Data analysis shows weird mail-in ballot anomalies in contested states

I received myriad emails today sending me to a Twitter thread relaying a study that examines the timing of ballot arrivals in the various states and concludes that Democrats used mail-in ballots to engage in massive election fraud.  I cannot vouch for the study's accuracy, but it's piqued people's interest, so I want you to decide about it for yourself.

A Twitter user named Cultural Husbandry relays the study, which asserts that, when you commit ballot fraud on a massive scale, you leave "fingerprints" behind in the form of anomalies that cannot be explained by mere happenstance.  Thus, if one looks at the rate of mail-in votes arriving in a state's central counting area, unique patterns show up depending on whether the arriving votes are legitimate or fraudulent.

It took me — a mathphobe — a while to figure out what was going on, but I think I got it.  The first part of this post explains the principles, which may be helpful for other mathphobes.  The second part of the post has the Twitter thread itself.  Please note that I am not saying that the conclusions in the thread are valid because I don't know if they are.  I'm just explaining how they work.

We'll use an election in a hypothetical state — Erehwon — where Daniel and Rachel were the candidates.  Rachel won, receiving two votes for every one of Daniel's (a 2 to 1 ratio).

Early voting showed a random pattern that did not reveal the ultimate ratio (i.e., three votes for Rachel at 8:00 A.M., one vote for Daniel at 8:30 A.M., seven votes for Daniel at 9:00 A.M.).  People's schedules do not relate to their voting preferences.  For in-person voting, the ratio is apparent only when all the votes are counted.

Things are different for mail-in ballots.  Before the election, voters all over Erehwon mailed ballots to the registrar's office in their county.  As to each county, all the votes arrived randomly shuffled because they'd been run through the mail, at which point they were counted all at once.  This random shuffling, followed by counting everything at once, meant that the votes in a given batch of mailed-in ballots invariably came very close to reflecting the final ratio (e.g., 2 to 1).

The two different types of voting (in person vs. mail) therefore graph differently.  For in-person voting, you cannot pin down the ratio of Rachel to Daniel votes.  They show up on the graph randomly, with the ratio appearing only after all counting is complete.  However, for mailed in votes, you can instantly see the ratio.  Subtle variations can occur, mostly when counties that are far from the government center and have different politics finally get their information to the main counting area.

The Minnesota chart below, which I culled from the Twitter thread, illustrates the point I made.  The X-axis shows the time in hourly intervals on a 24-hour clock (beginning with November 3 at 6:00 P.M.), and the Y-axis shows the ratio of Democrat to Republican votes.  Once the randomly occurring in-person voting ends, the line is pretty straight over the next few hours because it reflects nicely shuffled mail-in ballots.  As the hour grows later, the line dips down a little (more Republican votes relative to Democrat votes) because late-reporting outlying counties trend a little more conservative:

What happens, though, if ballots come in that disrupt that nice straight line?  For example, imagine that, by 2 A.M., Daniel realizes he's going to lose because there aren't enough mail-in ballots to get him over the top.  Therefore, at 4 A.M., he bribes the vote-counters to accept 169,000 ballots that his friends filled out for him and to pretend they arrived on time, by mail.  In that case, you'll see that the formerly steady ratio line goes haywire.  Instead of staying relatively straight, it rockets in Daniel's direction, as this Wisconsin chart does:

That noticeable break says the ostensibly mailed in ballots did not get randomly shuffled in the mail, or they would have reflected the final 2-1 ratio between Daniel's and Rachel's votes.  Instead, the break shouts out, "Daniel cheated by throwing in ballots that no real voter mailed."  (Incidentally, that 4 A.M. change is significant because that's when many of the contested states started doing weird things favoring Biden.)  Or, as Cultural Husbandry said:

It appears Dems shot themselves in the foot bc making everyone do mail-in ballots actually makes it easier to catch mail-in ballot fraud. Bc all of the ballots go through the postal system, they get shuffled like a deck of cards, so we expect reported ballot return to be extremely UNIFORM in terms of D vs R ratio, but to drift slightly towards R over time bc some of those ballots travel farther. This pattern proves fraud and is a verifiable timestamp of when each fraudulent action occurred. 

If that makes sense, you're ready for Cultural Husbandry's thread:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please note that this thread purports to debunk the above information.

Image: Mail-in ballot by WCN 24/7.  CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

I received myriad emails today sending me to a Twitter thread relaying a study that examines the timing of ballot arrivals in the various states and concludes that Democrats used mail-in ballots to engage in massive election fraud.  I cannot vouch for the study's accuracy, but it's piqued people's interest, so I want you to decide about it for yourself.

A Twitter user named Cultural Husbandry relays the study, which asserts that, when you commit ballot fraud on a massive scale, you leave "fingerprints" behind in the form of anomalies that cannot be explained by mere happenstance.  Thus, if one looks at the rate of mail-in votes arriving in a state's central counting area, unique patterns show up depending on whether the arriving votes are legitimate or fraudulent.

It took me — a mathphobe — a while to figure out what was going on, but I think I got it.  The first part of this post explains the principles, which may be helpful for other mathphobes.  The second part of the post has the Twitter thread itself.  Please note that I am not saying that the conclusions in the thread are valid because I don't know if they are.  I'm just explaining how they work.

We'll use an election in a hypothetical state — Erehwon — where Daniel and Rachel were the candidates.  Rachel won, receiving two votes for every one of Daniel's (a 2 to 1 ratio).

Early voting showed a random pattern that did not reveal the ultimate ratio (i.e., three votes for Rachel at 8:00 A.M., one vote for Daniel at 8:30 A.M., seven votes for Daniel at 9:00 A.M.).  People's schedules do not relate to their voting preferences.  For in-person voting, the ratio is apparent only when all the votes are counted.

Things are different for mail-in ballots.  Before the election, voters all over Erehwon mailed ballots to the registrar's office in their county.  As to each county, all the votes arrived randomly shuffled because they'd been run through the mail, at which point they were counted all at once.  This random shuffling, followed by counting everything at once, meant that the votes in a given batch of mailed-in ballots invariably came very close to reflecting the final ratio (e.g., 2 to 1).

The two different types of voting (in person vs. mail) therefore graph differently.  For in-person voting, you cannot pin down the ratio of Rachel to Daniel votes.  They show up on the graph randomly, with the ratio appearing only after all counting is complete.  However, for mailed in votes, you can instantly see the ratio.  Subtle variations can occur, mostly when counties that are far from the government center and have different politics finally get their information to the main counting area.

The Minnesota chart below, which I culled from the Twitter thread, illustrates the point I made.  The X-axis shows the time in hourly intervals on a 24-hour clock (beginning with November 3 at 6:00 P.M.), and the Y-axis shows the ratio of Democrat to Republican votes.  Once the randomly occurring in-person voting ends, the line is pretty straight over the next few hours because it reflects nicely shuffled mail-in ballots.  As the hour grows later, the line dips down a little (more Republican votes relative to Democrat votes) because late-reporting outlying counties trend a little more conservative:

What happens, though, if ballots come in that disrupt that nice straight line?  For example, imagine that, by 2 A.M., Daniel realizes he's going to lose because there aren't enough mail-in ballots to get him over the top.  Therefore, at 4 A.M., he bribes the vote-counters to accept 169,000 ballots that his friends filled out for him and to pretend they arrived on time, by mail.  In that case, you'll see that the formerly steady ratio line goes haywire.  Instead of staying relatively straight, it rockets in Daniel's direction, as this Wisconsin chart does:

That noticeable break says the ostensibly mailed in ballots did not get randomly shuffled in the mail, or they would have reflected the final 2-1 ratio between Daniel's and Rachel's votes.  Instead, the break shouts out, "Daniel cheated by throwing in ballots that no real voter mailed."  (Incidentally, that 4 A.M. change is significant because that's when many of the contested states started doing weird things favoring Biden.)  Or, as Cultural Husbandry said:

It appears Dems shot themselves in the foot bc making everyone do mail-in ballots actually makes it easier to catch mail-in ballot fraud. Bc all of the ballots go through the postal system, they get shuffled like a deck of cards, so we expect reported ballot return to be extremely UNIFORM in terms of D vs R ratio, but to drift slightly towards R over time bc some of those ballots travel farther. This pattern proves fraud and is a verifiable timestamp of when each fraudulent action occurred. 

If that makes sense, you're ready for Cultural Husbandry's thread:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please note that this thread purports to debunk the above information.

Image: Mail-in ballot by WCN 24/7.  CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.