Vote Reporting Anomalies in Pennsylvania in the 2020 Presidential Election

Expert witness and poll observer Gregg Stenstrom testifies at a GOP PA Senate Policy Committee Hearing on voting irregularities. (The Independent)

I’ve read with interest some of the “internet analyses” of irregularities in vote reporting for the 2020 Presidential Election. Many of the analyses are based on data scraped from the New York Times website, which used a data feed from Edison Research in cooperation with the National Election Pool (NEP). The problem with this data, which comes in the form of a JSON file, is that at each reported time, the only values available for a given state are the total votes, fractional vote for Biden, and fractional vote for Trump. As the fractional votes are only provided with a resolution of 0.1%, the uncertainty of each fractional vote is +/-0.05% of the total vote. When two chronological reports are differenced to calculate the candidate votes for a new “batch”, the uncertainty in the candidate vote counts is around +/-0.1%. (More precisely, +/-0.05% of the first total votes plus +/-0.05% of the second total votes.) Many have not recognized this, and erroneously attributed shifting of votes between candidates to foul play.

This data feed also show signs of glitches, where vote totals are shifted down at times, and then shifted back up at later times. Due to the low resolution of the fractional votes, the glitches, and the lack of data at a county level, I didn’t have much hope that the data could be independently analyzed in a meaningful way, despite many using the data and making false claims.

That changed when I read a post from @ne02012 on Twitter. In that post, he provides text files for four states (PA, MI, GA, and NC). Within those text files are URLs, again from the NYT website, that link to the JSON files that contain the chronological vote data at the county and precinct level. At each time, totals are available for three candidates (Biden, Trump, Jorgensen) for three vote types (election day, absentee, and provisional).

Focusing first on PA, I wrote a python script to read the text file and automatically download the JSON files from the NYT website. I then wrote another script to import the data from the JSON files, and output the county-level data to a CSV file (4.45 MB). In this file, the data values are the “raw” values from the JSON files, except for the timestamp, which I calculated by parsing the filename of the corresponding JSON file and converting from UTC to EST. To make the timestamp universal, the units are days in November so that, for example, a value of 4.5 corresponds to 12 noon (EST) on Nov 4. Users of Excel can convert this to the native timedate format by adding 44135 (corresponding to Oct 31, 2020) and formatting the fields for time and date.

General Observations and Questions

With the county-wide data now available for PA, I began to analyze the data. I discovered a number of anomalies which may or may not be indicative of foul play. At the very least, the anomalies do demand that a number of questions are answered to better understand the data.

There are some counties that have updates with totals all zero. It’s as though the counties were polled, there was no response, and an aggregator set the totals to zero instead of carrying forward the previous counts. This occurred for Delaware, Montgomery, and Lehigh counties, and caused statewide vote counts to go down at some times, but recovered to the previous trend when the counts from those counties re-appeared.

Q1: Why do some counties at times report vote totals of zero? Is this an indication of malfunctioning software, hardware, network connectivity, or manual intervention?

In Lawrence County, on Monday, Nov 9 at 4:31 pm, the absentee counts for Biden and Trump more than doubled from Biden: 7,717, Trump: 4,042 to Biden: 15,864, Trump: 8,522. At the same time, the election day counts exactly doubled from Biden: 7,840, Trump: 25,029 to Biden: 15,680, Trump: 50,058 . Then, on Tuesday, Nov 10 at 11:18 am, both the absentee and election day votes were exactly halved.

Q2: What explains the doubling and halving of absentee and election day votes in Lawrence County in the week following the election? Were votes double-counted and then corrected?

For some counties, during initial counting, all the votes were classified as either “election day” or “absentee”. At later times there were corrections, which caused either the “election day” or “absentee” totals to decrease by the same amount the other category increased as the votes were re-classified. This occurred for Columbia, Blair, Venango, Lancaster, and Delaware Counties.

Q3: Why were early votes re-classified in some counties? Were votes misclassified and then corrected?

At 8:51 pm on election day (Nov 3), Tioga County’s first report was Biden: 5,900, Trump: 37,800 and Jorgensen: 900, which all seem high and exact multiples of 100. These votes were largely cancelled at 9:02 pm.

Q4: What caused the large early vote counts for Tioga County? Were these incorrect counts that were corrected 11 minutes later?

For Philadelphia, on Nov 4 at 10:00 am, absentee votes were added in the amount Biden: 61,040 and Trump: 3,869. These votes were then exactly cancelled at 10:11 am.

Q5: For Philadelphia, what caused a large number of absentee votes to be added at 10:00 am on Nov 4 and then cancelled 11 minutes later?

On Wednesday, Nov 4 at 6:16 PM, in Philadelphia, absentee votes for Biden and Trump were reduced by 40,984 and 3,329, respectively. Then at 6:46 pm, absentee votes for Biden and Trump were increased by 84,258 and 6,534, respectively. Then on Nov 5 at 9:01 am, absentee votes for Biden and Trump were reduced by 43,274 and 3,205, respectively. There was no net change in absentee counts after these three updates which occurred over a period of around 15 hours.

Q6: For Philadelphia, what caused the large influx and outflux of absentee votes over a period of 15 hours from Nov 4 at 6:16 pm and Nov 5 at 9:01 am? What caused the sequence of addition, removal, addition, with no net votes added?

Philadelphia Absentee Vote Updates

Considering the absentee vote anomalies observed for Philadelphia, the large number of absentee votes (352,326), and the extended period of absentee vote reporting (last update on Nov 11 at 3:31 pm), I looked more closely at voting patterns in these batches.

The table below shows the share of candidate votes for each upload of absentee votes. The only data shown are the instances when the absentee vote counts changed, and the share of votes in a batch attributed to each candidate at a particular time is simply the difference between the totals at that time and the previous totals. The shaded rows correspond to updates which netted to zero, as described in the previous section.

Absentee Vote Updates for Philadelphia

The vote share for each batch favored Biden greatly, with the greatest share of 94.0% occurring at Nov 4 at 1:29 am, which was also the first batch. The lowest share was 82.3% on Nov 6 at 8:56 pm. The last batch of 2,384 votes, with a Biden share of 91.8%, was reported on Nov 11 at 3:31 pm, about 8 days after the election. Overall, Biden won 91.7% of the absentee votes cast in Philadelphia. In light of the very high vote fraction for Biden, and the reports of unsupervised ballot counting, these batches demand more attention.

Q7: Can the large batches of absentee votes in Philadelphia that were overwhelmingly for Biden (91.7%) be verified?

Questions in Delaware County

On Nov 25, the GOP PA Senate Policy Committee held a hearing in Gettysburg to discuss voting irregularities in the presidential election. The full transcript is available online.

There were a number of witnesses that recounted irregular behavior at voting centers. I was particularly interested in the testimony of Gregory Stenstrom, a poll watcher who described himself as follows:

I’m from Delaware County. I’m a father, a family man. I was a former commanding officer, an executive officer in the Navy. I’m a veteran of foreign wars. I’m a CEO of my own private company. I’m a data scientist. I’m a forensic computer scientist. I’m an expert in security and fraud. Leah [Hoops] had recruited me for this election, and I was glad. I thank you for that.

Mr Stenstrom then went on to describe curious behavior he observed at the counting center in Delaware County. On Election Day, after observing activities at precincts, which seemed fairly normal, he arrived at 6:00 pm to the counting center. He was denied entry until 11:00 pm. After he was allowed to enter, he observed procedures which were contrary to established protocols, which destroyed the chain of custody of the physical votes obtained from absentee ballots and USB memory sticks. The following day (Wednesday, Nov 4), he discovered that 47 USB memory sticks were missing. On Thursday, Nov 5, he obtained a court order that allowed him to enter the back offices, which he was previously denied. The order allowed him entry for 5 minutes every 2 hours. The first entry time was at 1:30 pm, but he was not allowed to touch anything. The second time was at 3:30 pm, and this time he was allowed to touch the boxes. He claims he observed boxes of unopened absentee ballots with 500 per box, totaling 70,000 unopened ballots.

To see how the unopened ballots might affect the total counts, I assembled the table below showing the vote reporting updates (election day and absentee) for Delaware County. The previously described reclassification of votes from absentee to election day occurred on Nov 4 at 2:37 am. The last votes were recorded on Nov 6 at 10:01 pm. A total of 320,049 were cast, including 127,751 absentee votes.

Vote Updates for Delaware County, PA

Mr Stenstrom claims that when he observed the unopened ballots on Thursday at 3:30 pm, he was told that 120,000 absentee votes were cast and 6,000 remained uncounted. That would put the total at around 126,000 absentee votes. This is close to the actual total of 127,751 that was reached on Friday, Nov 6. However, the previous vote update on Wednesday, Nov 4 at 9:37 pm, places the total absentee votes at 102,450. Since the unopened ballots were allegedly found in the back office the following day on Thursday, we know they could not have been included in Wednesday night’s total of 102,450. Assuming Mr Stenstrom’s observation is correct, that means the final absentee vote count should be at least (102,450 + 70,000) = 172,450, leaving at least (172,450 – 127,751) = 44,699 absentee ballots unaccounted. In fact it’s possible that NONE of the 70,000 unopened ballots that Mr Stenstrom claims to have observed were counted.

The absentee votes in Delaware County overwhelmingly favored Biden: He won 83.5% of the absentee ballots, but only 49.0% of the election day votes. In light of Mr Stenstrom’s claims about the missing absentee ballots, this need further attention.

Q8: Were the boxes of unopened absentee ballots in Delaware County that Mr Stenstrom claims to have observed ever counted? Were absentee ballots replaced with other ballots more favorable to Biden?

Conclusions

Using the county-wide data available from the NYT website, a number of voting anomalies in PA are identified. These iregularities in PA need to be explained to provide confidence in the accuracy of the voting systems and processes, and to be sure there was no tampering.

Update on Dec 1, 2020: The files for the URLs linking to the JSON files were first generated by @unfiltered on the discussion site thedonald.win. He “discovered” the URLs by “brute forcing” the timestamp, which is a very slow process. In addition to PA, MI, GA, and NC, he recently cracked the URLs for FL.

Update on Dec 2, 2020: The caption on the first image and the text in the Delaware County section now identify the hearing in Gettysburg as a GOP PA Senate Policy Committee hearing.

Acknowledgment

I am grateful to discussions with Bobby Ulich and the previous work by @ne02012 .

47 Responses to “Vote Reporting Anomalies in Pennsylvania in the 2020 Presidential Election”

  1. Kenyon says:

    Excellent work Victor! Thank you for making a csv file, very helpful. The backstory on how the data can be misleading or improperly presented was very interesting and valuable. I look forward to further progress on the other states as well.

    Appreciate you putting forth your many talents on this important subject.

  2. Victor Iannello says:

    Thanks for your comment, Tom. I am looking into other states. Bobby Ulich is also conducting analyses of the data using the CSV file I generated for PA. I expect he’ll have other important findings.

  3. DrB says:

    @All,

    For those of you who are interested in seeing why the possibility of voting irregularities is suggested by the results, you can look at the reported vote differential between Trump and Biden versus time for nine states.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2efVUX-qxqUoBFFxR52glY1zLXg8bE9/view?usp=sharing

  4. Kenyon says:

    Thanks DrB, if you or Victor have time can you develop same graphs but with an overlay on separate y scale showing the cumulative counts or %?

    Is there data available to observe how many votes were counted on election day vs other times and then compare back to absentee, early voting, and election day totals?

    Georgia would be of interest as well. Referencing GA the public site https://www.mvp.sos.ga.gov/MVP/mvp.do it appears at glance that Early Voting may be captured as Absentee? Confusing….

  5. DrB says:

    @All,

    Using Victor’s downloaded file of votes by county (and by time and by vote type) in Pennsylvania, here is what Philadelphia County looks like:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BejUsCtRYmY3V1YBVUDVVoTZcWmItztf/view?usp=sharing

    The red curve is the Pennsylvania vote differential. The blue curve is the Philadelphia vote differential, which dominates the Pennsylvania result. The black curve is the total county vote.

    What looks odd about Philadelphia are vote counting stoppages (during which poll observers were reportedly removed from the building), the extremely long time required to count absentee mail ballots compared to other states, and the variable ratio of Biden to Trump absentee ballots. These are shown by the blue dots. While most of the mail ballots are being counted, that ratio drops from 16/1 to 5/1. This is in the same county, so for the ratio to vary by more than 3X looks highly irregular.

    There are many ways to commit voter fraud with mail ballots, such as voting for a dead person, voting in two states after moving to another state, voting before establishing a new legal residence, voting for another eligible voter, etc. These types of voter fraud can’t be detected in counted votes. They are supposed to be eliminated by identifying eligible voters, verifying signatures, verifying addresses, etc. In some precincts these requirements are either ignored or loosely followed. Mass mailings of unsolicited ballots appears to be an enabling step to more prevalent voter fraud.

    A second type of voter fraud can occur in the election-day vote counting process. The electronic votes on election day might be manipulated by scaling, transfers among candidates, additions, and deletions. There are reports that the Dominion software, used in many states, has the inherent capability to perform all these manipulations.

    It’s very difficult to detect some of the potential electronic voting manipulations. For instance, switching votes between two candidates leaves the total number of votes the same, which will then match the number of signatures in those logs. So, electronic vote switching can potentially survive a partial audit. However, the time history might give it away, if a large block of votes were switched between candidates in the time feed. Frequent switches of small numbers of votes between candidates might be undetectable in the uploaded time data. However, any manipulation of electronic vote counts is potentially detectable by auditing the electronic vote counts saved from each voting machine with a USB memory stick. So, for electronic vote switching to be undetectable, the accumulated vote totals must match the memory sticks, and this requires the memory sticks to be modified for consistency. A secure election process would insure that the memory sticks are only downloaded once, and then secured against tampering. This is not universally done. There are reports of missing memory sticks, and this is very troublesome. To my knowledge, no state has actually done an audit of the electronic votes, down to the voting machine level.

    There are some reports that voting machines were not made available to assure the initial counts were set to zero. That is troubling, if true. A full audit comparing electronic votes counts with the in-person signature log would reveal it, if that were ever done.

    In some ways the easiest election frauds to commit are ballot stuffing and ballot switching.

    Ballot stuffing means adding pre-prepared ballots to the pile of paper ballots to be counted. If envelopes are not saved for mail ballots, then there might be no detection of the addition of fake ballots using only the total number counted, unless there are more ballots than were mailed out (which may be the case in one state) or there were more ballots than were registered to vote in that precinct. If envelopes are generally saved, then adding fake ballots without adding the same number of fake envelopes is discoverable in an audit, which compares the numbers of envelopes and ballots, but not in a recount of ballots only. The fake ballots must be counted in precincts where the total number won’t exceed the number of registered voters.

    In order to escape detection in an audit of mail ballots, the total number of ballots cannot be changed. The best method is to remove X ballots of candidate A and replace them with X ballots for candidate B. The total number of ballots is unchanged. In several states there are reports of many ballots being marked only for Biden, with no down-ballot races marked. In addition, other characteristics stand out: lack of sharp creases indicating folding and mailing, different paper texture, and machine marking instead of filling in the box by hand. If a large number of ballots with these characteristics, and also using a different ink than legitimate ballots, were found by inspection during an audit, then there would be evidence of fraudulent ballot stuffing.

    I will note that switching ballots provides a 2 vote incremental advantage for candidate B. A side effect is that the down ballot races are advantaged by 1 vote for candidate B’s party.

    Le me be speculative about one method of committing voting fraud in the vote counting facility. It requires removing poll observers from the premises for a long enough time to switch ballots. The process is straightforward. A truck delivers the fake ballots, or they are already pre-positioned in a secure area in the facility. When unobserved, and most election counting areas have no video cameras, and knowing how many ballots need to be switched, then several people remove candidate A ballots, shredding them, and replacing them with fake ballots for candidate B. So, you have to deliver, say 50,000 ballots, which is a stack 17 feet high. That’s why it take a truck and maybe five people to do it at an unobserved entrance. Then you have to shred an equal 17 foot high stack of paper and dispose of the remnants, perhaps even in the same truck. The middle of the night is preferred to minimize the chances of being observed and recorded. The fake ballots are mixed into the containers holding ballots which are already removed from their envelopes but before they are counted.

    How can this ballot switching be detected?

    1. Someone observes the truck when poll observers are not present.
    2. Election workers continue working while poll observers are excluded.
    3. Someone sees new and unexplained stacks of uncounted ballots.
    4. Someone sees a very large amount of shredded paper.
    5. A forensic audit is performed which identifies fake ballots by their individual characteristics.

    Another observable feature of paper ballot stuffing and switching is that the total number of votes counted in the Presidential race will be increased relative to the total number counted in down-ballot races. Almost everyone votes the whole ballot. The Republican excess number of Presidential votes over Senate votes is only 0.03%. For Democrats it is 0.06%. For the House, the Presidential excess is 1.9% for Republicans and 3.6% for Democrats. So, if Presidential overages are seen exceeding these percentages (which are for the 2020 election in non-battleground states), that could indicate fake ballots have been inserted.

    The timing of ballot switching is critical. How do you know how many fake ballots to insert/switch? Well, you have to wait at least until there are available reports of the electronic votes and enough paper ballots to see the trends. Then someone, or a computer program, can predict how many votes are needed to assure the desired outcome. Of course, you can only hope to get away with this kind of election fraud when the race is close to start with, and the number of fake ballots is just a few per cent of the total votes.

    Predicting how many fake ballots are needed can be done anywhere in the world. The election results feeds are accessible on the internet. So, if you have historical data on election trends by precinct/county, then with the right software one can predict the outcome and figure out how many votes need to be switched to assure the desired outcome with a margin which is comfortable considering the uncertainties. Once that number is known, then it can be transmitted securely and clandestinely by means of an encrypted messaging app to a phone within the counting facility. The “inside man” gets the message with how many votes need to be switched in which precincts/counties. With large cities, you may only need one or two cities to swing a battleground state. So, most counties and most precincts are unaffected. You concentrate the election rigging in one or two large cities run by candidate B’s party. Examples which come to mind are Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Tucson, etc. You can continue to monitor the situation and make additional, smaller corrections if needed and when possible, especially when the vote counting process is long and drawn out. Allowing mail ballots to be received many days after election day enables this kind of fraud to occur.

    In the plots of vote differentials by state which I previously posted, you will see that there are numerous examples of discontinuities in the “Trump Minus Biden” vote that occur in a number of states at the same time: 0200Z – 12:00Z on the night of and the day after the election. I don’t think this is an accident. That’s when you have enough data from the initial counts to predict the outcome with a reasonable certainty. If you wanted to manipulate the mail ballots before they were all counted, that is the best time to do it.

  6. DrB says:

    @Kenyon,

    The mail ballots are lumped together as “absentee” votes are are not segregated in the voting results depending on the date of receipt.

  7. DrB says:

    @Kenyon,

    In response to your request, here is a plot of the PA votes for Biden and Trump, plotted as a fraction of the total vote.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Td0EfVUyjHqcYjArFN2Rwc7dMi69ZR0L/view?usp=sharing

    The dips/valleys in the red curve may indicate a voting irregularity. The largest ones occur when the fraction of the total vote counted is between 25% and 50%. They represent “steps” in the vote advantage of 40,000 to 100,000 votes. I doubt all of them are fraudulent in nature, but some of them might be. In my opinion, the biggest red flag for fraud in the PA election is the 3X drop with time in the ratio of Trump/Biden absentee votes. That is consistent with mail ballot switching, primarily on 11/4. In addition, switching by the Dominion software of a few per cent of the electronic votes would be effective and would require a full electronic audit to detect. This has not been done (yet) in any state, as far as I know.

  8. Kenyon says:

    Thanks for the efforts on the graph and commentary DrB, much appreciated. Your comments and Victor’s comments that attend the data presentation are most welcomed and insightful. In my opinion the commentary is just as important as the data to ensure misuse is guarded.

  9. Kenyon says:

    @DrB thanks.

    “The mail ballots are lumped together as “absentee” votes are are not segregated in the voting results depending on the date of receipt.”

    Gotcha, my confusion in GA is that an Early Vote (in person) appears to be recorded as an Absentee Vote. Maybe it’s just me not looking into it further or my misunderstanding. Just thought I’d mentioned in case it came into play with your analysis…

  10. Victor Iannello says:

    The best we can do is point to data relationships that look suspicious and might indicate fraud. Others have to use the legal process to investigate and determine if there is a case for fraud.

    The very high vote fractions for Biden in the Philadelphia absentee votes are suspicious. However, Trump was encouraging in-person voting due to concerns about fraud, and Biden was encouraging mail-in voting due to concerns about COVID19. Does this explain the spread? The data alone won’t reveal that.

    Another suspicious element is the final absentee batch in Philadelphia of 2384 votes, of which 91.82% went to Biden. This is very close to Biden’s cumulative share, which was 91.75% to Biden. In fact, if two fewer of the 2384 votes went to Biden, i.e., 2187 instead of 2189, the percentages would have been essentially equal. Is this evidence of an algorithm that is converging on an intended share of around 91.75% for Biden? Why would a relatively small batch of absentee votes reported late in the process (Nov 11, 8 days after election day) have vote shares so close to the cumulative share? It’s also possibly a coincidence.

  11. DrB says:

    @Kenyon,

    To explain further, in PA the election day votes are all electronic on voting machines.

    The “absentee” votes are reported separately are all paper ballots. Some absentee ballots were prepared and submitted on the same day at polling stations before the election, as “early votes”. The rest of the absentee votes are mail-in ballots received before and after the election. There is a constitutional issue about the latest allowed date received. This could and should be addressed by SCOTUS. That might result in a lot of ballots being thrown out. However, there are affidavits of witnesses seeing election workers and postal officials backdating ballot envelopes. It is unclear if PA has actually segregated those questionable ballots. I suspect in most counties they were intermingled with the remaining eligible ballots so they cannot now be separated.

  12. sk999 says:

    Navid Keshavarz-Nia is one of the expert witness who submitted a “Decleration” in support of two lawsuits, one filed in Michigan, the other in Georgia, claiming that anomalies in the election data were caused by “fraudulent manipulation of the results”.

    What data did Navid use? “I have not been granted access to examine any of the systems used in the 2020 Election. However, I have conducted detailed analysis of the NY TIMES DATA SETS …” – YES! just the same information being analyzed here.

    Here is an example of a problem that he found: “In another case for Edison County, MI, Vice President Biden received more than 100% of the votes at 5:59 PM EST on November 4, 2020 and again he received 99.61% of the votes at 2:23 PM EST on November 5, 2020. These distributions are cause for concern and indicate fraud.” They are, indeed a cause for concern. Edison County, MI does not exist. In fact, there is no Edison County anywhere in the US. Can anyone check if the NY Times has such a county in its data?

    He goes on. “In 2019, a computer laptop and several USB memory cards containing the cryptographic key to access DVS systems were stolen in Philadelphia.” DVS is Dominion Voting System. Philadelphia does not use DVS – instead it uses ES&S ExpressVote.

    “… election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states … These alterations were the result of systemic and widespread exploitable
    vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems …” Once again we have a problem. None of the battleground states uses Scytl/SOE or Smartmatic systems.

    Russell Ramsland is another expert retained in the same two lawsuits. In a previous declaration, he identified 44 townships in Michigan that he claimed had anomalous voting records. The only problem was that all 44 townships were located in Minnesota.

    Pennsylvania uses at least 5 different types of voting systems across the state. It would astounding if there were not anomalies as the votes were being tallied.

  13. Victor Iannello says:

    @sk999: When I search for “Edison” in the JSON files for MI precinct/counties, the result is null. Edison is identified as the source of the data in the election feed files, but there is no county data in those files. Perhaps he is confusing Eaton with Edison.

    There is a difference between the election feed data files and the precinct/county data files. The election feed have the low resolution, buggy data that I do not use. I wonder which data set Keshavarz-Nia is using.

  14. Victor Iannello says:

    Update on Dec 1, 2020:
    The files for the URLs linking to the JSON files were first generated by @unfiltered on the discussion site thedonald.win. He “discovered” the URLs by “brute forcing” the timestamp, which is a very slow process. In addition to PA, MI, GA, and NC, he recently cracked the URLs for FL.

  15. sk999 says:

    Victor,

    Thanks for checking. You point out that “Edison is identified as the source of the data in the election feed files …” Affidavits and declarations are largely never written by the people whose words are in them – they are written by lawyers. The affiant or declarant is asked whether they agree with what the lawyer has written. So perhaps, in this case, it was the lawyer that screwed up, morphing Edison, the source of the data, into Edison, a county, and Navid didn’t catch the mistake.

  16. sk999 says:

    Victor,

    The figure caption states “Gregg Stenstrom testifies at the PA Senate Hearing”. That is simply not true. Greg Stenstrom was speaking at a meeting of the “GOP Pennsylvania Senate Policy Committee”- a Republican organzation, not a hearing and in no way representative of the “PA Senate” as a whole. At that meeting, Rudy Giuliani attended in person. Donald Trump called in.

    Has radiantphysics.com degenerated into becoming a political mouthpiece?

  17. Victor Iannello says:

    @sk999: My goal is accuracy. I corrected the caption and text.

  18. Victor Iannello says:

    @All: I’ve completed my first deep dive into the voting data from GA. In a nutshell, the anomalies (dropouts, shifting of votes, even an unexplained doubling of votes in one county) are much less material to the outcome, and are probably due to corrected errors.

    The absentee ballots for DeKalb County were particularly strong for Biden: Biden won 86.4% of the 127,971 absentee votes. There were 14 absentee batches. The first batch was also the largest at 79,237 total, and was reported at 10:55 PM (EST) on Tuesday. Biden’s share was 87.9% of that batch.

  19. Richard says:

    @All,

    I disagree in using a website devoted to “The Disappearance of MH370” and “Helping to Solve the World’s Greatest Aviation Mystery” for political purposes.

    I disagree in using a website devoted to “MH370 and Other Investigations” and “Following the Data towards Discovery” for political purposes.

    It is Victor’s website and he wishes to use it for the US Presidential Election, then I would like to disassociate myself from his political stance.

    Just to be clear, I think it would be equally inappropriate to write a Democratic post or take any other political line publicly, under the umbrella of finding MH370.

    I have written to both Victor and Bobby yesterday and again today stating that I fundamentally disagree with their political stance on a blog about MH370.

    Politics does not belong on a blog about MH370.

  20. George G says:

    @Richard,
    Your stance on introduction of unrelated matters and discussions is appreciated.

  21. Victor Iannello says:

    @Richard: The solution is simple: Don’t submit comments under this post or any other post that is not of interest to you. Or, you can choose to not submit comments at all to any post on any subject matter. It’s your choice. In the meantime, I will post on any subject matter I choose.

  22. Victor Iannello says:

    @All: I’ve completed a first pass look at the MI data. Unfortunately, many counties do not report vote counts, including Wayne County, which includes the metropolitan Detroit area. I don’t see a way to make use of the MI data.

  23. I’m out says:

    You have a freedom of speech, sure, your website. I have a freedom of choice not to support such rubbish. Funny how a post like this shows the hand of a once highly respected person.

  24. Victor Iannello says:

    @I’m out: Investigating potential voter fraud transcends party lines. If there is a reason to believe the data is wrong, or that I’ve interpreted or analyzed it incorrectly, I’d like to know. I’ve provided the information for others to check my work.

    The results of this work also differ from many claims made by others that have looked at the data. For instance, in the testimony provided at the hearing in Gettysburg, there was a witness who claimed that over some period of time, about 570,000 votes were recorded for Biden and 3,200 for Trump. This claim has been repeated in the media and by Trump supporters. However, I have not seen evidence of this in the county-wide evidence I’ve assembled. Refuting false claims is as important as raising other questions.

    I’ve also looked at the GA data. I do not the see the same kind of irregularities that exist for the PA data, and I’ve stated as much.

    I’ve tried to be objective, whether or not the results support one candidate over another.

  25. Pax Lambda says:

    I understand that this site is Victor’s site and he can post whatever he wants.

    I understand also that maintaining a site demands a lot of work and it is easier to add some page to an existant site than create another one.

    But…

    Yesterday, when I looked at the site, I first thought that it had been hijacked … Then, this morning, I just hoped it had been hijacked. And now, reading Richard’s comment and Victor’s answer, I am totally aghast. It is kind of a deception (for me) to see that the only serious site still alive about MH-370 is used for politics!

    At least, I think it would be possible to keep a link which shows only the MH-370 stuff: having “other things” in a subfolder of MH370-something seems, IMHO, inappropriate…

  26. Victor Iannello says:

    @Pax Lambda: Maintaining multiple blogs is impractical. My advice is that you read posts and participate in discussions as you wish, just as you choose which articles to read and trust from any other internet source.

    If you or anybody else wants to start a new blog and commits to writing articles and moderating discussion exclusively to MH370, I completely understand, and I wish you or them all the best. I’ve done that now for nearly 4 years.

  27. Pax Lambda says:

    Victor said: I’ve done that now for nearly 4 years.

    And you have to be thanked for that, and “thanked” is not enough! I am sure quite all the people who wrote here are thinking the same and also many of those who are only reading. It is why, just adding a specific tab for MH-370 and making the general link pointing to a “neutral” page would be, IMHO, better.

    Anyway, thanks again for your work and for “inducing” other people working to solve the MH-370 mystery by publishing here their reflexions,
    PL

  28. DennisW says:

    @Victor

    A lot has been written about the pros and cons of multi-topic blogs. You can Google it, so I won’t bother with trying to summarize. It is perfectly OK with me. To others it might generate an “aghast” feeling.

  29. Victor Iannello says:

    @DennisW: I view it all as analyzing data to answer questions.

  30. Sunken Deal says:

    Victor, thanks so much for doing this. It so happens that I’m a political independent, but all I want is an exploration of truth. And clearly, a scholarly and unbiased examination of data can reveal truth, and I applaud you for engaging in this effort.

    As for MH370, I never knew what to believe. I didn’t rule out any scenario, and still haven’t, until and unless one can unequivocally eliminate it. I see this particular election data post as being an analogous intellectual pursuit, and again, I am grateful that you have undertaken it.

    As for what I believe happened in this election, I really don’t know for certain, though I do believe something is fishy. That’s why I found this post to be very engaging and relevant, in the sense that it is exploring a set of vexing questions I’ve had and still do have.

    I happen to be a baseball fan, and as I see it, the 2020 election data is like having a player with a .380 BA; 52 HR; and 58 RBIs. Yeah it’s theoretically possible, but extraordinarily unlikely.

  31. Victor Iannello says:

    @Sunken Deal: Thank you for your comment. Data doesn’t have bias.

  32. Sad day... says:

    Victor, I think with a single post, you’ve destroyed years worth of hard work and credibility.  I cannot emphasize enough how colossally bad of an idea this was to do.

    I unfortunately look at your past work in a completely different light now and have to wonder what your motivations were. I’ve been a silent reader for years.

    If there were a search team considering using your findings about MH 370, certainly there would be folks on that team that after seeing this, would dismiss your work. It’s just an argument you didn’t need to start and that’s too bad.

  33. Go look again... says:

    also – Your recommendation to go back to search area A1 is totally disrespectful to the professionals that went out there in those dangerous waters.  They are pros and I’m sure they are excellent at their jobs. I believe them that if they say nothing was there, there was nothing there.  

    But you’ve told these people, essentially, “We did the math and we’re smarter than you. We determined that you suck at your job.  We recommend you go back out there and check again.” 

    You might not think you’ve disrespected them in this way, but if I were them and had to do the work, that’s exactly how I would take it. Pretty arrogant really.

  34. Victor Iannello says:

    @Go look again: I remain on very good terms with those that conducted the past searches, and I assure that re-searching areas that were difficult to search previously remains on the table. You are wrongly assuming there is conflict where there is none.

    Also, you are commenting about MH370 under the wrong post.

  35. Victor Iannello says:

    @Sad day: Data is data, and doesn’t have political affiliations. The analysis of one set of data doesn’t diminish the work performed on another. There is no reason to be afraid of data.

  36. Richard says:

    @Victor

    You stated: “I view it all as analyzing data to answer questions.”

    You stated: “Data doesn’t have bias.”

    You stated: “Data is data, and doesn’t have political affiliations.”

    That may be true of the data, but your data analysis is not neutral, not objective and unbiased.

    The MH370 data analysis requires a neutral, objective and unbiased scrutiny.

    I have decided to no longer participate in your blog.

    I am no longer willing to continue co-authoring a paper with you or those that support you, because of your unrelenting and biased political stance, even at odds with the US Attorney General and the US Supreme Court.

    Those who wish to contact me regarding MH370 can do so at richard@mh370search.com

  37. Victor Iannello says:

    @Richard: I have no “relenting and biased political stance.” I simply have asked questions about data that has irregularities involving many thousands of votes. Not one commenter has found inaccuracies in any of my observations. I certainly would want to correct any mistakes I might have made.

    Even if there is no fraud, there are certainly improvements that must be made to US vote reporting systems, as thousands of votes should not appear, disappear, and float between categories as the data suggests. There is no reason to be afraid of data. The integrity of the electoral system demands transparency, and it is in that spirit that I ask questions.

  38. Sunken Deal says:

    @Victor – thank you again for this post. In my life, I have voted for more Democrats than Republicans, and actually found this post to be quite apolitical. Numbers don’t lie at all. In fact, you didn’t even reach a conclusion here, and I applaud that honest independence. I’m suspicious of anyone who lambastes this useful post and anyone who doesn’t advocate scrutiny of the 2020 election data.

  39. Victor Iannello says:

    @Sunken Deal: Thank you for the comment.

  40. sk999 says:

    Sorry, didn’t want to comment on this topic again, but the following story just popped up.

    https://fusion.inquirer.com/news/bruce-bartman-election-fraud-delaware-county-20201221.html

    “A DELAWARE COUNTY man charged with registering dead relatives to vote in presidential election.”

    Poll Watcher Greg Stenstrom stated that “I’m from DELAWARE COUNTY …” and that “I’m an expert in … FRAUD.” That may be, but he failed miserably on election day – he missed this person completely. As a consequence, we now need to subtract one vote from the column for Donald Trump. According to the District Attorney, “This case was evidence that one person committed voter FRAUD by casting an improper and illegal ballot.” A couple of other cases of fraud in Pennsylvania have been identified as well, all perpetrated by registered Republicans.

    Not to worry. It was a great election. In fact, it was the best ever.

  41. James Olcott says:

    Sorry, I misspelled “substantive.”

    Here’s a story from the Wisconsin published yesterday (December 24, 2020):

    “A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a decision dismissing a lawsuit seeking to declare President Donald Trump won swing state Wisconsin.

    Trump filed the lawsuit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Dec. 2 against the state Elections Commission, arguing the court should order the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature to declare he had won the state because the commission and other municipal officials did not follow state laws during the November presidential election.

    U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig, a Trump appointee, refused, ruling on Dec. 12 that Trump’s arguments “fail as a matter of law and fact.” He said that ruling in Trump’s favor would amount to the “most remarkable ruling in the history of this court or the federal judiciary.”

    Democrat Joe Biden defeated Trump by 0.6 points in Wisconsin in the Nov. 3 election, a key victory that helped propel Biden to the White House.”

    I suppose your point about granularity of data is being either ignored or dismissed by the state and federal courts. This doesn’t help your credibility.

  42. James Olcott says:

    *the Wisconsin State Journal

  43. Victor Iannello says:

    @James Olcott: I have no idea of the point you are trying to make. What I said was: “Many have not recognized this [low resolution of the vote share], and erroneously attributed shifting of votes between candidates to foul play.” I see nothing that disputes that fact.

    The blog post mainly deals with reported vote count irregularities in PA, and asks questions that if answered would help to explain why tens of thousands of votes were added, cancelled, or misclassified. To date, no commenter has challenged that the vote shifts occurred.

    Perhaps you think this level of vote shifting is acceptable, and no explanation is required. I believe that whether or not the root causes are indications of fraud, an explanation is warranted, in the spirit of honesty, transparency, and process improvement. Notice also that I have not made predictions about the outcomes of any pending legal cases.

  44. Victor Iannello says:

    SSL Certificate Issues

    Network Solutions, the issuer of SSL certificates for this site, is having problems delivering certificates for both the domain name (radiantphysics.com) and the subdomain name (mh370.radiantphysics.com), despite the fact that I have purchased certificates for both sites, and despite the fact that the both sites were properly configured in July 2020. As we (again) work through the issues, the certificates for one or both sites may be interrupted.

    I opted to used Network Solutions out of convenience. For those interested in creating a secure website, there are other options for host and certificate servers that are less expensive and have much better customer service.

    I appreciate your patience as these issues are resolved.

  45. James Olcott says:

    Hi Victor:

    Which part of my point that “there is no evidence of voter fraud other than the one Trump voter who registered and voted a dead relative” did you not understand?

    Essentially, if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that if one adjusts the resolution of the vote totals both up and down, vote total irregularities manifest themselves due to rounding errors. This means that if the vote total for a candidate T is 48.44% at a resolution or granularity of 2 decimal points, and then if the resolution is rolled back to one decimal place, then T’s total is suddenly 48.4(0)%. If the voting population is 10,000,000, that means that suddenly 40,000 votes have disappeared. Is that really an irregularity?

    Put another way, by playing with granularities, you are implying irregularities. I don’t think this is what the math is saying. If there was a legitimate point to made about “bad data” or “missing votes,” why hasn’t this been included in an appeal to a court? I mean, a lot of lessor claims have already been made.

    As PA District Judge Matthew Brann ruled in one such lawsuit, “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption.” Brann, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, noted that the [plaintiff] did not provide that evidence.

    Does your point about irregularities meet the test of “compelling legal arguments and factual proof?” If so, it should be part of a legal complaint. Anywhere.

    If you are making a different point, kindly please clarify.

    Generally, citing a sham GOP State Senate hearing in PA held in a hotel is an immediate red flag. There is no such thing as a “USB memory card.” There are USB drives but not cards. This is not a mistake that a real IT professional would make. Is this really credible?

    I know that nothing is happening to the wreck of MH370 on the floor of the Southern Indian Ocean right now, other than minor drift of some lighter pieces. But this is where your tireless digging and data analysis have made sense.

  46. Victor Iannello says:

    @James Olcott said: Essentially, if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that if one adjusts the resolution of the vote totals both up and down, vote total irregularities manifest themselves due to rounding errors.

    You missed the entire point of the post. I said explicitly that others in the past have INCORRECTLY declared there was fraud when those irregularities can be attributed to resolution errors in the election feed data. That is not the data set I used for my analysis.

    Using the county-level vote count data for Pennsylvania, I identified large groups of votes that appeared, disappeared, re-appeared, and were re-classified. I questioned whether those occurrences were due to malfunctioning software, hardware, network connectivity, or manual intervention. We still have not received explanations for these anomalies. You seem to be in the camp that no explanations are required, and that we should assume all is well. I don’t fall into that camp. That does not mean the data can be used in court to prove that there was fraud. Rather, it provides motivation for further investigation. Hence, rather than level accusations, I posed questions that should be answered.

    You claim there are no such things as USB memory cards. That is completely false. Just do a search on SD Memory cards, which can be inserted directly into slots of correctly equipped computers, or can be inserted into a USB reader which in turn goes into a USB port.