Algorithms, Computers and Elections.


Watch this linked utube!!

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai at MIT gives this lecture.   If he has this right, our elections have been frauds manipulated by powerful people for about 20 years.  pl

This entry was posted in government. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Algorithms, Computers and Elections.

  1. Sylvia1 says:

    I did watch it and I need some math nerd to tell me if this result was preprogramed by the criteria selected. I especially refer to the gap between Trump votes and straight party voting. Wouldn’t that increase the discrepancy as the number of Republican votes increased? I wondered about this but I am not very well schooled in math.

  2. Eliot says:

    Dr Shiva argues that as straight line Republican voting increases, you shouldn’t see more ballots that are marked individually for Biden (or Trump) it should remain consistent.

  3. Chicot says:

    Yes, as Eliot says, it should remain consistent and it did exactly that in the county which was hand-counted. Whatever it does, it shouldn’t fall off at more or less exactly the same point in a linear fashion for different data sets. That is very suspicious. Would be interesting to see the same sort of analysis done for different counties in different states, where they allow these 2 types of voting.

  4. Lux says:

    Dr Shiva argues that as straight line Republican voting increases, you shouldn’t see more ballots that are marked individually for Biden (or Trump) it should remain consistent.
    Posted by: Eliot | 12 November 2020 at 10:50 AM

    Personally I stopped when he suggested: Don’t worry about Math, to then present a rather startling graph. I love numbers, but graphwise databases are rather flexible depending on diverse factors or let say chosen focus? I should watch it to the very, very end? You did?
    I am sure though that Larry Johnson will be able to explain matters to the weakmathics among us.

  5. JohnH says:

    It has been obvious that the US voting system has been an unverifiable black box ever since Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry. Voting machines are produced by companies whose ownership is not public knowledge and whose agenda is unknown. And There could well be people or groups outside of these companies with technical skills, access to the software, and the motivation to create mischief.
    By design of the system we cannot know if the system has been rigged. Nor can we tell if there are single, centralized manipulators or multiple, localized manipulators, each jockeying for advantage with the machines they have access to or with all the software for a given manufacturer.
    The question is: why do neither of the two parties care about it? Democrats were quick to accept the results in 2000 and.2004 and not raise a stink or demand a transparent, auditable process afterwards. And Republicans haven’t cared either.
    Curious!!! Has each been coopted by a promise to get their share of the spoils?
    Verifiable systems are clearly possible. Curiously, it is Venezuela that uses one. Each electronic ballot produces a receipt , which each voter verifies and places in a receptacle where it can be counted. In a large, randomly selected number of precincts, paper receipts are publicly tallied and compared with machine results in the presence of representatives of the candidates. Tallies of the precincts are made public and sent to a central vote tabulation center, which publishes vote counts from each precinct.
    Venezuela’s system was created as a reaction to a system that had been designed to give the appearance of democracy when in fact the two major parties had colluded to alternate years in power. We have no way of knowing if this is what happens in Washington, or whether outside, covert forces manage the results, or whether the will of the people is actually being reflected by the results.
    In any case, it a shameful situation for a country with the audacity to declare itself the world’s greatest democracy.

  6. Fred says:

    “hate doesn’t go in a straight line” An apt comment by Dr. Shiva’s colleague. The Wayne County data is an eye opener. It would be interesting to see them do this same analysis to Washtenaw County.
    Sylvia1, That’s precisely what they are showing, the heavier the Republican district, the more the algorithm swaped votes. watch the intro of that video again, their explanation and example are pretty good.

  7. eakens says:

    How many ballots were marked only for Trump versus only for Biden, and nothing else.

  8. SteveF says:

    I’m not a maths nerd, just a computer programmer.
    This looks like an algorithm that is in place to trigger after a certain Republican lead is achieved (they don’t want to make it too obvious). Once triggered the algorithm transfers some individual votes from Trump to Biden.
    As the Republican lead increases, the number of votes transferred also increases.
    It’s a sort of feedback loop that punishes trump as the Republicans do better.
    One of the effects of the loop is to show Biden as an individual having significantly more votes than the democrats as a party.
    Another possible effect is (I’m not certain on this one) is that it tends to push the votes for individuals towards a 50/50 split, because you can’t take more from Trump than he’s actually got. So in heavy Republican states, Trump individual votes can all be skewed to Biden, and Biden get’s his own votes.
    As I said, I’m not absolutely certain on this second effect, I may be wrong but it certainly looks like that.

  9. Eric Newhill says:

    No. What Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai lays out is not a mathematical artifact.
    Correct. That is his argument. Assuming Trump ticked off a portion of conservatives with his personality, you’d assume that portion to be relatively similar across districts. Say, on average, 30% of conservatives/Republicans just couldn’t handle Trump anymore (making up that figure out of thin air). Sure you’d see some republican heavy districts with 25% of non-straight party ballots for Biden, in other districts you’d see 35%, but basically you’d have a straight line average at 30% with various districts, as points, scattered around it.
    That is not what we see, as Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai makes clear.
    That said, maybe there is something else at work. Maybe as districts become Republican, the people become more concerned with a president presenting with a sophisticated image than Trump does.
    However, I still tend to agree with him. As a professional analyst of “big data” I can tell you that it is extremely rare in nature/social sciences – like the never happens kind of rare – to see such a tight correlation as we do in the data he presents (the negative correlation between a district’s % republicans and % of Biden votes).
    It is also rare to the point of being just about impossible for such a phenomenon to begin to abruptly (at the point where a district’s republic constituency hits 30%).
    I further agree that it looks exactly like someone programmed the counting machines to use the same vote switching logic in all of the districts. This would be easy logic to code. I could do it myself in an afternoon in SQL or SAS and I’m not a professional coder, just a dilettante that has learned to code analytical software. I know my IT guys could do it easily in various coding languages.
    So the mail-in voting things was always a red herring and good old fashioned counting machines were always the game.
    Do the actual ballots still exist. Should be easy enough for the courts to assess the merits of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai’s analysis and then order a recount on “clean” machines.
    Finally, I note that one district in MI has already admitted to counting issues that favored Biden. They said it was a “glitch” in the software. Software doesn’t just develop glitches. Code is a physical thing; a script. It can’t re-write itself. The glitch explanation is insulting.

  10. EEngineer says:

    Not bad, but 70 minutes for what an engineer would see in 70 seconds. He makes a lot of good points but should have shown more examples of non-skewed results. Not conclusive proof in and of itself but definitely the smoking gun needed to initiate a manual recount.
    Using DOUBLE (float) instead of LONG (int) variable type is also a pretty basic no-no. Aside from allowing fractional values of votes it’s just plain bigger (file size) and slower to process. Of course the first rule in cheating is to make thing so complicated that the hack can hide in the cruft. There’s also the full employment angle for the programmer that is allowed to write spaghetti code. IE Wally in the Dilbert comic. There is actually a book titled “Software Exorcism” that explicitly describes the phenomenon.

  11. Barbara Ann says:

    I’d urge caution here for a variety of reasons, not least the fact that one can ‘prove’ anything with sufficient abuse of statistical methods. Also this guy seems to have an axe to grind over losing the MA Senate primary.
    A refutation of Dr Shiva’s rather bold conclusions is below, the key paragraph is as follows:

    You’d expect this pattern any time Democrats are slightly more likely to vote Trump than they are to vote down-ballot Republicans, and if Republicans are more likely to vote down-ballot Republicans than they are to vote for Trump. No foul play involved, just two populations with voting preferences that get blended in each precinct based on relative size.

  12. Laura Wilson says:

    Oh, please.

  13. Horace says:

    Why would anyone NOT cheat?
    1) respect for rule of law
    2) respect for constitutional governance of rule of law
    3) respect for a quarter millennium of American tradition
    4) fear of God’s judgement
    5) fear of legal punishment
    The globalists and their socialist handmaidens have none of these. There might be a handful of low-level drones who fear #5, but those fears are overblown. Brenda Snipes was cheating down in Broward for 15 years (thanks Low Energy Jeb!) and merely got fired (finally).
    IF they had the means, THEN they did cheat. Democratic forms of governance can produce good governance only when the electorate has a sufficient degree of shared political culture. The culture of most of the world (most Europeans included) is “not cheating outgroups when you can is morally equivalent to stealing from your own group and is therefore wrong.”

  14. turcopolier says:

    Laura Wilson
    Have you watched the video?

  15. turcopolier says:

    Barbara Ann
    Why is Wayne County different?

  16. Eric Newhill says:

    Barbara Ann,
    That “refutation” makes 0 sense from a statistical or mathematical standpoint. Open an Excel spreadsheet and play some numbers to test what that guy said. if you can make it work I’ll be surprised. I read that piece earlier and tried it. Fail. Maybe your mileage will vary. His obvious hatred of conservatives is another give away.

  17. I haven’t watched the video yet. However, I do a little coding on the side as a side hustle.
    The guys I respect say that there is no such thing as a Software Glitch. That software performs as coded or indicated and it is extremely easy to code for counters +1. A caveman could do it.
    Any glitch is a red flag for fraud. Also, uploading an update the night before is a huge red flag since there will not be time to real time test for errors.
    And last one guy was mocking the pay for a job advertised for Election Software job per hour as insultingly low.
    My impression is the experts in the field of coding have little respect for the security of software in the electoral field. This is non-partisan viewpoint from what I can tell.


    Yes, it demonstrates that it is highly, highly, highly likely there was fraud. Possibly enough to warrent an investigation.
    What we need though is “stuff” we can carry into a courtroom if a Trump 2nd term is to prevail.
    To trigger a hand recount.
    An audit.

  19. Mark K Logan says:

    This guy reminds of Hari Seldon, who figured out human behavior can be precisely expressed in algorithms. The future could thereby be expressed in algorithms if it weren’t for those Black Swan/Mule thingies which crop up from time to time, Genies who unzip their pants and urinate on the pillar of science.
    I’m surprised to see the parties destroy their primary ballots though, even in one state. We could cease pretending those are elections but if calling them something else imperils State funding of party polling. Can’t have that.

  20. Deap says:

    Doesn’t take a mathematician to count how many times Fauci double-crossed Trump. He just did it again:
    Query: would it be petty and spiteful, or pragmatic to fire his sorry little ass right now, knowing he will get rehired in January 2021. Or should Trump take a pass on this one.

  21. Diana L Croissant says:

    About a decade ago, I did sign up to count votes in the county where I was living at the time. I was impressed with the process at the time. We did not have some big vote counting machine doing most of the process. The computers were used where three people sat to verify signatures. They used state databases of signatures to compare what the state had against what appeared on the ballot. That was done first because there was no need to count the rest of the ballot if the signature was wrong. (Usually it was a parent signing for a child who was away at college.)
    There was a table of counters going through sections of the ballot that allowed write-in. Those were tabulated by three people and compared and counted until all three agreed.
    There were smaller machines that put the rest of the ballot through and tabulated the results.
    I worked for two weeks counting votes since it took that time to go through a tedious process of verifying and merging the counts from each section of the ballot.
    I am sorry to think that some company under a wealthy person with a definite desire for a certain outcome could be given the contract to do vote counting in any state, or in many states
    All I know is that I am now very happy that Trump is fighting to verify the election results–or to prove they hare not accurate.
    We are a “want it now” society. For something as important as our votes, we should be patient to ensure getting accurate results, even if it means taking more time.
    As it is now, if nothing is done to make se feel that Biden really did win, I will be unable to use the word “President” before his name. The same should be true for people who dislike Trump.

  22. turcopolier says:

    George Chamberlain
    The hand re-count in Georgia should tell us a lot.

  23. Barbara Ann says:

    I believe Wayne county is different because it is evidently a hard Dem county. From the graph (38:00 in the video) I could make out only 4 precincts with > 25% Republican voters. My recollection is that the negative slope pattern exhibited in the other counties Dr Shiva analyses all show this pattern beginning at at least the 20% R mark, so in Wayne the pattern is not there simply because there are not enough Republican voters for it to appear.
    I think the phenomenon shown is just the tendency of Republicans to down vote R rather than for Trump alone. The choice of plot is (deliberately) misleading IMO. If the plot had been R down votes against votes for Trump (not Trump – R down votes, as it is) a flat trend is indeed what you would expect. This would be chicanery at the best of times, in the current climate it is downright dangerous.
    The plot is X against Y-X which must show a negative slope. I can only assume an MIT PhD knows this full well. I would guess he is motivated by simple self promotion (notice his book on the bookshelf in the background?).
    All of this does not rule out electoral shenanigans in Michigan or elsewhere and I could not agree more with Dr Shiva’s wider points re the audit-ability of the electoral process. Voting is one of those functions so critical that technology of all kinds should be kept far away from it. Vote in person, count it manually and keep the ballot papers so that a recount/audit can be undertaken anytime.

  24. Badbisco says:

    I have no doubt that some voting irregularities have occurred but I did have some questions on how Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai set up his graphs and curious if anyone could explain why I may be looking at it wrong.
    The downward sloping line could make sense to me if we assume a hypothetical scenario where Trump was abandoned by X% of staunch Republicans, who normally would vote straight line R. Then the absolute differential between R% for straight line and split voters would increase for precincts that were more Republican.
    A precinct that was 30R/70D by affiliation may have 30%R in straight line votes but only 24%R of split ticket votes with a difference of -6%. A precinct that was 50/50 would have a -10% difference and a 70/30 precinct would have a -14% difference. I think Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai should have plotted the R% straight/split ticket difference as a % of the straight R%. My hypo example would plot as a straight line at -20% across the precincts.
    Even if my scenario above makes sense for the downward slope, the initial straight line trend up until a precinct hits 20%-40%R seems fishy, as well as the truly scattered patterns for D precincts.

  25. I have seen the following families of evidence of fraud
    1) anecdotes
    2) probabilities (Biden getting more votes than Obama only where he needed them, down ballot differences et al)
    3) statistical analysis like this, Benford and some others
    4) computer nerds looking at the machines (just beginning)
    They all point the same way and they all occur in the necessary places.
    1) can you convince objective judges?
    2) are there any objective judges?
    3) if the judges conclude there was fraud, what to do?
    Whatever happens. half the country will be convinced the election was stolen. Then what?

  26. Barbara Ann says:

    OK, I’ve watched the video for the 3rd or 4th time and the 21:00 mark is critical. Just before this Dr Shiva’s slide say X-axis is % Republican straight party votes (RSPV) and Y-axis is %Trump individual votes – %RSPV. The axes on the very next slide are different. They show the Y-axis as (Trump votes – RSPV) as a %. The difference is critical. In the former case one should expect a flat relationship regardless of how Republican a precinct is. In the latter case the negative slope relationship should be expected. The refutation I linked to assumes the latter analysis was done.
    If Dr Shiva has in fact plotted what he initially describes I agree with his conclusions that no credible model of voter preference can explain the result. I hope he soon publishes this work in a more rigorous format so we can all see which it is, it could scarcely be more important.

  27. Fred says:

    I think in Wayne County they weren’t using those machines, but they sure had a lot of surprise ballots show up. On another surprise note A judge in Pennsylvania has ruled in favor of the Trump campaign after concluding that ballots received after 8 p.m. on Election Day that were segregated should not be counted.
    “[The] Court concludes that Respondent Kathy Boockvar, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, lacked statutory authority to issue the November 1, 2020, guidance to Respondents County Board of Elections insofar as that guidance purported to change the deadline in Section 1308(h) of the Pennsylvania Election Code […] for certain electors…”

  28. Lesly says:

    I don’t know what system they’re using to store/access voting results but can confirm randomizing towards a specific outcome in a specific ballot question is possible in Access/SSMS/Visual Studio etc., after a threshold is met. This little bit of query is so basic I wouldn’t even call it an algorithm. It’s so easy to do in fact that I have to wonder why, if fraud was intended, was it made so obvious for others to see? We’re not talking about a small % difference as some are alleging here. And I wonder what kind of testing state/federal governments write into their contracts to opt out if UAT fails — assuming there is any UAT before the production deadline.
    It could be a rogue coder(s). I have written business requirements/technical requirements for our clients because sometimes they can’t express, in plain English, what they want in a way that Audit/Controls can read so it makes sense. That kind of trust can be abused.
    I’m not convinced there is fraud but I have no problem with the recounts/legal recourse. I wish we had done away with voting machines back when SCOTUS decided it was time to stop the recount.

  29. Shiva rightly observed that down ballot Republicans did better that Trump. That’s been noticed and reported by a lot of people. However, Shiva’s conclusion was that this could only happen if votes were taken from Trump and given to Biden since it is inconceivable that so many voters would split their ballot in that manner. He also fails to understand that a polling precinct or county with a larger percentage of “Republican” ballots would have a higher percentage of those split ballots. That is the point made by Naim Kabir’s rebuttal of Shiva’s claim that Barbara Ann linked to in an earlier comment. Kabir actually provided the algorithm/code to prove his point. Here’s the link again.
    Michigan has all paper ballots. Shiva made a point of the ballot images in the counting tabulation not being kept, yet he ignored the actual paper ballot records. His research can be tested against the physical reality of those paper ballots. No algorithms, just simple addition. Georgia’s state-wide hand recount will be very telling as to whether there were widespread shenanigans or not.

  30. A Portuguese Man says:

    I’m probably missing something.
    Could someone please clarify this for me: when they talk about straight-Republican and candidate votes, are these exclusive?
    If so, then doesn’t it make sense that the more people there are that vote straight-Republican (thereby voting for Trump) the less people there would be that vote for Trump alone (because they already did so by voting straight-Republican)?

  31. Leith says:

    Just released joint statement from DHS and CISA: “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”
    DHS is headed by Chad Wolf, a Trump appointee. CISA is headed by Chris Krebs, also a Trump appointee.
    Regarding the so-called software glitch in Antrim county Michigan: There was no glitch. It was human error by the County Clerk, Sheryl Guy, who is a long time registered Republican.

  32. ponderer says:

    @Barbara Ann
    The graphs use %percent Republican as X axis and % relative to straight R as Y axis because that is the basis of the algorithm used to manipulate the ballot. That means someone has spent the time going through the data looking for any tell tale sign/relationships that indicate an algorithm. They probably plotted R votes straight versus Trump. There were already reports of ballots changing from Trump to Biden so that makes sense. A plot like that would show a variation across counties just the same as the % republican (X axis does), but you wouldn’t see any trend in it other than some counties are lower and some are high. It’s only when you add in the % Republican that a trend becomes clear.
    It also makes sense from a fraud perspective. If the Russians were to influence the vote for Trump you would expect Trump to have higher results across the board or for extra “turnout” in Trump leaning districts. By adjusting the R areas more than D they make it less likely to be spotted. Trump still won those counties so if you didn’t do an analysis like this you wouldn’t know it. People tend to focus on the districts where their candidate lost as the problem. It’s quite clever. It allows you to adjust the count in the districts less likely to be audited. You still lose the district, but you influence the state total. It would have worked if there wasn’t a blow out aka a “landslide” for Trump. Notice in the graphs that < 20$ R districts actually saw more votes for Trump than party line tickets. That means Independents and D were voting for Trump even when they weren't voting for Republicans in heavy D areas. Probably because they are tired of the lockdowns and fear of lawless rioting. Your comment about plotting X versus X-Y is incorrect. It doesn't automatically mean there should be a downward slope and in fact just about every graph has a straight line at 0 to show that party line votes should correspond to individual votes. The solution is to hand count the ballots then verify them against the previous results.

  33. Eliot says:

    “Whatever happens. half the country will be convinced the election was stolen. Then what?”
    Is there a historical precedent in this country? I don’t know.
    It seems all of our institutions are breaking down. And we don’t have good leadership anymore, just thieves looking to enrich themselves. If it comes to a crisis, these people won’t make good choices.
    – Eliot


    Yes, I agree 100%.
    We need handcounts/audits/canvassing in 2 more states.
    That would show that the scope of computer fraud is extensive enough to change the outcome.
    But we need something to trigger that.
    Getting that is my worry.

  35. Martin Oline says:

    I think you nailed it about the hand re-count in Georgia. It should show the difference but it will probably be ignored by the MSM. I watched the whole video and was very impressed with how well it was done. He made it easier for regular people to understand. There are so many people with Master’s degrees that couldn’t have earned a Bachelor’s degree without a “Fun With Numbers” class to get the credit.
    I realized that meny elections have been kept closer than they would be if they weren’t manipulated. This algorithm probably evens out any big difference either way, but it is available to create the desired outcome when it is needed.
    One thing just occured to me that this shows why the Republican party gained seats in the House, won’t suffer any significant damage in the Senate, and seems to have lost the presidency by a larger margin. It didn’t make sense and now I understand why: it was only programmed to stop Trump despite his army of supporters. Not damaging the rest of the ticket was a big mistake. Romney claimed the drop in support was because “true” Republicans don’t like Trump, but as Dr. Shiva patiently explains, if that was what actually happened the result would be a flat horizontal line offset from the straight Republican ticket and not a thirty degree angle down that transfered more and more votes to Biden as the number of Republican votes proportionally increase.

  36. Eric Newhill says:

    Barbara Ann,
    Dr. Shiva lays out the crux of his analysis -and his definitions – at the 27:30 mark.
    Allow me to put it a slightly different way.
    Dr. Shiva has defined “republicanism” as the % straight Republican party vote ballots in a district.
    His dependent variable is the % of non-straight party ballots that had a vote for Biden.
    Note – It is a simple mathematical reality, per definitions used by Dr Shiva, that as “republicanism” increases the % of individual candidate ballots decreases. A 70% republican district would have 30% individual candidate ballots. A 90% republican district would have only 10% individual candidate ballots. Shiva is taking the % of individual candidate ballots that went for Trump less the % of straight party republican ballots in the same district.
    He then goes on to state that he finds in the data that as “republicanism” increases, the % of the individual candidate votes for Biden increases. He further states that such a tight linear inverse correlation is not natural.
    So Biden is – in very and suspiciously linear fashion – getting an increasing percent of a shrinking percent of available ballots districts as republicanism increases.
    That is the whole argument in a nutshell.
    As I said previously, a possible natural explanation is that as republicanism increases the increasingly fewer (as a percent) non-straight party voters in the district voted not straight party, at least in part, because they don’t like Trump. Republicanism could be a proxy for conservatism and as conservatism increases, tolerance for Trump’s new money brashness decreases. There are many theories one could formulate over a cocktail or two. It remains that the intensely linear relationship is highly unusual. It merits investigation in Dr Shiva’s opinion (and mine).
    The critic Naim Kabir in your link (today he updated what he wrote) says – “One quantity we care about is the % of Trump votes that split-ticket voters give. If they have a fixed probability of voting Trump, this will be flat.” The first sentence is exactly what Dr Shiva says. The second sentence is pretty much Dr. Shiva’s null hypothesis; which Shiva thinks has been disproven. Again, all Shiva is saying is that as the % of straight R ballots in district increase, the % Trump votes on the individual ballots decreases and it does so in a suspiciously tight linear way. That needs t be explained.
    Kabir goes on to say that “As Ayyadurai assumes: all Republicans who vote straight-ticket will vote for Trump [my edit: duh – no brainer]. Non-Republicans split-ticket voters, on the other hand, only have some small chance of voting for Trump.” That second part is not an assumption that Dr. Shiva makes. It’s from far left field. Who says that split ticket voters are not Republican or Democrat Trump supporters or Green Party or people like to smother their gay lovers in tapioca pudding while wearing swim fins and snorkels? No one other than Kabir is making any assumptions about who the individual ballot voters are. That’s important because he then creates some lame code to simulate something that Shiva never said.
    He then goes on a silly tangent about the “line of unity” that adds no value other than to demonstrate that he likes to go on silly tangents.
    Then he boldly concludes that Shiva is conning us and he’s stupid. IMO, Kabir only proves that any ideologically driven doofus can post anything on the internet as long as his politics are the same as the “fact checkers'”. If you can find the hidden mathematical truth to Kabob’s argument, I’d love to see it.

  37. Eric Newhill says:

    Kabob = Kabir. Autocorrect is trying to make me into a racist. I like Kabobs. I grew up eating them. I have a real name that is ethnic. I’m 50% middle eastern. I’m not a racist. I swear. Please god let me have a job tomorrow.

  38. Porcupine says:

    Barbara Ann,
    I just turned the speed down to .75 and replayed the crucial section. I think that they assume an above-average aptitude/background for this kind of thing.
    I think that these fellows are just independent thinkers. (Yes the main one is a bit self-promoting (another inventor of the email?—or *is* he The One.
    IMO they’ve given very convincing evidence for not trusting a “voting system” which was an in-needed “improvement” which introduced severe liabilities into the election system just as the boomers reached mature years.
    You could have a better election with notched sticks (or poles), and the US is *maybe* just figuring this out. Well, surprise surprise, there’s a lot of stuff like this going on.
    It didn’t really take twenty years to realize that the opiate distribution companies knew what was going on perfectly well.
    There are plenty of things that don’t add up in this country but that dogleg angle on that scatter graph takes the cake. Obviously they “taxed” the more republican districts—were forced to!—in order to flip enough votes to counter the red wave and the strong showing of trump in Dem districts!
    Also it was good insight to compare straight ticket to individual voting. Bennie over there stole the show for me—“my calculator works the same as yours”—& refuting Romney: “Republicans May hate Trump as you say, but republican voters don’t hate Trump from precinct to precinct in a straight line on a scatter-graph.”
    The same uniparty that winked at illegal immigration and sent manufacturing overseas winked at this. Deep swamp.
    These guys get the uniparty concept.
    The best thing elections-wise we can do for any good camdidate (like Tulsi Gabbard), is ensure fair elections—without “software enhancements”.
    This is do-able. So I think we should just share and explain the video.
    That’s my two cents.

  39. Ghoti says:

    There are some scatter plots out there that may or may not indicate something amiss. There is a discussion in Bret Weinstein’s Twitter feed that goes into details but I have not been able to fully review either side. Bret Weinstein is the professor from Evergreen State in Washington who was run off campus by a woke mob. He is scrupulously fair to those he disagrees with. The scatter plot debate is worth reviewing.
    Benford’s Law is not really valid here. At the district or precinct level there are not the orders of magnitude difference in populations to make it valid. Different counties do have those population differences but only Texas has enough counties to make anything resembling a correct graph simply due to sample size. I ran analyses on the county level for various states, red and blue, contested and not, and other than Texas all violated Benford’s Law.
    I would need to see Dr. Shiva’s source data to comment, as well as to see further control counties as comparison but I do believe he is on to something. Really, someone with the data sets and good R or Python skills could quickly confirm or debunk this. I suspect it would be confirmed. His stated method makes a lot of sense.
    I would be careful of just taking credentials. There is a forensic accountant misapplying Benford’s Law online.
    There is a young man named Matt Braynard who is doing a record by record comparison and following up with affidavits. This would detect voter level fraud. He is worth looking up. The downside to his work is that his report outs are frustratingly vague but he is making progress. He reports out what he has found but not at a level that permits an understanding of magnitude. Part of this appears to be an overworked small team working fast.
    Thank you for all of your insightful analysis. I always enjoy reading your writings.

  40. Jopseph Baio says:

    I don’t post comments but in this case I can’t resist because I don’t understand why no one has asked why voting machine software would have a weighted election feature. What is a weighted election? Why the feature?

  41. Fred says:

    That’s not quite correct. Shiva called for MI to count the paper ballots so as to determine the actual results. They need to be validated as well as there is plenty of evidence of thousands of fraudulent ballots being injected into the system, especially in Wayne County.

  42. turcopolier says:

    Joseph Baio
    Neither I or my wife (a former election judge) have heard of such a think before watching Ayyadulai’s lecture.

  43. Lux says:

    Posted by: Patrick Armstrong | 12 November 2020 at 04:10 PM
    personally I am a fan of anecdotes and yes, why not Benford.
    thus I did like this piece of evidence, brigades challenging brigades. What would be my chances as (innocent?) work bee no 20 on desk 228 that allegedly disappeared Republican votes? Hopefully there are surveillance cameras and the Challenging Rightful Supervisor noted the exact time at which I supposedly disappeared ballots from a predominant Republican precinct.
    Anyway here we go::
    Here is a new Simone Gao interview of a Republican poll challenger/watcher on duty at the Detroit (Cobo Hall) vote counting center during the Nov3-4 ballot counting period. Very informative; 22 min long.

  44. Barbara Ann says:

    “Really, someone with the data sets and good R or Python skills could quickly confirm or debunk this.”
    Yes, I would like to do just that and am trying to find the source for the data. I can only find county-level results with no distinction between single candidate votes and SPV so far. If anyone has identified the source please post a link so we can get to the bottom of this. AFAIK Dr Shiva has yet to publish his work in a form where it may be subjected to peer review. Given the gravity of his allegations, the longer he delays in doing this the more suspicious we should be of his motivations IMO.

  45. Eric Newhill says:

    Barbara Ann,
    I said, “Note – It is a simple mathematical reality, per definitions used by Dr Shiva, that as “republicanism” increases the % of individual candidate ballots decreases. A 70% republican district would have 30% individual candidate ballots. A 90% republican district would have only 10% individual candidate ballots. Shiva is taking the % of individual candidate ballots that went for Trump less the % of straight party republican ballots in the same district.”
    Then I got distracted. I should have concluded that paragraph by noting that if the objective is to systematically code the counting software to throw the election to Biden, you’d have to switch a greater % of the shrinking volume available individual candidate ballots in the district to Biden as republicanism increases. That is exactly what Dr. Shiva’s results show.
    It’s really a simple concept.

  46. Fred says:

    Barbara Ann,
    “Given the gravity of his allegations, the longer he delays in doing this the more suspicious we should be of his motivations IMO.”
    You mean like settle science climate change analysis? Just kidding. Nothing is preventing anyone else from getting the same data from the MI SOS or those county/city clerks who possess the data. Nothing other than their resistance to providing it, which is itself a red flag that should trigger further scrutiny.
    Having lived in Michigan for more than a dozen years I’m familiar with the straight line voting. It’s done to ensure winning all those down ballot races because downballot votes in democratic areas drops off a cliff. That’s why the democrats have fought so hard to keep it in place.
    Further, and rather importantly, there is the ‘spoiling’ of the ballot that occurs if someone votes straight party by makring that on the ballot, then votes for any partisan race down ballot individually. I would be interested in seeing that data. Also, in parallel to GA where there are reportedly tens of thousands of Biden only ballots it would be interesting to see how many Biden only/Trump only ballots there were in Michigan; then how many straight party votes with no other ballot issues being voted on. A comparison to prior elections would be telling.

  47. Barbara Ann says:

    Fred, if I had discovered algorithmic vote counting fraud I would move Heaven & Earth to prove it beyond reasonable doubt and that means peer review, not a single live-streamed YouTube video. Yes the peer review system has its flaws, especially when it comes to academic grant factories like Climate Change, but this is very simple to prove or disprove. And on that note:
    I came across someone who has done just that and invested the effort to replicate Shiva’s work for one county – Kent*. The author achieves the same down slope Shiva does for Trump vs. Rep. SPV. He then does a plot for Biden using the same methodology and waddayaknow another down slope. The author says; “By Shiva’s logic, the vote tallying software is stealing votes from Trump in high R areas, and stealing votes from Biden in high D areas. Of course, this is only an artifact of the choice of y-axis.”
    *It appears Kent county uses the services of a Grand Rapids-based election services & software co. who publish results down to precinct level for this and other counties using their services (in pdf form) at
    I’m sure this won’t end the discussion, but at least now the data for one of the counties Shiva uses to demonstrate the alleged vote-stealing algorithm is out there, so I’d encourage the suitably skilled and concerned to prove it or otherwise for themselves, I intend to do so over the weekend.
    Be interested to hear your views on the above and btw I had the most intense déjà vu reading your latest comment, most bizarre.

  48. Fred says:

    Barbara Ann,
    physically count the lawfully cast ballots. That means people who did not vote in person don’t get extra time to vote, otherwise they are being privileged over other citizens. Physically recounting fake votes is no different than George Floyd counting his fake $20s. They are still fake.

  49. Eric Newhill says:

    Hi Barbara Ann,
    I just modeled this out myself, again, with graphs, etc, but using dummy numbers (that doesn’t matter because we’re looking at the concept, not the actual results). My model was based on 20 “districts”.
    I can create scatter plots that look exactly like Dr. Shiva’s. To do so requires the following:
    a) the % of individual ballot voters going for Biden (or, conversely, going for Trump) remains constant as a % straight republican vote increases. I arbitrarily used 35%, but you could use any %. The line will do the same thing.
    b) the % of individual ballots going to Biden increases as the % straight republican vote increases
    The only difference between a and b is the steepness of the slope of the line.
    Those (a and b) are the required conditions to get a line that looks like Dr. Shiva’s.
    I also modeled where the % individual votes going to Biden, as a % straight republican ballots increases, is neither constant, nor constantly increasing. Rather, that % is random across districts. In that case, of course, you don’t get a straight descending slope line. You get a zig zagging line, as expected.
    To say that the downward sloping line is merely a function of the Y-axis is like saying that getting an answer of 4 when adding 2+2 is merely a function of math and the choice of 2 and 2. It’s a meaningless statement of the obvious that doesn’t discredit Dr. Shiva in the least bit. If you add 2+3 you don’t get 4. The question is, seeing a result of 4 and seeing inputs of 2 and 2, does that make sense given what we know about the natural world.
    Dr. Shiva is saying that a constant % (actually I think he says increasing %) of individual ballots going to Biden as straight republican votes increase is highly suspicious.
    There is nothing wrong with Dr. Shiva’s model/approach.
    You can critique his conclusion. As I have suggested, there may be natural explanations for his downward sloping line and the tight correlation between % straight R ballots and % individual ballots going to Biden. I agree with Dr. Shiva in that I think it is very odd that the correlation is so tight, but the critics hand waving away his analytical approach are saying nothing and trying to sound smart or deliberately attempting to obfuscate.

  50. Fred says:

    Will wonders never cease. It seems Arizone never certified their election machines according to Arizona law.
    Title 16 – Elections and Electors § 16-449 Required test of equipment and programs; notice; procedures manual The test shall be observed by at least two election inspectors, who shall not be of the same political party, and shall be open to representatives of the political parties, candidates, the press and the public.
    Neither a Libertarian Party agency Representative NOR the Republican GOP Chair Rae Chornenky was preset at this REQUIRED test and by statute there SHALL be at least 2 official observers from differing parties present to certify the machines…”
    Of course this came from the Dark Lord or the Evil one or some such place, so Trust, but unlike with AP stories, verify.
    “… the Legislature that crafted the election laws, including the security features. And it was never thought necessary to require the kind of outside audit that she now wants.”
    Audits, why on earth would a state every think something should be audited……

  51. Eric Newhill says:

    Barbara Ann,
    I’m spending more time on this than I should, but this comment should be definitive. I went back and watched the Dr. Shiva presentation again. He is definitely talking some smack that doesn’t add up at certain points and now I see more clearly what the critics are talking about, though they are full of it too. really, this is just more of what I’ve been saying, but hopefully more clearly and this can be put to rest.
    It is indeed a mathematical reality (maybe artifact, if one prefers) that as the % straight R ballots increases, unless the % individual ballots going for Trump increases proportionally, you will get a downward sloping line. As I mentioned, my own modeling shows that. That is because the equation being used for the Y-axis points is % individual ballots going to Trump – % straight R ballots. As straight R % gets bigger then the Y-axis points get more negative if their % stays the same or gets smaller. That is what the critics are reacting to.
    To illustrate: If you have 40% of ballots straight R and 25% of individual ballots going to Trump, then, using Dr Shiva’s methodology, you will get a Y-axis data point of 25% – 40% = -15%. If we then move along the X-axis to a district with 60% straight R ballots, we would need 45% of the individual ballots to go to Trump to get a Y-axis point of -15%. If we get less than 45% we get a downward slope from the first Y-axis point (15%) to this new one. And so on and so forth. To be clear, if we only had 30% of individual ballots going to Trump in this second district, then 30% – 60% = -30%, which is less than the -15% we got for the first district and we have a downward sloping line.
    However, Dr. Shiva does mention that he recognizes that mathematical fact; sort of. Near the beginning of the presentation he quickly makes, then glides right past, the assumption that as a district becomes more “republican” (based on % straight R ballots) the % of individual ballots going to Trump should increase. Later he frequently returns to that assumption. Actually, it is the crux of his argument. The critics are missing that, on purpose?
    Is it safe to assume, as Dr. Shiva does, that as % straight republican ballots increases that the % of individual ballots going to Trump should at least increase proportionally (and thus not forming a downward line)? I don’t think so. I have already said that. It is suspicious that they don’t, but I’d hardly call it definitive proof that fraud occurred. Should we expect that % straight R ballots increases we would see % individual ballots going for Trump being all over the board and thus forming a zig zagging pattern? I have no idea. What is the theory of human psychology behind that data?
    Are the critics correct that the downward slope is a mere mathematical artifact? Not in the least. It is only an artifact – though that is not really the correct term – if % individual ballots going to Trump does not increase proportionally, or at a greater rate than, % straight R ballots.
    When you’re analyzing data to understand reality, you can never lose sight of the real world by getting lost in statistical minutia. Nor can you get lost in fantasy explanations about the real world without some data or other hard evidence to support your explanations. I see Dr. Shiva and his critics committing both of these sins.

  52. LondonBob says:

    Very good research by Shiva. Flipping votes in the most hardcore Republican precincts is the best way to hide it.
    The issue with Georgia is that they are doing a recount not an audit. Quite why a Republican run state participated in the vote freezing makes me suspicious of the SoS and Governor there. A recount, without an audit, in a county where there weren’t issues with votes being shifted supervised by a Republican SoS is how I would attempt to stymie the fraud claims.

  53. Fred says:

    If you recount the same illegal ballots that you counted the first time the numbers should be equal, but it is still fraud.

  54. Deap says:

    Observer residing in Switzerland tracking voting reports in Swiss real time during the wee small hours in America after Election Day, reports on the 3:42 AM (Zulu) instantaneous dump of over 100K votes in Wisconsin at that witching hour.
    From his own data analysis perspective, he observed this one second suddenly changed the leaning red Trump status of Wisconsin to leaning Biden blue. In one second. He concluded this abrupt switch in outcome was bull feathers.

  55. Eric Newhill says:

    No. Shiva’s research is only good *if* it is true that as “republicanism” increases (as defined by % straight R party votes in district), % individual candidate ballots going to Trump increases proportionally (or greater than proportionally). If % individual ballots going to Trump remains constant or decreases as republicanism increases, then you get the downward sloping line that Shiva sees. That is a mathematical reality. No two ways about it.
    Random %s of individual candidate ballots going to Trump as republicanism increases would result in a zig zagging line.
    So is it true that as % straight R party ballots increases, people using individual candidate ballots will vote for Trump in a proportional increase? Who knows? It’s a mere assertion by Shiva and he offers nothing to support it. I call that shady research.
    The idea is that there was an algorithm in the counting machines to switch Trump votes to Biden votes. Therefore a hand count would avoid that problem and get at the true results.

  56. Barbara Ann says:

    Eric, All
    Given the gravity of Shiva’s allegations I too have spent a lot of time on this, this should be my last word too:
    I have repeated the work of Joe Bak-Coleman (Princeton PhD, though he doesn’t use the title “Dr”) shown in the link to his Twitter account I posted above – and here to save scrolling up to find it. To reiterate; this uses the publicly available data for Kent Co. MI, one of the counties Shiva uses to illustrate the supposed algorithmic fraud.
    My scatter plots look identical to Bak-Coleman’s, the important point being the Biden excess vs. Dem SPV plot has the same downward slope as the Trump excess vs. Rep SPV plot. The Trump one looks similar to Shiva’s chart (from 37:12 in the video) but I note Shiva’s plot has a steeper slope. The downward trend is evidenced in both.
    Anyhow, this is enough for me, as Shiva’s key argument is that the down slope in the Trump plot is evidence of votes being switched from Trump to Biden. As Bak-Coleman says, by this logic the down slope in the Biden plot is evidence of the imagined algorithm doing the converse and moving Biden votes to Trump in heavily Dem precincts. This stretches credulity to breaking point.
    The fact that Shiva has not conducted such an obvious control (plotting Biden excess vs. Dem SPV) and the fact that this shows exactly the same ‘suspicious’ trend blows Shiva’s credibility out of the water for me. I do not think it likely this is accidental and suspect him of opportunistic pseudo-scientific scaremongering for his own gain. If so, this is truly despicable. I would not touch this man’s ‘science’ with a barge pole.

  57. Eric Newhill says:

    Barbara Ann,
    Exactly. An MIT PhD X3 knows what is necessary to pass peer review, convince a court, etc. Why even no calculation of Rsquared? Why no comparison to previous elections? Why no literature review of the voting habits of non-straight party voters? And, as you note, why no comparison to straight D v individual Biden ballots in 2020?
    I first encountered Dr Shiva when he was peddling some software smart gizmos that were supposed to lower healthcare costs. He either had no idea what what he was talking about or was trying to con people.
    No integrity in that man.
    That said, as you surely know by now, the results are not an “artifact” of the choice of the y-axis.

  58. Fred says:

    Barbara Ann,
    “Shiva’s plot has a steeper slope.”
    Which means just what? Your software isn’t stealing votes as fast, or that the more Republican a district the more people voted against him individually?

  59. Eric Newhill says:

    Barbara Ann and all,
    Dr Shiva’s shady presentation and shaky conclusion should not discredit the apparent fact that one voting machine developed a glitch that transferred 3,000 votes from Trump to Biden in a district in MI. It appears that all involved admit that happened. That alone should merit a carefully monitored hand recount of *all* MI ballots, IMO. Software doesn’t just glitch. It has to be programmed to glitch.

  60. Kurt says:

    When they recount Georgia, they need to look hard at DeKalb County and double check all signatures.
    My family left DeKalb County Georgia about 2 years ago. DeKalb keeps everyone on its jury list (and I’m guessing voter registration list) forever. You are never removed – never.
    Both my wife and I received a ridiculous number of emails asking us to vote in Georgia, including one claiming to be from DeKalb County government. They offered to help us register and vote, if we but asked. I suspect this is because DeKalb never removed us from the jury roles.
    We now live in New Hampshire and voted in our new home. But I do wonder if (unbeknownst to us) we also “voted” in Georgia for Biden. I’d be very interested in checking if I had the power to do so.

  61. Leith says:

    Kurt –
    You can check if a ballot was submitted in your name in Georgia by going to then click the Track your Ballot button. Or call the Georgia Hotline: 888-730-5816

  62. Ghoti says:

    That is correct on Ghoti = Fish
    Barbara Ann,
    I only have access to county level as well. I would love to know how to access the data set used by Dr. Shiva.

Comments are closed.