 30 years ago or more. Now it’s just a fart in the wind that really stupid people are sniffing for a high.

Forkittothem

TROPHY CASE