How Democrats might have pulled a Biden-voting magic trick in Senate states

As a magic trick, can you steal an election with the world watching?

There will be years spent trying to unravel all of the potential fraud or not.  The clock is ticking on President Trump today.  I was looking at the total vote numbers for the presidential race versus the Senate races in some of the states that had a Senate race.  In full disclosure, I am not from Michigan or Wisconsin.  I have no firsthand knowledge of any events in those states or in any ballot rooms.

In a classic magic trick, it is magic until you figure out how the trick was performed.  In the movies and live performances, the "mark" has to miss what really happened, and the trick remains undiscovered.  Is a magic trick in a presidential election possible?  Can you change the election with the entire world watching and get away with it?  If someone accomplished that, it would be the ultimate magic trick!

I think I have found a way that Michigan and Wisconsin in particular may have been able to create votes for Biden.  I by no means have knowledge if this happened, nor do I believe that this by itself accounts for every vote difference.  But I think I may have discovered a potential trick played on America.

In many states with high-profile Senate race, including Kentucky Kansas, Illinois, Maine, Montana, South Dakota, Idaho, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Alabama, we see that the presidential vote totals are slightly below the Senate race totals.  A possible explanation is that states have voters who protest the presidential election but vote in the Senate race.  It is pretty consistent across red- and blue-leaning states.  It may be an error, or it may be a protest.  I will call this a "protest no-vote."

State 

Presidential 

Senate 

Difference 

%Diff 

Kansas 

1,304,047  

1,347,810  

(43,763) 

-3.356% 

Illinois 

5,210,254  

5,379,694  

(169,440) 

-3.252% 

Maine 

788,978  

806,967  

(17,989) 

-2.280% 

Montana 

585,539  

598,879  

(13,340) 

-2.278% 

South Dakota 

411,514  

420,231  

(8,717) 

-2.118% 

Idaho 

      841,054  

858,830  

(17,776) 

-2.114% 

Colorado 

3,088,669  

3,153,322  

(64,653) 

-2.093% 

Oklahoma 

1,524,170  

1,556,361  

(32,191) 

-2.112% 

Kentucky 

2,097,626  

2,133,447  

(35,821) 

-1.708% 

Alabama 

2,265,196  

2,300,806  

(35,610) 

-1.572% 

In all ten of these states, more people voted for the Senate race than the president's race.  In this sample of ten states, we have a minimum "protest no-vote" for the presidential race of 1.5%, and the range is 1.5–3.36%.  The negative just indicates that more votes went for the Senate race.

In the next table, we see the states that have been battlegrounds.  We were told repeatedly these states would be blue.  We see a "protest no-vote" for the presidential race of < 1%.

State 

Presidential 

Senate 

Difference 

%Diff 

Arizona 

   3,234,616  

3,254,513  

(19,897) 

-0.615% 

North Carolina 

  5,391,731  

5,423,038  

(31,307) 

-0.581% 

Michigan 

  5,435,176  

5,460,601  

(25,425) 

-0.468% 

Minnesota 

   3,202,899  

3,214,266  

(11,367) 

-0.355% 

Texas 

11,071,502  

  11,082,059  

 (10,557) 

-0.095% 

If you took a portion of these votes and, either with a machine or manually, changed the vote for a specific presidential candidate, no one would ever know because the totals align.  You did not manufacture new ballots.  Instead, you manufactured votes for your candidate within existing incomplete ballots.

This method seems like a "magic trick" to change an election that minimizes the exposure of the change to outside observers looking at a high level.  When a presidential selection is unreadable and if you program the ballot machine to kick out that ballot, you could then vote for a specific presidential candidate, and no one would be the wiser.

This truly could not account for all the vote changes, but, 1% of the vote in Michigan would be 54,000 votes.  If they followed the minimum of the initial sample list and had 1.5% of protest no votes, that would be 77,000.  That is half the balance.  A statistician should be able to look over the numbers from prior years and determine if this is possible.  If I could advise the president's legal and investigative team, I would carefully scrutinize and test the ballot rejection handling, including ballots with no presidential selection.  The best illusions and the most difficult to unravel up close are a bait and switch.  Do we have a form of that in some of these states?

Maker S. Mark (a pseudonym) is an active manager with 30 years' experience in asking questions and solving problems in business I.T. and operations.

As a magic trick, can you steal an election with the world watching?

There will be years spent trying to unravel all of the potential fraud or not.  The clock is ticking on President Trump today.  I was looking at the total vote numbers for the presidential race versus the Senate races in some of the states that had a Senate race.  In full disclosure, I am not from Michigan or Wisconsin.  I have no firsthand knowledge of any events in those states or in any ballot rooms.

In a classic magic trick, it is magic until you figure out how the trick was performed.  In the movies and live performances, the "mark" has to miss what really happened, and the trick remains undiscovered.  Is a magic trick in a presidential election possible?  Can you change the election with the entire world watching and get away with it?  If someone accomplished that, it would be the ultimate magic trick!

I think I have found a way that Michigan and Wisconsin in particular may have been able to create votes for Biden.  I by no means have knowledge if this happened, nor do I believe that this by itself accounts for every vote difference.  But I think I may have discovered a potential trick played on America.

In many states with high-profile Senate race, including Kentucky Kansas, Illinois, Maine, Montana, South Dakota, Idaho, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Alabama, we see that the presidential vote totals are slightly below the Senate race totals.  A possible explanation is that states have voters who protest the presidential election but vote in the Senate race.  It is pretty consistent across red- and blue-leaning states.  It may be an error, or it may be a protest.  I will call this a "protest no-vote."

State 

Presidential 

Senate 

Difference 

%Diff 

Kansas 

1,304,047  

1,347,810  

(43,763) 

-3.356% 

Illinois 

5,210,254  

5,379,694  

(169,440) 

-3.252% 

Maine 

788,978  

806,967  

(17,989) 

-2.280% 

Montana 

585,539  

598,879  

(13,340) 

-2.278% 

South Dakota 

411,514  

420,231  

(8,717) 

-2.118% 

Idaho 

      841,054  

858,830  

(17,776) 

-2.114% 

Colorado 

3,088,669  

3,153,322  

(64,653) 

-2.093% 

Oklahoma 

1,524,170  

1,556,361  

(32,191) 

-2.112% 

Kentucky 

2,097,626  

2,133,447  

(35,821) 

-1.708% 

Alabama 

2,265,196  

2,300,806  

(35,610) 

-1.572% 

In all ten of these states, more people voted for the Senate race than the president's race.  In this sample of ten states, we have a minimum "protest no-vote" for the presidential race of 1.5%, and the range is 1.5–3.36%.  The negative just indicates that more votes went for the Senate race.

In the next table, we see the states that have been battlegrounds.  We were told repeatedly these states would be blue.  We see a "protest no-vote" for the presidential race of < 1%.

State 

Presidential 

Senate 

Difference 

%Diff 

Arizona 

   3,234,616  

3,254,513  

(19,897) 

-0.615% 

North Carolina 

  5,391,731  

5,423,038  

(31,307) 

-0.581% 

Michigan 

  5,435,176  

5,460,601  

(25,425) 

-0.468% 

Minnesota 

   3,202,899  

3,214,266  

(11,367) 

-0.355% 

Texas 

11,071,502  

  11,082,059  

 (10,557) 

-0.095% 

If you took a portion of these votes and, either with a machine or manually, changed the vote for a specific presidential candidate, no one would ever know because the totals align.  You did not manufacture new ballots.  Instead, you manufactured votes for your candidate within existing incomplete ballots.

This method seems like a "magic trick" to change an election that minimizes the exposure of the change to outside observers looking at a high level.  When a presidential selection is unreadable and if you program the ballot machine to kick out that ballot, you could then vote for a specific presidential candidate, and no one would be the wiser.

This truly could not account for all the vote changes, but, 1% of the vote in Michigan would be 54,000 votes.  If they followed the minimum of the initial sample list and had 1.5% of protest no votes, that would be 77,000.  That is half the balance.  A statistician should be able to look over the numbers from prior years and determine if this is possible.  If I could advise the president's legal and investigative team, I would carefully scrutinize and test the ballot rejection handling, including ballots with no presidential selection.  The best illusions and the most difficult to unravel up close are a bait and switch.  Do we have a form of that in some of these states?

Maker S. Mark (a pseudonym) is an active manager with 30 years' experience in asking questions and solving problems in business I.T. and operations.