A fishy statistical trend in recent US elections raises red flag: Are voting machines being manipulated?

A voting-machine statistical anomaly, which suggests manipulation of the results, appeared again on Nov 8th. The pattern is clear, and it’s being seen in election after election.
 
The pattern is that the percentage of the vote total changes as the precinct size gets larger, on a more or less straight diagonal upward path for the favored candidate, and a clear downward trend for the main opponent. When paper ballots are counted and percentage of the vote is graphed by precinct size, the average almost always flat-lines after the initial ups-and-downs of the smallest districts.
 
Basically, it’s standard deviation from what is supposed to be the normal mean. Here is another good explanation for what we are seeing, based on statistical research by PhD Beth Clarkson at Wichita State. Here is an example of what it looks like:
Screen Shot 2016-12-02 at 12.01.15 PM.png
And here is a normal trend:
Screen Shot 2016-12-02 at 12.07.59 PM.png

It’s incredibly unlikely that the pattern is caused by an error or anomaly, as it keeps happening over and over. And when demographics are analyzed and calibrated into the data in question, they still don’t account for the trend seen in the tallied results.
 
It was seen this year in the democratic primary in several states. It was seen in the Tim Canova v DWS primary. It was seen in the Kansas and Wisconsin governor races in 2014, and the 2014 Kansas Senate race .
 
Another alarming trend is that exit polls are also raising flags, but are either ignored or adjusted to fit the results. In 2016, multiple exit polls without adjustments showed discrepancies outside the margin of error, with a clear trend of favoring of the same candidate or party: Trump in the general, Republicans in the Senate race, and Clinton in the Democratic primary.
 
Now Jill Stein is organizing a recount for three states. She is crowdsourcing the funds, and it’s costing more than $10 million, because “Wisconsin increased the recount filing fee to an outrageous $3.5 million.” It’s incredible that you have that much money to ask for transparency in elections.
 
We need open-source software with a paper trail, and/or go back to hand ballots, period. Until transparency is restored, who knows what is legitimate and what is not?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s